Courier News v. Hunterdon
Decision Date | 19 March 2003 |
Citation | 358 N.J. Super. 373,817 A.2d 1017 |
Parties | COURIER NEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUNTERDON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
John C. Connell, Haddonfield, argued the cause for appellant (Archer & Greiner, attorneys; Mr. Connell, William L. Ryan and Kerri E. Chewning, Newark, on the brief).
Steven C. Lember, First Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (J. Patrick Barnes, Hunterdon County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Lember, on the brief).
Thomas J. Cafferty argued the cause for amicus curiae, New Jersey Press Association (McGimpsey & Cafferty, attorneys; Mr. Cafferty and Arlene M. Turinchak, Somerset, on the brief).
Before Judges KING, LISA and FUENTES.
The opinion of the court was delivered by FUENTES, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Courier News moves, under R. 2:5-6(a), for leave to appeal the decision of the Law Division denying its application made pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. Plaintiff seeks access to tape recordings of all 911 calls made on February 14, 2002, in connection with the death of Costas Christofi at the home of Jayson Williams. These recordings are in the custody of defendant Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office as evidence in the case of State v. Jayson Williams. On March 4, 2003, we granted the motion of the New Jersey Press Association to intervene as amicus curiae. Williams did not participate in the proceedings before the Law Division and did not make an application to intervene here. On March 12, 2003, we heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion. We now grant leave to appeal1 and summarily reverse. R. 2:2-3(b); R. 2:8-3(b).
In the early morning hours of February 14, 2002, an emergency 911 telephone call was placed from the home of former professional athlete Jayson Williams in connection with the death of Costas Christofi. Immediately thereafter, law enforcement authorities concluded that the death was a homicide and seized the tape recording of the 911 call as evidence in the criminal investigation. On May 1, 2002, a Grand Jury indicted Williams on various criminal charges including aggravated manslaughter, hindering apprehension, tampering with a witness and tampering with evidence.2
On July 8, 2002, a Courier News reporter formally requested a copy of the 911 tape from the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office. On July 10, 2002, defendant denied the request based on the following reasons:
By letter dated October 22, 2002, counsel for the Courier News again requested from defendant a copy of the 911 tapes. Defendant again denied the request.
On December 18, 2002, plaintiff filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs and an order to show cause with verified complaint seeking access to the 911 tape as a government record under OPRA.3 The Law Division judge entered the order to show cause on December 18, 2002, and made it returnable on January 24, 2003.
On the return date of the order to show cause, the court construed plaintiff's application as one seeking "a mandatory preliminary injunction." Invoking the authority of Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 447 A.2d 173 (1982), the court then concluded that plaintiff had not shown irreparable harm because: "Defendants do not take the position that they refuse to release the 911 tapes, but indicated that the tapes will be released very shortly when one of the tapes will be admitted in evidence [in the criminal trial]." The court also found that granting plaintiff's request would alter the status quo.
The court denied plaintiff's application "without prejudice," but indicated that plaintiff retained the right to pursue the relief requested by filing a summary judgment motion under R. 4:69-2.
Both plaintiff and amicus curiae intervenor argue that the Law Division judge erred when he failed to apply the procedural mechanism outlined in OPRA. We agree.
....
This statutory language requires a trial court to proceed under the procedures prescribed in Rule 4:67. R. 4:67-1(a). The action is commenced by order to show cause supported by a verified complaint. R. 4:67-2(a). At the initial hearing, if the court is "satisfied with the sufficiency of the application, [it] shall order defendant to show cause why final judgment should not be rendered for the relief sought." Ibid. The court must try the case at the return date of the order to show "or on such short day as it fixes." R. 4:67-5. The Rule also clearly sets out the procedural framework governing the trial.
A summary action is not a summary judgment motion. In a proceeding conducted under R. 4:67-5, a court must make findings of facts, either by adopting the uncontested facts in the pleadings after concluding that there are no genuine issues of fact in dispute, or by conducting an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, a party in a summary action proceeding is not entitled to favorable inferences such as those afforded to the respondent in a summary judgment motion. O'Connell v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 306 N.J.Super. 166, 172, 703 A.2d 360 (App.Div.1997). Here, the Law Division judge's procedural errors deprived plaintiff of its right to a summary adjudication of its OPRA application. However, all of the legal issues have been fully briefed. We invoke our original jurisdiction to decide the case and thereby vindicate the important public policy embodied in OPRA. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1; AAA Mid-Atlantic Ins. v. Prudential Ins., 336 N.J.Super. 71, 78, 763 A.2d 788 (App.Div.2000); R. 2:10-5.
We begin our analysis by emphasizing the public policy of this State expressed in OPRA:
The custodian of the government record has the burden of proving that the denial of access is authorized by law. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.
Defendant does not dispute that the 911 tape is a "government record" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.4 Defendant nevertheless argues that the tape is exempt from public inspection under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3a because it is part of an ongoing criminal investigation and its release to the media would be inimical to the public interest because (1) it would make selecting an impartial jury more difficult; and (2) dissemination of the tape will likely cause juror confusion. We reject these arguments because they are not supported by either facts or law.5
Thus, as noted by Judge Serpentelli in Asbury Park Press v. Lakewood Twp. Police Dep't, 354 N.J.Super. 146, 158, 804 A.2d 1178 (Law Div.2002), "In order to find a basis to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paff v. Ocean Cnty. Prosecutor's Office
...which requires proof that disclosure would be "inimical to the public interest." See Courier News v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 358 N.J. Super. 373, 381-83, 817 A.2d 1017 (App. Div. 2003) (rejecting agency's claim that ongoing investigations exemption applied because release of 9-1......
-
C.E. v. Elizabeth Pub. Sch. Dist.
...basis for confidentiality.’ " Doe, 466 N.J. Super. at 26-27, 245 A.3d 261 (quoting Courier News v. Hunterdon Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., 358 N.J. Super. 373, 382-83, 817 A.2d 1017 (App. Div. 2003) ).The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 to - 1482, was enacted......
-
Doe v. Rutgers
...(emphasis added).]Our "overarching public policy" favors "a citizen's right of access." Courier News v. Hunterdon Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., 358 N.J. Super. 373, 383, 817 A.2d 1017 (App. Div. 2003) (citing N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 ). Accordingly, OPRA directs that "all government records shall be sub......
-
Conley v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.
...Obligation), 230 N.J. 258, 277, 166 A.3d 1125 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Courier News v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 358 N.J.Super. 373, 383, 817 A.2d 1017 (App. Div. 2003) ).OPRA defines "government record" in pertinent part asany paper, written or printed book, docum......
-
Revisiting the Voyeurism Value in the First Amendment: from the Sexually Sordid to the Details of Death
...Greg Gittrich, Jayson 911 Tape Ruling, DAILY NEWS (N.Y.), Mar. 20, 2003, at 20. See Courier News v. Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office, 817 A.2d 1017, 1023 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003) (holding that the "[djefendant is ordered to immediately provide plaintiff with a copy of the sound ......