Monthly Archives: October 2020

Attorney General Stays His Directive on Disclosure of Names of Disciplined Officers

As discussed here, last week the Appellate Division rejected a challenge to the legality of the new Attorney General Directive requiring public disclosure of the names of officers who have committed serious disciplinary infractions. The challengers quickly sought Supreme Court review, and the Attorney General notified the Supreme Court that the State will not publish the names of disciplined officers until the Supreme Court resolves the case.

Appellate Division Upholds AG Directive Requiring Release of Names of Disciplined Police Officers

The Appellate Division issued an opinion on October 16th upholding the Attorney General’s July 2020 Law Enforcement Directive that requires the public disclosure of the names of police officers who have committed serious disciplinary violations. The court determined that the Attorney General was empowered to enact this new requirement under his statutory law enforcement authority.

Since the Supreme Court is almost certainly going to review this case, the Appellate Division’s opinion is unlikely to be the final word on the validity of the Directive. However, it’s interesting to note that the Appellate Division emphasized that it was not basing its decision on OPRA, even though previous litigation seeking public disclosure of the identities of disciplined officers has been under OPRA. In this case, the court unambiguously stated that OPRA’s personnel exemption prohibits an OPRA requestor from obtaining the names of disciplined officers.

In reaching this conclusion, the court correctly rejected, as contrary to clearly settled law, the Attorney General’s argument that OPRA permits a public body to disclose exempt personnel information (as well as all other records exempted by OPRA) if the public body chooses to do so.

As a result, this precedential opinion reaffirms what has always been the law in New Jersey–the personnel information of public employees is not accessible under OPRA.

Supreme Court to Review Whether OPRA Requires Disclosure of Home Addresses

The Supreme Court recently granted review of a case to decide a longstanding, unsettled OPRA issue: whether OPRA’s privacy provision protects against the disclosure of the home addresses of individuals who provide this information to the government when applying for a pet license. Bozzi v. Jersey City.

In Bozzi v Jersey City, the Appellate Division held, relying on its precedential opinion in Bozzi v. Roselle Park, that OPRA’s privacy exemption does not ever apply in this situation, because people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their name and address information when they apply to the municipality for a dog license. As I noted in my post about this opinion, the court’s ruling doesn’t just affect OPRA requests for pet license records; the Appellate Division interpreted OPRA’s privacy provision to mean that public bodies may not deny the disclosure of names and home addresses that are in any government record.

Accordingly, this case requires the Supreme Court to determine the meaning and scope of OPRA’s privacy requirement, and as a result, the Court’s opinion will have a significant impact on a wide range of OPRA requests.