Dear Morris County Prosecutor's Office,
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:
1) Copies of all complaints/summonses, DWI paperwork, arrest reports, and any other reports made on the arrest of Somerset County Prosecutor's Office Chief of Detectives Francisco "Frank" Roman Jr.
2) Copies of all recordings of the aforementioned arrest including bodyworn camera recordings, MVR recordings, police radio transmissions, and any 911 call recordings that may exist.
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. Feel free to contact me at 732-993-9697 to make arrangements for providing the records.
Yours faithfully,
Charlie Kratovil
Dear Morris County Prosecutor's Office,
Please confirm if you received my request.
Yours faithfully,
Charlie Kratovil
Mr. Kratovil,
Your request has been received and is being processed.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Schmid
Assistant Prosecutor || Custodian of Records
Morris County Prosecutor’s Office
P.O. Box 900 – 10 Court Street
Morristown, NJ 07963
(973) 829-8217
[1][email address]
Dear Mr. Kratovil:
Please find attached to this email our Office's reply to your above referenced OPRA request.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Schmid
Assistant Prosecutor || Custodian of Records
Morris County Prosecutor's Office
P.O. Box 900 - 10 Court Street
Morristown, NJ 07963
(973) 829-8217
[email address]
Mr. Schmid:
You state that the video of a DWI arrest is exempt under the BWC Law and the common law, so this is a shocking response. The provision you cite exempts a video only if was required “solely and exclusively” because of Subsection (j)(2)(a) or (c). But Subsection (j)(3)(a) would also apply because the BWC “records information that may be subject to discovery in a prosecution”—Roman is going to get these videos in his DWI prosecution and you yourself stated you’re maintaining them as evidence in a prosecution.
Additionally, Subsection (j)(3), the BWC records an incident that is subject to an internal affairs complaint, because an IA matter would have unequivocally been opened against Roman upon his arrest. Therefore there are at least two other provisions of the BWC Law that require the videos to be maintained beyond the 180 days and the exemption you cite is inapplicable because Subsection (j)(2)(a) and (c) are not the “sole and exclusive” reasons the video is maintained.
Putting that aside, it is shocking that you’d make any claim that the video is not accessible under the common law. Body cam videos are always released. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office, 250 N.J. 124 (2022) and North Jersey Media Group Inc v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017) make it very clear that there is an extremely high interest in access to records, especially videos, that shine a light on the conduct of police and that the public’s interest outweighs the need for confidentiality. Regarding the Lyndhurst decision, the language you quote is regarding investigative reports, not video footage. As to video footage, the Court compelled disclosure. Indeed, that is why dash camera videos are routinely disclosed under the common law after an incident.
There is no basis for you to withhold these videos and we will sue if you do not release them. Efforts to deny access to records like these would seem to suggest special treatment being given to a high-ranking law enforcement officer who is being prosecuted after crashing a government vehicle into parked cars. Why not provide transparency about this case instead of engaging in obfuscation and secrecy?
Respectfully,
Charlie Kratovil
Dear Mr. Kratovil,
I have received your correspondence objecting to our position regarding the BWC footage. I will review your objection and respond early next week.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Schmid
Assistant Prosecutor || Custodian of Records
Morris County Prosecutor's Office
P.O. Box 900 - 10 Court Street
Morristown, NJ 07963
(973) 829-8217
[email address]
Dear Mr. Schmid,
If you responded further (since your May 1 message), I did not receive it. I was expecting to hear from you regarding my objection early in the week of May 4, but have received no further communications.
Yours sincerely,
Charlie Kratovil
Following up again for a final response to my request. What is the status? I consider the request held open until you update your response.
Yours sincerely,
Charlie Kratovil
Dear Mr. Kravovil,
Our position remains the same as when we initially responded to your
request.
Most significantly, at the time of your request release of BWC footage was
exempt from production as information it would jeopardize investigation
which remained in progress. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(b). Additionally, the New
Jersey Supreme Court has concluded that early disclosure of records
containing details of an incident “will often be “inimical to the public
interest,”” and thus, would be an impediment to the state’s constitutional
obligation to investigate and prosecute responsible parties for their
alleged criminal conduct. N.J.S.A. 47:1A–3. N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v.
Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541, 574 (2017) (citing N.J.S.A. 47:1A–3). The
Government Records Council issued a decision agreeing that “BWC recordings
are exempt from disclosure [when] they pertain to an ongoing investigation
… and that disclosure of such records would be inimical to the public
interest because such disclosure would pose a significant risk of witness
taint and potentially inhibit the public interest in a thorough and
reliable investigation.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(a).” Scott Madlinger v Barnegat
Township, GRC Complaint No. 2022-678 (May 20, 2025).
In your email response, you suggested that the footage should be
accessible because an analysis of the Rivera factors concerning a law
enforcement officer’s conduct would favor release. At this time, the
analysis of these factors is premature, for when there are allegations
that potentially involve the commission of criminal conduct by an officer,
an internal affairs investigation and possible discipline is not made
until the criminal investigation, and prosecution if the officer is
charged, has concluded.
Finally, our position that the footage the is exempt from production under
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(l) is fully explained in our response and remains
unchanged.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Schmid
Assistant Prosecutor
Morris County Prosecutor’s Office
P.O. Box 900 – 10 Court Street
Morristown, NJ 07963
(973) 829-8217
RE: MCPO OPRA Request Number 26-0075
Dear Mr. Kratovil:
The following records are being provided and are responsive to your
request:
1. Body-worn Camera Videos (8 MP4 files).
Note: Personal identifying information redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1 and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(a). Information related to individuals’
reasonable expectation of privacy redacted pursuant to Burnett v. Cty. of
Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 423 (2009); see N.J.S.A 47:1A-1.
Due to the file size, the responsive records cannot be attached to this
email.
You may download the responsive records at the following link:
[1]https://morriscountynj-my.sharepoint.com...
This OPRA request is now considered answered and closed.
• Meghan Knab
From: Schmid, Thomas <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 2:17 PM
To: Charlie Kratovil
<[OPRA #89237 email]>
Cc: Knab, Meghan G. <[email address]>
Subject: RE: OPRA request - Frank Roman DWI Arrest -- MCPO OPRA Request
Number 26-0075
Dear Mr. Kravovil,
Our position remains the same as when we initially responded to your
request.
Most significantly, at the time of your request release of BWC footage was
exempt from production as information it would jeopardize investigation
which remained in progress. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(b). Additionally, the New
Jersey Supreme Court has concluded that early disclosure of records
containing details of an incident “will often be “inimical to the public
interest,”” and thus, would be an impediment to the state’s constitutional
obligation to investigate and prosecute responsible parties for their
alleged criminal conduct. N.J.S.A. 47:1A–3. N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v.
Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541, 574 (2017) (citing N.J.S.A. 47:1A–3). The
Government Records Council issued a decision agreeing that “BWC recordings
are exempt from disclosure [when] they pertain to an ongoing investigation
… and that disclosure of such records would be inimical to the public
interest because such disclosure would pose a significant risk of witness
taint and potentially inhibit the public interest in a thorough and
reliable investigation.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(a).” Scott Madlinger v Barnegat
Township, GRC Complaint No. 2022-678 (May 20, 2025).
In your email response, you suggested that the footage should be
accessible because an analysis of the Rivera factors concerning a law
enforcement officer’s conduct would favor release. At this time, the
analysis of these factors is premature, for when there are allegations
that potentially involve the commission of criminal conduct by an officer,
an internal affairs investigation and possible discipline is not made
until the criminal investigation, and prosecution if the officer is
charged, has concluded.
Finally, our position that the footage the is exempt from production under
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(l) is fully explained in our response and remains
unchanged.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Schmid
Assistant Prosecutor
Morris County Prosecutor’s Office
P.O. Box 900 – 10 Court Street
Morristown, NJ 07963
(973) 829-8217
[2][email address]