The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to Daniel’s Law, which amended the state’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to prohibit the disclosure of certain personal information of active, formerly active, and retired judicial officers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers, and their family members. The issue in Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick is whether the law is constitutional as applied to journalist Charles Kratovil.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff Charles Kratovil (Kratovil or Plaintiff), who writes for and edits an online publication, brought an as-applied constitutional challenge to Daniel’s Law after Defendants the City of New Brunswick (the City) and Anthony Caputo, the former Director of the City’s Police Department, notified the Plaintiff that he should not re-publish Caputo’s home address. As set forth in court documents, Kratovil, who writes for and edits New Brunswick Today, discovered that Caputo, who was also a Commissioner of the City’s Parking Authority, was not attending municipal meetings in person.
After Kratovil came to believe that Caputo was living in Cape May, he filed an OPRA request with the Cape May County Board of Elections (the Cape May Board), requesting Caputo’s voter profile. That voter profile included Caputo’s home address. On May 3, 2023, Katovil attended another City Council meeting where he discussed Caputo’s change of residence, that Caputo’s residence in Cape May was approximately a two-hour drive from the City, and that Caputo was serving on the City’s Parking Authority even though he was a non-resident. During that discussion, Kratovil stated the street name in Cape May where Caputo was registered to vote. He also provided City Council members with copies of Caputo’s voter profile, which included Caputo’s complete home address.
On May 15, 2023, Kratovil received a letter notifying him that Caputo was invoking Daniel’s Law to prevent re-publication of his home address. On July 12, 2023, he filed a verified complaint and order to show cause seeking temporary and permanent restraints. Kratovil stated that he planned to publish an article about Caputo living in Cape May, which would include Caputo’s home address. So, he sought a declaration that Daniel’s Law was unconstitutional as applied to his intended publication. He also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting defendants from seeking to impose civil or criminal sanctions on him if he published Caputo’s home address.
The trial court denied the injunction and dismissed the compliant. On appeal, Kratovil argued that Daniel’s Law is unconstitutional as applied to his intention to publish Caputo’s home address because he obtained that address lawfully and it is a matter of public concern.
Appellate Division’s Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that Daniel’s Law as applied to the Plaintiff does not violate his First Amendment rights of free speech and free press.
In reaching its decision, the appeals court acknowledged that it was a matter of public concern that Caputo lived in Cape May while serving as the City’s Director of Police and a Commissioner of the City’s Parking Authority. Additionally, Kratovil always had the right to publish that Caputo lived in Cape May, which was a substantial distance from the City, without being subject to Daniel’s Law sanctions.
However, the Appellate Division also agreed with the trial court that Kratovil was not entitled to injunctive relief. “The trial court’s conclusion that Caputo’s exact street address is not a matter of public concern is supported by the record and consistent with the law,” the court wrote. “In that regard, we also agree with the trial court that protecting public officials from violent attacks and harassment is a compelling State interest of the highest order.”
Issues Before the NJ Supreme Court
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification on September 20, 2024. The justices have agreed to consider the following question:
Is Daniel’s Law, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1, which prohibits disclosing the home addresses of certain public officials, including judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel, unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff?
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. Please check back for updates.