OPRA - police officer-involved lawsuits 2012-2019
Dear Dumont Borough,
This is a request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Records requested:
1. A list of all lawsuits and cases in which any officer of the police department was involved between 2012 and 2019. For each lawsuit/case, please provide the date (month and year) of the alleged incident at issue, whether the alleged incident was excessive force, settlement amount (if any), and final compensation amount ruled (if any).
2. Please provide copies of the complaint in any lawsuits and cases described in above.
Yours faithfully,
UC Research
The attached OPRA is being reviewed for records responsive to this request, and an extension of time is required. If there are any records responsive, you shall receive a response by 6/19/20.
Dumont Municipal Clerk's Office
Generally, a custodian is required to allow for inspection or copying of government records "during regular business hours." N.J.S.A.47:1A-5(a). Moreover, OPRA provides that a custodian must respond to an OPRA request "not later than seven business days after receiving the request." N.J.S.A.47:1A-5(i). In determining whether the seven (7) business days have expired, the GRC has turned to N.J. Court Rules, which provides that ". . .the day of the act or event from which the designated period begins to run is not to be included." R.1:3-1;See also Verry v. Franklin Fire Dist. No. 1 (Somerset), GRC Complaint No. 2014-325 (Final Decision dated October 27, 2015). Thus, the statutorily mandated seven (7) business daytime frame begins on the first (1st) business day after the date of receipt of an OPRA request. Further, the GRC has consistently interpreted the term "business days" to mean those days on which a "public agency" is open for "regular business hours." N.J.S.A.47:1A-5(a). This term does not include weekends, holidays, and regular or emergency closures. Thus, in the instance that a public agency is closed on an emergency basis and is not open for "regular business hours," whether in the short-or long-term, it is reasonable to conclude that those days on which the agency is closed is not included in the statutory response time frame. Enacted on March 20, 2020, P.L.2020, c.10 amended N.J.S.A.47:1A-5(i) as follows: During a period declared pursuant to the laws of this State as a state of emergency, public health emergency, or state of local disaster emergency, the deadlines by which to respond to a request for, or grant or deny access to, a government record under paragraph (1) of this subsection or subsection e. of this section shall not apply, provided, however, that the custodian of a government record shall make a reasonable effort, as the circumstances permit, to respond to a request for access to a government record within seven business days or as soon as possible thereafter.[Id.at (2).]P.L.2020, c.10 provides that OPRA's statutory deadlines do not apply for the duration of a Governor-declared state of emergency pursuant to the Disaster Control Act (N.J.S.A.App.A.9-33 et seq.) or a public health emergency under the Emergency Health Powers Act (N.J.S.A.26:13-1 et seq.), or when a state of local disaster emergency is declared by a county or by a municipality. Further, the new amendment requires custodians to make a "reasonable effort" to respond to an OPRA request during that time. However, the amendment also adds that any custodian with the ability to follow the deadlines as set forth in N.J.S.A.47:1A-5(e) and 5(i) should do so. In furtherance of a custodian's "reasonable effort," the GRC notes that an available response option is to take extensions of time as needed. Specifically, OPRA requires a custodian to respond in writing within the statutorily mandated time frame stating that an extension until a date certain is necessary. See Criscione v. Town of Guttenberg (Hudson), GRC Complaint No. 2010-68 (November 2010); Rivera v. City of Plainfield Police Dep't (Union), GRC Complaint No. 2009-317 (May 2011); Werner v. NJ Civil Serv. Comm'n, GRC Complaint No. 2011-151 (December 2012).This is notwithstanding whether a requestor objects to an extension of time. However, the GRC has accepted complaints regarding disputed extensions of time. In determining these complaints, the GRC decided on the reasonableness of extensions. Ciccarone v. N.J. Dep't of Treasury, GRC Complaint No. 2013-280 (Interim Order dated July 29, 2014). Since that time, the GRC has looked to Ciccarone, GRC 2013-280, to make a reasonableness determination in other complaints. See Rodriguez v. Kean Univ., GRC Complaint No. 2015-114 (April 2016); Rodriguez v. Kean Univ., GRC Complaint No. 2016-196 (February 2018)