Dashcams in police vehicles have had a dramatic effect on several high profile cases in NJ.  In February 2014, dashcam footage exonerated a Bloomfield man who was facing a 5 year sentence in prison and instead led to the indictment of two Bloomfield police officers who had falsified evidence against him.[i] In January 2015, dashcam footage of a fatal encounter between Bridgeton, NJ police officers and a man as he exited his car with his hands in the air became national news.[ii]  The Bridgeton police department released the video pursuant to a media request made under NJ’s Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”). 

OPRA ensures public access to government records unless they fall within specific exceptions.  Most litigation surrounding OPRA concerns whether a requested item constitutes a “record” and whether it falls within one of the exceptions. For more background on OPRA and some of its exceptions, click here. 

The question of whether police vehicle dashcam footage must be provided pursuant to OPRA has been a hot topic in the NJ Legal system.  Last summer, a NJ Superior Court ruled that dashcam footage from police vehicles must be produced under OPRA, and does not fall into any exceptions enumerated by the statute.  In that case, Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, the state had argued that the dashcam video could not be made available to the public because it was part of an ongoing investigation.  The judge rejected this argument, finding that because the dashcam is kept in the normal course of business, and not specifically as part of an investigation, it qualifies as a record and the investigation exception did not apply.[iii] 

In another Superior Court case from earlier this year, North Jersey Media Group v. Lyndhurst et al., a judge in Bergen County ordered the immediate and unredacted release of footage related to a case where a black man was shot and killed by police officers after allegedly ramming his SUV into the police vehicles.  Once again, the government argued that the footage did not have to be released because it fell into the criminal investigation exception of OPRA.  However, Judge Peter Doyne flatly rejected the state’s arguments, noting that “[p]olice interaction with the public is now under national review,” and finding that “[i]n the shadow of numerous incidents and subsequent protests surrounding killings of African American men by police officers, the public interest is in being informed of details of such an incident.”[iv]   

Other states have taken a similar approach to dashcam footage.  Recently, a law firm was awarded more than $40k in legal fees[v] in Oklahoma after the appellate court found that the city unlawfully withheld the footage in violation of Oklahoma’s public record act.[vi] 

Though the NJ appellate division has not yet considered whether dashcam footage must be released to the public under the Open Public Records Act, its decision and reasoning will almost definitely be in line with the NJ Superior Courts that have already decided that dashcam footage is a public record that must be produced under OPRA.  Additionally, as bodycams become more prevalent, that footage is likely to become discoverable under OPRA under the same line of reasoning. 

This has implications for not just high-profile cases where the media requests dashcam footage, but may also affect how successfully people are able to challenge moving violations.  This especially true in cases where there is an element of subjectivity to the violation, such as careless or reckless driving.  As it stands, litigants should be able to access such footage under municipal court discovery rules, but having OPRA available as an alternative way to get the footage will impose stricter deadlines upon municipalities to comply.  Additionally, OPRA provides municipal litigants with a specific form of redress to ensure compliance and even get attorney’s fees if municipalities wrongfully withhold public records. 

If you need legal guidance concerning your information requests to local or state government, contact the Law Offices of Dana Wefer to learn what recourse may be available to you.   


Sources 
[i] http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/01/bloomfield_cops_lose_bid_to_dismiss_official_misco.html
[ii] http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/us/bridgeton-police-shooting/
[iii] http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2014/2014165PW/PaffvOCP.pdf
[iv] http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/decisions/North%20Jersey%20Media%20Group%20Inc.%20v.%20Lyndhurst,%20BER-L-19048-14.pdf
[v]http://newsok.com/police-dashcam-videos-are-open-records-oklahoma-appellate-court-rules/article/3840638/?page=1
[vi]http://newsok.com/police-dashcam-videos-are-open-records-oklahoma-appellate-court-rules/article/3840638/?page=1

What is the Open Public Records Act?

The Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., ensures public access to government documents.  Under OPRA, a government entity must provide all requested documents to the public unless they fall under one of the 24 statutorily enumerated exceptions.  Most litigation surrounding OPRA concerns whether documents a government agency is seeking to withhold actually fall under an exception. 

What is a Record?

OPRA defines the word “record” very broadly.  It includes papers, books, maps, electronic documents, audio tapes, and other documents or things that are made, kept on file, maintained or received by the government or government officials in their official capacity.  The word “record” does not include advisory materials shared within or between government agencies, consultative or deliberative materials. 

What Types of Documents are Exempted from OPRA?

OPRA exceptions generally fall under two categories: citizen privacy and state security. For example, information or documents that a constituent sends a legislator cannot be obtained under OPRA.  Medical examiner records are also exempted from OPRA to protect the privacy of the deceased and their families, but may still be obtained for research, use by law enforcement and use in criminal proceedings.  Academic information, such as school records, also fall outside of OPRA’s scope. 

Security exceptions include physical security, such as information that would jeopardize the safety of a building, as well as technical security.  Notably, to qualify under a security exemption, the specific documents sought must be such that if they were released, security would actually be jeopardized.  The state cannot simply withhold something because it relates to building or computer security. 

Other exemptions include information that would give an advantage to bidders and information that relate to risk management.