The N.J. intermediate appellate courtroom held such publication wasn’t protected by the First Modification legislation; the state excessive courtroom simply agreed to rethink that. The query introduced is,
Is Daniel’s Regulation, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1, which prohibits disclosing the house addresses of sure public officers, together with judges, prosecutors, and legislation enforcement personnel, unconstitutional as utilized to plaintiff?
Here is an excerpt of the decrease courtroom opinion, Kratovil v. Metropolis of New Brunswick:
Plaintiff is a journalist who writes for and edits New Brunswick Right this moment, an internet publication…. Defendant Caputo is a retired police officer who then turned Director of the Metropolis’s Police Division. Caputo was additionally a Commissioner of the Metropolis’s Parking Authority. He served in each these positions by 2023 and retired from these positions in early 2024.
In 2023, plaintiff famous that Caputo was not attending Metropolis Council conferences, nor was he commonly attending Parking Authority conferences in individual. On March 14, 2023, plaintiff despatched Caputo an e-mail asking if Caputo nonetheless lived within the Metropolis. The Deputy Director of Police responded on Caputo’s behalf, stating, in related half: “The general public launch of a legislation enforcement officer’s place of residence is protected beneath Daniel’s Regulation.”
Plaintiff got here to consider that Caputo was dwelling in Cape Might. To verify that perception, plaintiff filed a request beneath the Open Public Data Act (the OPRA) with the Cape Might County Board of Elections (the Cape Might Board), requesting Caputo’s voter profile. Initially, the Cape Might Board offered a redacted model of Caputo’s voting profile to plaintiff in March 2023. After follow-up communications from plaintiff, in April 2023, the Cape Might Board produced a voter profile with fewer redactions. That voter profile included Caputo’s residence deal with.
At conferences of the Metropolis’s Parking Authority and the Metropolis Council carried out on March 22, 2023 and April 5, 2023, respectively, plaintiff requested if Caputo nonetheless lived within the Metropolis. Neither Caputo nor anybody else from the Metropolis definitively responded to plaintiff’s query.
On Might 3, 2023, plaintiff attended one other Metropolis Council assembly…. Through the public remark portion of the assembly, plaintiff mentioned Caputo’s change of residence, that Caputo’s residence in Cape Might was roughly a two-hour drive from the Metropolis, and that Caputo was serving on the Metropolis’s Parking Authority regardless that he was a non-resident. Throughout that dialogue, plaintiff said the road title in Cape Might the place Caputo was registered to vote. He additionally offered Metropolis Council members with copies of Caputo’s voter profile, which included Caputo’s full residence deal with.
On Might 15, 2023, plaintiff obtained a letter notifying him that Caputo was invoking Daniel’s Regulation to stop re-publication of his residence deal with. That letter said:
On Wednesday, Might 3, 2023, you printed and/or introduced my residence deal with at a public assembly of the New Brunswick Metropolis Council. Kindly settle for this letter [as] a written discover as required by [Daniel’s Law].
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1 and N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1, and as a licensed and in any other case coated individual whose residence deal with and unpublished residence phone quantity will not be topic to disclosure, I do hereby request that you just stop the disclosure of such data and take away the protected data from the web or the place in any other case made out there.
I belief you may be guided accordingly.
Plaintiff sued, “stat[ing] that he deliberate to publish an article about Caputo dwelling in Cape Might, which would come with Caputo’s residence deal with” and searching for “a declaration that Daniel’s Regulation was unconstitutional as utilized to his meant publication.” The courtroom held for defendants, reasoning thus:
Daniel’s Regulation … was named for Daniel Anderl, the son of United States District Court docket Choose Esther Salas. In 2020, a disgruntled lawyer went to Choose Salas’ residence and shot and killed Daniel. The assailant additionally severely wounded Choose Salas’ husband. The assailant had discovered Choose Salas’ residence deal with on the web.
Daniel’s Regulation is meant to stop additional assaults on sure authorities officers and their households. It prohibits the disclosure of residential addresses and private cellphone numbers of “coated individuals,” together with lively and retired judges, prosecutors, and legislation enforcement officers. Furthermore, Daniel’s Regulation gives that on discover, an individual, enterprise, or affiliation shall not disclose or re-disclose the house deal with or phone variety of a coated individual. Daniel’s Regulation imposes civil penalties for violations, together with $1,000 per violation, punitive damages, and lawyer’s charges. As well as, a “reckless violation of [Daniel’s Law] is against the law of the fourth diploma,” and a “purposeful violation of [Daniel’s Law] is against the law of the third diploma.” …
[T]he United States Supreme Court docket has repeatedly held that “if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful details about a matter of public significance[,] then state officers might not constitutionally punish publication of the knowledge, absent a have to additional a state curiosity of the best order.” …
All events agree, and the file confirms, that the matter of public concern was that Caputo lived in Cape Might whereas serving because the Metropolis’s Director of Police and a Commissioner of the Metropolis’s Parking Authority. In responding to plaintiff’s criticism, defendants conceded, and the trial courtroom subsequently held, that plaintiff all the time had the proper to publish that Caputo lived in Cape Might, which was a considerable distance from the Metropolis, with out being topic to Daniel’s Regulation sanctions….
Caputo’s actual avenue deal with shouldn’t be a matter of public concern …. [And] defending public officers from violent assaults and harassment is a compelling State curiosity of the best order….
Be aware that the opinion didn’t depend on the truth that the police chief not too long ago retired (maybe as a result of he retired effectively after the incidents that gave rise to the litigation).
For selections which can be usually opposite (although not factually similar) to the intermediate appellate choice that can now be reviewed, see Publius v. Boyer-Vine (C.D. Cal. 2017),  Brayshaw v. Metropolis of Tallahassee (N.D. Fla. 2010), Sheehan v. Gregoire (W.D. Wash. 2003), and Ostergren v. Cuccinelli (4th Cir. 2010).
Be aware additionally that the majority states do not prohibit residential picketing. (Such prohibitions, if content-neutral, could be constitutional, see Frisby v. Schultz (1988), however within the absence of such a content-neutral method restriction, residential picketing is constitutionally protected speech.) New Jersey, particularly, would not forbid such picketing, although some cities would possibly. It follows then, that individuals should have the authorized proper to prepare such picketing. If that’s the case, how can they go about doing that if they are often legally barred from publicizing the deal with at which the picketing is to happen? Or would that argument solely justify a declaration that somebody who’s organizing such picketing can disclose the deal with, and never somebody who is just attempting to concretely reveal {that a} police chief lives outdoors city?
