RICHARD SPILLANE VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD Â (NEW JERSEY GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL)
A-5089-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Richard Spillane, a life-sentenced inmate, was evaluated by a mental health professional at the Parole Board's direction for use in his parole proceeding.
- Spillane submitted an OPRA request to the New Jersey State Parole Board seeking a copy of that mental health evaluation report; other requested items are not at issue.
- The Parole Board denied access, asserting the report was exempt from disclosure under OPRA based on Executive Order No. 26 and Parole Board regulation N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2.
- Spillane filed a complaint with the Government Records Council (GRC); the GRC's executive director recommended, and the GRC adopted, a finding that the report is exempt from disclosure under OPRA.
- Spillane appealed the GRC decision to the Appellate Division; the court reviewed the agency decision under the standard applicable to administrative determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Parole Board lawfully denied access to the mental health evaluation under OPRA | Spillane: OPRA's purposes (public access; protection of personal info) favor disclosure to the subject of the record; the report concerns him | Parole Board: Report is exempt under OPRA by virtue of Executive Order No. 26 and N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2 exempting medical/psychiatric/psychological records | Court: Affirmed — report is exempt from disclosure under Executive Order No. 26 and the Parole Board regulation, so denial was lawful |
| Whether OPRA confers a personal right of access to records otherwise exempt from public disclosure | Spillane: He should personally receive the report because it concerns him | Parole Board: OPRA governs public access and its exemptions bar disclosure regardless of subject status | Court: OPRA does not provide a personal-access right to records that are exempt; no entitlement under OPRA |
| Whether the GRC's OPRA decision implicated Spillane's due-process rights in his parole proceeding | Spillane: Denial deprived him of due process in parole | Parole Board/GRC: GRC only adjudicates OPRA issues; due-process in parole is separate and adjudicated elsewhere | Court: GRC properly exercised limited OPRA jurisdiction; this decision did not resolve parole due-process claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (discusses OPRA's purpose and recognitions of exceptions)
- Fisher v. Division of Law, 400 N.J. Super. 61 (standard for appellate review of agency decisions)
- In re Virtua–West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413 (agency findings set-aside standard)
- McGee v. Township of East Amwell, 416 N.J. Super. 602 (deference to GRC interpretation of OPRA)
- MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (OPRA is an alternative access mechanism and does not override other rights)
- Paff v. New Jersey Department of Labor, Board of Review, 379 N.J. Super. 346 (GRC jurisdiction limited to OPRA complaints)