The Supreme Court held that a statute that shields from disclosure the home address of a public official is narrowly tailored to protect a state interest “of the highest order” to protect certain public officials and their immediate family members so that public officials can “perform their duties without fear of reprisal.” In a 5-0 opinion, with three justices not participating, the Supreme Court held in Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick that a reporter’s challenge to Daniel’s Law was properly dismissed. The New Jersey State Bar Association supported Daniel’s Law as an important law to protect independence of the judiciary.
In the first challenge against Daniel’s Law, the Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s ruling denying declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement as a result of a reporter who sought to disclose the home address of a police director. Kratovil pursued a story about the New Brunswick Police Director who lived too far away to discharge his duties. Kratovil learned the director lived in the Borough of Cape May, disclosing this information to local officials. Upon disclosure, Kratovil was told to refrain from publishing the director’s exact home address because the director is a “covered person” under Daniel’s Law.
Kratovil argued that as-applied, Daniel’s Law violated the New Jersey Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He sought to write a story about the Police Director’s inability to discharge his duty as police director because he lived a two-hour drive from New Brunswick in Cape May. He submitted repeated Open Public Records Act requests for the director’s exact address. He was advised by at least one records custodian that the address was protected under Daniel’s Law. He eventually obtained an unredacted voter profile that revealed the director’s address. Kratovil disclosed the street name, but not the house number, at a New Brunswick City Council meeting after which he received a written notice requesting that he cease the disclosure of the information.
In finding that Daniel’s Law is narrowly tailored to serve a state interest, the Supreme Court held that the statute – which protects discrete categories of public officials – is narrowly tailored to protect two categories of information – the home address and unpublished telephone number of a covered person. “ Further, the Court held that covered persons must opt in at which point even if there is a disclosure and a recipient is noticed, the recipient has an opportunity to take steps to maintain confidentiality of the information.
“In sum, as applied to Kratovil, Daniel’s Law as written is narrowly tailored to achieve the state interest of the highest order: protection of certain public officials from harm and the threat of harm so that they can perform their public duties without fear of reprisal,” said the Court in its opinion.
Daniel’s Law was named for Daniel Anderl, the son of Federal District Court Judge Esther Salas. Anderl was killed following a targeted attack of Judge Salas at her home by a disgruntled attorney. Salas’s husband was critically injured in the attack. The NJSBA strongly supported the passage of Daniel’s Law as an important measure to protect judges and to protect the independence of the judiciary.
Link to the decision can be view here.