Dear Cranford Township,

Please accept this electronic request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form or use a particular software platform to submit my request per NJSA 47:1A-5(f), which states that an email from a requestor including all of the information required on the adopted form shall suffice in place of a completed form as a valid government record request.

I HAVE NOT been convicted of any indictable offense under the laws of New Jersey, any other state, or the United States.

I WILL NOT use the requested government records for a commercial purpose.

I AM NOT seeking records in connection with a legal proceeding.

Records requested:

I would like a copy of all body warn cameras from all officers at the town council meeting on April 21, 2026

I would like a copy the signed oath of office paperwork for each council member and Mayor for the current year 2026.

My preferred delivery method for response(s) to this request is by E-mail as attachments. Please confirm you have received this request. If you are not the custodian of records, please forward my request to that person and provide their email address to me for future reference.

Yours faithfully,

William Bailey

Dear Stiansen, Thomas,

Date: April 24, 2026

Records Custodian

Cranford Township Police Department

Re: Appeal of Denial of OPRA Request for Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Video Footage – Internal Affairs Investigation Launched After Footage Creation

OPRA Request

Dear Records Custodian:

I am William Bailey, the requester in the above-referenced OPRA request for body-worn camera (BWC) video footage from the Cranford Township Police Department. I am a private citizen and member of the public. Your denial of my request, based on an internal affairs (IA) investigation that was launched after the BWC footage was created, is improper under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., the Body Worn Camera Law (BWCL), N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.3 to -118.5, and controlling New Jersey case law. I respectfully demand immediate release of the responsive BWC footage (with any lawful, narrowly tailored redactions) no later than seven (7) business days from receipt of this letter.
Statutory Basis for Disclosure
BWC recordings are “government records” subject to disclosure under OPRA. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. The BWCL expressly provides that BWC recordings are subject to public inspection under OPRA, subject only to the narrow, enumerated exemptions in N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(l). Those exemptions apply only to recordings that fall into specific retention categories (e.g., those not subject to the minimum three-year retention period or additional retention requirements under subsection (j), or certain complaint-based recordings where the subject has requested nondisclosure).
Your denial appears to rely on the general “investigation in progress” exemption in OPRA, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(a). That provision states:

“where it shall appear that the record or records which are sought to be inspected, copied, or examined shall pertain to an investigation in progress by any public agency, the right of access … may be denied if the inspection, copying or examination of such record or records shall be inimical to the public interest; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed to allow any public agency to prohibit access to a record of that agency that was open for public inspection, examination, or copying before the investigation commenced.” (emphasis added).

The BWC footage at issue was created before any IA investigation was launched. It therefore existed and was “open for public inspection” (as a government record maintained by the Department) prior to the investigation. The ongoing-investigation exemption does not apply to pre-existing records. See also N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541, 573-74 (2017) (custodian bears the burden to prove both that the records pertain to an ongoing investigation and that disclosure would be inimical to the public interest; the exemption is narrowly construed).
Moreover, under the BWCL, when BWC footage records an incident that later becomes the subject of an IA complaint, the recording “shall be kept pending final resolution of the internal affairs investigation and any resulting administrative action.” N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(j)(3)(c). This retention obligation confirms the footage’s status as a government record subject to OPRA; it does not create an additional exemption beyond those expressly listed in N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(l). The IA-related retention does not trigger automatic nondisclosure.

Relevant New Jersey Case Law:

New Jersey courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to withhold BWC footage on the basis of a post-creation IA investigation. In the recent Appellate Division decision involving citizen-requester Steven Wronko (Borough of Spotswood v. Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, et al., A-3457-23 (App. Div. Mar. 5, 2026)), the court addressed BWC recordings where an IA complaint was lodged after the footage was created. The court held:

The recordings were government records under OPRA because they were maintained for purposes of the IA investigation.
The BWCL’s destruction provision (N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(r)) does not override disclosure obligations.

IA-related retention under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(j)(3)(c) requires preservation, not withholding.

No blanket exemption applies; the custodian must evaluate discrete redactions under other OPRA exceptions (if any) rather than deny access outright.

The court reversed the trial court’s denial and remanded for a targeted redaction process. This directly mirrors your denial rationale. Other Wronko decisions reinforce OPRA’s broad construction in favor of access (e.g., Wronko v. Township of Jackson, A-5127-15 (App. Div. Dec. 12, 2017) (rejecting overly broad denials)).

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Fuster v. Township of Chatham, 259 N.J. 533 (2025), further confirms expansive public access to BWC footage under OPRA. The Court rejected pre-OPRA judicial confidentiality doctrines for uncharged individuals and held that BWCL exemptions are narrow and supplementary to—rather than overriding—OPRA’s framework. While Fuster involved a different exemption theory (privacy of uncharged subjects), it underscores that BWC recordings are presumptively disclosable absent an express statutory exemption.
Demand for Release and Next Steps

The burden is on the custodian to prove that a denial is lawful. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. You have not met that burden. I request that you immediately release the BWC footage, applying only lawful, narrowly tailored redactions (if any) under OPRA or BWCL. If you believe discrete portions require redaction, please provide a detailed explanation and the redacted version.

If you do not release the records within seven (7) business days, I will file a complaint with the Government Records Council (GRC) and/or pursue a Superior Court action seeking access, attorney’s fees, and costs. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6; 47:1A-11.
Thank you for your prompt attention. I look forward to receiving the records without further delay. Please contact me at the above phone number or email with any questions or to confirm receipt.
Sincerely,
William Bailey
Requester
cc: [Optional: Cranford Township Clerk; Mayor; Township Attorney]
This letter constitutes my formal appeal of the denial and preserves all rights under OPRA, the BWCL, and New Jersey law.