(The Center Square) — New Jersey is facing a lawsuit challenging a two-year-old law that blocks public disclosure of the home addresses of state judges and law enforcement officers.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, alleges that the state statute known as “Daniel’s law” is unconstitutional and “creates a chilling fear of criminal and civil prosecution” for journalists and other fact-gatherers seeking to know more about their elected officials.
The case stems from news gathering work by Charlie Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, who, according to court filings, was served with a cease-and-desist notice by the city’s police director, Anthony Caputo, after he revealed the official’s home address during a public meeting.
Kratovil had obtained the information from a public records request, according to the filings, for reporting about Caputo living more than two hours away from his employer’s city.
“By threatening criminal and civil sanctions for reporting on a matter of public concern legally obtained, the city and its director of police have chilled, and are chilling, plaintiff’s speech and expressive activities and violated the letter of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions endorsed by the New Jersey Supreme Court,” the ACLU’s attorneys wrote in the complaint.
In 2020, Gov. Phil Murphy signed a law creating a state Office of Information Privacy to oversee requests from judges, state prosecutors, police officers and members of their families to have their home addresses redacted from public records.
The measure, called Daniel’s Law, came in response to the 2020 murder of Daniel Anderl, who was shot and killed by an attorney and self-proclaimed “anti-feminist” who state prosecutors say was targeting Anderl’s mother, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas.
But the ACLU argues in the lawsuit that the public disclosure of Caputo’s home address is protected free speech related to government activities, saying the city’s cease-and-desist notice was an unconstitutional attempt to prevent Kratovil from publishing stories on the official’s residency.
“News reporters should not be threatened by the government with prosecution or civil liability if they write a news story or share information about something questionable going on with a public servant’s address,” the ACLU’s lawyers wrote. “There are countless instances where a public servant’s home address is a matter of significant public concern.”
In March, the state Legislature passed a resolution expanding the shield law, which didn’t require Murphy’s signature, allowing public officials on their annual financial disclosure forms to list only the town and county where they own homes, not other details. The disclosure only requires their primary or secondary residences — not additional properties they might own.
Congress passed a similar law, also named after Anderl, that protects federal judges by shielding personally identifiable information and that of their close relatives from public disclosure.
The measures have drawn criticism from open government groups who say the changes deliver a blow to transparency, allowing lawmakers to shield their properties they own.
But lawmakers who approved the laws have argued the changes are necessary to protect the safety of elected officials and their family members amid increasing threats.
