Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2419-12T4
08-29-2014
RAYMOND CATTONAR, Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON POLICE DEPARTMENT (OCEAN), Respondent.
Ronald K. Chen argued the cause for appellant (Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, Center for Law & Justice, and American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Mr. Chen, Edward Barocas, Jeanne LoCicero and Tom MacLeod, of counsel and on the briefs). Debra A. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Government Records Council (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Allen, on the brief). Robin LaBue argued the cause for respondent, Township of Jackson (Gilmore & Monahan, P.C., attorneys; Ms. LaBue, on the brief). Daniel M. Vannella, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Vannella, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Lihotz, Maven and Hoffman. On appeal from the Government Records Council, Complaint No. 2011-230. Ronald K. Chen argued the cause for appellant (Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, Center for Law & Justice, and American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Mr. Chen, Edward Barocas, Jeanne LoCicero and Tom MacLeod, of counsel and on the briefs). Debra A. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Government Records Council (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Allen, on the brief). Robin LaBue argued the cause for respondent, Township of Jackson (Gilmore & Monahan, P.C., attorneys; Ms. LaBue, on the brief). Daniel M. Vannella, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Vannella, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Raymond Cattonar appeals from the Government Records Council's (GRC) denial of his complaint against defendant Jackson Township Police Department (the Department) claiming violation of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. We affirm.
The GRC, "established in the Department of Community Affairs," oversees "an informal mediation program to facilitate the resolution of disputes regarding access to government records[,]" and receives, hears, reviews, and adjudicates complaints "filed by any person concerning a denial of access to a government record by a records custodian[.]" N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7. See also Fair Share Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. N.J. State League of Municipalities, 207 N.J. 489, 497 (2011) ("The [GRC] is an entity authorized to hear complaints concerning denials of access to government records and to issue advisory opinions.").
Cattonar, a resident of Jackson Township, served on the local mayor's fiscal responsibility board tasked with "leading efforts to reduce government spending in Jackson Township." In May 2011, Cattonar attended a public budget hearing, during which representatives of the Department justified its requested twelve million dollar annual budget because municipal crime had increased. Cattonar asserts the Department's budget accounts for over thirty percent of the municipal budget.
On July 4, 2011, in an effort to verify "whether crime had in fact increased in Jackson[,]" Cattonar submitted an OPRA request to the Department seeking, among other things, copies of the Township's monthly Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) reports for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, and the first six months of 2011. Cattonar also requested a copy of a "[s]ummary annual schedule for the monthly operations crime report." Township Clerk Ann Marie Eden, the designated municipal records custodian, emailed Cattonar to advise the UCR reports were "exempt from disclosure pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:57-1.3(d)." Further, Cattonar's request for "an Operations Crime Report" was denied because "no such document exists." The Department's Chief emailed Cattonar, listing the total arrests for the years 2008 to 2010 and the partial year 2011.
Eden also sent a formal written response to each of Cattonar's specific document requests. She reiterated the UCR monthly crime reports were exempt as confidential and are not considered public records; stated the request for a summary or annual schedule of the monthly operations crime report required clarification and was denied because it did not request a specific document; although she determined the request for the "arrests made, warrants issued and warrants outstanding" during the years in question was "overly broad," she included the total arrests recorded; and she denied as overbroad the request for the "[t]otal amount of investigations open, solved, [or] unresolved" during the years cited. Eden suggested the requests for items denied be refined to identify a specific document sought, and resubmitted.
The denial prompted Cattonar to file a Statement of Information Form to the GRC, which initiated its review. Eden responded, submitting a Statement of Information (SOI) to the GRC, certifying "no search for the responsive records was undertaken" and that "her actions and response were consistent with how she has responded to OPRA requests for similar records in the past." Cattonar replied to Eden's submission. Mediation of the dispute was unsuccessful.
Eden objected to the GRC's consideration of Cattonar's reply letter, urging N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.3 does not provide for a rebuttal to a SOI.
The GRC's Acting Executive Director issued "Findings and Recommendations" on November 20, 2012. Relying on the governor's Executive Order No. 26 (Aug. 13, 2002), which permits one agency to apply another agency's regulations exempting access to records, the Director concluded Eden properly denied Cattonar's request pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.3(d), which affirms "[UCR] forms . . . are not public records." Rather, the public is given access to the final central repository when released by the Attorney General. Further, Cattonar was found not to be a prevailing party, obviating an award of counsel fees.
The GRC considered the submission and, on December 18, 2012, unanimously voted to adopt the entirety of the Director's findings and recommendations. Cattonar appeals from this final agency decision.
Prior to oral argument, we ordered the Attorney General to submit a brief addressing the validity of its regulation requiring the State Police to preserve the confidentiality of the raw data provided by municipalities, in light of the Legislature's 2007 adoption of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4a. The Attorney General complied and the parties responded with supplemental briefs.
In our review, it is well settled that a "strong presumption of reasonableness attaches to the actions of administrative agencies." In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 85 (2001). Thus, our review of an agency's final decision is limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). See also McGee v. Twp. of E. Amwell, 416 N.J. Super. 602, 613 (App. Div. 2010) (applying deferential standard to the GRC's holdings regarding OPRA requests). Accordingly, in our review we will "not disturb an administrative agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence." In re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008). See also Twp. Pharmacy v. Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Servs., 432 N.J. Super. 273, 283-84 (App. Div. 2013) (stating appellate review is "guided by three major inquiries: (1) whether the agency's decision conforms with relevant law; (2) whether the decision is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record; and (3) whether, in applying the law to the facts, the administrative agency clearly erred in reaching its conclusion"). To prevail, the party challenging the administrative action has the burden to establish the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 188 N.J. 219 (2006) .
However, an agency's interpretation of a statute or any legal determination is not accorded the same deference. "[W]here technical or specialized expertise is not implicated, and the issue is one of statutory interpretation, we owe no deference to the agency." A.Z. ex rel. B.Z. v. Higher Educ. Student Assistance Auth., 427 N.J. Super. 389, 394 (App. Div. 2012). More specifically, the applicability of OPRA's access provisions is a legal determination subject to our de novo review. Paff v. N.J. State Firemen's Ass'n, 431 N.J. Super. 278, 286 (App. Div. 2013); K.L. v. Evesham Twp. Bd. of Educ., 423 N.J. Super. 337, 349 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 210 N.J. 108 (2012).
To fully understand this dispute we must analyze OPRA's provisions as well as the statutes and regulations requiring the gathering and dissemination of information used in the UCR. Our review additionally requires consideration of the rules governing statutory interpretation.
"OPRA was specifically designed 'to maximize public knowledge about public affairs in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to minimize the evils inherent in a secluded process.'" Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 423 N.J. Super. 140, 160 (App. Div. 2011). (quoting Kovalcik v. Somerset Cnty. Prosecutor's Office, 206 N.J. 581, 588 (2011)). "The legislative purpose in enacting OPRA was to assure ready access to government records 'for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens . . . .'" Bozzi v. City of Atl. City, 434 N.J. Super. 326, 332 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1). OPRA replaced the former Right to Know Law, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2 to -4, "and continues the State's longstanding public policy favoring ready access to most public records." Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep't, Custodian of Records, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 36 (App. Div. 2005).
OPRA defines a government record as:
any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of . . . official business . . . or that has been received in the course of . . . official business[.]
[N. J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.]
OPRA's critical directive is "all government records shall be subject to public access unless exempt . . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. Therefore, records must be subject to a specific exclusion to preclude release. Further, a governmental agency denying a request for access "shall have the burden of proving . . . denial of access is authorized by law." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. Finally, N.J.S .A. 47:1A-1.1 includes the categories of documents falling outside the expansive definition of government records that are "deemed to be confidential." Restriction on access to other specific documents is discussed in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.2 (biotechnology trade secrets); N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2.2(a) (convicted person's request for information regarding the victim of the crime); and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3 (records of a public agency's investigation in progress).
The OPRA request submitted sought "[t]he [p]olice [d]epartment's UCR monthly crime reports." We set forth some background information about these reports.
The UCR "was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation." Federal Bureau of investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm (last visited Aug. 14, 2014). "In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics[,]" which has continued until today. Ibid. The information voluntarily submitted by thousands of law enforcement agencies is released in several annual statistical publications. Ibid.
New Jersey's UCR system was established in 1966 with the adoption of several statutes. See L. 1966, c. 37, eff. Jan. 1, 1967. N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.1 establishes "[a] uniform crime reporting system . . . under the direction, control and supervision of the Attorney General" and grants the Attorney General "the power and duty, by such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary, to collect and gather such information from such locals and county police authorities as may be and is hereinafter prescribed in this act." The Attorney General is authorized and in fact has "designate[d] the Division of State Police in the Department of Law and Public Safety to be the agency which shall collect, gather, assemble and collate such information as is prescribed by this act." N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.2. The Attorney General also is required to "maintain a central repository for the collection and analysis of information collected" which "shall be made available to the public[,]" N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4(a), and issue "an annual report of the results of the information gathered and collated to the Governor and the Legislature." N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.5. Towards this objective, local and county police authorities must
submit a quarterly report to the Attorney General, on forms prescribed by the Attorney General, which report shall contain the number and nature of offenses committed within their respective jurisdictions, the disposition of such matters, information relating to criminal street gang activities within their respective jurisdictions, information relating to any offense directed against a person or group, or their property, by reason of their race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity and such other information as the Attorney General may require . . . .
[N. J.S.A. 52:17B-5.3(a).]
In 2007, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.3(a) to its current form and added subsection (b), a requirement specific to gang-related activity, which states:
A law enforcement officer who responds to an offense involving criminal street gang activity shall complete a gang related incident offense report on a form prescribed
by the Superintendent of State Police. All information contained in the gang related incident offense report shall be forwarded to the Superintendent of State Police.
[N. J.S.A. 52:17B-5.3(b).]
Additionally, a new provision N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4a was adopted, which states:
The Attorney General shall maintain a central repository for the collection and analysis of information collected pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1966, c.37 (C.52:17B-5.3) . Information in the repository shall be made available to the public. The Attorney General may designate the Division of State Police in the Department of Law and Public Safety to be the agency to maintain the repository and provide information from the repository to the public.
As authorized by N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.1 of the enabling legislation, the Attorney General promulgated regulations found at N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.1 to -1.4. Specifically, N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.3(d) states:
[t]he uniform crime report forms identified and described in N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.2 and 1.3 shall be used by the Uniform Crime Reporting Unit of the Division of State Police for purposes of compliance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-1 et seq., and such working documents shall be maintained as confidential by the Division of State Police and are not public records.
The UCR forms "identified and described in N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.2 and 1.3" are a municipality's monthly reports containing raw crime data, such as the age, sex, race, and ethnic origin of arrestees who are eighteen years of age or older, N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.2(a)(4), which local and State law enforcement agencies are mandated to provide. Ibid. From this raw data, the Attorney General compiles "statistics as he may deem necessary in order to present a proper classification and analysis of the volume and nature of crime and the administration of criminal justice within this State." N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4.
The Uniform Crime Report State of New Jersey, issued annually by the Attorney General's office, remains accessible on the State Police website. Currently, the site states updates are recorded every six months. Now included are reports of statewide statistics compiled by the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of State Police Uniform Crime Reporting Unit, with a report entitled "Crime Trend Feedback" for the period 2013 to 2014, last updated on Aug. 15, 2014. This report is broken down first by county and then within each county listing by municipality. A report for Jackson Township is included.
See N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, Div. of State Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Unit, Crime Reports & Statistics, http://www.njsp.org/info/stats.html (last visited Aug. 18, 2014).
See N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, Div. of State Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Unit, Crime Trend Feedback, (Aug. 15, 2014, 7:44 am), http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/ucr/current/ 081514_crimetrend.pdf.
Cattonar's document request sought the monthly raw data reports the Township submitted to the Attorney General. He maintains his request identifies a public record that is not excluded under OPRA. More specifically he relies on the language of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4a, effective March 13, 2008, requiring the Attorney General to "maintain a central repository for the collection and analysis of information" received from municipalities, and further that the "[i]nformation in the repository shall be made available to the public." Cattonar urges the Township may not rely on the Attorney General's regulation, N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.3(d), directing the State Police to maintain the confidentiality of the raw data, because it was adopted in 1994, and is now pre-empted by the 2007 statutory directive to make the repository information available to the public. Cattonar also rejects as specious the assertion that the raw data represents "working documents" within the deliberative process exemption of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.
The GRC maintains the regulation, N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.3(d), and Executive Order No. 26 (Aug. 13, 2002) support the determination that the raw crime data is excluded from OPRA's directives for disclosure. This identified executive order, issued on August 13, 2002, states:
The following records shall not be considered government records subject to public accessThe GRC also suggests Cattonar has misinterpreted the requisites of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4a, which it maintains applies to gang-related activity reports, not the UCR raw data, and notes overall crime data is disseminated to the public once "collected, analyzed, and verified" by the Attorney General.
pursuant to [OPRA] . . . . [R]ecords of a department or agency in the possession of another department or agency when those records are made confidential by a regulation of that department or agency adopted pursuant to [OPRA] and Executive Order No. 9 (Hughes 1963), or pursuant to another law authorizing the department or agency to make records confidential or exempt from disclosure.
[Executive Order No. 26, ¶ 4(d) (Aug. 13, 2002), available at http://www.state.nj.us/ infobank/circular/eom26.shtml.]
To resolve this dispute we rely on the rules of statutory construction. To determine whether the Legislature intended to extend the dissemination of UCR raw data, "we start with the plain language of the statute." Borough of Merchantville v. Malik & Son, LLC, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op. at 17). "If the plain language of the statute is clear and susceptible to only one interpretation, then the court should apply that plain language interpretation." Ibid. See also O'Connell v. State, 171 N.J. 484, 488 (2002) (stating courts cannot "rewrite a plainly-written enactment of the Legislature nor presume that the Legislature intended something other than that expressed by way of the plain language"). In our review,
[t]he "overriding objective in determining the meaning of a statute is to 'effectuate the legislative intent in light of the language used and the objects sought to be achieved.'" McCann v. Clerk of Jersey City, 167 N.J. 311, 320 (2001) (quoting State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 578 (1997)). "It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that full effect should be given, if possible, to every word of a statute." Id. at 321 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While statutory language "'is the surest indicator of the Legislature's intent[,]'" Lipkowitz v. Hamilton Surgery Ctr., LLC, 415 N.J. Super. 29, 35 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Alan J. Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 231 (1998)), it is also incumbent that we "harmonize the individual sections and read the statute in the way that is most consistent with the overall legislative intent." Fiore v. Consol. Freightways, 140 N.J. 452, 466 (1995).
[Comm. of Petitioners v. Frederick, 435 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2014).]
Cattonar is correct that the language of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4a does not limit its application to gang statistics. The statute specifically directs it applies to "information collected pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1966, c.37 (C.52:17B-5.3)." This refers not only to the newly adopted provision of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.3(b), but also includes subsection (a) as amended. Perhaps the Legislature sought to limit the new provision to street gang activity because the latter portion of the provision repeats the Attorney General's authorization to appoint the Division State Police, already set forth in N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.2, but the language of the statute does not state this.
The 2007 amendment to subsection (a) inserted the language: "information relating to any offense directed against a person or group, or their property, by reason of their race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity . . . ." L. 2007, c. 303, § 4.
--------
We therefore cannot merely isolate this provision in a vacuum, but we must consider it within the entirety of the uniform crime reporting system scheme. See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005) (holding a statute's words must be read "in context with related provisions so as to give sense to the legislation as a whole") (citing Chasin v. Montclair State Univ., 159 N.J. 418, 426-27 (1999)); State v. Malik, 365 N.J. Super. 267, 276 (App. Div. 2003) (stating individual statutory provisions "must be examined not only in their contextual setting, but in relation to surrounding provisions in the statutory scheme"), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 354 (2004).
When viewed cohesively, the Legislature created the UCR provisions and designated direction, control and supervision of the system to the Attorney General. N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.1. As its name implies, a key component to the system is uniformity. Thus, the Attorney General must assure the categories of information publically reported in the annual report consistently represent equivalent events. This requisite reveals the need for the Attorney General to "have such data collated and formulated" to "compile such statistics as he may deem necessary in order to present a proper classification and analysis of the volume and nature of crime and the administration of criminal justice within this State[.]" N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4. As a practical matter, these efforts must precede public disclosure.
When the requirements of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.4a are considered in light of other statutory provisions, it becomes clear the intention is to allow public access to the repository, which is not the raw data, but the data after it has been "collated and formulated" and "analy[zed]" to assure accuracy. This explains the basis of the regulation: "the raw data collected from the law enforcement agencies of the State shall be maintained as confidential by the Division of State Police since it is work product and, therefore, is not intended for public dissemination." 26 N.J.R. 906(a) (February 22, 1994). It is then that the final information is released in the uniform report posted on the State Police website.
To accept Cattonar's interpretation of the statute, suggesting the public must access municipal submissions of UCR statistics, would possibly lead to the release of misleading information, rather than the uniform report the statute intends be disseminated. Consequently, we cannot abide his view, as such a "'literal interpretation would create a manifestly absurd result,'" that is not only contrary to public policy, but also that diverges from the spirit of the law. State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566, 575 (2014) (quoting Turner v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 162 N.J. 75, 84 (1999)). See also In re Princeton Office Park L.P. v. Plymouth Park Tax Servs., LLC, 218 N.J. 52, 65 (2014) (noting "[a] court 'may also turn to extrinsic guides if a literal reading of the statute would yield an absurd result, particularly one at odds with the overall statutory scheme'" (quoting Wilson v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 558, 572 (2012))).
There exists an additional basis for upholding the confidentiality of the raw data sought by Cattonar's request. OPRA concedes a need to accord deference to certain confidentiality decisions by the executive and legislative branches. Toward this end, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9(a) states:
The provisions of this act, . . . shall not abrogate any exemption of a public record or government record from public access heretofore made pursuant to [N. J.S.A. 47:1A-5]; any other statute; resolution of either or both Houses of the Legislature; regulation promulgated under the authority of any statute or Executive Order of the Governor; Executive Order ofThis provision recognizes that an agency, through the exercise of its authorized regulatory process, or a Governor, who properly exercises his constitutional authority, may exempt a public record or government record from public access. See also Slaughter v. Gov't Records Council, 413 N.J. Super. 544, 550 (App. Div. 2010) (citation omitted) ("It is clear that an exemption from a right of public access to a government record can be established . . . by 'Executive Order of the Governor.'"), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 372 (2011).
the Governor; Rules of Court; any federal law; federal regulation; or federal order.
In fact, N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.3(d) preserves the confidentiality of the raw data collected from the 542 law enforcement agencies reporting to the State Police, and Executive Order 26 allows municipalities to rely on the expressed exclusion from public disclosure of this information.
We do not view the exclusion of the new data as defeating the provisions of public access. Rather, its design is to allow a central agency, here the State Police on behalf of the Attorney General, the ability to gather, verify, and coordinate the required information. Cattonar cites from the 2011 Uniform Crime Report State of New Jersey, which explains:
The reports received by the Uniform Crime Reporting Unit are recorded and examined for mathematical accuracy and reasonableness ofFinally, we note the public disclosure provisions of the UCR statute grant Cattonar access to information necessary to discern whether crime in Jackson Township has changed over the years.
the interpretation of the offense classifications. Improper classifications, changes in reporting procedures, or actual change are identified in this manner. . . .
Further verification is accomplished through the analysis of statistical data accrued from the reports submitted. Fluctuations in crime rates noted from previous submissions are verified by the field representatives through their municipal counterpart.
[N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, Div. of State Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Unit, Uniform Crime Reports State of N.J. 2011, at 4, http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2011/pdf/2011 _uniform_crime_report.pdf (last visited Aug. 18, 2014).]
We discern no basis to disturb the GRC's determination, concluding Eden properly denied Cattonar's request for access to copies of Jackson Township's UCR submissions to the State Police. As a result of our opinion, we need not address whether the documents are subject to OPRA's deliberative process exemption. Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dept of Educ, 198 N.J. 274, 281 (2009) (defining records exempt as "inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material" (citing N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1)).
Affirmed
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION