The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | Summer 2025
New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Daniel’ s Law is Constitutional:
Here’ s What it Means— and How Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement and DCP & P Investigators Can Be Protected By Susan K. O’ Connor, Partner, and Alexandrea Williams, Associate— Hoagland Longo
It is uncontroverted that over the last ten years, the number of threats, harassment, doxing and incidents of violence have increased against our State’ s judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers. The brazen and shocking murder of the son of a District Court Judge and the wounding of her husband at their home brought into focus the need to protect, from public dissemination, certain personal information of these public servants. In response, in 2020, the State enacted Daniel’ s Law, shielding from disclosure the private home addresses and unlisted telephone numbers of those who serve our judiciary, in an effort to protect them and their families. Daniel’ s Law focuses on the crucial state interest of protecting those families from harm and intimidation so that they may continue to fulfill their civil duties.
Daniel’ s Law provides that current and former judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and DCP & P investigators, as well as their immediate family members who reside in the same household( referred to as ― covered persons ‖), can submit a request for protection of their home addresses and unpublished phone numbers to the Office of Information Privacy, within the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. 1 If the request is approved, the covered person’ s home address and phone number will be subject to redaction or nondisclosure, provided that notification is given to the offending person, business, or association. Specifically, under Daniel’ s Law a person, business or association shall not disclose or re-disclose on the internet or otherwise make available, the home address or unpublished home telephone number of any covered person upon written notification from the person seeking to prohibit the disclosure or to have the information removed from the Internet or where otherwise made available. 2 The restrictions on the disclosure of a covered person’ s home address go into effect ten( 10) business days after the notification is received, so as to provide the person, business, or association with the ability to take steps to maintain the confidentiality of the information. 3 If the individual has not registered as a covered person with the Office of Information Privacy or does not provide the requisite notification, his or her home address and unpublished telephone number may be disclosed without consequence.
On June 17, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Kratovil v. the City of New Brunswick and Police Director Anthony Caputo 4 determined that Daniel’ s Law was constitutional, on the facts of the case, despite Kratovil’ s invocation of his First Amendment rights of freedom of the press and freedom of speech that affected the privacy and safety of those public servants. Kratovil, the editor of ― New Brunswick Today,‖ obtained New Brunswick Police Director Anthony Caputo’ s home address through an Open Public Records Act( OPRA) request for his voting records. Intending to write an article, Kratovil revealed Director Caputo’ s address at a public New Brunswick City Council meeting. As a result, Director Caputo invoked Daniel’ s Law and sent Kratovil a formal written notice, as required by Daniel’ s Law, notifying Plaintiff that he was a covered person and requested that Kratovil refrain from publishing his exact home address. Although Kratovil had divulged Director Caputo’ s home address at the council meeting, no action was taken, as Kratovil had not been placed on notice of Director Caputo’ s status as a covered person. Once placed on notice, however, Kratovil was subject to criminal and / or civil penalties should he ignore the Daniel’ s Law notification and further publish Director Caputo’ s home address.
Kratovil filed an action in the New Jersey Superior Court, seeking to re-publish Director Caputo’ s home address without consequence. The Trial Court determined that the street number and name of the street of Director Caputo’ s home address was not a matter of public concern and could not be published. The Court also held that Daniel’ s Law was narrowly tailored to achieve a State interest of the highest order, and was, thus, constitutional. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff’ s complaint. Kratovil then filed an appeal with the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, which affirmed that Director Caputo’ s home address was not a matter of public concern. The Appellate Court further found that the application of Daniel’ s Law in this context did not violate constitutional protections and that the law was narrowly tailored and supports a State interest of the highest order.
The Supreme Court’ s unanimous decision reaffirmed the constitutionality of Daniel’ s Law while also upholding core First Amendment principles, which held that in the specific circumstances before the Court, Director Caputo’ s home address relates to a matter of public concern. However, the inquiry did not end there. The Court next determined that Daniel’ s Law was enacted to protect and keep safe certain public officials and their families, to allow them to perform their jobs without fear of personal harm or harassment. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined this ― is clearly a State interest of the highest order …‖ Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick. 5 The Court emphasized that this is not a broad or vague restriction on speech. Instead, the law is narrowly tailored as it only applies to a specific category of individuals, protects limited information( home addresses and unlisted phone numbers), and includes procedural safeguards( the notification with the 10-day waiting period). Because of these limitations, the Court found the law is constitutionally sound, even when applied to lawfully obtained, truthful information.
This is not the first challenge to Daniel’ s Law and it will not be the last. We are gratified that each level of our judiciary, after careful examination of the arguments presented and the specific facts of this case, ruled in favor of our clients, the City of New Brunswick and Director Caputo. New Brunswick Mayor James Cahill noted that: ― The Supreme Court’ s decision underscores the law’ s integrity and the importance of maintaining [ Daniel’ s Law ] protections. We are pleased with the outcome and grateful that the Courts have recognized the validity of our position in defense of this critical statute.‖
16
Continued on next page