The NJ Police Chief Magazine - Volume 30, Number 7 | Page 11

Lessons from the Owoh Esq . o / b / o AADARI vs . Maple Shade Police Department By Vito A . Gagliardi , Jr . and David L . Disler

On March 18 , 2024 , the New Jersey Appellate Division issued its decision in Owoh Esq . o / b / o African American Data and Research Institute v . Maple Shade Police Department . The case dealt with whether a department must provide the “ real reasons ” for why an officer was separated from employment in response to a request for documents pursuant to the Open Public Records Act . Due to the important statewide implications of this case , the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police joined as an amicus curiae ( Latin for “ friend of the court ”) to share its concerns . Ultimately , the Court found that the Maple Shade Police Department acted appropriately and adopted the arguments set forth by the NJSACOP .

FACTS OF THE CASE

The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | April 2024

Rotimi A . Owoh , Esq ., on behalf of the African American Data & Research Institute (“ AADARI ”) and Grace Woko submitted an OPRA request to the Maple Shade Police Department seeking :

“ Names , date of hire , date of separation and reason for separation and salary of individuals who either resigned or were terminated in the last [ five ] years from [ the ] police department .”

In response , the Records Custodian sent a letter to Mr . Owoh requesting clarification on the records he was requesting . Mr . Owoh replied that he was looking for “ all separations — reasons for the separations ( employment terminations ) in the last [ five ] years . Includes resigned , fired , retired , etc .” Based on this clarification , the Records Custodian prepared a spreadsheet that was divided into several headings , as indicated below :

Mr . Owoh then filed a complaint with the Government Records Council (“ GRC ”) contending that the words “ terminated ,” “ resigned ,” and “ retired ” do not disclose the “ real reasons ” for each officer ’ s separation . In his GRC complaint , Mr . Owoh alleged that the “ real reason ” for a police officer ’ s separation may be the result of plea agreements or sentence , which are separately available under OPRA .

The GRC issued its decision on July 26 , 2022 , finding that while settlement agreements and plea agreements that contain the basis for an employee ’ s resignation may be available under OPRA , MR . Owoh did not separately request settlement , or any other record that may relate to an officer ’ s separation . As a result , the GRC agreed that Maple Shade did not violate OPRA .

Thereafter , Mr . Owoh filed an appeal contending that he does not have to accept the Excel spreadsheet stating “ resigned ,” “ retired ,” or “ terminated ” as the reasons for separation , and under OPRA he has the right to inspect redacted copies of the actual records , specifically plea agreements and criminal convictions .

COURT ’ S DECISION

The Court began its analysis by going through OPRA ’ s requirements , focusing primarily on the New Jersey Supreme Court ’ s 2022 decision in Libertarians for Transparent Gov ’ t v . Cumberland Cnty . In Libertarians , the OPRA request sought settlement agreements and various information about public employees , including the date and reason for separation . Cumberland County denied the request for settlement agreements ( claiming they were exempt as a personnel record ), but did not provide other details , such as stating the officer was charged with a disciplinary action and was terminated . The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the requestor was entitled to redacted settlement agreements , with the “ reason for separation ” not being redacted .

While the Court hearing Mr . Owoh ’ s appeal acknowledged that settlement agreements that showed the reason for separation would be available under OPRA , the case turned on the fact that Mr . Owoh did not request the

10

Continued on next page