Superior Court of New Jersey APPELLATE DIVISION

Transcription

1 Superior Court of New Jersey APPELLATE DIVISION No. A Tl The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, a non-profit advocacy organization located in Newark, New Jersey, Appellant, CIVIL ACTION ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, LAW DIVISION, MERCER COUNTY V. The New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice and Bruce Solomon, custodian of records for the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, SAT BELOW: HON. MARY C. JACOBSON, A.J.S.C. DOCKET NO. MER-L Respondents. BRIEF AND APPENDIX OF APPELLANT AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD BAROCAS JEANNE LoCICERO THOMAS MacLEOD American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation P.O. Box Market Street, i 11 Floor Newark, New Jersey Attorneys for Appellant American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey May 30, 2013 On the Brief: Thomas MacLeod

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS... 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY... 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW... 5 LEGAL ARGUMENT... 6 I. RESPONDENTS UNLAWFULLY DENIED APPELLANT'S ACCESS TO PORTIONS OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS... 7 A. Appellant Should Have Been Given Unredacted Versions of the Requested Records Pursuant to OPRA Because Respondents Never Identified a Recognized Statutory Exemption That Would Penni t Limiting Access to Any Portions of Those Records... 7 B. Appellant Should Have Been Given Unredacted Versions of the Requested Records Pursuant to Common Law Because Appellant's Interest in All Portions of Those Records Outweighs the Identified Public Interest in Nondisclosure II. APPELLANT IS A PREVAILING PARTY AND SHOULD BE AWARDED A "REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE" BECAUSE IT HAD TO FILE THIS LAWSUIT TO PRESERVE ITS RIGHT TO RECEIVE UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS CONCLUSION APPENDIX i

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Asbury Park Press v. Ocean Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 374 N.J. Super. 312 (Law Div. 2004)... 7 Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep't, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005)... 12, 13 Burke v. Brandes, 429 N.J. Super. 169 (App. Div. 2012) Burnett v. Cty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009)... 7, 16 Courier News v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 358 N. J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 2003)... 11, 12 Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., 198 N.J. 274 (2009) ' 20 Home News v. Dep't of Health, 144 N.J. 446 (1996) Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36 (1997)... 3, 20, 22 Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (1986)... 20, 21 MAG Ent'ment LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005)... 9, 12, 13 Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008)... 8, 25 McClain v. College Hosp., 99 N.J. 346 (1985)... 21, 23 Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. N.J. Sports & Expo. Auth., 423 N.J. Super. 140 (App. Div. 2011)... 5 O'Boyle v. Boro. of Longport, 426 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2012)... 6 Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531 (2012)... 6 Wilson v. Brown, 404 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 2009)... 9, 12 ii

4 Statutes N. J. s. A. 4 7 : la I 16 N.J.S.A. 47:1A-l to N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la- 5 ( a ) N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la-5 ( f ) N. J. s. A. 4 7 : la-5 ( g ) I 15 N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la-7 ( e ) Other Authorities Cottrell v. Boro. of Glassboro, GRC Complaint No M (Jul. 16, 2003)... 14, 15 iii

5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Under New Jersey's Open Public Records Act ("OPRA" or "the Act"), when a public document is identified as being responsive to an indi victual' s request, information within that responsive document can only be redacted if it falls within one of the recognized exemptions of the Act. In other words, public information cannot be redacted from a responsive public record. In the present case, Appellant American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey sought records from the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice ("DCJ") pertaining to Automatic License Plate Recognition ("ALPR") technology. Respondents identified responsive documents. However, they then went line-by-line through the admittedly responsive documents and redacted public information therefrom. Respondents could cite no recognized exemptions to justify the redactions. Rather, Respondents sought to create a new exemption: Specifically, they sought the right to redact bits of information from the responsive document that, in their view, were not relevant to the reason for the ACLU-NJ' s request. However, a belief that public information within a record is irrelevant to the request for the record at issue does not establish a valid basis in law for redactions. Respondents' position and actions violated the clear letter of the law. The trial judge therefore erred when she dismissed Appellant's case. 1

6 Respondents also violated the common law right of access to public records when they failed to disclose the redacted information to Appellant. Appellant's common law interest in all information contained within the requested common law public records clearly outweighs any public interest in nondisclosure that is premised on Respondents' claim of irrelevance or nonresponsiveness. Given that Respondents could identify no valid reason that the information should be deemed confidential, Respondents can put forth no interest to outweigh the ACLU-NJ's interest in disclosure. Appellant is entitled to judgment on the merits of this dispute, to receive unredacted copies of the requested records, and to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with preserving its right to access public records. STATEMENT OF FACTS On July 30, 2012, the ACLU-NJ submitted a request for public records pertaining to ALPR technology ("the July 30 request"). Aa 1-3 ; 1 see a 1 so N. J. S. A. 47 : la-5 ( f ). The July 30 request sought six categories of documents regarding procurement and use of ALPR technology pursuant to both OPRA and the common law right of access. Aa 3-5 ; see a 1 so N. J. S. A. 47 : la-1 to -13 ; Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, (1997). 1 All citations with the letters "Aa" followed by one or more numbers refer to the relevant page(s) of Appellant's appendix. 2

7 Respondent Solomon timely contacted Appellant by telephone to ask for more time to fulfill the July 30 request. Aa28. The attorney who submitted the request agreed to extend the response time until August 31, Ibid. Respondent Solomon subsequently requested and received additional extensions and, on September 14, 2012, disclosed records that partially fulfilled the July 30 request. Aa29; see also Aa6-25. However, Respondent Solomon redacted substantial portions of the disclosed records, stating that the "redacted information [was] not relevant to [the] request." Aa6-2 5; see also Aal-2. The redactions were made line-by-line in some cases; on other pages, particular pieces of data within the record were blacked out. Respondent Solomon never demonstrated or otherwise indicated that any of the redacted material was subject to a recognized exemption from disclosure. See Aal-2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 2, 2012, Appellant filed a verified complaint seeking judgment declaring Respondents in violation of OPRA and the common law right of access, enjoining Respondents from denying access to nonexempt portions of government records based on claims of irrelevance, and compelling Respondents to provide unredacted versions of the records disclosed in response to the July 30 request and to issue a clear policy statement and training protocols that instill awareness among all relevant 3

8 public employees that they may not deny access to nonexempt portions of government records based on claims of irrelevance. Aa On November 5, 2012, Judge Mary C. Jacobson ("Judge Jacobson" or "the trial judge") ordered Respondents to show cause why judgment should not be rendered in favor of Appellant and set a briefing schedule for Docket No. L Aa On November 19, 2012, Appellant filed a brief in support of judgment in this matter. Pbl-14. On January 4, 2013, Respondents filed a letter brief opposing Appellant's claims. Dbl-7. On February 11, 2013, Appellant filed a Reply Letter Brief to Respondents' opposition brief. Prbl-9. On February 14, 2013, Judge Jacobson heard oral arguments from counsel for the parties before rendering an oral decision in favor of Respondents which held that they had "appropriately satisfied" Appellant's request for records. T41-23 to T Judge Jacobson concluded that the redactions made to the records requested by Appellant "were reasonable when viewed in the context of the grant application [i.e., the redacted record at issue]." T33-16 to T According to Judge Jacobson: 2 All citations with the letter separated by an en dash ref er to 14 oral arguments. The numbers page and line, respectively. "T" fallowed by two numbers the transcript of the February represent the cited transcript 4

9 [W]hat should have happened here is that there should have been a f ollowup request from the ACLU something akin to the discovery process where documents are exchanged and then when you receive the document responsive to your first request you realize that there are other things that you want a[n]d then you follow it up with another request. T34-1 to T34-9. With respect to Appellant's common law right of access, Judge Jacobson held that: just as under the OPRA, under the common law this case is about the scope of the request and. not about exemptions or privileges. None were claimed here. So there's no need for balancing of interests and the document, if another request is made, can be provided to a specific request asking for the entire grant application. T41-14 to T For the reasons set forth in her oral decision dated February 14, 2013, Judge Jacobson denied Appellant's request for relief and dismissed Appellant's complaint. Aa This appeal follows. STANDARD OF REVIEW Trial court decisions concerning "access to public records under OPRA and the manner of [OPRA' s] effectuation are legal conclusions that are always subject to de novo review" on appeal. Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. N.J. Sports & Expo. Auth., 423 N.J. Super. 140, 159 (App. Div. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also O'Boyle v. Boro. of Longport, 426 N.J. Super. 1, 8 (App. Div. 2012) ("A trial court's interpretation of 5

10 a statute, because it is a question of law, is reviewed under a de novo standard."). statute" like OPRA, Thus, when "interpret[ing] the scope of a appellate courts must "determine and carry out the Legislature's intent." Sussex Commons As socs., LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531, (2012). The first step in that process is to "look at the plain language of the statute" for guidance. Id. at 541. Extrinsic evidence should be considered only if the plain language is ambiguous, or if "a literal interpretation would create a manifestly absurd result, contrary to public policy." Ibid. Moreover, either of these circumstances permits the appellate court to "consider the law's overall purpose for direction." Ibid. LEGAL ARGUMENT The Supreme Court of New Jersey has justifiably heralded the fact that "New Jersey can boast of a long and proud tradition[ government." of openness and [of] hostility to secrecy in Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., 198 N.J. 274, 283 (2009), quoting N. Jersey Newspapers v. Passaic Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 127 N.J. 9, 16 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted; first modification in original). Indeed, open government is a cornerstone of democracy that enables a variety of advocates to "play a watchful role in curbing wasteful government spending and guarding against corruption and misconduct." See Burnett v. Cty. of Bergen, 198 6

11 N.J. 408, 414 (2009). Without such transparency in government activities, the American people are vulnerable to d~ception and abuse by our leaders. Asbury Park Press v. Ocean Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 374 N.J. Super. 312, (Law Div. 2004). New Jersey has furthered these ideals of openness and transparency by fostering both a statutory and a common law right of access to public records. See Educ. Law Ctr., 198 N.J. at 302. Here, either means of access should have permitted Appellant to receive unredacted versions of the records identified in the July 30 request; Respondents' failure to provide such access represents their failure to carry out the mandates for openness and transparency in both OPRA and the common law. I. RESPONDENTS UNLAWFULLY DENIED APPELLANT'S ACCESS TO PORTIONS OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS A. Appellant Should Have Been Given Unredacted Versions of the Requested Records Pursuant to OPRA Because Respondents Never Identified a Recognized Statutory Exemption That Would Perinit Limiting Access to Any Portions of Those Records The primary goal of OPRA is "to maximize public knowledge about public affairs in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to minimize the evils inherent in a secluded process." Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, (2008), quoting Asbury Park Press, 374 N.J. Super. at 329. As such, OPRA 7

12 expressly states that government records should be "readily accessible" to the public, id. 1, and that the "agency shall have the burden of proving that the denial of access is authorized by law," id. 6. Moreover, OPRA specifically instructs that "any limitation on the right of access shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. This court interprets these general principles in the following manner: If a document is a government record, it must be disclosed unless it is excluded from disclosure by other statutory provisions or executive orders, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9a, or [is] exempt from disclosure due to a recognized privilege or grant of confidentiality established in or recognized by the State Constitution, statute, court rule or judicial decision, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9b. Wilson v. Brown, 404 N. J. Super. 557, (App. Div. 2009) See also MAG Ent'ment LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534, 544 (App. Div. 2005) ("N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 specifically provides that 'all government records shall be subject to public access unless exempt.'"). 3 3 OPRA provides a comprehensive listing of legally "recognized" bases for exemption, including exemptions for "criminal investigatory records trade secrets and proprietary commercial or financial information any record within the attorney-client privilege" and several others listed in N.J.S.A. 47: la-1.1; for the "biotechnology trade secrets" described in N. J. S.A. 47: la-1. 2; for records "pertain [ing] to an investigation in progress" as described in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3; for the personal identifying information listed in N.J.S.A. 47:1A- 8

13 Most significantly for the present case, OPRA (as well as this court) makes clear not only that documents which are responsive to OPRA requests must be disclosed unless they fit under an identifiable exemption but, also, that information within those responsive do cum en ts can only be redacted if it fits within a specified exemption. N.J.S.A. 47 : la-5 ( g) ; Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Rousseau, 417 N.J. Super. 341, 368 (App. Div. 2010). Specifically, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) states: If the custodian of a government record asserts that part of a particular record is exempt from public access pursuant to P.L.1963, c. 73 (C.47:1A-l et seq.) [i.e., the provisions of OPRA] as amended and supplemented, the custodian shall delete or excise from a copy of the record that portion which the custodian asserts is exempt from access and sha11 prompt1y permit access to the remainder 0 the record. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5 (g) (emphasis added). Thus, the ability of a custodian to withhold portions of an otherwise responsive record is governed by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), and is strictly limited to "that part of a particular record [which] is exempt from public access pursuant to [OPRA itself]." Ibid. See also Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Rousseau, 417 N.J. Super. at 368 (confirming that N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) is controlling in cases such as the case at bar). Indeed, this is one of the rights of "unfettered" access to public records as explained by this court: 5 (a); and for the "personnel or pension records" described in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. 9

14 Under OPRA, a public agency seeking to restrict the public's right of access to government records must produce specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorily recognized basis for confidentiality. Absent such a showing, a citizen's right ox access is unfettered. Courier News v. 358 N.J. Super. added). Hunterdon 373, Cty. Prosecutor's Office, (App. Div. 2003) (emphasis Here, Appellant was denied access to substantial portions of the records disclosed by Respondents in response to the July 30 request, which had been heavily redacted prior to disclosure. See Aa6-25; see also Aal-2. In some instances, the redactions were line-by-line or of distinct pieces of data. Respondent Solomon explained these actions by stating that the "redacted information [was] not relevant to [the] request." See Aal-2. However, irrelevance is not a "statutorily recognized basis" for withholding any portion of a responsive government record. Indeed, at no point have Respondents offered a "statutorily recognized basis" for redacting any information from the disclosed records. Therefore, once the record itself was deemed relevant and responsive, the custodian was required to turn over the document in full. In their trial brief, Respondents attempted to justify their failure to comply with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) by claiming that, because the redacted information within the responsive document "was not responsive to the specific request made. [t]here was no exemption or privilege asserted because none was 10

15 necessary." Db4-5. However, this position runs afoul of the statute. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), if a custodian seeks to redact a portion of a responsive record, assertion of a statutorily-recognized exemption or privilege is clearly necessary. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g); see also Wilson, 404 N.J. Super. at ; Courier News, 358 N.J. Super. at Neither Respondents nor the trial judge have cited (or could cite) any provision of OPRA or any court case supporting the proposition that the accessibility of individual sentences, words, data, or other portions of a responsive government record depends on how responsive to the request an agency finds each individual piece of the whole. Indeed, the idea that an agency could permissibly comb through responsive records and remove nonexempt lines from it that the agency thinks do not fit within the reason or scope of the request is contrary to the well-established line of Appellate Division cases which emphasizes that OPRA requests are for records rather than in:form.ation. See Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep't, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005) ("OPRA only allows requests for records, not requests for information"); see also MAG, 375 N.J. Super. at (App. Div. 2005). In fact, this court has made clear that OPRA requires all requestors to identify and describe the government record sought with "reasonable clarity" or face the prospect 11

16 that the request will be denied as a "request for information." See Bent, 381 N.J. Super. at 37 (emphasis added). If agencies could redact pieces of information from an otherwise responsive record simply because they think it does not precisely match the requestor's subject-matter of concern, this process would resemble the very type of subjective, open-ended analysis that agencies are not supposed to perform under OPRA. See Burke v. Brandes, 429 N.J. Super. 169, 177 (App. Div. 2012) (holding that a plaintiff's records request was valid, in part, because it "demanded neither analysis, nor the exercise of judgment in identifying responsive records") ; see also MAG, 37 5 N. J. Super. at 549. Simply put, the position promoted by Respondents impermissibly treats each bit of information within a paper document as a record unto itself. As such, each sentence or piece of data would have to be culled over to assess relevancy. In addition to being unworkable, it directly contravenes the express provisions of OPRA as well as the cases cited above. Both Respondents and the trial judge attempt to rely on a non-binding Government Records Council ("GRC") decision for support. unavailing. See Db6; T35-4 to T That reliance is In Cottrell v. Borough of Glassboro, GRC Complaint No M (Jul. 16' 2003), available at the GRC was 12

17 presented with a case in which a requestor sought to obtain only a portion of a document that was responsive to her request, in order to avoid paying the copying fees associated with receiving the entire document. The municipality took the position that it had to charge the requestor for the entire document (the Borough had disclosed to Cottrell, and wanted her to pay for, "the full minutes" of two different Borough Council meetings even though Cottrell had "only requested the pages concerning the public portion of" those meetings). It was under these particular circumstances that the GRC stated: "The custodian should note that there is no requirement in OPRA that documents such as minutes need be provided in their entirety." Cottrell was refunded the charges for the portion of records she had not requested. Cottrell therefore bears almost no resemblance to the present case. In Cottrell, the requester specifically limited her own request to an identifiable portion of a record and then disputed being charged for more than the cost of the specific pages she had requested. Respondents (and the trial judge) have distorted the logic of the GRC's decision in Cottrell by reading into it that OPRA permits an agency to limit a request by denying access to a portion of an otherwise' responsive record for reasons other than a listed exemption, even if the agency does not obtain the requester's consent to such a limitation. 13

18 Cottrell stands for the proposition that a requestor may agree to receive less than a complete record in order to reduce the cost of copies for which she or he must pay an agency; it does not permit the agency to unilaterally excise information from a responsive record without relying on a specific exemption under OPRA. 4 Indeed, as noted above, such a result would clearly viol ate N. J. S. A. 4 7 : la-5 ( g). 5 In the present situation, there does not even exist the clear delineation of pages that existed in Cotrell. Here, the agency has made redactions line-by-line, and has even removed certain data from a list while leaving another item in the same list untouched. The position espoused by Respondents and the trial judge also runs afoul of the further presumption under OPRA that "any limitations on the right of access favor of the public's right of access." shall be construed in See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-l. This statutory provision further highlights that withholding all or parts of a government record is a limited power to be used only for properly specified and lawful reasons. Respondents have supplied no such reasons in the present case. They 4 This would not prevent a particular custodian from contacting a particular requestor to find out if that requestor is willing to receive only the most directly relevant portions of the records identified as responsive to a pending request. 5 If Cottrell stood for the proposition set forth by Respondents (it does not), that decision would be in error. In any event, a GRC decision is not binding on this court. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A- 7 ( e) ("A decision of the council shall not have value as a precedent for any case initiated in Superior Court."). 14

19 essentially want this court to validate expanding the uni verse of permissible OPRA exemptions by adding one not recognized in the statute itself. Additionally, a ruling in favor of Respondents would permit agencies to speculate about a requestor's interest or purpose in seeking documents. Such a result is directly at odds with the vitally important OPRA doctrine that the purpose of a request is irrelevant. See Burnett v. Cty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 435 (2009). Indeed, redacting specific information from a responsive record simply because a custodian sees the information as irrelevant or nonresponsive to the request cannot be appropriate. Once a requestor has identified a record, and an agency has located that record, the agency cannot decide what is or is not exempt within the record based on assessments of the requestor' s purpose or any other considerations. Although the trial judge claimed to recognize that agencies should determine which records a requestor seeks based solely on the wording of the request without trying to speculate about anything which does not appear directly therein, her ruling permits the opposite result because it clearly would allow custodians to cull through a government record and remove any information that the custodian subjectively thinks is not related to the requestor's stated interest or purpose. 15

20 A requestor certainly may choose to reference a particular interest or purpose behind her or his request; e.g., when, as here, Appellant identified a specific topic that the requested records should address. However, a requestor may have broad interests, or other purposes for making the request that he or she does not (and need not) share with the agency. The requestor cannot be required to provide an exhaustive list of interests simply to obtain an unredacted public record that is otherwise already clearly responsive to the parameters set forth in the request. The present case is a perfect example. Respondent, in making redactions, assumed that the ACLU-NJ's interest in seeking information about Automated License Plate Readers was very limited. For example, it appears that Respondents drastically redacted from the list of grant items (and amounts). Indeed, they redacted all grant i terns and amounts except the amount specifically granted for ALPRs. However, the interest of the ACLU-NJ would be furthered not merely by obtaining the amount of the grant pertaining to ALPRs but also by obtaining the amounts granted for other items, so as to assess the relative worth of the ALPR portion of the grant in relation to other items for which funding was sought. Permitting redaction of supposedly irrelevant or nonresponsi ve portions of a government record presents a truly 16

21 Kafkaesque scenario: A requestor typically will not know the precise form or content of a the fact that the requestor' s requested government record; yet description may fail to account for some portion of a record's contents does not mean the requestor will not want (or have a right to receive) those unknown portions. Permitting agencies to deny access to portions of a record for such extralegal and subjective reasons would require the requestor to name every possible or potential interest or purpose that he or she has in the requested records. As noted, this violates the presumption that one's interest or purpose in requesting a record is irrelevant to whether that record must be turned over under OPRA. Finally, the trial judge, in holding that Appellant should have accepted the redacted document as fulfilling its request and then made a second request for an unredacted version if it so desired, was wrong to place a new burden on requestors to make a separate request for information contained within records they have already requested. T34-1 to T34-9. As the foregoing amply demonstrates, OPRA firmly places the burden of withholding both records and information on agencies and their records custodians. Even then, OPRA further demands that a recognized statutory exemption must specifically justify any such withholding. It is therefore contrary to the letter, spirit, and purpose of OPRA to require a requestor to make a duplicative 17

22 request for records whenever the custodian attempts to unlawfully redact a responsive document. Such a result would promote secrecy, as it would reduce the ability of requestors (especially less sophisticated requestors) to obtain the information they seek through a request for public records. In sum, openness and transparency in government would be substantially diminished if public officials are allowed to ignore the provisions of OPRA and to pick and choose which public information contained in a given document they will disclose in response to a valid records request. Respondents should thus be required to provide unredacted versions of the records disclosed to Appellant in response to the July 30 request, and should be prohibited in the future from claiming 'relevance' or 'nonresponsiveness' as reasons for redacting bits of public information contained within a responsive record. B. Appellant Should Have Been Given Unredacted Versions of the Requested Records Pursuant to Common Law Because Appellant's Interest in All Portions of Those Records Outweighs the Identified Public Interest in Nondisclosure The common law right of access offers an alternate means for obtaining public records in New Jersey. Educ. Law Ctr., 198 N. J. at 302 ("Despite the enactment of OPRA, the Legislature explicitly provided that the common law right still exists."). The New Jersey Supreme Court has identified three main requirements for a common law claim: "(1) the records must be 18

23 common-law public documents; ( 2) the person seeking access must establish an interest in the subject matter of the material; and (3) the citizen's right to access must be balanced against the State's interest in preventing disclosure." Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, 50 (1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The common law generally provides access to a "wider array" of public records than does OPRA. Educ. Law Ctr., 198 N.J. at 302. Indeed, common law public records typically include any and all records "created by, or at the behest of, public officers in the exercise of a public function." Keddie, 148 N.J. at 50. A requestor may establish an interest in the records sought that is either personal or public. Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 104 (1986). The main limitation on the common law right of the requestor is that his or her interest in a record must be balanced against the public interest in nondisclosure. Ibid. When balancing these interests, New Jersey courts generally consider the following factors: (1) the extent to which disclosure will impede agency functions by discouraging citizens from providing information to the government; (2) the effect disclosure may have upon persons who have given such information, and whether they did so in reliance that their identities would not be disclosed; (3) the extent to which agency self-evaluation, program improvement, or other decision making will be chilled by disclosure; (4) the degree to which the information sought includes factual data as opposed to evaluative 19

24 reports of policymakers; ( 5) whether any findings of public misconduct have been insufficiently corrected by remedial measures instituted by the investigative agency; and (6) whether any agency disciplinary or investigatory proceedings have arisen that may circumscribe the individual's asserted need for the materials. Id. at 113. This balancing process "is flexible and adaptable to different circumstances and sensitive to the fact that the requirements of confidentiality are greater in some situations than in others." McClain v. College Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 362 ( 1985). The balancing of interests further suggests that "[i]f the reasons for maintaining confidentiality do not apply at all in a given situation, or apply only to an insignificant degree, the party seeking disclosure should not be required to demonstrate a compelling need." Ibid. The factors set forth in Loigman "and any other relevant factors should be balanced [against] the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's vindication of the public interest." Loigman, 102 N.J. at 113. As an initial matter, the principal record sought and received by Appellant was a grant application to receive federal funding. Records submitted by a state agency to a federal funding agency are common law public records because they clearly were "created by, or at the behest of, public officers in the exercise of a public function." Keddie, 148 N.J. at

25 Here, the public employees who prepared grant applications requesting federal funding for ALPR technology and other public projects on behalf of Respondent DCJ were performing a distinctly public function; i.e., they sought the funds needed to purchase equipment that would be used by law enforcement agencies. Perhaps for this reason, Respondents do not (indeed, cannot) deny that the grant application at issue, as a whole, meets this description. Further, Appellant can establish a strong interest in these records. Appellant and the public alike have a general interest in knowing the contents of applications submitted by public agencies to receive funding for projects intended to enhance public safety. Indeed, citizen interest in a matter of such obvious public concern is the archetypal, though not the only, interest that suitably meets this requirement of common law records requests. See Home News v. Dep't of Health, 144 N.J. 446, 454 ( 1996). Although the July 30 request for grant application records specifically referred to ALPRs and not other grant-funded expenditures, the entirety of the application reveals information about the proposed expenditure of public funds derived from a single funding source. Appellant and the public have a substantial interest in disclosure of all anticipated disbursements of grant funds that may be received by a public agency from any such funding source. 21

26 Appellant also has a particular interest in these records because it has long fought to protect individual civil liberties from intrusive government actions. Thus, obtaining the redacted portions of the requested records could shed light on the priorities of DCJ and provide information that allows Appellant to better advocate for its organizational goals. Finally, disclosure of the redacted portions of the records at issue is warranted because Respondents have not established (and likely cannot establish) any public interest in preventing such disclosure that would outweigh Appellant's interest. This is true in a general sense because no specific "reasons for maintaining confidentiality" preclude access to records of public business conducted by a public agency or require Appellant to establish an especially "compelling need." See McClain, 99 N.J. at 362. Indeed, as noted, Respondents have not identified any reason for confidentiality or claimed that any OPRA exemption is implicated. In short, Appellant's interest in the record, including in its unredacted form, outweighs the (non-existent) public interest in nondisclosure, especially since the record contains grant information documenting expenditures of public funds. Whereas Appellant wants records that may shed light on how Respondent DCJ' s procurement and use of ALPR technology (and other i terns requiring federal funding) could adversely affect 22

27 individual civil liberties, Respondents merely seek to withhold bits of otherwise public information that it subjectively deems irrelevant to the reason Appellant sought the record in which those bits of information are contained. Once again, Respondents are demanding the extralegal and subjective authority to limit a recordas request by providing only the supposedly 'relevant' portions of responsive documents. The common law, like OPRA, does not permit any agency to limit requests in this manner. II. APPELLANT IS A PREVAILING PARTY AND SHOULD BE AWARDED A "REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE" BECAUSE IT HAD TO FILE THIS LAWSUIT TO PRESERVE ITS RIGHT TO RECEIVE UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS If this court orders Respondents to disclose unredacted versions of the records requested by Appellant on July 30, as it should, the court also should find that Appellant is the prevailing party and, pursuant to common law and the feeshifting provisions of OPRA, should award Appellant reasonable attorney's fees and costs of filing suit. Mason, 196 N.J. at 76 (holding that the "prevailing party" under both OPRA and common law is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees). CONCLUSION For the fore going reasons, this court should reverse the decision of the trial judge by declaring Respondents in 23

28 violation of OPRA and the common law right of access, and should remand to the trial court to compel Respondents to provide unredacted versions of the records disclosed in response to the July 30 and to award attorneys' fees and costs. Dated: May 30, 2013 Attorney for Appellant 24

29 APPENDIX Aal-3 Aa4-5 Aa6-25 Aa26-37 Aa38-43 Aa44-45 Aa46-47 Aa48 State of New Jersey Government Records Request Receipt for Request W69058, dated September 14, 2012 Letter from ACLU-NJ to Records Custodian dated July 30, 2012 Records disclosed to ACLU-NJ pursuant to Request W69058 ACLU-NJ's Verified Complaint dated November 2, 2012 Order to Show Cause dated November 5, 2012 Order of the Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, A. J. S. C., dated February 14, 2013 Amended Notice of Appeal dated March 27, 2013 Transcript Delivery Certification dated April 4,

30 September 14, :15 PM State of New Jersey Government Records Request Receipt Page: 1 of 3 Requestor Information Re'E!Jest Number: W690~8. homas W Macleod CLU of New Jersey P.O. Box Newark, NJ macleod@aclu-nj.org Request Date: July 30, 2012 Maximum Authorized Cost: $ Status of Your Request Your request for government records (# W69058) from the Division of Criminal Justice has been reviewed and has been Filled Closed. Detailed information as to the availability of the documents you requested appear below and on following pages as necessary. The cost and any balance due for this request is shown to the right. Any balance due must be paid in full prior to the release I mailing of the documents. If you have any questions related to the disposition of this request please contact the Custodian of Records for the Division of Criminal Justice. The contact information is in the column to the right. Please reference your request number in any contact or correspondence. Document Detail!Div I :CJ l 8/28/2009 letter to Colonel Fuentes of NJ istate Police from H. Levine-Sabol re: DCJ jsubgrant no.: RJAG , Edward Byrne 1 Memorial Justice Assistance Grant,,,.. ;'<~'>i...,_.,,..~,,,"~''" ~,,,,_ i Grant Application: Attachment 1 - Program iy Narrative, State of NJ, Justice Assistance Grant, Formula Program "-,,.., --'-" "'"-"M Redactio~-l l Legal i E~ ~t~~-~i~ ; Other Req i Pages l Size Media : Cost <,,,.., < -,;}~.,,,.,. <>»~~- t"""'"'", ~t..-,,,,,.,, "''"'"""'--., u N. 2 N Aal

31 September 14, :15 PM State of New Jersey Government Records Request Receipt CJ ;0003 Grant Application: Attachment 2A-,y Program Allocations List (Budget), State of NJ, Justice Assistance Grant! "j-"' redacted information not related to request ~,,,, > ~._,,.,, " " ~! Grant Application: Attachment 2B - Budget. Y I Narrative, State of NJ, Justice Assistance! Grant, Formula Program - "i ~~dacted i~f~rmatio~ ;;t'~~l~v~nt to requ~~t,,,,..,.. ~-1~... -.L - ~ ,- ~ ~... ~ icj jgrant Application: Attachment 3 - Review! I Narrative, State of NJ, Justice Assistance ' I I Grant, Formula Program fcj raoo6 CJ I "l8rant Applicatio~~ Att~~h;e-~t 4 - Abstract, i State of NJ, Justice Assistance Grant, 1.~9.rr:i.~~~_i='~~g!:_~~.~-.... I NJSP Subgrant documents re: Automated I License Plate Reader Technology including i budget detail form, budget narrative, I application authorization, general 1 conditions, Recovery Act conditions and I certifications...[att~~~ey G... e.. n. e.. r.a... I. Directive N 2 N y Page: 2 of 3 ;Training materials re: ALPR techology land/or sharing of data :Denial: 05.E;~~ ption by State Regulation (specify)--- N.J.A.C. 13:1E-3.2(a)(1) J.... ",,.....!0010 N N N N You filed an OPRA request with the Department of Law and Public Safety (L&PS), Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) seeking access to the records indicated below concerning funding and grants regarding automatic license plate recognition technology. As the L&PS Custodian of Records, I am responding on behalf of the Division of Criminal Justice. DCJ applied for and received an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) in 2009 from the United States Department of Justice under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; one portion of that ARRNJAG grant was a law enforcement initiative for license plate readers for investigations. The New Jersey State Police was the only DCJ subgrantee under the license plate readers for investigations portion of that ARRNJAG grant. The grant and subgrant documents provided, together with Attorney General Directive , respond to paragraphs 1,2, 3 and 6 of your request. Training materials are confidential pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:1 E-3.2(a)(1 ). DCJ does not engage in the purchase, sale or other transfer of ALPR data, so there are no records responsive to that portion of your request. I will provide you with electronic copies of the 79 pages of redacted records indicated above. Sincerely, Bruce J. Solomon L&PS Custodian of Records Your request for government records (# W69058) is as follows: Aa2

32 September 14, :15 PM State of New Jersey Government Records Request Receipt Page: 3 of 3 This request for government records is made pursuant to the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. (lopral), and the common law right of access to public documents, S. Jersey Publl9 Co. v. New Jersey Explway Auth., 124 N.J. 478, (1991 ).It seeks records pertaining to all forms of Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology, which also may be referred to as Automatic License Plate Readers, or as Automatic Vehide Identification, Number Plate Recognition, or Car Plate Recognition software, hardware, equipment, units, or systems.please provide electronic copies of the following records made, maintained, kept on file, or received by your agency from January 1, 2006, to the present:1. Records of all federal funds sought, received, or managed by your agency in connection with procurement and use of ALPR technology;2. Records of all police departments and other agencies that received or purchased ALPR technology using funds from grants managed, arranged, or assisted by your agency;3. All policies, procedures, and other general guidelines set for your agency by federal grant-making agencies, and for police departments and other agencies by your agency, with respect to procurement and use of ALPR technology, and to storage, access and sharing of data scanned with ALPR technology, including but not limited to those governing use of, access to, and auditing of databases, data mining programs, and other computerized management systems into which data from two or more police departments or other agencies is deposited;4. All training materials relating to procurement and use of ALPR technology, and to storage, access, and sharing of data scanned with ALPR technology;5. All records of the purchase, sale, or other transfer of ALPR data to any individual or entity; and6. All ALPR data sharing agreements with any agency of the federal government, including but not limited to memoranda of understanding/agreement between your agency and any division or department of the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, and Department of Defense. If you determine that any portions of the requested materials are exempt from disclosure, please redact only that which you believe is exempt and provide the remaining, nonexempt portions. Also, please send me a letter detailing the specific exemption(s) on which each deletion relies. If the cost of copies for this request does not exceed $50, you may proceed without further approval and send me an invoice with the records. Otherwise, please advise me of the cost before filling the request so that we can discuss arrangements. Aa3

33 ACLU AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION of NEW JERSEY P.O. Box Newark, NJ Tel: Fax: inforaactu-nj.org Frank Corrado President Deborah Jacobs Executive Director Edward Barocas Legal Director BY MAIL July 30, 2012 OPRA Custodian New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ Dear OPRA Custodian: This letter confinns that, on the above referenced date, I used your agency's electronic request fonn to request government records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. ("OPRA"), and the common law right of access to public documents, S. Jersey Publ'g Co. v. New Jersey Exp'way Auth., 124 N.J. 478, (1991). My request sought records pertaining to all forms of Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology, which also may be referred to as Automatic License Plate Readers, or as Automatic Vehicle Identification, Number Plate Recognition, or Car Plate Recognition software, hardware, equipment, units, or systems. It asked for electronic copies of the following records made, maintained, kept on file, or received by your agency from January 1, 2006, to the present: 1. Records of all federal funds sought, received, or managed by your agency in connection with procurement and use of ALPR technology; 2. Records of all police departments and other agencies that received or purchased ALPR technology using funds from grants managed, arranged, or assisted by your agency; 3. All policies, procedures, and other general guidelines set for your agency by federal grant-making agencies, and for police departments and other agencies by your agency, with respect to procurement and use of ALPR technology, and to storage, access and sharing of data scanned with ALPR technology, including but not limited to those governing use of, access to, and auditing of databases, data mining programs, and other computerized management systems into which data from two or more police departments or other agencies is deposited; Aa4

34 ALPR Records Request July 30, 2012 Page 2 of2 4. All training materials relating to procurement and use of ALPR technology, and to storage, access, and sharing of data scanned with ALPR technology; 5. All records of the purchase, sale, or other transfer of ALPR data to any individual or entity; and 6. All ALPR data sharing agreements with any agency of the federal government, including but not limited to memoranda of understanding/agreement between your agency and any division or department of the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, and Department of Defense. If you determine that any portions of the requested materials are exempt from disclosure, please redact only that which you believe is exempt and provide the remaining, non-exempt portions. Also, please send me a letter detailing the specific exemption(s) on which each deletion relies. If the cost of copies for this request does not exceed $50, you may proceed without further approval and send me an invoice with the records. Otherwise, please advise me of the cost before filling the request so that we can discuss arrangements. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish all responsive documents to the undersigned at the address listed above. If you have any questions, you may contact me at or tmacleod@aclu-nj.org. Sincerely, ~/Lv, ~ ha.j A Thomas W. MacLe?~~-- \ Open Governance Attorney Aa5

35 JoN s: CORZINE Governor State of New Jersey OmcE of nm ArroRNEY GENEiQ.L DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFE1Y DIVISION OF CR1MINAL JUSTICE POBox085 TRENTON, NJ 'I'ELBPHONE: (609) ANNE Mn.GRAM Attorney General DEBORAH L. GRAMICCIONI Director ',..August 28, 2009 Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, Superintendent Division of State Police P.O. Box 7068 West Trenton, NJ ' Re: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant JAG Recovery Grant Program. Federal Award No.: 2009-SU-B CFDA No.: DCJ Subgrant No.: RJAG Dear Colonel Fuentes: The Divis.ion of Criminal Justice is accepting grant applications for the American R~overy and Reinvestment Act of 2009:.Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG Recovery). Grant Program. The State's plan, approved by the federal Bureau ofjustice Assistance, has included funding for the License Plate Readers For Investigations Initiative. ; :. J: The federal subgrant award will be in the amount of $400,000. No matching funds are required. Only a federally approved current-indirect Cost Rate may be used for JAG Recovery funds. Approval for expenditures for this subgrant cannot be authorized until a fully executed subgrant award/contract is completed. A JAG Recovery application package has been forwarded to Captain William Hower, Chief Grants Management Bureau. Please ensure that all items on the enclosed application checklist are completed prior to submitting your application. Th~ Attorney General's Office would like your cooperation in expediting the subgrant process for the JAG Recovery Program. Kindly submit a completed application, including the required grant certifications to the Program Pevelopment Section by September15, a New Jersey ls An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper and is Recyclable Aa6

36 Page2 The Recovery Act places great emphasis on accountability and transparency. Recovery Act funds must be tracked and accounted for separately from all other funds. Recipients of Recovery Act funds must attend a mandatory DCJ training session to learn about extensive Recovery Act reporting requirements. For further assistance in preparing your application or if you have any questions, please contact Tom Brennan at (609) Very truly yours, #4~ Reddy Levine-Sabol, Chief Program Development Section encl. c: Captain William Hower, Chief, Grants Administration Bureau, NJSP w/enc. Sgt. Jerry Bordwick, Grants Management Unit, NJSP Leesa Salzano, DCJ Financ~al Operations / Thomas Brennan, DCJ Program Analyst,,,,,,,- RJAG 8(20109 Aa7

37 ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY RECOVERY ACT: EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT FORMULA PROGRAM PROGRAM NARRATIVE 1. OUTLINE OF TYPES OF PROGRAMS TO BE FUNDED Funding awarded under the Recovery Act: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program State Formula program (JAG Recovery) will be used to implement New Jersey's Strategy for Safe Streets and Neighborhoods. For a listing of the programs funded under New Jersey's JAG Recovery, see Attachment 2, Budget and Budget Narrative. 2. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR THE PROGRAMS The global economic recession has hit every level of New Jersey's government. This October, Governor Corzine specified four areas of action: immediate assistance, including foreclosure prevention, energy costs, and food costs; short-term job creation, focusing on expediting public works projects and providing strong incentives for new job creation; long-term business climate changes, specifically on changes in tax policy and the cultivation of alternative energy projects, and; continued fiscal responsibility on the state level by keeping state spending in check. As of February 2009, New Jersey's budget deficit requires $3.6 billion in budget cuts. State revenue collections were $526 million below projections from the beginning of the year and are $1.33 billion under projections for the current fiscal year. The decline in revenue will cause a $2.8 billion shortfall by the end of the fiscal year. Coupled with an additional $800 million in needed spending, $3. 6 billion in cuts are needed to close to balance the budget. JAG Recovery will provide New Jersey with an opportunity to fund important local and state criminal justice initiatives, focusing on statewide efforts under New Jersey's Strategy for Safe Streets and Neighborhoods. JAG Recovery funding will be awarded to state and local agencies to meet important public safety and criminal justice needs for our residents. JAG Recovery funds will help ensure critical services in keeping our communities safe. Violent crime represents one of New Jersey's most significant public safety problems. According to New Jersey's latest 2007 Uniform Crime Report (UCR), violent crimes account for 13% of the total crime index, and violent crimes account for 30% of index arrests. Persons under 21 years of age account for 26% of all arrests. Criminal street gangs are responsible for a major part of this violence. Gang violence results in many youth in our cities left seriously wounded or dead. In 2006, homicide was the second leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 15 and 24. The 2007 UCR indicates: 14% of all murder victims were between the ages of 15-19, Page 1of10 Aa8 1-

38 23% of all murder victims were between the ages of20-24, and 17% of all murder victims were between the ages of Thus, 54% of all murder victims were between the ages of 15 to 29. Showing an increasing of 3% since last year, 14% percent of all 2007 murders were drug or gang related. Gang violence strikes innocent victims who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, perpetuating a generalized fear in our communities. In 2007, 55% of murders occurred on public streets and highways - - an increase of7% since In one year, crime in 2007 was marked with: 1 % increase in the use of firearms in 68% of all murders and in 13 % of felony murders. 27% increase of juvenile arrests for murder. 2% increase of robberies as a motive for felony murders (with a 88% rate). 20% increase of convenience store robberies. Despite a decrease of 4% in New Jersey's overall crime rate from 2006 to 2007, the above figures confirm disturbing trends of rising drug and gang related murders, and increasing juvenile murder rates and murders in public streets and highways. To combat the state's serious crime problems, New Jersey's Governor Jon Corzine released the Strategy for Safe Streets and Neighborhoods (the Crime Plan) in October New Jersey's statewide strategic plan focuses on three components critical to addressing violent crime: enforcement, prevention and reentry. The plan is based on increased accountability for all state, county and local law criminal justice agencies through a collaborative, data-driven, action-oriented, outcome-based process. Working groups, established for each category, met with experts in their respective fields, representatives of state and local governments, law enforcement, community-based organizations, education, social service agencies, and representation from the private sector to coordinate resources and to ensure that a collaborative, multi-pronged approach to enhanced public safety was formulated. The Directors of Enforcement, Prevention and Reentry were established in the Office of the Attorney General to oversee the implementation of each major component of the Crime Plan. JAG Recovery funds will be used to implement this statewide Crime Plan. A brief summary of highlights of the statewide strategy follows: a. Enforcement The Attorney General issued a blueprint to state, county and local law enforcement agencies for effective and focused efforts to combat violent crime, and, in particular gang and gun-related violence. The enforcement component or strategy encourages and assists law enforcement agencies to move towards intelligence-led, data-driven policing strategies. The enforcement strategy requires municipal law enforcement agencies to collect and provide crime data on a monthly basis to a central repository (the State Police Regional Operations Intelligence Center "ROIC"). i l t I Page2 oflo Aa9

39 A Criminal Analysis Team will be established to analyze the crime data. Primarily focusing on crime analysis at the State-level, the team will also assist local police departments in the development of accurate, timely and effective data analysis. b. Prevention Page 3of10 AalO

40 c. Reentry d. Criminal Justice System Improvements New Jersey is on the forefront of integrated criminal justice information systems resulting from the efforts of the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Policy Committee which followed a systematic, long-range plan. Established in 1991, the CJIS Committee meets monthly to plan Page 4of10 Aall

41 and discuss projects funded under JAG and other sources of federal financial support. The ens Committee includes representatives from the Department of Law and Public Safety, the Office of the Attorney General, the Division of State Police, the Division of Criminal Justice, and the Juvenile Justice Commission, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Office oflnformation Technology, the Office of Management and Budget, the State Chiefs of Police, and County Jail Wardens. To improve system efficiencies, JAG Recovery funds support interfaces to facilitate information sharing among local and state criminal justice agencies and systems. 3. COORDINATION OF EFFORTS INVOLVING JAG & RELATED RJSTICE FUNDS The Directors of Enforcement, Prevention and Reentry have each established councils for the implementation, coordination and leveraging ofresources. Councils have wide-ranging involvement from experts in their respective fields. Representation include participation from state and local governments, non-profits, community agencies and agencies in the private sector. Page 5of10 Aal2

42 The Department of Law and Public Safety, Office of the Attorney General, Grant's Office convenes a weekly consolidated grants meeting for the purpose of ensuring coordination of resources and services within the department. 4. PROJECT OBJECTIVES & MEASURABLE OUTCOMES a. Jobs Retained and Created with JAG Recovery Funding 1. Increase number of jobs retained during the grant period. ii. Increase number of jobs created during the grant period. b. Law Enforcement L Encourage law enforcement agencies to move towards intelligence-led, data driven policing strategies. (1) Increase the number oflaw enforcement agencies collecting, analyzing and sharing intelligence data. (2) Increase the number oflaw enforcement agencies following intelligence-led, data driven policing models. (3) Invest in investigative, surveillance, and interrogation technologies facilitating intelligence-led policing models. (4) Increase the number of violent crime arrests (gang, gun and narcotics) in designated high-crime areas. (5) Reduce violent crime (gang, gun and narcotics) in designated highcrime areas. ii. Enhance prosecutions of firearm offenses in high-crime rate counties. ( 1) Conduct threat assessments (2) Increase gang, narcotics and firearm prosecutions Expand Safe Fugitive Surrender Programs in conjunction with the Office of the U.S. Marshall. c. Page 6of10 Aa13

43 d. 5. ORGANIZATIONAL CAP ABILITIES AND COMPETENCIES Under New Jersey's unified system of law enforcement the Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officer of the State, has supervisory authority over the 21 county prosecutors and all other law enforcement departments and agencies throughout the state. The Directors of Enforcement, Prev~ntion and Reentry report directly to the Attorney General. Additionally, the State Administrative Agency (SAA) for federally assisted criminal justice programs, is located within the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Program Development/Grants Section. New Jersey's SAA, working collaboratively with the Crime Plan Directors, is uniquely positioned to assume a leadership and oversight role in developing and implementing JAG Recovery programs that require strong partnerships among the various levels of criminal justice agencies. SAA staff is experienced in providing technical assistance for effective program implementation and maximizing and leveraging resources through coordination of services. In addition to grants administration, primary responsibilities include planning, program development, technical assistance, and coordination of resources. Analysts assigned to the unit work closely with subgrantees to establish partnerships that expand and enhance programs. The Department of Law and Public Safety further coordinates grant resources through the Department's Consolidated Grants Management Office. Grari.t personnel from the various divisions within the Department of Law and Public Safety (Divisions of Criminal Justice, State Police, Highway Safety, Civil Rights, Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Juvenile Justice Commission, and the Office of the Attorney General) meet weekly to share information and coordinate federal programs where appropriate. a. Tracking ofdrawdowns and Grant Expenditures The Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) follows appropriate New Jersey Office of Management and Budget (State OMB) requirements to administer JAG Recovery funds. DCJ uses the New Jersey Comprehensive Financial System Page 7 oflo Aa14

44 (NCFS) for all JAG accounts. Adjustments, transactions and disbursements are processed through NCFS. In accordance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and federal OMB guidance, the State OMB developed a NJCFS account codes structure to be used for all accounts established for appropriated Recovery Act funds. State OMB directs state agencies to make frequent adjustments in NJ CFS to ensure the accuracy of the Recovery Act reporting. Accordingly, a separate NCFS account will be created for the JAG Recovery grant award which references the unique federal CFDA number assigned to the JAG Recovery funds. JAG Recovery funds will be reported via quarterly fiscal reports, form SF 269, to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Upon New Jersey's receipt of an executed award from BJA, the full amount of the award will be drawn down in advance and deposited into a separate interest bearing account. Interest will be posted annually to this account according to State OMB determination. Subgrantees are also required to comply with all federal requirements and maintain separate accounting for JAG Recovery funds. Subgrantees develop Approved Budgets to conduct JAG Recovery programs. To request reimbursement, Subgrantees complete monthly/quarterly Detailed Cost Statements (DCS) and State payment vouchers. This documentation is reviewed and approved by SAA staff and then sent to a fiscal analyst for processing/payment. Each subgrantee payment is coded with the CFDA number assigned for JAG Recovery funds. The subgrantee must prepare a Grant Adjustment Request form and receive written approval for changes in the Approved Budget in excess of $ ACTIVITIES THAT CAN BE STARTED & COMPLETED EXPEDITIOUSLY, IN A MANNER THAT MAXIMIZES JOB CREATION/RETENTION AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS. License Plate Readers for Investigations Initiative 7. TIMELINE OR PROJECT PLAN Page 8 oflo Aa15 I

45 Ob ectives/ Activities Jobs Retained Law Enforcement On from start of Prevention On from start of Reen On from start of 8. PERFORMANCE MEASURES The customized JAG Programmatic Measures will be utilized for each funded program under the JAG Recovery Act. Examples include, but are not limited to: a. How many jobs were retained during the reporting period/cumulative. b. How many jobs were created during the reporting period/cumulative. c. Number of individuals receiving services during the reporting period. d. Number of individuals who completed programming during the reporting period. e. Number of individuals who provided programming during the reporting period. f. Total number of communities and/or organizations receiving services during the reporting period. g. Number of communities who completed programming during the reporting period. h. Number of communities who provided programming during the reporting period. i. Number of hours of programming provided to individuals or communities during the reporting period. j. Number of task force partners that are sharing resources/information and strategies. k. Amount of funds used to provide training during the reporting period. 1. Number of criminal justice staff who participated in the training. m. Number of (individuals) organizations, communities/agencies participating in the training. n. The number of individuals (by related crime) arrested prior to the start of the period. o. Total number of individuals arrested (by related crime) at the end of the reporting period. p. Number of reported crimes (targeted by JAG Recovery funds) at the start of the period. q. Number ofreported crimes (targeted by JAG Recovery funds) at the end of the period. r. Number of units that report improved efficiency (for systems improvements). s. Number of units that report improved efficiency (for contract support). t. Number of units that receive contractual support as a result of JAG Recovery Funds. u. Amount of funds awarded to purchase equipment or supplies. v. Indicate the types and amounts of equipment/supplies purchased with JAG Recovery funds during the reporting period. w. Number of staff who reported improved efficiency in job performance during the Page 9of10 Aa16

46 reporting period (because of purchase of equipment and supplies). x. Number of organizations/units or departments whose information systems improvements started in the reporting period. i ' Page 10of10 Aa17

47 ATTACHMENT2A STATE OF NEW JERSEY Recovery Act: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Allocations List (Budget) Total Allocation Variable Passthrough I Less Than $10,000 State Level Allocation I To Locals Allocation LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES co rl ni ~ 1of2

48 ATTACHMENT2A STATE OF NEW JERSEY Recovery Act: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Allocations List (Budget) Total Allocation Variable Passthrough 1 Less Than $10,000 State Level Allocatfonl To Locals Allocation CJ'\ r-1 m,:i; Variable Passthrough To Locals (Min. Required 59.23%) 59.23% 2of2

49 ATTACHMENT 2B STATE OFNEW JERSEY RECOVERY ACT: EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT FORMULA PROGRAM A. Law Enforcement Initiatives BUDGET NARRATIVE License Plate Readers for Investigations Initiative To purchase license plate readers for strategic deployment throughout the State. The readers will assist law enforcement in investigations or investigative initiatives aimed at reducing violent crimes. Aa20 ;. '

50 B. Prevention Initiatives Aa21

51 C. Reentry Initiatives :. ' i ', :. ' i Aa22

52 D. Criminal Justice Information Sharing I i. I E. Program Administration % Approximately three percent of the JAG Recovery awarded is being requested for administrative funds. These funds will be applied to the salaries of personnel directly involved in the administration of the JAG Recovery programs. Responsibilities will include fiscal and programmatic oversight, technical assistance, ongoing review, monitoring, assessment, and reporting for all JAG Recovery programs. Aa23