North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst (076184) (Bergen County and Statewide)
163 A.3d 887
| N.J. | 2017Background
- Fatal police shooting after a high-speed chase on Sept. 16, 2014; multiple local and state officers fired; Shooting Response Team (SRT) investigation and grand jury presentment followed.
- Reporters (NJMG) sought records under OPRA and the common law: Use of Force Reports (UFRs), dash-cam (MVR) videos, incident/investigative reports, CAD/dispatch logs, 9‑1‑1 call, and officer identities.
- Lower court ordered disclosure; Appellate Division reversed in part, finding most records fell under OPRA’s criminal investigatory records exemption and remanded for section 3(a) and common‑law review.
- On remand the trial court withheld officer names, two UFRs, three dash‑cam videos, and three police reports citing ongoing investigation and safety concerns; NJMG appealed to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held UFRs are not exempt under OPRA’s criminal‑investigatory exception because they are ‘‘required by law’’ (Attorney General Use of Force Policy) and ordered disclosure of unredacted UFRs; dash‑cam footage must be released under the common‑law right of access once principal witnesses have been interviewed; detailed investigative reports and witness statements may be withheld while investigation is ongoing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of OPRA criminal investigatory records exemption ("required by law") | AG directives and retention schedules qualify as "required by law," so UFRs and some records must be disclosed | "Required by law" should be narrowly read; local directives/retention schedules do not make records required by law | UFRs are required by AG Use of Force Policy (binding) and thus not exempt; general retention schedules do not meet "required by law" standard |
| Whether dash‑cam (MVR) recordings "pertain" to a criminal investigation | Recordings of the pursuit pertain and should be public | Recordings pertain and may be exempt if created as part of investigation or under directives | MVRs can pertain to an investigation; here they pertained to the SRT probe, so they fall under investigatory records exception but may be disclosed under common law once principal witnesses interviewed |
| OPRA §3(b) disclosure of identity of investigating/arresting personnel | §3(b) requires disclosure of officer names and other identifying info; press releases insufficient | §3(b) does not mandate names; safety and ongoing investigation justify withholding | "Identity" includes names/rank/badge; agency may withhold only with particularized showing that disclosure would jeopardize safety or investigation; generic assertions insufficient |
| OPRA §3(a) ongoing investigation exemption and common‑law access balance | §3(a) and common law require narrow withholding; public interest in transparency is strong, particularly for MVRs and UFRs | Releasing records would taint investigations, risk officer safety, and impair law enforcement | Detailed investigative reports and witness statements may be withheld early in investigation; UFRs should be released under OPRA; MVRs should be released under common law once principal witnesses interviewed and absent particularized safety/investigative harm |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Shea v. Township of West Milford, 410 N.J. Super. 371 (App. Div. 2009) (AG policies can have force of law for police entities)
- Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36 (1997) (RTKL era: narrow construction of "required by law")
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (OPRA’s purpose favors broad public access and burden on agency to justify exemptions)
- Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (1986) (common‑law access balancing factors)
- Serrano v. South Brunswick Township, 358 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div. 2003) (9‑1‑1 tape and limits on §3(a) protection)
- Courier News v. Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office, 358 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 2003) (release of 9‑1‑1 tape despite prosecutor concerns)
- Paff v. Galloway Township, 446 N.J. Super. 163 (App. Div. 2016) (divided panel on whether MVRs are "required by law" under local directives)