Bill

Bill > S2797


NJ S2797

NJ S2797
Prohibits disclosure of certain personal information of active, formely active, and retired judicial officers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers, and their family members; establishes crime and civil action for disclosing such information.


summary

Introduced
08/03/2020
In Committee
10/22/2020
Crossed Over
Passed
Dead
01/11/2022

Introduced Session

2020-2021 Regular Session

Bill Summary

This bill prohibits the disclosure of the home addresses of federal, State, and municipal judicial officers and retired judicial officers, and would expand an existing crime and statutory civil action concerning the disclosure of home addresses and unlisted telephone numbers for active and retired law enforcement officers to also cover active and retired judicial officers. The bill defines a "judicial officer" as "the Chief Justice or an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals, a judge of a federal district court, including a magistrate judge, a judge of any other court established by federal law, the Chief Justice or an Associate Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, a judge of the Superior Court, a judge of the Tax Court, a judge of a municipal court, a judge of the Office of Administrative Law, a judge of the Division of Workers' Compensation, or a judge of any other court or who handles proceedings in the executive branch of the State government or a local government established by State law." To prohibit the disclosure of a judicial officer's address (all persons' unlisted telephone numbers are already protected from disclosure), the bill would exclude those portions of any document identifying an address 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 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 a home address or unlisted telephone number of an active or retired judicial officer, expanding the scope of section 2 of P.L.2015, c.226 (C.47:1-17) which already prohibits such actions with respect to active and retired 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 active 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 the home address or unpublished telephone number of an active or retired judicial officer, or the judicial officer'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 the information about an active or retired judicial 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.

AI Summary

This bill prohibits the disclosure of the home addresses of federal, state, and municipal judicial officers, including active, retired, and former judges. The bill amends the Open Public Records Act to exclude judicial officers' home addresses from the definition of "government record," making that information confidential. The bill also expands an existing crime and statutory civil action concerning the disclosure of home addresses and unlisted telephone numbers for active and retired law enforcement officers to also cover active and retired judicial officers. Violations would be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability.

Committee Categories

Justice

Sponsors (8)

Last Action

Substituted by A1649 (2R) (on 10/29/2020)

bill text


bill summary

Loading...

bill summary

Loading...
Loading...