From Kratovil v. Metropolis of New Brunswick, determined Friday by the N.J. intermediate appellate court docket (Judges Gilson, DeAlmeida, and Bishop-Thompson):
Plaintiff is a journalist who writes for and edits New Brunswick Right this moment, a web-based publication. Because the title of the publication suggests, it focuses on native information concerning the Metropolis.
Defendant Caputo is a retired police officer who then turned 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 repeatedly 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 consider that Caputo was dwelling in Cape Might. To verify that perception, plaintiff filed a request below the Open Public Data 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 offered 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 residence deal with.
At conferences of the Metropolis’s Parking Authority and the Metropolis Council carried out 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. The Metropolis and plaintiff individually recorded that assembly. Through 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 although 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 offered Metropolis Council members with copies of Caputo’s voter profile, which included Caputo’s full residence deal with.
On Might 15, 2023, plaintiff obtained a letter notifying him that Caputo was invoking Daniel’s Regulation to stop re-publication of his residence deal with. That letter said:
On Wednesday, Might 3, 2023, you printed and/or introduced my residence 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 residence deal with and unpublished residence phone quantity will not be 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 obtainable.
I belief you’ll be guided accordingly.
Plaintiff sued, “stat[ing] that he deliberate to publish an article about Caputo dwelling in Cape Might, which would come with Caputo’s residence deal with” and looking for “a declaration that Daniel’s Regulation was unconstitutional as utilized to his meant publication.” The court docket held for defendants, reasoning thus:
Daniel’s Regulation … was named for Daniel Anderl, the son of United States District Court docket Choose Esther Salas. In 2020, a disgruntled lawyer went to Choose Salas’ residence and shot and killed Daniel. The assailant additionally severely wounded Choose Salas’ husband. The assailant had discovered Choose Salas’ residence deal with on the web.
Daniel’s Regulation is meant to stop 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 energetic 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 lawyer’s charges. As well as, a “reckless violation of [Daniel’s Law] is against the law of the fourth diploma,” and a “purposeful violation of [Daniel’s Law] is against the law of the third diploma.” …
[T]he United States Supreme Court docket has repeatedly held that “if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful details about a matter of public significance[,] then state officers might not constitutionally punish publication of the data, absent a must additional a state curiosity of the very best order.” …
All events agree, and the file 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 court docket subsequently held, that plaintiff at all times had the proper 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 just isn’t a matter of public concern …. [And] defending public officers from violent assaults and harassment is a compelling State curiosity of the very best order….
Notice that the opinion didn’t depend on the truth that the police chief lately retired (maybe as a result of he retired nicely after the incidents that gave rise to the litigation).
For usually opposite (although not factually equivalent) selections, 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). Notice additionally that almost all states do not prohibit residential picketing. (Such prohibitions, if content-neutral, can 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, does 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 display {that a} police chief lives exterior city?
Susan Ok. O’Connor argued the case for defendants.