Dear Howell Township,

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-6(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 locating information:
Timeframe: July 5th, 2025, between the hours of 4:00pm and 8:00pm
Location: Entirety of Squankum Yellowbrook Road.

Records Requested:
-Incident Reports
-CAD Logs
-Officer Narratives
-New Jersey Police Crash Investigative Report

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,

FratLawzOPRA

Dear Ms. Abernathy,

Thank you for your response dated July 16, 2025, regarding OPRA Request #25-1546.

I write to respectfully challenge the broad denial of access to the record you identified—namely, an “EMS Call”—on the basis that it is categorically exempt under OPRA and HIPAA. While I understand that certain EMS-related records may implicate privacy or HIPAA-related concerns, I must respectfully assert that such concerns do not warrant wholesale denial. Rather, appropriate redactions must be applied where necessary, and the remainder of the record disclosed, consistent with the well-settled principles of OPRA and related authority.

1. Redaction is the Proper Remedy, Not Blanket Denial
The New Jersey Supreme Court has made clear that "[w]hen a public record contains some information that falls within a recognized exception to disclosure, the proper response is to redact the exempt information and release the remainder." North Jersey Media Grp. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541, 582 (2017) (emphasis added). Blanket denial is disfavored where redaction is feasible.

Similarly, the Government Records Council (GRC) has consistently held that "[a] custodian may not deny access to a government record solely because it contains confidential information. Instead, the custodian shall delete or excise from a copy of the record that portion which the custodian asserts is confidential..." See Bart v. Passaic County Public Housing Agency, GRC Complaint No. 2005-289 (May 2006); N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).

Thus, to the extent the EMS Call contains sensitive personal health information, that information may be redacted under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, but the record must otherwise be disclosed.

2. HIPAA Does Not Categorically Bar Disclosure
To the extent Howell Township is asserting HIPAA as a basis for denying access to the EMS call record, that too is misplaced. HIPAA governs covered entities, and courts have routinely held that OPRA does not automatically incorporate HIPAA to bar access to otherwise public records. Moreover, in Verry v. Franklin Fire District No. 1, 230 N.J. 285 (2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized that not all EMS-related records are shielded, and each request must be evaluated individually for the nature and sensitivity of the information.

If the EMS record was created by or transmitted to law enforcement or other first responders acting in a governmental—not medical—capacity, it may not be governed by HIPAA at all. Regardless, redaction remains the proper course of action.

3. CAD Logs and Officer Narratives Should Still Be Produced
Even if the EMS call itself is deemed sensitive, CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) logs and police officer narratives connected to that call remain disclosable under OPRA, subject again to any redactions needed to protect personal identifiers or exempt information. These records, which include dispatch times, unit identifiers, the identity of the responding agency, timestamps for arrival and clearing, and other response metadata, have consistently been held to be public. See Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, GRC Complaint No. 2014-430; Paff v. Bergen County, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 658.

The inclusion of information such as who was dispatched, when, and by which unit or agency does not trigger any recognized exemption and falls squarely within OPRA’s purpose of ensuring transparency in government operations.

To the extent your office has interpreted my request as solely seeking medical records, I respectfully clarify that I am seeking all law enforcement or dispatch-related documents, including CAD logs and officer narratives, tied to activity on Squankum Yellowbrook Road during the stated time.

Pursuant to the above, I respectfully request:

A review and release of the EMS Call record with redactions applied in accordance with Lyndhurst and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g);

A search and release of all responsive CAD logs, officer narratives, and crash reports (if any) generated during the July 5, 2025, 4:00–8:00 PM timeframe on Squankum Yellowbrook Road;

If no further responsive records exist, a certification pursuant to Bent v. Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005), attesting to the specific search conducted and affirming the nonexistence of such records.

If, for any reason, you believe that the scope of this request—as clarified above—falls outside the bounds of the original submission and would require a new OPRA request, I would be happy to file a fresh request accordingly, after receiving such certification pursuant to Bent v. Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005). However, I respectfully submit that this clarification is a good-faith elaboration upon the original request and ask that you waive any technical requirement to refile, in the interest of administrative economy and public transparency.

Please consider this correspondence a request for informal reconsideration, not a formal complaint. I remain confident that the Township will resolve this matter consistent with its obligations under OPRA.

Thank you again for your time and anticipated cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

fratlaw