JERSEY CITY POLICE SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY (C-000003-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2594-20

Plaintiff: Jersey City Police Superior Officers Association (SOA) sued on behalf of Captain J.C. to enjoin an Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) demand for his personal cell‑phone billing records.
IAU investigation arose from anonymous Twitter account "Goldbitch201" that posted allegedly disparaging/racist/homophobic tweets and a photo taken from a vehicle assigned to J.C. (posting dated Sept. 3, 2019).
Hudson County Prosecutor declined to issue a criminal communications data warrant and returned the matter to JCPD for administrative handling; IAU then issued a directive under JCPD General Order 10‑18 §202.9(b) seeking J.C.’s billing records for the relevant shift.
SOA sought preliminary injunctive relief arguing constitutional privacy and First Amendment interests; City argued administrative/search exceptions and reduced privacy expectations for officers.
Trial court (Judge Jablonski) denied the injunction and dismissed the verified complaint; appellate division affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning and emphasizing applicable Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures (IAPP) and departmental General Order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IAU may compel personal cell‑phone billing records without a warrant	Warrant required; no public‑employee exception; expectation of privacy in billing records	Administrative search and special‑needs exceptions allow warrantless production under agency policy	Held: No warrant required here; administrative/special‑needs exceptions apply
Whether J.C. had a reasonable expectation of privacy in billing records	Billing records are private and constitutionally protected	Officers have diminished privacy; G.O. 10‑18 and IAPP put officers on notice billing records may be requested	Held: Expectation not reasonable given IAPP and signed General Order notice
Whether the IAU demand was sufficiently tailored and relevant to investigation	Demand is overbroad and not probative of Twitter authorship	Demand was limited in time and scope and reasonably related to investigation	Held: Demand was precisely drawn and reasonably related; not speculative
Whether production would chill third‑party or First Amendment rights	Production could reveal identity of anonymous speakers and chill speech	IAPP confidentiality safeguards and J.C.’s denial of authorship undercut claim; billing records reveal only call metadata	Held: First Amendment/third‑party privacy claims unpersuasive given confidentiality and limited data sought

In re Att'y Gen. Law Enf't Directive Nos. 2020‑5 & 2020‑6, 246 N.J. 462 (N.J. 2021) (AG directives bind police departments and recognize reduced privacy expectations for officers)
State v. Lundsford, 226 N.J. 129 (N.J. 2016) (cell‑phone billing records receive some privacy protection in criminal contexts)
Gwynn v. City of Phila., 719 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2013) (heightened need for oversight and corrective action in police departments)
Policeman's Benevolent Ass'n of N.J., Local 318 v. Twp. of Washington, 850 F.2d 133 (3d Cir. 1988) (police subject to extensive workplace regulation and scrutiny)
N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (N.J. 2017) (distinguishing force of AG directives from local orders; AG policies bind departments)
Karins v. Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532 (N.J. 1998) (officers held to implicit standard of good behavior both on and off duty)
A.A. ex rel. B.A. v. Att'y Gen. of N.J., 384 N.J. Super. 67 (App. Div. 2006) (administrative/special‑needs searches can be reasonable without a warrant)