N.J. S. Ct. Will Decide Whether Journalist May Publish Police Chief’s Home Address

The N.J. intermediate appellate courtroom held such publication wasn’t protected by the First Modification legislation; the state excessive courtroom simply agreed to rethink that. The query offered is,

Is Daniel’s Regulation, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1, which prohibits disclosing the house addresses of sure public officers, together with judges, prosecutors, and legislation enforcement personnel, unconstitutional as utilized to plaintiff?

This is an excerpt of the decrease courtroom opinion, Kratovil v. Metropolis of New Brunswick:

Plaintiff is a journalist who writes for and edits New Brunswick Immediately, a web based publication…. Defendant Caputo is a retired police officer who then grew to become Director of the Metropolis’s Police Division. Caputo was additionally a Commissioner of the Metropolis’s Parking Authority. He served in each these positions by 2023 and retired from these positions in early 2024.

In 2023, plaintiff famous that Caputo was not attending Metropolis Council conferences, nor was he frequently attending Parking Authority conferences in individual. On March 14, 2023, plaintiff despatched Caputo an e mail asking if Caputo nonetheless lived within the Metropolis. The Deputy Director of Police responded on Caputo’s behalf, stating, in related half: “The general public launch of a legislation enforcement officer’s place of residence is protected below Daniel’s Regulation.”

Plaintiff got here to imagine that Caputo was residing in Cape Might. To verify that perception, plaintiff filed a request below the Open Public Information Act (the OPRA) with the Cape Might County Board of Elections (the Cape Might Board), requesting Caputo’s voter profile. Initially, the Cape Might Board supplied a redacted model of Caputo’s voting profile to plaintiff in March 2023. After follow-up communications from plaintiff, in April 2023, the Cape Might Board produced a voter profile with fewer redactions. That voter profile included Caputo’s house deal with.

At conferences of the Metropolis’s Parking Authority and the Metropolis Council performed on March 22, 2023 and April 5, 2023, respectively, plaintiff requested if Caputo nonetheless lived within the Metropolis. Neither Caputo nor anybody else from the Metropolis definitively responded to plaintiff’s query.

On Might 3, 2023, plaintiff attended one other Metropolis Council assembly…. In the course of the public remark portion of the assembly, plaintiff mentioned Caputo’s change of residence, that Caputo’s residence in Cape Might was roughly a two-hour drive from the Metropolis, and that Caputo was serving on the Metropolis’s Parking Authority despite the fact that he was a non-resident. Throughout that dialogue, plaintiff said the road title in Cape Might the place Caputo was registered to vote. He additionally supplied Metropolis Council members with copies of Caputo’s voter profile, which included Caputo’s full house deal with.

On Might 15, 2023, plaintiff acquired a letter notifying him that Caputo was invoking Daniel’s Regulation to forestall re-publication of his house deal with. That letter said:

On Wednesday, Might 3, 2023, you printed and/or introduced my house deal with at a public assembly of the New Brunswick Metropolis Council. Kindly settle for this letter [as] a written discover as required by [Daniel’s Law].

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1 and N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1, and as a certified and in any other case lined individual whose house deal with and unpublished house phone quantity aren’t topic to disclosure, I do hereby request that you simply stop the disclosure of such info and take away the protected info from the web or the place in any other case made accessible.

I belief you’ll be guided accordingly.

Plaintiff sued, “stat[ing] that he deliberate to publish an article about Caputo residing in Cape Might, which would come with Caputo’s house deal with” and looking for “a declaration that Daniel’s Regulation was unconstitutional as utilized to his supposed publication.” The courtroom held for defendants, reasoning thus:

Daniel’s Regulation … was named for Daniel Anderl, the son of United States District Courtroom Choose Esther Salas. In 2020, a disgruntled legal professional went to Choose Salas’ house and shot and killed Daniel. The assailant additionally severely wounded Choose Salas’ husband. The assailant had discovered Choose Salas’ house deal with on the web.

Daniel’s Regulation is meant to forestall additional assaults on sure authorities officers and their households. It prohibits the disclosure of residential addresses and private telephone numbers of “lined individuals,” together with lively and retired judges, prosecutors, and legislation enforcement officers. Furthermore, Daniel’s Regulation gives that on discover, an individual, enterprise, or affiliation shall not disclose or re-disclose the house deal with or phone variety of a lined individual. Daniel’s Regulation imposes civil penalties for violations, together with $1,000 per violation, punitive damages, and legal professional’s charges. As well as, a “reckless violation of [Daniel’s Law] is a criminal offense of the fourth diploma,” and a “purposeful violation of [Daniel’s Law] is a criminal offense of the third diploma.” …

[T]he United States Supreme Courtroom has repeatedly held that “if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful details about a matter of public significance[,] then state officers could not constitutionally punish publication of the data, absent a must additional a state curiosity of the very best order.” …

All events agree, and the document confirms, that the matter of public concern was that Caputo lived in Cape Might whereas serving because the Metropolis’s Director of Police and a Commissioner of the Metropolis’s Parking Authority. In responding to plaintiff’s grievance, defendants conceded, and the trial courtroom subsequently held, that plaintiff all the time had the best to publish that Caputo lived in Cape Might, which was a considerable distance from the Metropolis, with out being topic to Daniel’s Regulation sanctions….

Caputo’s actual road deal with is just not a matter of public concern …. [And] defending public officers from violent assaults and harassment is a compelling State curiosity of the very best order….

Word that the opinion didn’t depend on the truth that the police chief just lately retired (maybe as a result of he retired nicely after the incidents that gave rise to the litigation).

For choices which are typically opposite (although not factually an identical) to the intermediate appellate resolution that can now be reviewed, see Publius v. Boyer-Vine (C.D. Cal. 2017),  Brayshaw v. Metropolis of Tallahassee (N.D. Fla. 2010), Sheehan v. Gregoire (W.D. Wash. 2003), and Ostergren v. Cuccinelli (4th Cir. 2010).

Word additionally that the majority states do not prohibit residential picketing. (Such prohibitions, if content-neutral, could be constitutional, see Frisby v. Schultz (1988), however within the absence of such a content-neutral method restriction, residential picketing is constitutionally protected speech.) New Jersey, specifically, would not forbid such picketing, although some cities may. It follows then, that folks will need to have the authorized proper to prepare such picketing. If that’s the case, how can they go about doing that if they are often legally barred from publicizing the deal with at which the picketing is to happen? Or would that argument solely justify a declaration that somebody who’s organizing such picketing can disclose the deal with, and never somebody who is solely attempting to concretely exhibit {that a} police chief lives outdoors city?

Because of the Media Regulation Useful resource Middle (MLRC) MediaLawDaily for the pointer to the N.J. Supreme Courtroom order.