Antonio Fuster v. Township of Chatham, 328 A.3d 894

Background

Antonio Fuster reported to Chatham Township police that his child accused an adult male relative of sexual misconduct; the interview was recorded on a police body-worn camera (BWC).
Fuster and his wife, Brianna Devine, requested access to the BWC footage under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to contest the accuracy of the police report and potentially file an internal affairs complaint.
The Chatham Township Police Department denied the request, citing privacy grounds and noting no charges were filed in the underlying incident.
The trial court and Appellate Division found the footage exempt under OPRA, referencing a purported judicially recognized confidentiality for law enforcement records involving uncharged individuals.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed those decisions, holding that OPRA did not establish or recognize such a blanket confidentiality for these records, and ordered release of the footage to the plaintiffs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BWC footage is exempt from OPRA disclosure based on confidential investigatory status relating to an uncharged individual	Fuster argued no such judicial confidentiality exists and that OPRA/BWCL allow access to BWC video, especially for the subject of the video	Chatham Township argued established case law recognizes blanket confidentiality for records tied to uncharged individuals, justifying exemption under OPRA	No pre-OPRA case law creates automatic confidentiality for such records. OPRA does not bar release; video must be disclosed
Whether the BWCL’s four exemptions are exclusive for BWC footage	Fuster argued the BWCL exemptions are exclusive, and none apply here, so the video must be released	Township claimed BWCL exemptions supplement OPRA exemptions, so all OPRA grounds for non-disclosure still apply	Court found ambiguity in legislative intent but didn’t resolve; instead held that no OPRA exemption applies to this case
Whether the privacy interests of uncharged individuals or third parties justify withholding under "reasonable expectation of privacy”	Fuster claimed privacy interests were minimal, given the subject’s identity and content was his own statement	Township asserted privacy for the uncharged relative and argued disclosure could chill reporting/cooperation	The specific facts did not present significant privacy interests; Fuster was the subject; disclosure allowed
Whether Fuster had statutory right to review the BWC video after requesting three-year retention	Fuster argued he should have access regardless of the retention request	Township argued statute only allows review before such a request	Court agreed BWC law only allows review pre-request for retention; but this wasn’t the ground for ultimate decision

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (factors for evaluating reasonable expectation of privacy in public records context)
Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (balancing test for common law right of access)
Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213 (limitations under the old Right to Know Law for access to investigatory records)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (clarification of RTKL scope and records required by law to be made)
Asbury Park Press v. County of Monmouth, 201 N.J. 5 (limits on privacy justifying withholding of public settlement agreements)