Dear Ms. Raposo:

The Township of North Bergen (“Township”) writes in response to your May 7, 2026 request for records submitted pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. and the common law right of access.

You requested:

“All surveillance video, security camera footage, hallway footage, entrance/exit footage, lobby footage, parking lot footage, or other Township-controlled video recordings showing Lieutenant Santiago Hernandez meeting with, entering with, exiting with, walking with, or otherwise appearing with Township Attorney Tom Kobin during the period of April 24, 2026 through May 8, 2026. This includes any entry and exit of Township Attorney Tom Kobin's office by Lieutenant Santiago Hernandez

This request includes each and every occurrence during that time period at any Township building, municipal office, police department facility, public meeting area, hallway, entrance, exit, parking area, or other location where Township-controlled surveillance footage may exist. The purpose of this request is to obtain video evidence of any meetings or interactions between Lieutenant Santiago Hernandez and Township Attorney Tom Kobin during the above period.”

Your request is denied.

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 provides that “ a government record shall not include . . . video footage, for any public building, facility, or grounds unless the request identifies a specific incident that occurred, or a specific date and limited time period at a particular public building, facility, or grounds, and is deemed not to compromise the integrity of the security system by revealing capabilities and vulnerabilities of the system.”

Your request is overly broad and lacks sufficient specificity regarding particular cameras, locations, incidents, dates, and times. Compliance with this request would require the Records Custodian to manually review potentially hundreds of hours of surveillance footage in an attempt to identify interactions between the named individuals in the request. OPRA does not require a Records Custodian to conduct research or surveillance review to determine whether and what responsive footage exists. See MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005).

Further, to the extent any responsive surveillance footage may exist, such records may be exempt pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 because disclosure of municipal security camera systems, coverage, and surveillance recordings may compromise public safety, building security, and law enforcement operations.

Finally, to the extent you claim the footage depicts “Township Attorney Tom Kobin and possible communications with Lieutenant Santiago Hernandez concerning threatened or anticipated litigation,” your request is denied pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 (public employee related) and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3 (records of investigation in progress).

Please be advised the Township has no surveillance footage with audio.

Your request is likewise denied under the common law right of access. Unlike with OPRA, the burden to show that access to public records should be permitted lies with the requestor. “The common-law right to access public records depends on three requirements: (1) the records must be common-law public documents; (2) the person seeking access must ‘establish an interest in the subject matter of the material,’; and (3) the citizen's right to access ‘must be balanced against the State's interest in preventing disclosure.” Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, 50, 689 A.2d 702, 709 (1997)(internal citations omitted).

First, you have not established that the requested records constitute common law public records. The request broadly seeks footage allegedly connected to threatened or anticipated litigation, personnel matters, grievances, and/or investigations. Such materials are not presumptively subject to disclosure under the common law.

Second, your request does not identify any specific cognizable interest supporting disclosure. A generalized curiosity or speculative interest in potential litigation or internal personnel matters is insufficient to compel access under the common law.

Third, even assuming you were able to establish a cognizable interest, any such interest is substantially outweighed by the Township’s significant confidentiality interests. The request seeks materials involving communications between the Township Attorney concerning “threatened or anticipated litigation” and potential legal advice. The fact of such a communication implicates the attorney-client privilege, confidentiality interests relating to personnel and investigative matters, and the Township’s legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of legal strategy and internal deliberations.

Accordingly, the Township denies your request under the common law right of access.

As with any OPRA request, you have the right to challenge the decision by the Township to deny access. At your option, you may either institute a proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey or file a complaint with the Government records Council (“GRC”) by completing the Denial of Access Complaint Form. You may contact the GRC by toll-free telephone at 866-850-0511, by mail at PO Box 819, Trenton, NJ 08625, by e-mail at [email address], or at their web site at www.state.nj.us/grc. The Council can also answer other questions about the law. All questions regarding complaints filed in Superior Court should be directed to the Court Clerk in your County.

Erin Barillas, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of North Bergen
4233 Kennedy Blvd
North Bergen, NJ 07047
e: [North Bergen Township request email]
o: 201-392-2024
f: 201-330-7694
www.northbergen.org

show quoted sections