New OPRA (P.L. 2024, Ch. 16 Senate No. 2930) legislation went into effect September 3, 2024. Please see the new form which should be used for all submissions going forward. Alternatively, the information from the form may be provided to [Livingston Township request email] in writing. (click here for the new form) https://www.livingstonnj.org/DocumentCen...

Pursuant to NJSA 47:1A-5(i), you shall receive a response as soon as possible, but not later than seven (7) business days. If you are seeking records for "a commercial purpose" as defined in NJSA 47:1A-1.1, you shall receive a response as soon as possible, but not later than 14 business days. Day one starts the day after the request has been received (Holidays and Town Hall closings do not count as business days).

New OPRA (P.L. 2024, Ch. 16 Senate No. 2930) legislation went into effect September 3, 2024. Please see the new form which should be used for all submissions going forward. Alternatively, the information from the form may be provided to [Livingston Township request email] in writing. (click here for the new form) https://www.livingstonnj.org/DocumentCen...

Pursuant to NJSA 47:1A-5(i), you shall receive a response as soon as possible, but not later than seven (7) business days. If you are seeking records for "a commercial purpose" as defined in NJSA 47:1A-1.1, you shall receive a response as soon as possible, but not later than 14 business days. Day one starts the day after the request has been received (Holidays and Town Hall closings do not count as business days).

Dear Grant Blackridge, 
An additional 2 days are needed to respond to your OPRA request and
request under the common law for the following.   A formal response will
be provided to you on Friday, January 16, 2026.
Thank you for your continued patience. 
"Records requested related to 40 Wellington Road, Livingston  NJ between
the dates of 1/1/2020- present.

This request includes, but is not limited to:

1) All records of police responses, calls for service, dispatch logs, CAD
records, incident logs, and any documentation reflecting police presence
or activity at or involving either address. For example, this could
include police "short reports, police blotter, etc".

2) Any and all written incident reports, investigative reports,
supplemental reports, narratives, or follow-up reports related to any
police activity connected to these addresses.

3) Any arrest records, summonses, complaints, or related enforcement
documents associated with incidents at or involving these addresses.

4) Any other police-generated records, reports, or documents referencing
either address."
Sincerely,

Township Clerk's Office

Livingston Township Hall

357 S. Livingston Avenue

Livingston, NJ 07039

P 973-992-5000 ext #5400  | F 973-535-7967

[1]www.livingstonnj.org

Sign Up for [2]Livingston Alerts & Notifications

Official email of the Township of Livingston NJ
For Official Business Use Only

References

Visible links
1. http://www.livingstonnj.org/
2. https://www.livingstonnj.org/1348/Living...

Good morning,

This comes in response to your OPRA Request for, “Records requested
related to 40 Wellington Road, Livingston NJ between the dates of
1/1/2020- present.
This request includes, but is not limited to:
1) All records of police responses, calls for service, dispatch logs, CAD
records, incident logs, and any documentation reflecting police presence
or activity at or involving either address. For example, this could
include police "short reports, police blotter, etc".
2) Any and all written incident reports, investigative reports,
supplemental reports, narratives, or follow-up reports related to any
police activity connected to these addresses.
3) Any arrest records, summonses, complaints, or related enforcement
documents associated with incidents at or involving these addresses.
4) Any other police-generated records, reports, or documents referencing
either address.”

Please read our response below.

The responsive records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to family part
proceedings and are confidential pursuant to R. 1:38-3. Specifically, OPRA
exemption N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9(a)-(b), upholds exemptions contained in other
State or federal statutes and regulations, Executive Orders of the
Governor, Rules of Court, Constitution of this State, or judicial case
law.

Further, under the privacy exemption, release of such records could
violate the parties' reasonable expectation of privacy. "the Legislature
finds and declares it to be the public policy of this State that … a
public agency has a responsibility and an obligation to safeguard from
public access a citizen's personal information with which it has been
entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen's reasonable
expectation of privacy.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. Courts apply the factors in Doe
v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 88, 662 A.2d 367 (1995), to determine whether the
reasonable expectation of privacy interest outweighs the OPRA presumption
of disclosure. Those factors include: “(1) the type of record requested;
(2) the information it does or might contain; (3) the potential for harm
in any subsequent nonconsensual disclosure; (4) the injury from disclosure
to the relationship in which the record was generated; (5) the adequacy of
safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure; (6) the degree of need for
access; and (7) whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated
public policy, or other recognized public interest militating toward
access.” Id., at 88 (quoting Faison v. Parker, 823 F. Supp. 1198, 1201
(E.D.Pa.1993) (citing United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d
570, 578 (3d Cir.1980))).

Under the Doe factors, there is no apparent connection between the
requestor and the residents at that address. Further, Doe factors three,
four, and six weight heavily against disclosing the reports. This was a
private incident which, if disclosed, could have a chilling effect on
individuals seeking help and/or police intervention when needed for family
disputes. In North Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Bergen Cnty. Prosecutor’s
Office, 447 N.J. Super. 182, 204 (App. Div. 2016), the court held that an
exemption existed pursuant to N.J.S.A 47:1A-9(b) for information “received
or maintained by law enforcement agencies regarding a person who has not
been arrested or charged with an offense”. See, Id. at 204. The court
reasoned that “the grant of confidentiality protects the privacy interest
of the individual who, lacking an opportunity to challenge allegations in
court, would face irremediable public condemnation. The need and scope of
confidentiality recognized in our courts’ decisions ‘may duly be claimed
to restrict public access to a public record or government
record.’” See, Id. (quoting N.J.S.A 47:1A-9(b)). Moreover, in the Matter
of N.J. Firemen’s Ass’n Obligation to Provide Relief Applications Under
Open Pub. Records Act, 230 N.J. 258, 280 (2017), the Supreme  Court of New
Jersey held that disclosure of applicant information for firefighters’
financial relief checks may create a chilling effect among those who wish
to apply for those benefits. Similarly, if residents fear that any time
they report a private incident to the police, the details of that incident
might be made public; they might be hesitant to reach out to the police
when there is a domestic dispute. This weighs heavily in favor of keeping
the information private.

Finally, there is no interest that we know of by the requester to receive
said records. Where "reasons for maintaining a high degree of
confidentiality in the public records are present, even when the citizen
asserts a public interest in the information, more than [the] citizen's
status and good faith are necessary to call for production of the
documents." Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 105–06, 505 A.2d 958,
962–63 (1986). Here, the requester has no apparent interest in the
property or the private affairs of the individuals involved. There was no
crime reported, and there is no apparent reason that releasing these
records would contribute to the public policy goals of government or
police oversight.

In terms of the request made under Common Law, the records should still be
withheld. 

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has stated that in order to access a
record under common law, (1) the record sought must qualify as a
common-law public document; (2) the requester must demonstrate a
sufficient interest in the subject matter of the requested material; and
(3) the requester’s interest in access must be weighed against the
government’s interest in maintaining confidentiality. Matter of N.J.
Firemen’s Ass’n Obligation to Provide Relief Applications Under Open Pub.
Records Act, 230 N.J. 258, 280 (2017). 

The requestor here cannot demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject
matter that outweighs the government’s interest in maintaining
confidentiality. Where "reasons for maintaining a high degree of
confidentiality in the public records are present, even when the citizen
asserts a public interest in the information, more than [the] citizen's
status and good faith are necessary to call for production of the
documents." Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 105–06, 505 A.2d 958,
962–63 (1986). The requestor has no apparent connection to the property or
the residents who live there, and disclosing this information does not
further the public policy goal of government oversight.

The New Jersey Supreme Court in Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 113,
505 A.2d 958, 966 (1986) established the following factors when balancing
the common law right of access against privacy interests: 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; 6) whether any agency disciplinary or investigatory
proceedings have arisen that may circumscribe the individual's asserted
need for the materials. Id., at 113.

Factors one and two weigh heavily against disclosing the reports.
Disclosing the details of a private domestic dispute to an unaffiliated
requestor could have a chilling effect on the public’s willingness to
report such domestic disputes. This could lead to potential embarrassment
for the residents who have no say over whether the facts of this incident
if disclosed. As such, the government interest in protecting the
residents’ privacy significantly outweighs the requestor’s interest in
accessing these records.

For all the reasons set forth above, the records are being withheld and
the OPRA and Common Law request is denied.

show quoted sections