Patricia Gilleran v. Township of Bloomfield(076114), 149 A.3d 800

Background

Plaintiff Patricia Gilleran requested one day (Mar. 31, 2014; 7 a.m.–9 p.m.) of footage from a stationary security camera mounted on Bloomfield Town Hall that views a rear public/parking area.
Township denied the OPRA request under two OPRA security exemptions, asserting release would reveal surveillance capabilities/vulnerabilities and jeopardize people (e.g., undercover officers, informants, victims).
Trial court ordered production; Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting a categorical security-tape exemption but remanding limited issues; this Court granted review.
Majority held OPRA’s security exemptions permit withholding surveillance videotape that would reveal a security system’s capabilities or vulnerabilities and reversed the Appellate Division.
The Court left open the plaintiff’s common-law right-of-access claim (balancing of interests) for remand, recognizing circumstances where partial/redacted release might be appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OPRA requires disclosure of security-camera videotape from a public building	Gilleran: OPRA’s “if disclosed” language requires individualized review/redaction; no blanket exemption for security tapes	Bloomfield: Releasing tapes reveals system operation/vulnerabilities; categorical protection needed to preserve security without burdening agencies	Held: OPRA security exemptions permit withholding surveillance video that would reveal a security system’s capabilities/vulnerabilities; no OPRA right to such footage
Whether an agency must review footage and redact exempt portions before denying access under the security exemptions	Gilleran: Agency must review and excise only genuinely risky portions; burden-shifting/costs available under OPRA	Bloomfield: Requiring review for every request is unduly burdensome and may itself undermine security	Held: Agency need not be forced to release tapes under OPRA; where the product of surveillance itself reveals security information, categorical exemption applies; review/redaction remains available in other contexts or under common law
Whether the statutory phrase “if disclosed” limits scope of security exemptions	Gilleran: “If disclosed” contemplates disclosure-based, individualized analysis	Bloomfield: Phrase does not prevent shielding surveillance product that inherently reveals capabilities	Held: Court reads exemptions to cover categories of information (including surveillance products) whose disclosure would jeopardize security; “if disclosed” retains meaning but does not require per-request disclosure when product inherently compromises security
Proper forum for requests seeking partial/video disclosure when particular need is shown	Gilleran: OPRA is the primary route; redaction and cost accommodations available under OPRA	Bloomfield: Common-law balancing is the appropriate avenue when claim of specific need outweighs security interest	Held: Many requests for surveillance video are better analyzed under the common-law right of access (balancing interests); remanded to address that claim later

Key Cases Cited

Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (OPRA places burden on government to establish exemption)
Education Law Center v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., 198 N.J. 274 (2009) (disclosure of factual records can reveal protected deliberative content; purpose of exemption controls)
O’Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168 (2014) (common-law access requires requester to show an interest that may outweigh government confidentiality)
Gilleran v. Twp. of Bloomfield, 440 N.J. Super. 490 (App. Div. 2015) (App. Div. held no blanket exemption for security recordings and remanded)
Cashin v. Bello, 223 N.J. 328 (2015) (statutory construction: courts should effectuate legislative intent by reference to statutory language)
State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582 (2016) (recognizes contexts where partial release of security videotape may be ordered in criminal discovery)