Dear Ocean County,
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. Operations Reports and Use of Force Reports

All Operations Reports, Use of Force Reports, incident reports, memoranda, or similar written
records relating to the alleged February 15, 2024 incident involving Patricia Baranyay and Nina
Charlton-Hagen, including but not limited to reports authored by:
• Lt. Chantanette Ketelaar
• Any Center Control Officers assigned at the time of the incident
• Any supervisors or responding personnel
• Any members assigned to or working within Program Services
This request includes all versions, drafts, supplements, or subsequently generated reports relating
to that incident.

2. Program Services Records and Communications

All records, reports, memoranda, notes, or communications created by, sent to, or received by
Program Services personnel relating to the incident, including but not limited to:
• Internal Program Services reports or summaries
• Emails or written communications
• Notes, logs, or documentation maintained within Program Services
• Any communications between Program Services staff and custody staff, supervisors, or
administration

3. Internal Affairs Copies and Files

All copies of the above-referenced reports and Program Services records maintained by or
transmitted to Internal Affairs, including but not limited to:
• Internal Affairs intake records
• Case files
• Investigative files
• Attachments or supporting documentation
This request includes any record reflecting receipt, review, or retention of such reports or
communications by Internal Affairs.

4. Internal Affairs Identification
Records sufficient to identify any Internal Affairs matter associated with this incident,
including:

• Any Internal Affairs case associated with this incident
• Case number
• Date opened
• Date closed
• Final disposition (e.g., unfounded, not sustained, exonerated, sustained)

5. Routing, Distribution, and Tracking Records

Any and all records reflecting the routing, distribution, receipt, logging, or tracking of
Operations Reports, Use of Force Reports, or Program Services records relating to this incident,
including but not limited to:
• Internal Affairs intake logs
• Supervisory review logs
• Shift commander review records
• Chief of Security review records
• Disciplinary tracking records
• Program Services internal tracking or routing records
• Any electronic or database entries reflecting submission or review

6. Communications Regarding Report Generation

All emails, memoranda, or other communications requesting, directing, or discussing the
preparation of any reports or documentation related to this incident, including but not limited to:
• The August 8, 2024 email from Captain Matthew Pedone
• Any follow-up communications
• Any prior or subsequent communications requesting or referencing such reports or
documentation
• Any communications involving Program Services personnel concerning the creation or
submission of reports

7. Certifications of Non-Existence
If any portion of the requested records cannot be produced, please provide a certification of
non-existence specifying:

• The specific records that do not exist
• The reason for their non-existence
• Whether such records were ever created, maintained, or destroyed

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,
Man “Doe”

Dear George M. Morris:

Thank you for your April 22, 2026 response to OPRA Request 042026-11. I appreciate the County’s production of the Internal Affairs record log identifying an Internal Affairs matter opened June 26, 2024 and closed September 23, 2024 with a disposition of “not sustained.” That disclosure was responsive to Request No. 4 and clarifies important facts.
I write, however, to respectfully request reconsideration and clarification regarding several portions of the response that appear internally inconsistent or overbroad.

1. Operations Reports Were Treated as Categorically Exempt Without Addressing Their Independent Status as Operational Records

The response to Request No. 1 denies access to Operations Reports on the ground they were “documents created solely for an Internal Affairs investigation.” Respectfully, that characterization appears overinclusive.
The reports requested were not framed solely as Internal Affairs investigative work product. The request sought ordinary Operations Reports, incident reports, and similar records generated in the ordinary course of departmental operations, including records that—by departmental form design—are routed to file, supervisory, Internal Affairs, and disciplinary channels.
A routine operational report does not necessarily lose its independent status as an operational record simply because it was later utilized within an Internal Affairs matter.
To the extent the County contends each withheld report was created solely for Internal Affairs purposes and not as an ordinary operational record, please confirm that expressly.
If, instead, such reports exist as routine operational reports later incorporated into Internal Affairs review, I respectfully request reconsideration of the blanket denial or, at minimum, production in redacted form.

2. Routing / Tracking Response Appears Difficult to Reconcile With Recordkeeping Requirements

Request No. 5 sought routing, distribution, receipt, logging, or tracking records associated with the reports and related records.
The response states:
“No additional records exist beyond what is already provided.”
Respectfully, that broad assertion appears difficult to reconcile with:
• the County’s own production of an Internal Affairs record log;
• the existence of a formal Internal Affairs case reflected in the response;
• and recordkeeping requirements reflected in the New Jersey Attorney General Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures, which contemplates indexing and tracking of complaints and investigations.
Accordingly, please clarify whether the County’s position is:
1. No routing, intake, tracking, or receipt records were ever created; or
2. Such records exist but were considered encompassed within the Internal Affairs exemption; or
3. Such records exist but were not located in the search conducted.
That distinction is important.

3. Clarification Requested Regarding Communications Response

Request No. 6 sought communications concerning report generation, including the August 8, 2024 email from Captain Pedone and related follow-up communications.
The response states no additional responsive records were located or are known to exist.
Please clarify whether the County means:
• the August 8, 2024 Pedone email is acknowledged as the sole responsive communication; or
• the County’s position is that no responsive communications, including follow-up communications concerning requested reports, exist beyond that email.
Given the existence of an active Internal Affairs investigation during the period reflected in the response, that clarification would be helpful.

4. Common Law Access Determination Appears Conclusory

The response denies common law access largely on generalized balancing grounds. Respectfully, I request reconsideration of whether the balancing analysis may warrant at least review of whether non-investigative operational records, administrative logs, or redacted summary information may be subject to disclosure even if core Internal Affairs investigative materials are not.
This request is narrow and directed at record categories arguably distinct from protected investigative deliberations.

5. Clarification Requested Regarding Search Conducted

In light of the response’s references to a “due diligence search” and statements that certain records were not located or do not exist, I also respectfully request clarification regarding the search performed for responsive records.
Please identify, to the extent available:
• The office(s) or personnel who conducted the search for responsive records;
• Whether the search included Internal Affairs files or index systems;
• Whether relevant email accounts or repositories (including those of Captain Pedone, Lt. Ingram, Lt. Ketelaar, or relevant Program Services personnel) were searched;
• Whether Program Services records, report-routing repositories, shared drives, or other electronic or hard-copy record systems were searched.
In addition, please clarify whether the County’s position is that certain records:
1. Do not exist;
2. Exist but were withheld as exempt; or
3. May have existed but were not located through the search performed.
Given the distinctions among those positions, that clarification would materially assist in understanding the response.

6. Request for Clarification Rather Than Adversarial Challenge

This correspondence is intended as a good-faith effort to clarify the County’s positions before considering whether further review is necessary. If the County is willing to clarify the issues above or reconsider any portion of the denial, I would appreciate a supplemental response.
Please understand this inquiry arises from apparent tensions within the response itself, not from any desire to relitigate settled principles concerning genuinely exempt Internal Affairs investigative materials.
Thank you for your attention and professionalism.

Respectfully,

Man “Doe”

Dear George M. Morris,

I know you have acknowledged my last request but I was just following up in case you needed more clarification on the matter.

Respectfully,

Man “Doe”