John Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office
141 A.3d 300
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Dashboard mobile video recorder (MVR) footage was captured by Barnegat Township police during a high‑speed chase that began in Tuckerton and ended with an arrest and alleged use of a police dog.
- John Paff requested the MVR recordings under OPRA and common law; Ocean County Prosecutor's Office (OCPO) denied disclosure citing ongoing criminal and internal affairs investigations.
- The Law Division (Judge Grasso) conducted in camera review, concluded the MVRs were "government records" under OPRA, not exempt as "criminal investigatory records" or as part of an "investigation in progress," and ordered disclosure; attorney's fees were awarded to Paff.
- OCPO appealed arguing multiple exemptions (criminal investigatory, investigation in progress, executive order, discovery privilege, privacy) and challenged the fee award; amici included the NJ Attorney General, County Prosecutors Association, and ACLU.
- The Appellate Division affirmed: it held MVRs fit OPRA's broad definition of government records, OCPO failed to meet its burden to prove an exemption, and the driver had no privacy interest sufficient to block release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVR recordings are "government records" under OPRA | Paff: MVRs are records made/maintained in course of official business and are presumptively public | OCPO: MVRs are investigatory materials not subject to OPRA | Held: MVRs are government records under OPRA |
| Whether MVRs are exempt as "criminal investigatory records" ("not required by law") | Paff: OCPO failed to prove exemption; recordings were required by local written policy (so produced by law) | OCPO: recordings pertain to criminal investigations and are not "required by law" so exempt | Held: OCPO failed to show exemption; Barnegat chief’s binding MVR order made recordings "required by law" here, so not criminal investigatory records |
| Whether recordings may be withheld as relating to an "investigation in progress" | Paff: recordings predated investigations or were not shown to be inimical to public interest | OCPO: release would harm ongoing criminal and internal affairs investigations | Held: recordings preceded investigations or OCPO failed to prove harm; exception inapplicable |
| Whether privacy, discovery, or other OPRA exemptions bar disclosure | Paff: Doe balancing favors public; not unfiled discovery; no executive‑order defense preserved | OCPO: driver privacy, discovery privilege, and executive‑order exemptions apply | Held: privacy claim fails on Doe factors; recordings are not unfiled discovery; executive‑order argument not preserved below and not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Shea v. Twp. of W. Milford, 410 N.J. Super. 371 (App. Div.) (Attorney General directive requiring use‑of‑force reports has force of law)
- N. Jersey Media Grp. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 441 N.J. Super. 70 (App. Div.) (narrower reading of "required by law" — mandates must be statutory/regulatory/executive/judicial)
- Courier News v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 358 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div.) (agency must produce specific, reliable evidence to justify investigatory exemption)
- Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (N.J.) (OPRA construed in favor of public access)
- Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP v. N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489 (App. Div.) (unfiled discovery remains confidential under OPRA)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (N.J.) (privacy balancing factors applicable to OPRA requests)