2002-109

Final Decision

At its February 10, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council ("Council") considered the February 3, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted to adopt the entirety of said Findings and Recommendations. The Council dismissed the complaint finding that:

1. The October 23, 2002 request should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
2. The October 30, 2002 request should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
3. The October 31, 2002 request filed with the Clerk should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
4. The November 5, 2002 request filed with the Plainfield Municipal Court is invalid as the judicial branch is not subject to OPRA.
5. The November 7, 2002 request should be denied.  The November 26, 2002 letter from requestor clarifying his November 7, 2002 request and responding to custodian counsel's November 18, 2002 letter stated that he sought to inspect two weeks of arrest reports from November 7, 2002 to November 21, 2002. The November 7, 2002 request should be denied in its entirety because:
   • Arrest reports are criminal investigatory records that are not disclosable under OPRA.
   • Requestor failed to specify dates for the complaints and summonses he wished to view.
6. The December 4, 2002 request for arrest reports between November 20, 2002 to December 9, 2002 should be denied, as the request represents criminal investigatory records, i.e. arrest reports, not disclosable under OPRA.
7. The December 5, 2002 request for arrest reports between November 20, 2002 to December 9, 2002 should be denied, as the request represents criminal investigatory records, i.e. arrest reports, not disclosable under OPRA.
8. Custodian's position, inspection fees included, can be disregarded because all the requests seek confidential records or are invalid because the requests were not date specific.

Vincent P. Maltese, Chairman
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.
Virginia Hook, Secretary
Government Records Council

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of Executive Director

Relevant Records Requested: Plainfield Police Department Criminal Complaints
Custodian: Plainfield Counsel Jacqueline Drakeford
Request Made:   Various Dates  
GRC Complaint filed: November 21, 2002

Recommendations of Executive Director

By OPRA Complaint filed December 26, 2002, requestor alleges denial of 8 OPRA requests allegedly filed October 23, 30, 31, November 6,7,26 and December 5 and 12, 2002 seeking to inspect criminal complaints, arrest records and “arrest reports.” For the reasons set forth below, there is no basis to award requestor access to any record sought.

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss the complaint because:

1. The October 23, 2002 request should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
2. The October 30, 2002 request should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
3. The October 31, 2002 request filed with the Clerk should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
4. The November 5, 2002 request filed with the Plainfield Municipal Court is invalid as the judicial branch is not subject to OPRA.
5. The November 7, 2002 request should be denied.  The November 26, 2002 letter from requestor clarifying his November 7, 2002 request and responding to custodian counsel’s November 18, 2002 letter stated that he sought to inspect two weeks of arrest reports from November 7, 2002 to November 21, 2002. The November 7, 2002 request should be denied in its entirety because:
   • Arrest reports are criminal investigatory records that are not disclosable under OPRA.
   • Requestor failed to specify dates for the complaints and summonses he wished to view.
6. The December 4, 2002 request for arrest reports between  November 20, 2002 to December 9, 2002 should be denied, as the request represents criminal investigatory records, i.e. arrest reports, not disclosable under OPRA.
7. The December 5, 2002 request for arrest reports between November 20, 2002 to December 9, 2002 should be denied, as the request represents criminal investigatory records, i.e. arrest reports, not disclosable under OPRA
8. Custodian’s position, inspection fees included, can be disregarded because all the requests seek confidential records or are invalid because the requests were not date specific.

Legal Analysis

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, Criminal Investigatory Records, are exempt from disclosure. Further, some requests were for records not in existence at the time of the request. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Judicial records are exempt pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7g.

Documents Reviewed

The following documents have been submitted to members of the Government Records Council and/or designee concerning the case:

• October 23, 2002 - Records Request for Criminal Complaints to Plainfield
• October 30, 2002 - Requestor's Follow-up Letter to 10/23/02 Records Request
• October 31, 2002 - Letter Request for Access to Indictable Warrants, Summons, and Disorderly Complaints
• October 31, 2002 - Requestor Filed a Plainfield OPRA Request Form to Clerk for Warrants, Summons and Criminal Complaints
• November 5, 2002 - Requestor's Letter to Municipal Court for Criminal Complaints Motor Vehicle Tickets
• November 6, 2002 - Requestor's Letter to City Hall for Summons, Arrest Records, and Criminal Complaints
• November 7, 2002 - Requestor's Letter to Clerk Resubmitting 10/31/02 Request
• November 18, 2002 - Custodian's Appeal to Requestor for More Specific Details and Time Frame of Complaint  
• November 22, 2002 - Custodian’s Letter to GRC Requesting Advisory Opinion on Request
• November 26, 2002 - Requestor's Response to Custodian Clarifying 10/31/02 Request and Time Periods of Requested Arrest Reports
• December 4, 2002 - Requestor's Letter to Custodian's Counsel Requesting Specific Dates Pertaining to Request
• December 5, 2002 - Repeat Letter from Requestor Clarifying Dates of Arrest Reports, Criminal Investigations and Summons
• December 11, 2002 - Custodian's Counsel Response to Request and Charges for Records Request
• December 12, 2002 - Requestor's Response to Letter of 12/11/02
• December 26, 2002 - Denial of Access Complaint Filed
• February 27, 2003 - Custodian's Appeal to Requestor for More Specific Details
• March 11, 2003 - Custodian's Second Appeal to Requestor
• March 20, 2003 - GRC Request for Statement of Information from Custodian 
• March 31, 2003 - Submission of Statement of Information
• December 2, 2003 - Submission by Prosecutor of Plainfield's Fee Schedule
• January 9, 2004 - Clerk's Submission of Township's Fee Schedules
• January 9, 2004 - GRC Letter Request to Custodian’s Counsel addressing various questions concerning the case
• January 21, 2004 - Custodian Counsel’s Response to GRC Letter Request
• January 22, 2004 - Letter Request to GRC from Custodian's Counsel to Reschedule Case for March to Pursue Resolution of Case

Legal Considerations and Issues

The record reflects OPRA requests filed with the City of Plainfield on October 23, 30, 31, November 5, 7 and December 4 and 5, 2002. Other communications constitute letters of complaint to the custodian.

Substantively, the requestor failed to stipulate the date of the records he sought to inspect in requests but the December 4^th request. The requestor later supplied the custodian with dates. As amended, the October 23 and 31 requests are invalid because requestor sought to inspect records not yet extant at the time the request was made.  The November 7 request is invalid for the same reason, except as to records dated November 7. However, requestor never confirmed that he sought access to the publicly available records of that date listed in his request, only ones that were confidential. As the requestor never confirmed the dates of the publicly available records he wished to inspect, there is no basis for the Council to award access.  The December 4 request is invalid because, again, the requestor sought to inspect records not extant when the OPRA request was received. Additionally, the records sought are confidential under OPRA. The November 5 request is directed to the judicial branch of government and is not valid. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7g.

Conclusion

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss the complaint because:

1. The October 23, 2002 request should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
2. The October 30, 2002 request should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
3. The October 31, 2002 request filed with the Clerk should be denied, as the request was not date specific.
4. The November 5, 2002 request filed with the Plainfield Municipal Court is invalid as the judicial branch is not subject to OPRA.
5. The November 7, 2002 request should be denied.  The November 26, 2002 letter from requestor clarifying his November 7, 2002 request and responding to custodian counsel's November 18, 2002 letter stated that he sought to inspect two weeks of arrest reports from November 7, 2002 to November 21, 2002. The November 7, 2002 request should be denied in its entirety because:
   • Arrest reports are criminal investigatory records that are not disclosable under OPRA.
   • Requestor failed to specify dates for the complaints and summonses he wished to view.
6. The December 4, 2002 request for arrest reports between November 20, 2002 to December 9, 2002 should be denied, as the request represents criminal investigatory records, i.e. arrest reports, not disclosable under OPRA.
7. The December 5, 2002 request for arrest reports between November 20, 2002 to December 9, 2002 should be denied, as the request represents criminal investigatory records, i.e. arrest reports, not disclosable under OPRA
8. Custodian's position, inspection fees included, can be disregarded because all the requests seek confidential records or are invalid because the requests were not date specific.

Paul F. Dice
Acting Executive Director
Government Records Council

Dated:  February 3, 2004

Return to Top