Monthly Archives: August 2020

Supreme Court: Internal Affairs Records Are Confidential

The Supreme Court has settled the longstanding question of whether police internal affairs records are accessible under OPRA. In ruling on the validity of a Newark ordinance that created a civilian board to investigate citizens’ complaints of police misconduct, the Supreme Court emphasized that all records of such investigations are confidential. FOP v. City of Newark.

The Court based this conclusion on the Attorney General’s internal affairs policy. The Court held that this policy, which includes strict confidentiality mandates for all information concerning police misconduct investigations, must be followed. This determination is consistent with the Court’s prior case law in OPRA matters, which states that Attorney General law enforcement policies constitute binding legal requirements that establish exemptions under OPRA.

Interestingly, the Court noted its awareness that the Attorney General has recently changed the internal affairs policy to allow public disclosure of the identities of some disciplined officers, but said it was not addressing this or expressing a view regarding the revised policy. I presume the Court made this statement because it is mindful that it will soon be reviewing the unions’ challenge to this new policy, which is currently before the Appellate Division.

An Interesting Appellate Opinion on OPRA Attorney Fee Awards

The Appellate Division recently issued an opinion concerning an OPRA attorney fee award. Mills v. State of New Jersey. This unpublished opinion, while not precedential, is interesting for two reasons.

First, the court substantially reduced the requested fee award due to the plaintiff’s limited success in his OPRA suit. The requestor sought hundreds of documents, plus other records, but only obtained a single, 2-page document. According to the court, such minimal “qualitative” success, in an OPRA case that did not involve complex issues, justified reducing requestor’s attorney fee award by over 80%, to only $2376.

Second, and perhaps of more importance, the court rejected the requestor’s claim that he was entitled to fees for successfully obtaining some additional documents under the common law. As I’ve previously noted (see this post), litigants often point to language in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mason v. Hoboken as requiring attorney fee awards in common law request cases, and some judges have made such awards. But the Appellate Division here correctly rejected the argument that Mason created a right to a mandatory attorney fee award when records are obtained through common law litigation.