1. No category

N ,. 9814
, 0 1 1 F.F 2 2
9
J a n26., 2 2015
6
2 0 1 t9901AM
:01AtV
Jan.
Richard
M. Gutman
Gutman
001081996
Richard
-- 001081996
Richard
Gutman,
P.(:.
Richard Gutman,
P.C.
Prescott
Avenue
99 Prescott
Avenue
Montclair,
07042-502i,
NJ
Montclair,
NJ 07042-5029
q73-744-6038
(voice& fax)
fax)
973-744-6038 (voice
tichaldn-rgu
tman(@gurail.
com
richodingutman(C
gmail.corn
Attorney
John
Paff
Attorney for Plaintiff
Plaintiff John Paff
It?ILEt)
FILED
JAN22662015
JAN
2015
--77-7.7- •
vor-Tvl.r
ir c-cor,
q,e,.r.i.c.
YOLAN DI CICCONE, A,J.S.C.
C i i l1 r 1 1 1 1 1 j
Cnr1)1T31.1(S
SUPIJRIOR
COI)RI"OF
NEWJERSEY
JERSEY
SUPERIOR
COURT
OF NEW
[,AW DIV]SION,
C:I!'ILPART
PAITT
LAW
DIVISION, CIVIL
SOMEITSET
COIJN'IY
SOMERSET
COUNTY
L)ocKE'I'No.
DOCKET
NO.
I2
JOI{NPAFF,
PAFF,
JOHN
Plaintifl,
Plaintiff,
v.
L_l>-
OF
BOROUGH
BROOK
BOROUGH
OF BOT.IND
BOUND BROOK
Defendant.
Defendant.
Action
Civil Action
.CAUSIC
SIIOW CAUSE
ORDER TO SHOW
SUI{MARY ACTIOI\
SUMMARY
ACTION
beingbrought
broughtbefore
THIS MATTER
MATTER being
befbrethe
Gutman,attorney
tbr
THIS
thecourt
cortrtby
b),Richald
attolneyfor
Richard M. Gutman,
PlaintiffJohn
relief'by
wayof
pulsuant
JolurPaff,
Paff,seeking
seekingrelief
action
4:67-I(a),
based
ol'summary
Plaintiff
by way
summary action
pursuant
totoR.R.4:67-1(a),
based
in the
theverified
thefacts
factsset
setforth
tbrth in
uponthe
ancl
thecourt
cotrrt
havirrg
verifiedcomplaint
complaintfiled
fileclherewith;
herervith;
upon
and
the
having
determined
deternrincd
thatthis
ilsaasummary
summar)/
pursul,rnt
conrnrencecl
b)'order
orderto
toshow
showcause
causie
prloceeding
that
this tnattel
matter may
may be
he commenced
by
as
proceeding
pursuant
toto
gooctcalmc
N,JS.A.
for good
shorvn,
47 lA-6 and
andfor
S.A.47:1A-6
NJ
cause shown,
I"l'lS
on this
thr, lb\iuy day
IT
IS on
thatdefendant
the defenclant
that the
- ofof
- ", , 2015,
, 201-s,ORDERED
{r^a:::{
) ORDERED
Boroughof Bound
BoundBrook
appearand
anclshow
shorvcause
onthe
Ei'ookappear
cause
the -l \
Borough
on
LtQbefbre
sonrerset
2015,before
Corrlt
inSomerset
Corrrrg
tlre
Superior
2015,
the Superior
Court
in
County
- 2,0
*
14--
M.a.(c-L„
N&rlU_
S*---Uri ,4 )e, 5+.
CV
(r',
k,00 o'clock
Sometville,New
.t &..-0o'clockin
in the
.Ielsey
ft"
NervJersey
theSomerville,
at.
Ou, of -&{ a rr,h
day
-,
,f,r'
noon,or
assoon
soonthereafter
thcreirfter
noon,
as
',vhyjudgment
judgmentshould
hetrt'd,why
frrt':
ascounsel
counselcan
notbe
beentered
entet'ed
Should
as
can be
be heard,
not
for:
ofaccess
access
theBorough's
florough'sdenial
denialof
description"
tlrat.the
tlreentire
entil-e"narrative
"nalrativedescription"
A. A dr:claration
declaration that
toto the
publicrecords;
rightof
andmii
mri #s
#s violated
and/orthe
thecommon
commr)n
larvright
lecoltls;
OPRA and/or
topublic
violatedOPRA
of access
access
and
law
to
grantPaff
the Borough
Boroughgrant
thatthe
l;herequested
requested"narrative
"naruative
ordel that
accessto the
desc',ripti(rn"
Et.An order
Paff access
description"
B.
#s;
andmri
mritts;
and
) | ) l 4 { D - J O
9737446036
-t
tt1 t
G /'t a] c, ati. 1 t01/26/2015
09:10
RECEIVED FROM:
#I)20-'.t-2
#1320-002
Jan
62 .0 1 ,9:01AV
9:01AMt
Jan.
26.. 2 2015
N ,9314
No
f
l
C An
Anaward
awardof
of-co.sts
andattorney's
attorney's
fees;
and
C.
costs and
fees;
and
just,
D.Such
Suchother
otheL
reliefas
asthe
theCourt
Courldeems
deenrs
equitahle
andjust.
D.
relief
equitable
and
Anditit is
isfurther
furtherORDERED
ORDERED
that:
And
that:
L A copy
copyof
of this
thisorder
orderto
toshow
showcause,
cause,
verified
courplaint
1.
anrl
allsupporting
supporling
verified
complaint
and
all
affidavits
orol
aftidat'its
certifications
subrnitted
in support
suppoltof
ofthis
thisapplication
applicatiorr
stlrved
beserved
per.sonally
upon
thedefendant
clefenclant
certifications
submitted
in
be
upon
the
personally
rvithin 50 days
Our"of
thedate
datehereof,
hereof,
accorrJance
rvith.l?
4:4-3and
andR.
within
/1.4:4-4,
4:4-4,this
of the
ininaccordance
with
this being
beingoriginal
R. 4:4-3
original
process.
process.
plaintitfmust
2.The
Theplaintiff
mustfile
filewith
rviththe
pro,rfof
thecourt
courlhis
hisproof
ofservice
service
pleaclings
thepleadings
2.
ofofthe
crnthe
the
on
defendant
nolater
laterthan
thanthree
tluee(3)
(3)days
days
before
thereturn
leturn
date.
defendant
no
before
the
date.
'.,
3.Plaintiff
Plairrtiff
shaill
fileand
andserve
serve
supporting
briefby
hy FCb rr,'' -!
shall
file
ansupporting
brief
3.
''
8 . #L
2015rviththeClerltof theSuperior
Corutin Somerset
Corunty.
A copl'rnusit
besentdircctlytcr2015witheClrkofSupi tnomersCuy.Acptbesndirlyo
bt
t
thechambers
charnbels
ofJudge
Judge
the
of
-Lr!"onGOA L.,
3. Dcferrdant
shallfile and
a.ndserve
selveaawritten
u'ritte.n
answer,
brief.an
ananswering
iursweling
3.
Defendant shall
answer,
aabrief,
affidavit
affidavitorora a
tnotiottreturnable
on the
thereturn
leturndate
dateto
tothis
thisorder
orderto
ltrshow
showcause
cause
andthe
therelief
reliefrequested
motion
returnable on
and
ininthe
retluested
the
rrerifiedcornplaint
ploof of
andproof
of service
serviceof
ofthe
thesame
sameby
by
verified
complaint and
c"
bruu...6) 22 5"
F-cbr^5
, 2015.
2015
The
aflidavitOr
or tr
the casc
be,must
The an.swer,
answer, brief,
brief, ansrver'ing
answering affidavit
a motion,
motion, as
as the
case miry
may be,
musthe
befiled
filedwith
rviththe
thr:
Clerk
Sonrelset
County,A
thepapers
papel's
A copy
copl'of
mustbe
Clerk of the
the Superior
Superior Clourt
Court in Somerset
County.
of the
must
directly
to
besent
sent
dir.ectl),to
the
Judge-t-'Z:!ng- /1.
the chanrbers
chambers of Judge
4. The
artdserve
selveany
anywritten
rvlittenreply
replyto the
the.defendant's
The plaintiff
plaintiff must
must file and
order
defendant's
oxleltotoshow
show,
1 ti•F-h!+
LJn
cause
by C14
11,61, /
cause opposition
opposition by
pape's
r'ustbe
befiled
filert
2015. The
The r.eply
reply papers
must
-,, 2015.
with the
Courtin
in the
thecounty
count_y
atrove.
A copy
copl'of
ofthe
thereply
papels
listedabove.
replypapers
the Clerk
Clerk of the
the Supelior
Superior Court
listed
A
must
nnust
fl
be
rr".l,(, _"_
of Judge
Jrrdge La-tt
CAl.tors
be sent
sent directly
directly to
to the
the chambcrs
chambers of
doesnot
5.If
notfile
fileand
tothis
thisorder
order
andserve
selveopposition
opporiition
shou'cause,
the
If the
the defendzurt
defendant does
to
totoshow
cause, the
z2
t9737446038
i3i446036
t01/26/2015
l l / 2 6 ' 2 t l l 5 09:10
[9:]C,
R
! C E I V E D FROM:
FF:Cl'l:
RECEIVED
##1320-003
l i Z r : - { - 1 ,l
J a n26., 2 2015
26 0, 1 99:02AM
9:02AlV
Jan.
N :9314
9 3 1 4 P.F 44
N.
applicationwill
paperson
rvill be
be decided
decidedon
onthe
thepapers
onthe
thereturn
retrundate
dateand
ancl
reliefmay
grantecl
application
relief
bybydefault,
maybebegranted
dellault,
providedthat
plaintiff files
thatthe
the plaintiff
proofof
filesaaproof
ofservice
service
andaaproposed
proptlserJ
provided
and
form
atatleast
three
forrnofoforder
order
least
tlleedays
days
prittr to
to the
thereturn
returndate.
date.
prior
plaintiff has
6, If the
theplaintiff
ltasnot
trotalready
alreacty
cloneso,
6.
so,aaproposed
propo$edform
fcrrmof
irddressingthe
of order
ordeladdressing
done
therelief
relief
soughton
(alongwith
on the
the leturn
date(along
lvithaaself-addressed
self-addressed
sought
return date
return
with
address
and
returnenvelope
envelope
rvithreturn
return
address
and
postage)must
mustbe
be submitted
submittedto
tothe
thecourt
courtno
nolater
laterthan
(3)days
thanthree
tluee(3)
daysbefore
befblethe
thereturn
postage)
date,
return
date
7. Defendant,
Defendant.take
takenotice
noticethat
plaintiffhas
7.
thatthe
theplaintiff
filedlaalawsuit
larvsuitagainst
against:
youin
has filed
you
the
ir"r
theSuperior
Superior
Coutt of Nerv
The verified
verifiedcomplaint
complaintattached
attached
tothis
thisorder
Court
New Jersey
Jersey, The
to
cause
states
the
basis
orcleltotoshow
shorv
cause
states
the
basis
of the
the lawsuit,
larvsuit,If you
you dispute
disptrtethis
thiscomplaint,
conrplaint,
you,
yon,or
yetu attorney,
or your
attorney,must
mustfile
filc aawritten
rvrittenanswer,
answer,
an
an
attsweringaffidavit
or aa motion
rettunable
alfidavit or
motionreturnable
onthe
thereturn
retumdate
datetotothe
theorder
ordertotoshow
shorv
cause
answering
on
cause
and
zurd
ploof of service
sen'icebefore
belbrethe
thereturn
retr.urr
dateof
ofthe
theorder
orderto
toshow
shou'r:ause,
proof
date
cause,
'Ihese
(lc)untyClerk
clocrtments
mustbe
befiled
filedwith
rviththe
theSomerset
Somerset
Cllerkof
ofthe
theSuperior
Superir,rl
Lloufi.AA
These documents
must
County
Court.
ditectoryof these
office.sis
is available
availablein
inthe
theCivil
BoroughManagement
CrvilBorough
directory
these offices
Office
ininthe
county
lvlanagenent
Ofl-rce
thr:
county
Ii sted above
above and
at @
and online
onIi neat
listed
.us/protgllQlSLlclt.ycterkl
http://mvwjudiciary.state.nj.usiprose/10153
deptyclerklawrefpdf.
aivrel prljf.
Inc:lude
payableto
a $175.00
to the
the"Treasurer
of New
Stateof
"TLeasul'er
Include
$175.00 filing tbe
fee payable
State
Jersey." You
Ner\,.Iersg)'."'
Youmust
rnustalso
alsosend
sencl
copyof 1,6,,,'
answeringaffidavit
aflidavitor
motionto
to the
theplaintiff's
plaintiff sr
attofney
crlmotion
aa copy
your answer',
answer, briet,
brief, answering
attorney
whose
\vhL)se
narneand
youl rights;
A telephone
andaddress
nddress
appearabove.
above.A
telephone
name
appear
call will
youmust
rightsr;
will not prrotect
protect your
you
tulstfile
fileand
arnd
answeringaffidavit
judgment
serveyoul'
altswcr)brief,
brief,answering
affidavitor
ormotion
motionwith
withthe
thefee
f,'ee
serve
your answer,
orrlljudgment
may
entered
maybebe
entcred
bYdefault.
clef'arrlt,
agiritlstyou
against
I'ou by
you cannot
8. If you
attortrey,
cannotafford
affbLdan
auattorney,
youmay
rrrery
8.
LegalServices
Selvices
office
oa,ll
theLegal
you
call
the
office
inrnthe
county
count),
the
in which
rvhichyou
youlive
LegalServices
Scn,ices
liveor
orthe
theLegal
Hotlure
New
Jelsey
Statervide
ofofNew
Jersey
Statewide
Hotline
at 1-888-LS1\1:I-LAW
at l -888-LSNJ-LAW
(l-888-576-5529),
If you
noteligible
do not
nothave
havean
anattorney
attorney
andare
arenot
eligiblefor
forfree
freelegal
legal
assistanct:
(1-888-576-5529).
and
assistance
1'rlttdo
you may
to an
anattorney
attorneyby
referralto
ReferralServices.
Serviccs.
oblainaa referral
bycalling
oneof
ofthe
theLawyer
LatvyerReferral
callingone
AA
you
may obtain
3
a t ) t 4 { T J L J O
9737446038
09:It.,
D I / 2 6 / 2 0 1 . 509:10
01/26/207.5
TrrarFl:'rn
Flr'',1t.
RECEIVED FROM:
# t J Z [ -r [ 0 1
#1320-004
J a n26,
, 22015
62 t ) 1 9,! A2AM
:02ANl
Jan.
) i 1 4c
a r ni /
'. ,
directorywith
withcontact
inf<irmation
c0lltactinformation
localLegal
forlocal
LegalServices
Ser:,vices
Larvyel
Offices
directory
for
Offices
and
Referral
Services
alclLawyer
Refeural
Services
availableirr
lhe
cgultylisted
isisavailable
in the
the Civil
Civil Borough
Borough Managernent
Management Office
Officeinthe
county
above
and
online
liste6
trSove
ancl
olli'e atat
http://www judiciary,state .nj .us/pr. ose/1 0153 deptyclerklawref.pdf.
9,The
TheCourt
Courtwill
will entertain
etrtertain
at'gument,
butnot
nottestimony,
tcstirnony,
onthe
thereturn
9.
argument,
but
on
ofofthe
order
retunldate
date
the
ordeto
r to
slrorvcause,
cttu$e,
parties
urlessthe
thecourt
courtand
andparties
areadvised
advised
thecontrary
contral')'
nolater
later
show
unless
are
totothe
no
than
than
I
daysbefore
lreltlrethe
thereturn
returndate.
date.
days
WANDA CICCONE, A.J.S.C,
44
99737446038
7374460,38
A01/26/2015
I/26/2015
009:11
9:I1
RRECEIVED
ECEIVED F
R'-)1{:
FROM:
##1320-005
I3:C-r:rrli
Richard Gutman - 001081996
Richard Gutman, P.C.
9 Prescott Avenue
Montclair, NJ 07042-5029
973-744-6038 (voice & fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff John Paff
____________________________________
:
JOHN PAFF,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
SOMERSET COUNTY
DOCKET NO.
Civil Action
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff John Paff, by way of complaint against the Borough of Bound Brook, states as
follows:
1. John Paff is an individual residing at 1605 Amwell Road, Somerset, Somerset County,
New Jersey.
2. The Borough of Bound Brook is a political subdivision of the State of New Jersey and
is located in Somerset County, New Jersey.
3. John Paff requested from the Borough under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) the
CAD (Computer Aided Dispatching) entries/screenshots for any calls for service or dispatches
related to any incidents involving Kimberly Charnuska during 2014. (Paff Cert., Page 1.)
4. On December 12, 2014, the Borough granted Paff access to a redacted copy of an
October 29, 2014 CAD incident report regarding Kimberly Charnuska. (Paff Cert., Page 3.)
5. The Borough redacted the entire “narrative description” section and the MNI #s of
suspect Ms. Charnuska and reporting person Dan Gallagher. (Paff Cert., Page 5.)
6. The Borough claimed that the Paff’s record request was improper because it allegedly
lacked specificity. (Paff Cert., Pages 2-3.)
7. The Borough redacted the entire “narrative description” on the grounds that it allegedly
was a criminal investigatory record. (Paff Cert., Page 3.)
8. The Borough gave no reason for redacting the MNI #s. (Paff Cert., Pages 2-3.)
First Count
(OPRA Right to Redacted “Narrative Description”)
9. Plaintiff Paff repeats the allegations stated above as if set forth at length herein.
10. The Defendant Borough’s denial of access to the entire “narrative description”
violated OPRA.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paff demands judgment against the Borough as follows:
A. A declaration that the Borough’s denial of access to the entire “narrative description”
violated OPRA.
B. An order that the Borough grant Paff access to the requested “narrative description”;
C. An award of costs and attorney’s fees; and
D. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
Second Count
(Common Law Right to Redacted “Narrative Description)
11. Plaintiff repeats the allegations stated above as if set forth at length herein.
12. The public’s need for access to the redacted “narrative description” is greater than the
Borough’s need for secrecy.
13. The Defendant Borough’s denial of access to the redacted “narrative description”
violated the common law right of access to public records.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paff demands judgment against Defendant Borough as follows:
A. A declaration that the Borough’s denial of access to the entire “narrative description”
2
violated the common law right to public records;
B. An order that the Borough grant Paff access to the requested “narrative description”;
C. An award of costs and attorney’s fees; and
D. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
Third Count
(OPRA Right to Redacted MNI #s)
14. Plaintiff Paff repeats the allegations stated above as if set forth at length herein.
15. The Defendant Borough’s failure to state an alleged legal basis for denying access to
the MNI #s violated OPRA.
16. The Borough failed to satisfy its burden of proving that its denial of access to the
MNI #s was authorized by OPRA.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paff demands judgment against Defendant Borough as follows:
A. A declaration that the Borough’s denial of access to the MNI #s violated OPRA;
B. An order that the Borough grant Paff access to the MNI #s;
C. An award of costs and attorney’s fees; and
D. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
Fourth Count
(Common Law Right to Redacted MNI #s)
17. Plaintiff repeats the allegations stated above as if set forth at length herein.
18. There is an insignificant need for secrecy as regards the redacted MNI #s.
19. The Defendant Borough’s denial of access to the redacted MNI #s violated the
common law right of access to public records.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paff demands judgment against Defendant Borough as follows:
A. A declaration that the Borough’s denial of access to the MNI #s violated the common
3
law right of access;
B. An order that the Borough grant Paff access to the MNI #s;
C. An award of costs and attorney’s fees; and
D. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Richard Gutman
January 15, 2015
Certification Pursuant to R. 4:25-4
-
Plaintiff designates Richard Gutman as trial counsel in this action.
Certification Pursuant to R. 4:69-4
-
There are no necessary transcripts of local agency proceedings in the cause.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
________________________
Richard Gutman
January 15, 2015
4
______________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
V.
:
:
BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK, :
:
Defendant.
:
______________________________:
JOHN PAFF,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
SOMERSET COUNTY
DOCKET NO. L-72-15
Civil Action
PLAINTIFF JOHN PAFF’S BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Richard M. Gutman 001081996
Richard Gutman, P.C.
9 Prescott Avenue
Montclair, NJ 07042-5029
973-744-6038 (voice & fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for John Paff
January 28, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
I. Borough’s Claim That Paff’s Record Request is “Vague” is Disproved by the
Borough’s Identification, Location and Production of the Record Sought . . . . . . . . .
.3
II. Borough’s Denial of Access to the Entire “Narrative Description” Was Unlawful
4
A. Borough Violated OPRA Because it Has Failed to Satisfy its Burden of
Proving that the Criminal Investigatory Records Exemption Applies to the
“Narrative Description” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1. 911 CAD Incident Reports are Required by Law to be Maintained . . . .
5
2. The 911 CAD Incident Report’s Narrative Description is Not an
Investigatory Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
B. Borough Violated Common Law Right of Access Because the Public’s and
Paff’s Need to Know the Nature of the Official Misconduct by A Public
Employee Resulting in Suspension and Termination Exceeds the Need for
Secrecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
III. Borough’s Denial of Access to the MNI #s Was Unlawful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
A. Borough Violated OPRA Because it Failed to State any Legal Basis for
Denying Access to the MRI #s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
B. Borough Violated OPRA Because it Has Failed to Satisfy its Burden of
Proving that the Denial of Access to the MRI#s Was Authorized by Law
10
C. Borough Violated Common Law Right of Access to the MRI #s Because
There Was No Need for Secrecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bergen v. North Jersey Media, 370 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
B urke v. Brandes, 429 N.J. Super. 169 (App. Div. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-4
Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super.
534 (App. Div. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Michelson v. Wyatt, 379 N.J. Super. 611 (App. Div. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Education Law Center v. New Jersey Department of Education, 198 N.J. 274 (2009) 8
O’Shea v. Township of West Milford, 410 N.J. Super. 371 (App. Div. 2009) . . . . . . . . . .6-7
Serrano v . South Brunswick Township, et al., 358 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div. 2003) 5
Statutes
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,5-7
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,4,10
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Regulations
N.J.A.C. 17:24-2.4(a)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On October 29, 2014, Dan Gallagher of Bound Brook High School called 911 to report a
suspicious incident at Bound Brook High School in which the suspect was 24-year old high
school art teacher Kimberly L. Charnuska of 339 Codrington Pl., Bound Brook. (Paff Cert.,
Pages 4-5.) The alleged victim was a juvenile. (Paff Cert., Page 3.) Two Bound Brook Borough
police officers were dispatched to the high school. (Paff Cert., Page 6.) The police “cleared” the
call 26 minutes later. (Paff Cert., Page 6.) A 911 CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) incident
report and a related police investigatory report were created. (Paff Cert., Page 3.)
On the same day that the incident was reported, Bound Brook High School art teacher
Kimberly Charnuska was suspended with pay. Four weeks later she was terminated at a
November 24, 2014, Bound Brook Board of Education meeting. (Paff Cert., Page 7.)
The next day, John Paff, a resident of Somerset County, sent an email to the Borough of
Bound Brook requesting records under both the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the
common law right of access to public records. He noted that the Bound Brook Board of
Education’s November 24, 2014 meeting agenda suggested that art teacher Kimberly Charnuska
was suspended with pay on October 29, 2014 and terminated on November 24, 2014. Paff added
that he was informed that there may have been a related incident reported to law enforcement.
He requested the following records:
“1. CAD entries/screenshots for any calls for service or dispatches related to any
incidents involving Charnuska during 2014.
2. Police incident reports regarding all incidents involving Charnuska during 2014.” (Paff
Cert., Page 1.)
In Bound Brook Borough’s response, it characterized both requests as “improper,”
“unclear,” “overly broad” and “vague” because they allegedly “do not identify a record with
specificity.” The Borough further asserted that Paff’s requests, “requr[e] the custodian to review
every document in the Borough’s files and to guess whether any documents are responsive to
your request” and that “there is no effective means of searching for such records with any
certainty.” Yet, the Borough admitted that it located a 911 CAD Incident Report #14194153 and
an associated police investigatory report that were responsive to Paff’s record requests. (Paff
Cert., Pages 2-3.)
In addition to the grounds that Paff’s record request allegedly was “unclear,” the Borough
denied access to the police investigatory report in its entirely on the grounds of OPRA’s
exemption for “criminal investigatory records.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. (Paff Cert., Page 3.) (This
lawsuit does not seek access to the police investigatory report.)
The Borough granted access to the 911 CAD Incident Report in redacted form. It
redacted all of the information regarding the juvenile victim. (This lawsuit does not seek access
to the redacted information about the juvenile victim.) The Borough also redacted Kimberly
Charnuska’s driver’s license number. (Paff Cert., Page 3.) (This lawsuit does not seek Ms.
Charnuska’s driver’s license number.)
While acknowledging that “the Computer Aided Dispatching (CAD) records are
generally accepted to be government records subject to disclosure,” the Borough also redacted
the entire 911 CAD Incident Report’s Narrative Description on the grounds that it allegedly was
exempt under OPRA as a “criminal investigatory record” as well as its general objection that
Paff’s entire request was allegedly “unclear.” (Paff Cert., Pages 3.) The Borough also redacted
the mni #s for both Kimberly Charnuska and Dan Gallagher without acknowledgment or
explanation, other than its general objection that the entire record request was “unclear.” (Paff
2
Cert., Pages 2-5.)
The Borough also ignored John Paff’s request for the records under the common law
right of access to public records. (Paff Cert., Pages 2-3.)
On January 29, 2015, Paff’s counsel mailed Kimberly Charnuska the signed order to
show cause, complaint and John Paff certification with attachments. See January 28, 2015,
Certification of Richard Gutman.
ARGUMENT
Because the public agency denying access to records has the burden of proving that the
denial of access is authorized by OPRA (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6), Plaintiff Paff assumes for purposes
of this litigation, until the Borough proves otherwise, that at the time of the creation of 911 CAD
Incident Report #14194153, Dan Gallagher was the principal of Bound Brook High School.
I. Borough’s Claim That Paff’s Record Request is “Vague” is Disproved by
the Borough’s Identification, Location and Production of the Record Sought
John Paff requested “CAD entries/screenshots for any calls for service or dispatches
related to any incidents involving [art teacher Kimberly] Charnuska during 2014.” (Paff Cert.,
Page 1.) Thus, Paff had requested specific types of records regarding a specific person during a
specific time period.
The Borough denial of access letter began with a lengthy argument that Paff’s record
request was “improper” because it lacked “specificity.” (Paff Cert., Pages 2-3.) On the contrary,
Paff’s record request was specific enough to identify and locate the request records with a
reasonable amount of effort. Burke v. Brandes, 429 N.J.Super. 169, 176 (App. Div. 2012)
(approving request for all records regarding a particular subject).
Moreover, the Borough, did, in fact, identify, locate and produce the October 29, 2014,
911 CAD Incident Report #14194153 regarding Ms. Charnuska. (Paff Cert., Page 3.) After
3
having identified and located the 911 CAD Incident Report, it is absurd for the Borough to now
assert that Paff’s record request was too “vague” and “unclear” for the Borough to identify or
locate the record sought. As the Appellate Division has noted, “[i]ndeed, the fact that the
custodian of records in this case actually performed a search and was able to locate and identify
records responsive to plaintiff’s request belies any assertion that the request was lacking in
specificity or was overbroad.” Id. at 177.
II. Borough’s Denial of Access to the Entire “Narrative Description” Was
Unlawful
A. Borough Violated OPRA Because it Has Failed to Satisfy its Burden of
Proving that the Criminal Investigatory Records Exemption Applies to
the “Narrative Description”
The Borough admits, “the Computer Aided Dispatching (CAD) records are generally
accepted to be government records subject to disclosure.” Nevertheless, the Borough denied
access to the entire Narrative Description on the grounds that it allegedly is exempt as “criminal
investigatory records.” In the Borough’s words, “the Borough’s reporting software permits the
investigating officers to insert notes relevant to their investigation of a complaint. Those notes,
which are not required by law to be created, are criminal investigatory records.” (Paff Cert., Page
3.)
OPRA expressly provides that “[t]he public agency shall have the burden of proving that
the denial of access is authorized by law.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. Here, the Borough has failed to
satisfy its burden of proving that the denial of the Narrative Description is authorized by OPRA.
OPRA defines a “criminal investigatory record,” which is exempt, as “a record which is
not required by law to be made, maintained or kept on file that is held by a law enforcement
agency which pertains to any criminal investigation or related civil enforcement proceeding.”
4
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Thus, in order to establish that a record is exempt under OPRA as a
“criminal investigatory record,” the public agency must prove both that the record is not required
by law and that it pertains to a criminal investigation or related civil enforcement proceeding.
The Borough has proved neither.
1. 911 CAD Incident Reports are Required by Law to be Maintained
Police 911 calls and CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) entries are required by law to be
maintained. “Each PSAP [Public Safety Answering Point] shall maintain the following: 1.
Recordings produced by the logging recorder and all documents or records related to 911 calls in
a secured area for no less than 31 days.” N.J.A.C. 17:24-2.4(a)(1). The 911 CAD Incident Report
at issue indicates in the upper left-hand corner of its first page that it is a 911 record. (Paff Cert.,
Page 4.) Thus, because the law requires the maintenance of records related to 911 calls, the 911
CAD Incident Report is not an OPRA “criminal investigatory record.” As the Appellate Division
has stated regarding a 911 tape, “because the law requires that such tapes be made and kept, it
does not qualify as a ‘criminal investigatory record.’” Serrano v. South Brunswick Township, et
al., 358 N.J. Super. 352, 365 (App. Div. 2003).
The Borough argues that OPRA’s criminal investigatory record exemption does apply to
the Narrative Description because its notes “are not required by law to be created.” (Paff Cert.,
Page 3.) But, OPRA’s definition of “criminal investigatory records” excludes records that the
law requires to be “made, maintained or kept on file” not merely “created.” N.J.A.C. 17:242.4(a)(1) requires the Borough to maintain for no less than 31 days the entire 911 CAD Incident
Report at issue, including its Narrative Descriptive.
2. The 911 CAD Incident Report’s Narrative Description is Not an
Investigatory Record
The Borough argues that the Narrative Report at issue is OPRA exempt as a “criminal
5
investigatory record” because it is “relevant” to an investigation. (Paff Cert., Page 3.) But
simply being relevant to a criminal investigation does not make a record, or part of a record, to
be a “criminal investigatory record.”
The 911 CAD Incident Report at issue was created to record the circumstances of a 911
call from Principal Dan Gallagher regarding a “suspicious incident” at Bound Brook High
School. The report describes how two police officers were sent to the location, where they
remained from 7:56 A.M. to 8:22 A.M. (Paff Cert., Page 4-6.)
The 911 CAD Incident Report should not be confused with the associated police
investigatory report, (Paff Cert., Page 3), which Bound Brook withheld in its entirety and is not
sought by this lawsuit. The 911 CAD Incident Report is a report regarding the 911 call. It
described activity preceding the police investigation described by the investigatory report.
The purpose of OPRA’s criminal investigatory exemption is to protect the confidentiality
of investigations. It does not protect records that pre-existed or sparked the investigation or were
merely used during the investigation. Unlike investigative records, the disclosure of records that
predated the investigation would not reveal the specifics of the investigation and therefore their
disclosure would not harm the investigation.
In O’Shea v. Township of West Milford, 410 N.J.Super. 371 (App. Div. 2009), the
Township denied access to Use of Force Reports on the grounds, among others, that the reports
might later be used in criminal investigations. Id. at 376-77. The trial court rejected the
Township’s arguments and the Appellate Division affirmed primarily for the reasons stated by
the trial judge. Id. at 376. As the Appellate Division explained, the trial judge,
said that the UFRs at issue did not qualify as criminal investigatory
records both because they were not created as part of an investigation and because defendant had merely speculated that the documents sought would ever be used in an investigation.
6
The judge drew an “analog[y]” between a UFR and
an accident report that a police officer fills out.
While [the document] may ultimately at some point
become part of a criminal investigation and even a
civil lawsuit, it is not done as a criminal investigatory action initially.
*
*
*
Photos of an accident scene may be looked at as
part of . . . a criminal investigation. That doesn’t
mean they’re criminal investigatory records.
The judge’s “interpretation of a criminal investigatory
record is a record created while a criminal investigation is going
on[,]” or “the work product of . . . the people investigating.”
[Id. at 378.]
In conclusion, to the extent that the Narrative Description contains information regarding
Principal Dan Gallagher’s 911 call, it is not a “criminal investigatory record” because it consists
of information that the police obtained prior to the start of the investigation. Independently, none
of the Narrative Description is a “criminal investigatory record” because it was required by law
to be maintained for at least 31 days.
B. Borough Violated Common Law Right of Access Because the Public’s
and Paff’s Need to Know the Nature of the Official Misconduct by A
Public Employee Resulting in Suspension and Termination Exceeds the
Need for Secrecy
New Jersey provides access to public records in three distinct ways: OPRA, the common
law right of access to public records and the discovery procedures in civil litigation. MAG
Entertainment, LLC v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J.Super. 534, 543 (App.
Div. 2005). Records that are not available by one means may be available through another. Id.
-
As OPRA expressly states, “[n]othing contained in [OPRA] shall be construed as limiting the
common law right of access to a government record, including criminal investigatory records of
a law enforcement agency.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-8. Thus, even if Plaintiff Paff did not have a right to
7
the requested Narrative Description under OPRA, he may nevertheless have a common law right
of access to that record and vice versa. Bergen v. North Jersey Media, 370 N.J.Super. 504, 517
(App. Div. 2004).
The common law right of access to public records is determined by balancing the
requestors’ need for the record versus the government’s need for secrecy. Michelson v. Wyatt,
379 N.J. Super. 611, 624 (App. Div. 2005). The common law interest of the record requestor can
be either a personal interest or a public interest. Education Law Center v. New Jersey
Department of Education, 198 N.J. 274, 302 (2009). Both are present here. Plaintiff Paff
maintains blogs that are frequently the sources of news particles. See January 26, 2015,
Certification of John Paff. Even without Paff’s journalism, a public interest would exist for the
records at issue. Both outweigh any need for secrecy.
Two principal characteristics of the Narrative Description generate a considerable public
need for disclosure. First, the incident concerned a public matter. A government employee, Dan
Gallagher, called the police to report suspected criminal activity by another government
employee, Kimberly Charnuska, allegedly committed in her official capacity as a high school
teacher. The information sought does not concern Ms. Charnuska’s activities as a private
individual.
Second, the information did not concern mere suspicions. The matter described in the
Narrative Description was sustained to the extent that it resulted in Ms. Charnuska’s suspension
and termination. (Paff Cert., Page 7.)
There is a compelling public interest in sustained, or even unsustained, allegations of
misconduct by government employees in the course of their official conduct. The great extent of
that public interest is reflected in OPRA. Despite OPRA’s broad exemption for personnel records,
8
it requires disclosure of the “reason” for a public employee’s “separation.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.
Similarly, despite OPRA’s broad exemption for criminal investigatory records and ongoing
investigations, it requires disclosure of certain information regarding reported crimes and arrests.
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3b. Plaintiff Paff is not citing the foregoing OPRA provisions as determinative of
the common law request, but rather as demonstrating the intense public interest in information
regarding misconduct by public employees that results in termination.
Under the common law calculus, that public interest in disclosure must be weighed
against the need for secrecy. Here, Ms. Charnuska could have little expectation of privacy once
Principal Gallagher called the police regarding her suspected criminal activity. Moreover, much
of the information regarding this incident is already a matter of public record. The Borough has
already publicly disclosed that the police investigated an allegation by Dan Gallagher that 24
year old Bound Brook High School art teacher Kimberly Charnuska, residing at 339 Codrington
Pl., Bound Brook, NJ, 08805, committed a crime against a juvenile at the High School, resulting
in her suspension that very day and her termination four weeks later. (Paff Cert., Pages 3,5,7.)
In conclusion, the public’s need for information regarding a high school teacher’s
suspected crime against a juvenile at the high school, resulting in her immediate suspension and
later termination, outweighs any conceivable need for secrecy.
III. Borough’s Denial of Access to the MNI #s Was Unlawful
A. Borough Violated OPRA Because it Failed to State any Legal Basis for
Denying Access to the MRI #s
The Borough’s December 12, 2014, letter gave no reason for denying access to the mni
#s of Kimberly Charnuska and Dan Gallagher. (Paff Cert., Pages 2-3,5.) Therefore, the Borough
violated OPRA’s requirement that “[i]f the custodian is unable to comply with the request for
access, the custodian shall indicate the specific basis therefor on the request form and promptly
9
return it to the requestor.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5g.
B. Borough Violated OPRA Because it Has Failed to Satisfy its Burden of
Proving that the Denial of Access to the MRI#s Was Authorized by Law
The Borough has as yet not even attempted to satisfy its burden of proving that the denial
of access to the mni #s of Charnuska and Gallagher is authority by law. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.
C. Borough Violated Common Law Right of Access to the MRI #s Because
There Was No Need for Secrecy
As previously indicated, the Borough has not yet suggested any reason for denying the
mni #s of Charnuska and Gallagher. “[I]f the governmental need in confidentiality is slight or
non-existent, citizen-taxpayer status will ordinarily warrant that the matters be disclosed.”
Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 105 (1986).
Respectfully submitted,
Richard M. Gutman
10
Richard M. Gutman - 001081996
Richard Gutman, P.C.
9 Prescott Avenue
Montclair, NJ 07042-5029
973-744-6038 (voice & fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff John Paff
____________________________________
:
JOHN PAFF,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
SOMERSET COUNTY
DOCKET NO.
Civil Action
Certification of John Paff
I, John Paff, hereby certify and say as follows:
1. I am the plaintiff in the above-titled lawsuit.
2. I have personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the Complaint.
3. The factual allegations of the Complaint are true.
4. All attached documents are true copies and have not been redacted, changed, modified,
adjusted or otherwise altered in any manner by me or my agents.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Executed on January ______, 2015
11t25t2014
11/25/2014
- Rei:ords
Gmail
ttequest
Bornd
Brook
Gmail
- Records
Request
toto
Bound
Brook
and
SC
PO
and
SCpO
Cn*;:,il
i1
J,ohnPaff
<opengoWissues@r;mai
Paff<[email protected]
John
>
Lc;om>
l.i"r ,r rr r{1,
Records
Request
toBound
BoundBrook
Brookand
andSCPO
SCpO
Records
Request
to
message
11message
<[email protected]>
Paff
John
<paff©pobox.corn>
fohnPaff
pM
Tue,
2014 at
PM
rue,Nov
Nov25,
25,2014,
at4:52
4:512
To:[email protected]
[email protected],
<[email protected]>,
Kathye
Quick
To:
, Kathye
Quick
<[email protected]
Dronna
>, Donna
Godleski
Godleski
<dgodles
ki@boundbrook-nj.
org>
<dgodleski©boundbrook-nj.org
>
makethis
thisrequest
requ€St
trcboth
boththe
theSomerset
Somerset
Count'y
II make
to
County
Prosecutor's
Office
Prosecutor's
Office
police
andthe
theBound
BoundBrook
BrookPolice Department.
Department.
and
askboth
bothagencies
pleaseaccept
agencies
tr:please
acceptthis
thise-mail/fax
e-mail/'fax
II ask
to
as
asmy
myrequest
request
under
the
OpenPublic
Publir:
Records
(OPRA)
Act
and
under the Open
Records
Act (OPRA)
and the
the cornmon
common law
lawright
right
of access.
access.
Please
senrd
allresponses
responses
andresponsive
responsive
of
Please
send
all
and
records
to
me
recordsto mevia
via
p
a
f
f
@
p
o
b
o
x
.
c
o
m
.
e
m
a
i
l
t
o
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
.
e-mail to [email protected] . Thank you.
Background:
Background:
Theagenda
agendafor
BoundBrook
BrookEducation's
Education's
November
The
for the
the Bound
November
24,
24,2014
ZOI4
meeting
suggest
that
art
teacher
Kimberly
Cherrnuska
meeting suggest that art teacher Kimberly
Charnuska
was
wassuspended
suspended
pay
with
on
October
i19,20t4
andterminated
terminated
with pay on October 29,
2014 and
on
24,
2014.
onNovember
November
24,2014.
II am
am informed
informed
thatthere
theremay
mayhave
havebeen
beensome
som€:
that
specific
incident(s)
that
specific
incident(s)
that
were
reported
to
law
enforcement
and
that
were
were reported to law enforcement and that were related
relatedto
toMs.
Ms.
C
h
a
r
n
u
s
k
a
'
s
s
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
r
c
a
n
d
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
Charnuska's suspension and termination.
Records
Records requested:
requested:
1.
1. CAD
serviceor
rCispatches
CADentries/screenshots
entries/screenshots for
for any
any calls
calls for
for service
or dispatches
rrelated
e l a t e dtto
oa
n
y
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
c h a r n u s k during
au rn
any incidents involving Charnuska
d
i g2014.
20L4.
22.' P
olice
i incident
n c i d e nrreports
te p o r t srregarding
e g a r d i nall
agl lincidents
i n c i d e n tinvolving
Police
isn v o l v i nCharnuska
g
Charnuska
dduring
u r i n g2014.
2014.
If
claimthat
anyrecords
records
areexempt,
please
exempt,
If you
you claim
that any
are
please
at
atleast
leastacknowledge
acknowledge
provide
their
existence
and
me
with
a
detailed
description
their existence and provide me with a detailed description
of
ofeach.
each,
lohn
John Paff
Paff
P.O.
P.O. Box
Box 5424
5424
Somerset,
08875
Somerset, NJ
NJ 08875
Voice:
Voice: 732-873-1251
732-873-1251
Fax:
Fax: 908-325-0129
908-325-0129
paff@pobox,com
e-mait:
e-mail: [email protected]
I
htFs//mail.googile.corn/majl/u/Cl/?ui=2&ik=af5d1308f4&vis/,/=pt&search=sent&th=
149e8f1
1b()c9f.1ag&siml=
149egf1
https://mail.googlescom/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=af5d1308f4Aview=pt&search=sent&th=149e8f11b0c9f1a8&sim1=149e8f11b0c9f1a8
1b0c9f1ag
1/2
BORIOUGH
oFBOUND
B0UND
BOROUGH
OF
BROOK
BRooK
230-H-amilton
rBoundBrook,
St.
230
Hamilton St.
• Bound
NJ
Brook,
llu08805
OrgEOS
(732)
3r&0833.
Far:
(732) 356-0833
• Fax:
(732)
356-8990
G&*Csili,
lzszt
wuw.boundbrook
wviw.boundbrook-ni.org
ni.org
BOUND BROOK
1681
Robert
RotprtP.P.Fazen
Fazen
Mayor
tlayor
December12,2014
December
12, 2014
VIA ELECTROMC MIAIL: [email protected]
VIA
ELECTRONIC MAIL: [email protected]
John Paff
John Paff
P.O.Box 5424
P.O. Box
5424
Somerset,
NJ08875
08875
Somerset,
NJ
Re:OPRA
OPRA
Reerestr
Dated
November
Re:
Request,
Dated
November
25,ZS,ZO?.4
2014
Dear Mr. Paff:
Dear Mr.
Paff:
The undersigned
undersignedis
is the
theCustodian
custodianof
ofRecords
Recordsfor
The
Brook.
forthe
theBorough
BoroughofofBound
your
Bound
Brook.Your
open Public RecordsAct ("opRA"), N.J.S.A. 47:rA-r.r,
Open Public Records Act ("OPRA"), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. et
seq.,
request,
submitted
via
seq.,
request,submitte,d
via
clectonic mail sent on November 25, i} /'in 4:52 p.m. e!
electronic mail sent on November 25, 2014, at 4:52 p.m. (after
was
(afterthe
theclose ofoibusiness)
business)
was
received the Borough on November 26, 2014.
"to."
received by
by the Borough on November 26, 2014. Seven
days
from
that
date
was
sevenbusiness
trusiness
day,s
from
that
datr:
was
December 2014' on December5, 2014,the Borough
December 9'
9, 2014. On December 5, 2014, the Borough requested,
and
tolt:taa 2reqr"rested,
andyou
youconsented
consented
2weekextensionof time urithin which to respondto y'odrequest
week
extension of time within which to respond to your request for
the
following
records:
fo, tir" forrowirrg.""o.o*
I ' CAD
cAD entries/screenshots
sntries/screenshots
any calls
1.
cailsfor
for any
for service
serviceor
ordispatches
dispatches
related
to
anyincidents
incidentsinvolving
involving[Kimberly]
related to any
Charnuska
during
[Kimberly] charnuskaiuring
2014.
2014.
2'
incident,.reports
regarding all
2. Police
Police incident
reports regarding
involving
a' incidents
irncirrents
invorving
Charnuska
during
2014.
Charnuska during 2014.
publicRecords
pursuant
tothe
Please be advised that a request pursuant
to
Act,
theOpen
openPublic
F.ecords
Act,
a
r u [N.J.S.A.
, N
r ] . Jr. JS
. 4A
.
|]1]|*
47:1A-1 et seq. ("OPRA") must identify the records sought with specificity. Bart v. Passaic
County Pub. Hous. Agency, 406 N.J. Super. 445, 451 (App. Div. 2009). OPRA does not permit
open-ended requests for every document an agency has on file. Spectraserv, Inc. v. Middlesex
Cnty. Utilities Auth., 416 N.J. Super. 565, 576 (App. Div. 2010). OPRA "is not intended as a
research tool litigants may use to force government officials to identify and siphon useful
informetinn
r r ^
information."
" l\,,fAf] E'nra-r^i--^-4
375, N.J.
N.J.
information."
MAG Entertainment, LLC vs. Division of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375,
Super. 534, 546 (App. Div. 2005). As such, requests for "any and all" documents on a specific
subjectare consideredoverly broad.
subject are considered overly broad. B_eru
Bent vv. Stafford Twp. Police Dept., 381 N.J. Super. 30, 37
l';'::.*,,.:j:t:1,,,":1.:
*ii,r,specincity
Barr
v passaic
*1fr'rflTfl^,,:'T:.?40o
1u;,_11;Tlry'*:.T"?+.Ffrr
++s,
+sr-rnppli,r"
ibo6i;ffill
ffilJ|
Y-suqer. r'^onnL"
ffiru
f#-?ff1,::0ffii":1
i:Ty*:y":i.*-2s::?
s;'jj;i*,r!
Nffie
dif:i",pffi
s6s,
s7-6
oi".tilib:ffi;
repp.
'
.r'"l"Io"*in*a'rfiii'l'lrl"l
,***, Xl;iJ
ffiffi; 1"1
S"l*
:i :""'l.i i:tl't 4l'ffi
(App. Div. 2005). A custodian may reject a request that is overly broad or vague so as to prevent
prevent
identification of the records ,ought.
identification of the records sought. New Jersey Bui
Builders Ass'n v. New Jersey Council on
Affordable
AffordableHousing,
Housing,390
390lrl.J.
N.J.Super.
Super. 166,172
166, 172 (App.
(App. Div,
Div. Z00i;.
2007).
As
,,any/allincidents
requestsfor documents
Asaa preli*1lu'V
preliminarymatter,
matter, your
your requests
documentsinvolving
involving "any/all
inciclents
involving charnuska"are improp.i b""aus" they
withspecificitv,
specificity.ItItisis
involving Chamuska" are improper because theydo
donot
notidentiff
identify aa record
record with
')
{-\
unclearwhat
qualifies as
what qualifies
asian
an"incident"
"incident"ororwhat
whatdocuments
documents
rvouldqualify
qualiryasas
unclear
would
"involving"
"involving"Ms.
Ms.
Charnuska.As
result,there
theteisisno
noeffective
effectivemeans
meansofofsearching
searching
forsuch
Charnuska.
As aa result,
for
records
with
any
such
records
wiih any
certainty.These
Theserequests
requestsare
areoverly
overlybroad
broadand
andvague,
vague,requiring
requiringthe
thecustodian
custodian
certainty.
totoreview
every
review
every
documentin
in the
the Borough's
BorougJh's
filesand
andtotoguess
guess
whetherany
anydocuments
documentsare
document
files
whether
totoyour
areresponsive
responsive
your
request.
Your
requests
may
therefore
be
denied.
Notwithstandfung
theobjectionable
request. Your requests may therefore be denied. Notwithstanding
the
nature
ofof
objectionable
natu6e
yolu request,
request,and
and without
without waiving
waiving same,
same,the
theBound
BoundBrook
BrookPolice
Prolice
Deparbnentwas
your
Department
toto
wasable
able
identifu one
one CAD
CAD Incident
Incident Report
Reportarguably
arguablyresponsive
responsiveto
yout first
b your
firstrequest,
identify
and
related
request,
andone
one
rclated
police
investigation
report,
arguably
responsive
your
second
request.
police investigation report, arguably responsive totoyour second
request.
A copy
copyof
of CAD
CAD Incident
IrrcidentReport
Report##14194153
providedto
14194153
beingprovided
youininresponse
toyou
A
isisbeing
totoyour
1.1.
response
your
first request.
request.Please
Pleasenote
notethat
thatthe
followingredactions
thefollowing
redactions
havebeen
been
made
first
have
made
totothe
document:
the
document:
(a) Narrative
Narative Description:
Description:While
While the
theComputer
ComputerAided
AidcdDispatching
(CAD)records
Dtispatchirrg
(CAD)
are
(a)
rccord.s
are
generally accepted
goverrunentrecords
be,government
rccordssubject
subjcctto
todisclosure,
disclosure,the
generally
accepted to be
reporting
theBorough's
Borough's
reporting
softwarepermis
the investigating
investigating officers
officers to insert
inserlnotes
notcsrelevant
relevanttototheir
software
permits the
ofofa a
theirinvestigation
investigation
complaint.Those
notes,which
tvhich are
arenot
notrequired
requiredby
bylaw
lawtotobe
r:reated,
becreated,
are
complaint.
Those notes,
are
criminal
investigatory
criminal
investigatory
records.N.J.S.A,
47:1A-1.1.Therefore
Thereforethe
thenarrative
narrativedescription
descriptionhas
hasbeen
been
records.
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.
redacted
from
this
redacted
from
this
document,
document.
(b) The
Thc suspect's
suspect's
.Driver's
license
number
pursurnttotoN.J.S.A.
hasbeen
been
redacted
Driver's
license
number
has
redacted
pursuant
47:1A(b)
N,J.S.A.
4',1:lA(requiring
5(a)
redaction
of social
socialsecurity
rcarrC
securitynumbers,
numbers,credit
creditcard
numbers,
5(a) (requiring redaction of
numbers,
unlisted
telephone
unlisted
telephone
numbers,and
licen:se
anddriver
driver license
numbers).
numbers,
numbers).
(c) Identifying
Identiffing information
information regarding
regardingthe
thealleged
allegedvictim
victinnhas
hasbeen
totoprotect
the
beenredacted
redacted
(c)
proter:r
the
victim'sreasonable
reasonable
expectationof
privacy,N.J.S.A.
of privacy.
N.J,S.A.47:1A-1.
47:lA-1.The
Theneed
privacyisiiincreased
victim's
expectation
needfor
forprivacy
incn:ased
asthe
thealleged
is aa juvenile.
as
alleged victim
victim is
juvenile.
2,
The police
investigatoryreport
reportassociated
associated
theCAD
CAD Incident
IncidentReport
2.
The
police investigatory
with the
isis
Reporr##14194153
14194153
being
withheld
it
as
is
a
criminal
investigatory
record
not
sulrject
release
being withheld as it is a criminal investigatory record not subject totorelease
under
OPRA.
under
OlpRA.
N
.J.S.A
.47:1A-1,1.
N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1.1.
You
challengethe
thedecision
decisionto
to deny
denyaccess.
acceiss.
At your
youroption,
You have
have a right to challenge
At
option,you
youmay
mayeither
either
instirute
Superior Court
Court of
New Jersey
Jerseyor
or file
file a acomplaint
institute aa proceeding
proceedingirr
in the Superior
of New
complaintwith
withthe
the
Govemrnent
you
Government Records
Records Council
Council (GRC)
(GRC) by completing
completing the
the Denial
Denial of Access
Access Complaint
ComplaintForm.
Form.You
may
ttoll-freetelephone
telephoneat
at866-850-0511,
866-850-051
I , by
by mail
:mailatatP.O.
P.O.Box
may contact
contact the
the GRC by toll-free
Box819,
819,Trenton,
Trenton,
NJ,
NJ, 08625,
08625, by
by e-mail
e-mail at g'[email protected],
[email protected] , or
or at
at their
their web
web site
site at www.state.nj.us/grc.
www.state.nj.us/grc . The
The GRC
GRC
can
also
answer
other
questions
about
the
law.
questic,ns
All
regardingcomplaints filed
can also answer other questions
law. All questions regarding
fiL:dinin
"ompLints
Superior
rJirected
be directed
to the
theCourt
CourtClerk
yourCounty.
Clerkin
inyour
County.
Superior Court
Court should
should be
to
Very
Very truly
truly yours,
yours,
.dtagh,o1 '
7?-.)
h^-Ttn+gM'
Donna
Donna Marie
Marie Godleshi,
Godleski, RMC
Bound
Bound Ilrook
Brook Borough
Borough Clerk
a
J
MainFoun
Main Form
Page
I ofI of3
3
Pagc
SOMERSE|T
COUNTY
COMM
SOMERSET
COUNTY
COMM
soMmvILL,E,
SOMERVILLE, NJNJ
CADIncident
IncidentReport
Report#14194153
#14194[53
CAD
%
Incldontlnforrnadon
Incident
Information
-LAU
CAD 0
----„
'
t4t94153
14194153
lnddcar Typt
Incident Type
8OISUSPINCIDENT
801 SUSP
INCIDENT
Eru Lrvrl
Ems Level
uc"ct
l,tlrn Level
Alarm
I
I
;-oo-F Date
Incident
Call Taker
ongn0l{07:55:25
07:55:25
10/29/2014
b25201
t252Ql
Descrlpdon
!.rcrhdo!
Priority
Prlorltv
2z
'
ModlnrdBy
Br
Modified
Modified
HodlflodDate
Drrc
b2520t
b25201
10/29/2014
14:09:12
ilngn0W
l4:09:12
Event Informafion
Event Information
MllldEllrv
Bullna Name
Nrmr
Business
Municipality
J
'
4 BOUNDBROOKBOR
4 BOUND BROOK
BOR
BOUND
BOUND
BROOK
BROOI(HIGH
HIOHSCHOOL
SCHOOi
Flrr Bor
Fire Box
RA
RA
Corrcct Loctdon
401
401
---
401
401
_
qO-UNDBROOK}IIGH SICHOOL
IIW
WUNION
U M O NAVE
AVE
BOUND BROOK
HIGH SCHOOL // 111
Correct Location
cb.!
Street #
rI I
111
Nerr
-l--
tElcl
Nrltlc
Street
Name
Aprrtrnclt #il Cross
Apartment
CrorrStreet
Strcct
uxtoNAVE
evr
lw
W UNION
Near
MNSOR ST TO LIVINGSTONST
WINSOR ST TO LIVINGSTON ST
ttoportngPergon
Reporting Person
RPNmr
RP Name
oALLACHE& DAl.f
GALLAGHER, DAN
RP Ad&clr
RP Address
Lrldolrlr
Landmarks
hdrtrrro..r
Additional
-RPPbonr
RP
Phone
How
llow Received
ltocdhcd
732-356-2s00
732-356-2500
RADIO
RADIO
O-.C
Closed Sy
By
Date Closed
DrrcCbrd
b25201
b25201
10/29/2014 0E:22:06
08:22:06
l0nSrn0l4
Incidents
Incidents
Agency Name
BBP-PD
Incident Number
14015054
Incident
Incident Types
Types
Dispatch Class
Incident Type
AMBULANCE
FIRE/RESCUE
POLICE
SUSP INCIDENT
hW | | 0. t,40.I SUeED// adpartner/cad97/cadincvieWmain
jsp?agenslEsMR_CC
hrtp://10.1.40.150/QED//cadpartner/cad97/cadincview/main.jsp?agencr.SMR-CC
uti
I
11/26/2014
nn6tz$t4
Main Form
Page
2 of
3
Pagc
2iof3
Main Form
Note(s)
Note(s)
Note Type
CALL -TKR
Narrative Description
3Entered By
l0n9l20l4l4:09:12
10/29/201414:09:12
User ID
b2520 I
-
Percon(s)
Person(s)
Psnsonr 1 SUSPECT
Persons 1 SUSPECT
Last Name
First Name
Middk Name
CHARNIJSKA
KIMBERLY
L
Street 0
Street
City
State
339
CODRINGTON PL. BOUND BROOK NJ
DOB
Phone
Mai ft
MIN
03/03/1990
Lie Status
Lie Exp
Zip Code
Lie tO
Lie State
08805
41111111111111111111111
NJ
Uc Cb
Lie Rest
SSN
Persons 2 VICTIM
Mid N
Street I
Last Name
mow
^ Street
First Name
Middle Name
City
State
1111
DOB
Phone
Zip Code
Lie N
Lie State
Lie Status
Lie Exit
Lie as
Lie Rest
SSN
Personl 3 REpORnilc P|ERSON
Persons 3 REPORTING PIERSON
Mel N
Last Name
First Name
GALLAGHER
Street lt
Strom
111
WEST UNION
AVENUE
DOB
Phone
Lie States
DAN
City
State
BOUND
BROOK
NJ
Zip Code
Lk ti
Lie State
Lie
Ra t
SSN
'
.
Middle Name
732-356-2500
08805
Lie Exp
Lk Cb
httptll0'1.40.1So/QEDI/cadparbcr/cad97lcadincvicdmainjsp?agcncrisMR-cc
&incn... ttn6n0t4
I 1/26/2014
h ttp://10.1.40.150/QED//cadpattner/cad97/cadincview/mainj sp?agency=SM R-CC
&inm...
)
Main Form
Page
3 of
3
Page
3 of3
Main Form
Officersand
andUnits
Ufnits
Officers
CAD Units
Agent), Name
Unit ID
Personnel Id
Meer Name
BBP-PD
BBP-PD
I3B24
I3B27
24
27
RIVIENI3ARK, K
MAZUERA, J
UnitStatuses
Statuses
Unit
CAD Units
Unit ID
Status
Date/Tbne
Avail?
BB24
BB27
BB27
BB24
BB27
BB24
DISP
DISP
ONLOC
ONLOC
CLEAR
_CLEAR
07:56:13
07:56:14
07:56:23
07:56:25
08:22:04
08:22:06
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Location
Dbm ID
b25201
b25201
b25201
b25201
b25201
b25201
_
Dispositions
Dispositions
Dispositions
Disposition
Type
.Incident Report?
POLICE (CLR) CLEAR INCIDENT
Accident Report?
—.
Due By
RIVENBARK, K
lf,t.
't
a
I ' r ,
http://10.1.40.150/eED//cartpartncr/cad97/cadincvicw/mainjsp?agenrcy=_SMR_CC
&incn... nn6nOV
11/26/2014
http ://10.1.40.150/QED//cadpartner/cad97/cadincvi ew/main.j sp?agencr---S MR-CC
&incn...
v
Richard Gutman - 001081996
Richard Gutman, P.C.
9 Prescott Avenue
Montclair, NJ 07042-5029
973-744-6038 (voice & fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff John Paff
____________________________________
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
JOHN PAFF,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
SOMERSET COUNTY
DOCKET NO. SOM-L-72-15
Civil Action
CERTIFICATION OF JOHN PAFF
Plaintiff John Paff, of full age, certifies as follows:
1.
I am a lifelong resident of New Jersey and currently reside at 1605 Amwell Road,
Somerset (Franklin Township), Somerset County, New Jersey.
2.
I have served as the Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open
Government Advocacy Project since 2005. I have also served on the Board of Directors of the
New Jersey Foundation for Open Government, Inc. (NJFOG) since 2008 and currently serve as
its treasurer.
3.
I am considered an authority on the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the
Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). On October 24, 2014, I was awarded the “Heroes of the
Fifty States” award at the National Freedom of Information Coalition's (NFOIC) Freedom of
Information Summit in St. Petersburg, Florida.
4.
My avocation is holding New Jersey government officials accountable. I began
this pursuit in 1992 when I investigated deceased Somerset County Prosecutor Nicholas L.
Bissell's use of asset forfeiture laws to seize property and money from sometimes innocent
parties. See, e.g. "Bissell bows to group on forfeiture's audit," Star-Ledger, Joe Tyrrell, June 3,
1992 and "Forfeiture flap triggers harsh words," Times of Trenton, Adam Miller, November 8,
1993.
5.
After the enactment of the Open Public Record Act (OPRA) in 2002, I became
active in pushing the new law's boundaries and testing its contours. I have been the a plaintiff in
eight published court opinions: Paff and Asbury Park Press v. County of Monmouth, 406 N.J.
Super. 1 (App. Div. 2009, aff'd 201 N.J. 5 (2010); Paff v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor, Bd. of
Review, 379 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 2005); Paff v. Byrnes, 385 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div.
2006); Libertarian Party of Cent. New Jersey and Paff v. Murphy, 384 N.J. Super. 136 App. Div.
2006); Paff v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor, 392 N.J. Super. 334 (App. Div. 2007); Paff v. City of
East Orange, 407 N.J. Super. 221 (App. Div. 2009); Paff v. Division of Law, 412 N.J. Super. 140
(App. Div. 2010); Paff v. New Jersey State Firemen's Ass'n, 431 N.J. Super. 278 (App. Div. 2013)
and Paff v. Director, Office of Attorney Ethics, 399 N.J. Super. 632, (Law Div. 2007). I have
also been a plaintiff in several other unpublished trial and appellate court decisions.
6.
Since 2009, I have maintained a blog entitled "NJ Open Government Notes"
(njopengovt.blogspot.com) where I report on OPRA and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)
court cases and other matters involving New Jersey government transparency. As of January
2015, I have posted more than 450 articles on this blog.
7.
Since 2008, I have maintained a blog entitled "NJ Civil Settlements"
(njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com) where I report on civil settlements entered into between citizen
plaintiffs and New Jersey government agencies and officials. As of January 2015, I have posted
more than 295 articles on this blog.
8.
In addition to "NJ Open Government Notes" and "NJ Civil Settlements," I also
publish "Random note on NJ government" (njrandomgovt.blogspot.com), "NJ Police Internal
Affairs Complaints" (njpoliceia.blogspot.com) "What's happening in Englewood Cliffs Borough"
2
(englewoodcliffs.blogspot.com) and the "Fairfield Township Informant"
(fairfieldinformant.blogspot.com).
9.
During my 20+ years of advocating for greater transparency in government and
accountability for government officials, I have developed relationships with dozens of journalists
throughout New Jersey. I am recognized as a worthy news source by these journalists and the
stories I post on my various blogs are often picked up by the mainstream media.
10.
In 2014 alone, my blog posts and other avenues of public advocacy caused
approximately fifty news articles to be published. Among them are "Camden ordered to turn
over police overtime records," South Jersey Times, Jason Laday, January 3, 2014; "Medford
settles suit for $83,000," Burlington County Times, Peg Quann, February 26, 2014; "Cliffside
Park Chief's Payout Larger Than Acknowledged," The Record, Linh Tat, March 6, 2014;
"Hamilton school district ordered to pay court fees for man in OPRA case," The Times of
Trenton, Mike Davis, June 7, 2014; "Medford tight-lipped on investigation," Burlington County
Times, Alexis Sachdev, August 13, 2014; "N.J. Facing more suits for release of documents,"
Herald News, Stephanie Akin, August 13, 2014; Activist: Don't let Perth Amboy BOE pay hush
money," Home News Tribune, Sergio Bichao, September 8, 2014; "Judge: Police Dashboard
Videos Are Public Records," Star Ledger, Christopher Baxter, October 14, 2014 and "Names of
Cops who are subject To Internal Affairs Complaints are Public Record, Judge Rules," Star
Ledger, Christopher Baxter, October 17, 2014.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
January 26, 2015
________________________
John Paff
3
Richard Gutman - 001081996
Richard Gutman, P.C.
9 Prescott Avenue
Montclair, NJ 07042-5029
973-744-6038 (voice & fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff John Paff
____________________________________
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
JOHN PAFF,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
SOMERSET COUNTY
DOCKET NO. SOM-L-72-15
Civil Action
CERTIFICATION OF
RICHARD M. GUTMAN
I, Richard M. Gutman, of full age, certifies as follows:
1.
I am attorney for John Paff.
2.
I mailed the attached letter to Ms. Charnuska on January 29, 2015, with the stated
enclosures.
3.
The attached letter is a true copy and has not been redacted, changed, modified,
adjusted or otherwise altered in any manner by my agents or me.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
January 29, 2015
________________________
Richard M. Gutman