JOHN PAFF VS. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICEÂ (L-1984-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2877-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- John Paff sought investigatory records from the State Police and Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) about rumored misconduct by a county sheriff, intending to post findings on his blog.
- Defendants declined under OPRA and common-law confidentiality, stating the records were part of a criminal investigation and included investigative reports.
- Paff filed suit asserting only common-law access (not OPRA relief) and later clarified he did not seek witness names or statements for disclosure.
- The trial court applied Loigman balancing factors and found defendants' confidentiality, witness privacy/safety, and the subject's reputational interests outweighed Paff's public-interest claim.
- The court denied Paff's request to compel production or for a Vaughn index/in camera review and dismissed the complaint; Paff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common-law right of access requires disclosure of investigatory reports in a noncriminally charged rumor-based inquiry | Paff: public interest in ensuring investigations are thorough; disclosure needed to inform public | Defendants: confidentiality of criminal investigations, witness safety/privacy, and reputational harms outweigh generalized public interest | Court: Denied disclosure; confidentiality and privacy interests outweigh Paff's generalized public-interest claim |
| Whether a Vaughn index or in camera review was required before denying access | Paff: court should at least review/redact or require a Vaughn index to justify nondisclosure | Defendants: balance strongly favors nondisclosure; Vaughn index unnecessary | Court: No Vaughn index/in camera review warranted because balance tilts heavily for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (N.J. 1986) (sets common-law balancing test for access to law-enforcement investigative material)
- Drinker Biddle & Reath L.L.P. v. N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489 (App. Div.) (de novo review standard on appellate review of access decisions)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (articulates the Vaughn index framework for justifying withheld documents)
- North Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 447 N.J. Super. 182 (App. Div. 2016) (confirmed non-disclosure where investigation did not result in charges and privacy/reputational interests prevail)