Paff v. Ocean Cnty. Prosecutor's Office
192 A.3d 975
N.J.2018Background
- On Jan. 29, 2014 a multi-jurisdictional police pursuit ended in Barnegat Township; MVRs in two Barnegat police vehicles recorded the pursuit and an arrest in which a Tuckerton officer deployed a police dog that allegedly injured the driver.
- The Ocean County Prosecutor's Office (OCPO) opened internal affairs and criminal investigations of the Tuckerton officer and charged him; the driver was charged with eluding and resisting arrest.
- John Paff requested the MVR recordings under OPRA and the common law; OCPO refused, invoking OPRA exemptions for criminal investigatory records (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1), investigations in progress (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(a)), and OPRA's privacy clause.
- The trial court ordered disclosure, reasoning the Barnegat chief's General Order made the MVRs "required by law" and that privacy and the investigations-in-progress exemption did not bar release; the court awarded fees to Paff.
- The Appellate Division majority affirmed; one panel judge dissented, concluding the MVRs were criminal investigatory records and not "required by law." OCPO appealed as of right; the Supreme Court granted certification on several OPRA issues.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division: it held the MVRs are criminal investigatory records (not "required by law" to be excluded), rejected OCPO's claim under the investigations-in-progress exemption, found OPRA's privacy clause did not bar disclosure, and remanded for consideration of a common-law access claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVR recordings are "criminal investigatory records" exempt from OPRA because they are not "required by law" and "pertain" to an investigation | Paff: Barnegat Police Chief's General Order made recordings "required by law" (analogous to AG directives); recordings do not pertain to an investigation at time made | OCPO: Chief's General Order is not a law or AG directive; recordings were not required by law and they pertain to criminal/internal investigations | Held: Recordings are not "required by law" in the sense of an AG/statewide directive, but they nonetheless "pertain" to criminal investigations; therefore they qualify as criminal investigatory records and are exempt under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 |
| Whether OPRA's "investigation in progress" exemption (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(a)) bars disclosure | Paff: Recordings predate formal investigations; disclosure not inimical to public interest | OCPO: Recordings pertain to ongoing criminal and internal investigations and disclosure would be inimical to public interest | Held: OCPO met "pertain to investigation" and preexisting-availability prongs but failed to prove disclosure would be inimical to the public interest; exemption does not apply |
| Whether OPRA's privacy clause permits withholding because disclosure would violate the driver's reasonable expectation of privacy | Paff: No reasonable expectation of privacy; recording occurred in public and did not show driver’s face | OCPO/driver: Driver objected; privacy interests implicated | Held: Privacy clause did not bar disclosure here—recorded in public, face not visible, and driver’s counsel gave only a generic objection; privacy outweighed only in different fact patterns (e.g., sexual-assault victims) |
| Whether Paff has a common-law right of access to the MVR recordings | Paff: Common-law access broader than OPRA and should favor disclosure | OCPO: Common-law balancing may defeat access given investigatory interests | Held: Court remanded for trial-court consideration of common-law access using the balancing factors identified in prior decisions (Lyndhurst / Loigman framework) |
Key Cases Cited
- North Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017) (construed "required by law" and analyzed OPRA exemptions for UFRs and MVRs)
- Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009) (applied OPRA privacy clause balancing factors)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (privacy-balancing factors informing public-access analysis)
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (common-law right of access elements)
- Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (1986) (factors relevant to balancing access against investigatory interests)
- O'Shea v. Twp. of West Milford, 410 N.J. Super. 371 (App. Div. 2009) (discussing force-of-law effect of AG directives for police entities)