[Corrected Copy]

 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

 

STATEMENT TO

 

[First Reprint]

ASSEMBLY, No. 1649

 

with committee amendments

 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

 

DATED:  OCTOBER 22, 2020

 

      The Senate Judiciary Committee reports favorably and with committee amendments the First Reprint of Assembly Bill No. 1649.

     The bill, as amended, would: (1) prohibit the disclosure, by both governmental entities and private parties, of the home addresses of any active, formerly active, or retired federal, State, county, or municipal judicial officer, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer (the expansive definition of “judicial officer” includes judges of the Office of Administrative Law and of the Division of Workers’ Compensation); (2) expand an existing crime concerning the disclosure of home addresses and unlisted telephone numbers for active or retired law enforcement officers to also cover formerly active law enforcement officers, as well as active, formerly active, or retired judicial officers or prosecutors; and (3) would permit criminal prosecutions and statutory civil actions concerning any prohibited disclosure.  The bill represents legislative action directly related to, and intended to honor, Daniel Anderl, the son of a federal judge, who was shot and killed in July 2020 at the judge’s family home by a person who had complied a dossier of personal information about the judge, including the judge’s home address; the bill’s scope, as described above, would expand beyond just protecting federal and State judges, and their families, but would provide protections for a multitude of federal, state (from all states), and local public officials involved with administering public safety and justice.

     The bill’s new protections for judicial officers and prosecutors would take effect immediately, and would begin 18 months after the bill’s effective date for law enforcement officers, who under current law are already provided some protections to be expanded by the bill; the bill would allow for executive branch administrative action to be taken in advance of that future date that would be necessary for the implementation of the bill concerning law enforcement officers.

     To prohibit the government’s disclosure of a home address (all persons’ unlisted telephone numbers are already protected from disclosure), the bill would exclude those portions of any document identifying an address, whether a primary or secondary residence, from the definition of “government record” pursuant to P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.), commonly known as the Open Public Records Act, thereby deeming such information confidential.  The bill would also require custodians of government records under that act to redact a judicial officer’s, prosecutor’s, or law enforcement officer’s address from any record prior to granting access to the record by a member of the public.  However, an address would still be shared if it was sought for use by a governmental agency in carrying out its functions, or a private person or entity seeking to enforce a child support order.

     The bill would also prohibit the State or a local governmental agency from posting or publishing on the Internet, or reposting, republishing, or otherwise making available, a home address or unlisted telephone number of an active, formerly active, or retired judicial officer or prosecutor, expanding the scope of section 2 of P.L.2015, c.226 (C.47:1-17) which already prohibits such actions with respect to law enforcement officers.

     It would establish the same prohibition for individuals, businesses, and associations, who under current law are prohibited from posting or publishing such information about current and retired law enforcement officers, and would subject a party who violated the law to the same criminal and civil liabilities that apply to violations involving law enforcement officers. 

     Specifically, it would be a crime to knowingly, with purpose to expose another to harassment or risk of harm to life or property, or in reckless disregard of the probability of this exposure, to post or publish on the Internet, repost, republish, or otherwise make available, the home address or unpublished telephone number of an active, formerly active, or retired judicial officer, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer, or any such person’s spouse or child.  A reckless violation would be graded a crime of the fourth degree, punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to 18 months, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.  A purposeful violation would be a crime of the third degree, punishable by a term of imprisonment of three to five years, a fine of up to $15,000, or both.

     As to potential civil liability, individuals, businesses, and associations would be prohibited from disclosing on the Internet, or re-disclosing or otherwise making available, the information about an active, formerly active, or retired judicial officer, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer under any circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that providing such information would expose another to harassment or risk of harm to life or property.  As a result of a violation, a court could award: (1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $1,000 for each violation; (2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and (4) any other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.

     Additionally, the bill would provide a means by which a judicial officer, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer would be able to make a request to cease a disclosure to an individual, business, or association that disclosed that public officer’s home address or unpublished phone number, or the name, home address, or unpublished number of an immediate family member of that public officer (someone residing in the same residence); with respect to a family member’s name or home address, the basis for ceasing the disclosure would be that the disclosed information, alone or in conjunction with any other information, could be used to identify the person as the family member of the public officer.  The request would be required to be made in writing by the public officer, or that public officer’s employer with the officer’s consent.  The recipient of the request would have 72 hours to remove any disclosed information from the Internet or where otherwise made available, and refrain from disclosing the information to any other person or entity through any medium. 

     If the recipient did not timely remove the information from the Internet or where otherwise made available, or made a subsequent disclosure in any medium after receipt of the request to cease disclosure, the aggrieved public officer could bring an action seeking injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court.  The party responsible for the continued disclosure would be required to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred for the action brought.

     This bill, as amended and reported by the committee, is identical to the Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Nos. 2797 and 2925, also reported by the committee today.

 

      The committee amendments to the bill:

      -  apply the bill’s protections to active, formerly active, and retired judicial officers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers, instead of just active and retired officials;

      -  delay the application of the new bill’s protections to law enforcement officers for 18 months after the effective date of the bill; as explained above, law enforcement officers are already provided some protections concerning their personal information that would be expanded by the bill;

      -  modify the definition of “judicial officer” to more broadly cover any judge in the judicial branch, whether it be at the federal, state (any state), county, or municipal level of government;

      - broaden the existing law’s criminal and civil liabilities on disclosures of a public official’s information by both governmental entities and private parties, as described above, to cover not just acts of posting or publishing on the Internet, but also reposting, republishing, or otherwise making available that information;

      -  eliminate the severability clause from the bill (section 9), because all of the provisions of the bill are already severable, should the bill become law, and all or parts of it challenged in court, per R.S. 1:1-10;

      remove the designation of the bill as Daniel’s Law from the bill’s title, and instead, as described above, indicate in the bill’s statement that the amended bill represents legislative action directly related to, and is intended to honor, Mr. Anderl, the son of a federal judge who was shot and killed in July 2020 at the judge’s home by a person who had collected personal information about the judge; and

      - update the bill’s title and synopsis to more accurately reflect the changes made by the amendments.