American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice and Bruce Solomon
435 N.J. Super. 533
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- ACLU-NJ submitted an OPRA request seeking records "pertaining to all forms of Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology," including grant materials, policies, training, and data-sharing agreements.
- The New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) produced 79 pages with numerous redactions and some pages fully blacked out, stating only that the redacted material was "not relevant to request."
- ACLU sued in Law Division under OPRA (and common-law access), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and fees, arguing DCJ could not redact portions of government records absent a statutory exemption.
- The trial court upheld DCJ's practice, reasoning a custodian may withhold portions that the custodian reasonably deems outside the scope of a request and may require the requester to follow up for broader material.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding OPRA and its implementing statute do not permit unilateral redactions based on a custodian's relevancy determination; absent a statutory exemption or common-law confidentiality justification, public records must be produced in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a custodian may redact portions of an otherwise public government record based solely on the custodian's view that material is outside the scope of an OPRA request | ACLU: Unlawful — OPRA permits redaction only when a statutory exemption applies; custodian cannot unilaterally excise non-exempt material | DCJ: Permitted — custodian may withhold parts not relevant to a narrowly framed request and require follow-up if requester wants more | Held: Not permitted — custodian may not redact non-exempt portions solely on relevancy grounds under OPRA; production must include all non-exempt material |
| Whether a requester must make a follow-up request or clarification before seeking judicial enforcement under OPRA | ACLU: No — OPRA requires prompt disclosure; imposing a follow-up prerequisite improperly burdens requester | DCJ: Yes — reasonable to place onus on requester to clarify or seek additional materials before litigation | Held: No — shifting burden to requester to clarify before suing is contrary to OPRA's prompt-disclosure policy and legislative directive to construe limitations narrowly |
Key Cases Cited
- Courier News v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 358 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 2003) (public's right of access is unfettered absent statutory exemption)
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (OPRA and prompt disclosure public-policy emphasis)
- Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213 (1978) (common-law balancing test for confidentiality)
- Bergen Cty. Improvement Auth. v. N. Jersey Media Group, Inc., 370 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2004) (discussing statutory and common-law limits on access)