Decisions deny OPRA request for
names of officers and expand
‘public records’ definition
In two recent decisions, the Appellate Divi-
sion has provided guidance about what con-
stitutes “public records” that must be released
under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). In
Paff v. Bergen County, the Appellate Division
denied an OPRA request for the names of cor-
rections officers against whom complaints had
been filed over a period of years. The court fur-
ther held that a log the county provided, which
redacted the names of the complainants and
the officers, was a sufficient response to the
OPRA request. In reaching its unanimous deci-
sion, the Appellate Division reversed a Law Division decision
that concluded that the information was not confidential and
ordered disclosure of the officers’ names.
The plaintiff in Paff filed an OPRA request seeking a log of
complaints against corrections officers who had worked at the
county jail since Jan. 1, 2012, including their names and the
names of the complainants. The county released a redacted five-
page summary identifying the number of complaints pending,
the source of the complaint, the disposition of the complaint
and a summary of closed cases. The documents blacked out
identifying information concerning the complaining party, and
the corrections officer alleged to have acted improperly.
12
NEW JERSEY COPS
■ APRIL 2017
Paff then filed a complaint in the Law Divi-
sion alleging that the information had been
improperly redacted, and requested an order
releasing the unaltered copies of the inter-
nal affairs summaries as well as attorney fees.
Plaintiff’s complaint was based on OPRA and
the common law right of access. The county ob-
jected to plaintiff’s claims and asserted that the
redacted information was exempt from disclo-
sure as confidential, based upon the attorney
general’s Internal Affairs Policies & Procedures
(Guidelines) and the Bergen County Sheriff’s
internal affairs investigation guidelines.
The trial judge rejected the county’s arguments that the in-
formation was confidential and ordered the county to release
un-redacted copies of the records, and also awarded plaintiff
attorney fees. The county appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court and the award
of attorney fees. It held that the information was confidential
and, therefore, exempt from release under OPRA predominant-
ly because the Guidelines include specific provisions providing
for the confidentiality of certain information and materials de-
veloped during an internal affairs investigation are confiden-
tial. The court concluded that the sheriff followed these con-