Dear Resident:

The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office is in receipt of the below record
request.  The request is denied at this time, for the following reasons:

1.) Our search has disclosed no case that matches the case identifiers
that you have provided, which are limited to defendant's name plus
sentencing date.  We had only one criminal case where the named individual
was charged.  That case was dismissed before adjudication, for reason of
the defendant's death.  We have no file where the named individual was
sentenced, on May 1, 2015 or any other date.  Therefore the request is
denied for lack of responsive records.  If it was your intent to request
records from the file on which Mr. Chapnick was charged, please file an
amended request using case number 14-1529 as the identifier.

2.) The request for "all reports/documents/records pertaining to the
following defendant" is invalid as overbroad and generalized.    "OPRA
does not countenance wholesale requests for general information or
open-ended demands for every document a public agency has on file. 
Rather, OPRA requests a party requesting access to a public record to
specifically describe the document sought."  Spectraserv, Inc. v.
Middlesex Cty Utls. Auth., 416 N.J. Super. 565, 576, 578 (App. Div. 2010);
see also Bent v. Township of Stafford Police Dep't, 381 N.J. Super. 30,
33-34, 37 (App. Div. 2005) (request for entire criminal file held invalid;
OPRA does not "authorize a party to make a blanket request for every
document a public agency has on file [and] does not authorize unbridled
searches of an agency’s property").  Additionally, a request for "any
relevant" reports "pertaining" to a defendant is invalid because it
requires subjective judgment; the custodian is left to guess -- "relevant"
how, to what?  See Paff v. Galloway Twp, 229 N.J. 340, 355 (2017) (an OPRA
"request should not require the records custodian to undertake a
subjective analysis to understand the nature of the request").  Even if
your request did identify a particular file that is in our possession
(which, as stated, it does not) – a request for “all
reports/documents/records” contained therein would be subject to denial as
overbroad.

3.) Insofar as the request is made under the common law, "unlike a
citizen's absolute statutory right of access [under OPRA], a plaintiff's
common-law right of access must be balanced against the State's interest
in preventing disclosure.  The common law right of access involves a
two-step inquiry.  First, a litigant must establish an interest in the
public record.... Once the first step has been satisfied, then, to gain
access, a plaintiff's interest in disclosure of the relevant documents
must outweigh the State's interest in non-disclosure."  Education Law Ctr
v. New Jersey Dep’t of Educ., 198 N.J. 274, 302-03 (2009) (emphasis
added). Thus, the standard makes clear that, to gain access under the
common law, you must first establish an interest in the requested
record(s).  You have not done so.  Your request does not even identify who
you are, let alone a legitimate interest in any records in a criminal case
in which Mr. Chapnick was a defendant.  As such, your common law request
is insufficient and subject to denial on its face.

Should you choose to re-submit an amended request to address the issues
cited herein, and you continue to want “global subject activity reports”
and “criminal information forms,” please explain what those documents are.
 I am unfamiliar with records identified by those names.  Please also
clarify/specify your request for “affidavits” so that I can readily
determine whether the record is accessible versus exempt from disclosure. 
See New Jersey Builders Ass’n v. New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing,
390 N.J. Super. 166, 176-78 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 190 N.J. 394
(2007).

Respectfully,

Mary Juliano

Assistant Prosecutor

show quoted sections

Thank you for your response.

You do not need to submit a separate email. The below clarification is fine.

I had not reviewed the request or AP Bycsek's response, but my Office routinely provides the documents that she did, in response to OPRA requests for them.
Your original request was different; it was for "all reports/documents/records," not limited to the specific records that Ms. Bycsek provided.

Additionally, the reference in my email to your identification as "Resident" pertained to your request under the common law, not under OPRA. Unlike OPRA, the common law takes into account the status of the person that is requesting access to records and the reason for the request. K.LO. v. Evesham Twp Bd. of Educ., 423 N.J. Super. 337, 359-60 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 210 N.J. 108 (2012). You are free to withhold your identity and your interest in the records that you are seeking; this will affect your right of access under the common law, not under OPRA.

I will process your amended request within the normal 7 business days permitted by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i)(1).

show quoted sections

Dear Resident:

Attached please find records responsive to the below amended OPRA request.

I understand the request for "MVA reports" to refer to New Jersey Police
Crash Investigation Reports, which are non-exempt public records subject
to release under OPRA.  North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Township of
Lyndhurst, 441 N.J. Super. 70, 107 (App. Div. 2015), aff'd in part, rev'd
in part, 229 N.J. 541 (2017).  I have attached both of those reports from
our file, with driver's license and license plate numbers redacted as
confidential personal identifiers pursuant to R. 1:38-3(a) and N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1.1.  If your request for "MVA reports" was intended differently or
more expansively, please provide that clarification.

Social security, driver's license, and phone numbers are redacted from the
arrest report and complaint-warrant, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1

Driver's license and license plate numbers are redacted from
complaint-summonses 109396, 109397, and 109398  in accordance with R.
1:38-3(a) and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

I understand your request for “affidavits of probable cause” to refer to
the affidavit commonly used to support issuance of a criminal complaint. 
Our file in this matter does not contain such an affidavit of probable
cause and does not contain a preliminary law enforcement incident report;
requests for both therefore are denied for lack of responsive records. 

Respectfully,

Mary Juliano

Assistant Prosecutor

show quoted sections