2004-37

Final Decision

At its June 10, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the June 2, 2004 Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations.  The Council, therefore, finds that:

1. The Custodian certified that the information provided to the Complainant was Email correspondence, a criminal complaint issued by the Princeton Borough Police Department on May 14, 1970, and a criminal disposition sheet from the Mercer County Prosecutor’s office dated June 25, 1971.
2. The Custodian certified that the records not released were the investigative report and the arrest and prisoner property reports. The records withheld are criminal investigatory records, and are exempt from disclosure under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.
3. This case is dismissed.

This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey within forty-five (45) days. Information about the appeals process can be obtained from the Appellate Division Clerk’s Office, Hughes Justice Complex, 25 W. Market St., PO Box 006, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006.

Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 10th Day of June, 2004

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

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of Executive Director

Relevant Records Requested: Any and all incident or arrest reports involving Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. from 1967 through 1971 while he attended Princeton University
Request Made:   September 16, 2003
Response Made: September 17, 2003
Custodian: Borough of Princeton
GRC Complaint filed: March 25, 2004

Recommendations of the Executive Director

This OPRA complaint filed March 25, 2004 alleges denial of access to incident and arrest records of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

Pursuant to an April 20, 2004 facsimile transmittal confirmation, unspecified records were sent to the complainant. Via e-mail carbon copied to the Government Records Staff on April 20, 2004, the complainant acknowledged receipt of unspecified records via facsimile.  In the same e-mail, the complainant requested additional answers or documents in regard to his request. 

In the April 26, 2004 council meeting, the council ordered that the custodian provide a legal certification that addressed the following:

• In whole or in part, what information and/or documentation was released in accordance with the September 16, 2003 Open Public Records Act request.
• What information, if any was not released and why.

The custodian submitted two legal certifications to the GRC staff on May 20, 2004 and May 27, 2004. The information in the certification listed information that had been released and information that had not been released and why. The custodian certified that information that was not released has been deemed to be criminal investigatory records by both the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office and private counsel of the borough.

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss the complaint on the basis that the custodian’s certifications detailing what information was provided and what information was withheld and why has been explained as follows:

• The custodian certified that information provided was Email correspondence, a criminal complaint issued by the Princeton Borough Police Department on May 14, 1970, and a criminal disposition sheet from the Mercer County Prosecutor’s office dated June 25, 1971.
• The custodian certified that the records not released were the investigative report and the arrest and prisoner property reports. The records withheld are criminal investigatory records, and are exempt from disclosure under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

Analysis

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 records that are exempt from disclosure do include criminal investigatory records. The custodian could not release the investigative report and the arrest and prisoner property reports, because they are criminal investigatory records. In a previous Council decision, Janeczko v. Division of Criminal Justice (2002-79 and 80) … (reports) “are required by the Attorney General as part of his responsibilities under the Law Enforcement Act which grants him authority to require law enforcement agencies to prepare reports as may be necessary.” The reports in question do, however, “pertain to a criminal investigation” because they necessarily investigate the criminal activity that resulted in the arrest of Mitchell E. Daniels.  Thus, while these reports are records, they do meet the definition of criminal investigatory record and therefore, are not disclosable under the Open Public Records Act.  There is no information indicating the records in question are required by law to be made, maintained or kept on file as pursuant to the definition of “Criminal investigatory record” under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  

Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in preparing the Findings and Recommendations for this case:

• May 20, 2004 – Legal certification from Andrea Lea Quinty, Records Custodian
• May 27, 2004 – Legal certification from Andrea Lea Quinty, Records Custodian

_________________________

Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

June 2, 2004

Return to Top

Interim Order on Access

At its April 26, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the April 22, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. Therefore, the Council hereby orders the Custodian to provide the Executive Director, Paul Dice, and the complainant with a certified statement that addresses in whole or in part, what information and/or documentation was released in accordance with the September 16, 2003 Open Public Records Act request and what information, if any was not released and why.

The Custodian shall provide the Council’s Executive Director, Paul Dice, a response to this Interim Order within five (5) business days from receipt of same.

Interim Order Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 26th Day of April, 2004

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: Any and all incident or arrest reports involving Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. from 1967 through 1971 while he attended Princeton University
Request Made:   September 16, 2003
Response Made: September 17, 2003
Custodian: Borough of Princeton
GRC Complaint filed: March 25, 2004

Recommendations of Executive Director

This OPRA complaint filed March 25, 2004 alleges denial of access to incident and arrest records of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

Pursuant to an April 20, 2004 facsimile transmittal confirmation, unspecified records were sent to the complainant. Via e-mail carbon copied to the Government Records Staff on April 20, 2004, the complainant acknowledged receipt of unspecified records via facsimile.  In the same e-mail, the complainant requested additional answers or documents in regard to his request. 

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council order the custodian to provide Executive Director Dice and the complainant with a certified statement that addresses the following:

• In whole or in part, what information and/or documentation was released in accordance with the September 16, 2003 Open Public Records Act request.
• What information, if any was not released and why.

Said statement shall be provided to Executive Director Dice and the complainant within five (5) business days of receipt of the Council’s order.

Legal Analysis

No analysis is needed at this time.

Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in preparing the Findings and Recommendations for this case:

·        September 16, 2003 – OPRA request for records
·        September 17, 2003 – Custodian response to OPRA request
·        March 25, 2004 – Denial of Access Form
·        April 20, 2004 – Fax confirmation cover sheet confirming sent information
·        April 20, 2004 – E-mail from complainant to the custodian requesting additional information and acknowledging receipt of unspecified records.

Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

April 22, 2004

Return to Top