.

Defense Digest

Just Because You Expunge a Record Does Not Mean Internal Affairs Records Are Not Subject to an Open Public Records Act Request

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024

December 1, 2024

by Matthew J. Behr

Key Points: 

  • New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2C:52-1(a) protects records of expunged criminal charges from disclosure. 
  • In States Newsroom, Inc. v. City of Jersey City, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, determined how far an expungement order reaches when a separate, independent, Internal Affairs investigation has occurred.
  • The Appellate Division held that the trial court should have analyzed the facts of the case to determine if there was common law right of access to the records, suggesting that the public would have an interest in disclosure and transparency.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2C:52-1(a) protects records of expunged criminal charges from disclosure, namely: “[r]ecords on file within any court, detention or correctional facility, law enforcement or criminal justice agency concerning a person’s detection, apprehension, arrest, detention, trial or disposition of an offense within the criminal justice system.” The question recently presented in States Newsroom, Inc. v. City of Jersey City, 2024 WL 4296597 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Sept. 26, 2024), was how far an expungement order reaches when a separate, independent Internal Affairs investigation has occurred. The Appellate Division concluded the expungement statute does not unequivocally exclude Internal Affairs documents from release pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right to access. 

In August 2019, a lieutenant with the Jersey City Police Department hosted a barbeque for friends and family at his home. At the end of the party, there was an argument about what to do with leftovers. The fight escalated when the lieutenant retrieved his shotgun from a locked safe inside his home and then discharged the weapon. 

State Police responded to the house and found the lieutenant’s girlfriend and her son restraining him. The State Police incident report noted the lieutenant appeared to be under the influence. Police charged the lieutenant with making terroristic threats and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. The lieutenant pled guilty to a lesser charge and completed pre-trial intervention.
 
Afterwards, he sent notice to all relevant agencies to expunge their records of his criminal matter pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:52-1. Separately, the Jersey City Police Department conducted an Internal Affairs investigation into the incident. The Internal Affairs report concluded the lieutenant had negligently used a firearm while under the influence. Consequently, the Jersey City Police Department suspended the lieutenant for 90 days. 

In Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office, 250 N.J. 124, 135 (2022), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Internal Affairs reports can be accessed pursuant to a common law right of access. 

Based on Rivera, the plaintiff submitted an OPRA request for a copy of the Internal Affairs report from the defendants, who denied the request. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit seeking the Internal Affairs documents pursuant to OPRA and the common law right to access. The trial judge denied the request. Relying upon the expungement statute, the trial judge found Rivera inapplicable to the facts of this case. 

The common law right of access requires courts to consider the following: 

  1. the extent to which disclosure will impede agency functions by discouraging citizens from providing information to the government; 
  2. the effect disclosure may have upon persons who have given such information, and whether they did so in reliance that their identities would not be disclosed; 
  3. the extent to which agency self-evaluation, program improvement, or other decision making will be chilled by disclosure; 
  4. the degree to which the information sought includes factual data as opposed to evaluative reports of policymakers; 
  5. whether any findings of public misconduct have been insufficiently corrected by remedial measures instituted by the investigative agency; and 
  6. whether any agency disciplinary or investigatory proceedings have arisen that may circumscribe the individual’s asserted need for the materials. 

Rivera, 250 N.J. at 144 (quoting Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 113 (1986)).

Generally, the public has an interest in the disclosure of Internal Affairs reports in order to hold officers accountable and deter misconduct. Other reasons are to ensure the Internal Affairs process is working properly and to foster public trust in law enforcement. 

The Appellate Division reversed and remanded this case, holding that the trial court should have analyzed the facts of the case by applying Rivera and Loigman. While the Appellate Division did not decide the ultimate issue of whether the Internal Affairs records would be discoverable, the court did strongly suggest that it would appear that the lieutenant’s position, the misconduct he engaged in outside the scope of his work, the charges he faced, the subsequent guilty plea to a different offense and pre-trial intervention, and the Internal Affairs investigation generated in the aftermath, point to the fact the public would have an interest in disclosure and transparency. The court further required the trial judge to review the Internal Affairs report in camera and, if a determination is made for disclosure, the appropriate redactions to protect legitimate confidential information should be made.

While New Jersey generally favors disclosure of public documents, case law has made it clear that the courts must carefully review all of the factors set forth in Rivera and Loigman to determine whether Internal Affairs documents are subject to disclosure, whether an expungement order has been entered or not. As a result, whether disclosure will ultimately be ordered will be highly fact sensitive, and lawyers must be careful not to overreach in arguments, but provide the courts with practical reasons for non-disclosure. 

*Matt, a shareholder, is a member of our Professional Liability Department and works in our Mount Laurel, New Jersey, office. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.