Bozzi v. Jersey City

• Background|
• EPIC's Interest|
• Legal Documents|
• Resources|
• News

Top News

• NJ Court Denies Dog Owners’ Privacy Rights (But Appears to Recognize Privacy Rights of Dogs): The New Jersey Supreme Court today decided that dog owners in the state do not have a colorable claim to privacy in their names and addresses—but there may be a privacy interest in the names and breeds of their dogs. The case, Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, asked whether the privacy exemption to the state’s freedom of information law required government agencies to withhold the names and addresses of dog license holders when the only justification for disclosure was commercial interest in selling dog paraphernalia. EPIC filed an amicus brief and presented oral argument in the case, arguing that the privacy interests in names and addresses in government documents is well established under federal law and the state should follow the federal example. The court’s majority found no colorable claim to privacy for dog owners because “owning a dog is, inherently, a public endeavor”—owners take their dogs on “daily walks, grooming sessions, veterinarian visits,” “celebrate their animals on social media or bumper stickers” and “enter their dogs into public shows.” But, as the two dissenting justices retorted, “dog owners appearing in public with their dogs do not do so while simultaneously advertising their full names and addresses.” Further undermining the majority’s reasoning was the court’s recognition that other information in the dog license record—such as the name and breed of the dog, which is exposed to the public to the same degree as dog ownership, and moreso than the names and addresses of owners—may need to be redacted because of the privacy interests at stake. EPIC routinely participates as amicus in cases involving involuntary disclosure of personal information to third parties. (Sep. 20, 2021)
More top news »
NJ Court Denies Dog Owners’ Privacy Rights (But Appears to Recognize Privacy Rights of Dogs) » (Sep. 20, 2021)
The New Jersey Supreme Court today decided that dog owners in the state do not have a colorable claim to privacy in their names and addresses—but there may be a privacy interest in the names and breeds of their dogs. The case, Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, asked whether the privacy exemption to the state’s freedom of information law required government agencies to withhold the names and addresses of dog license holders when the only justification for disclosure was commercial interest in selling dog paraphernalia. EPIC filed an amicus brief and presented oral argument in the case, arguing that the privacy interests in names and addresses in government documents is well established under federal law and the state should follow the federal example. The court’s majority found no colorable claim to privacy for dog owners because “owning a dog is, inherently, a public endeavor”—owners take their dogs on “daily walks, grooming sessions, veterinarian visits,” “celebrate their animals on social media or bumper stickers” and “enter their dogs into public shows.” But, as the two dissenting justices retorted, “dog owners appearing in public with their dogs do not do so while simultaneously advertising their full names and addresses.” Further undermining the majority’s reasoning was the court’s recognition that other information in the dog license record—such as the name and breed of the dog, which is exposed to the public to the same degree as dog ownership, and moreso than the names and addresses of owners—may need to be redacted because of the privacy interests at stake. EPIC routinely participates as amicus in cases involving involuntary disclosure of personal information to third parties.
EPIC Presents Oral Argument in NJ Supreme Court Case on Privacy of Personal Information in Government Records » (Mar. 16, 2021)
Yesterday, Megan Iorio, counsel at EPIC, presented oral argument as a friend of the court in Bozzi v. Jersey City, a New Jersey Supreme Court case concerning a commercial open government request for names and addresses of dog license registrants. The lower court found no privacy interest in the information and ordered its release. Ms. Iorio urged the court to reverse and to find that personal information in government records should only be disclosed when a government transparency interest could be served by disclosure. The argument drew on the historic and constitutional origins of the right to informational privacy, federal courts' interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act's privacy exemptions, and New Jersey's strong constitutional right to privacy. EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case and argued before the court last year in State v. Andrews about whether an individual can be compelled to disclose their cell phone passcode.
EPIC Urges NJ Supreme Court to Protect Privacy of Personal Information in Government Records » (Dec. 15, 2020)
EPIC has filed an amicus brief in Bozzi v. City of Jersey City urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to protect the privacy of personal information in government records. The case concerns a business owner's request under New Jersey's open records law for names and home addresses that residents were required to provide the City to obtain dog licenses. EPIC urged the Court to interpret New Jersey's law in line with the federal open government law, which protects in most cases names and addresses contained in government records. EPIC also urged the Court to prevent public disclosure of personal information for purely commercial purposes. EPIC stressed that the purpose of open government laws "is to shed light on the workings of the government——not to transform the government into a lead generator for commercial ventures." EPIC has filed numerous amicus briefs concerning the right to informational privacy. EPIC also has extensive experience litigating federal open government cases.

Summary

Like many states, New Jersey requires dog owners to register their dog. Dog owners must provide their names, home addresses, and other personal information to government agencies to promote public safety. Ernest Bozzi, a business owner, sought a list of the names and addresses of dog owners in Jersey City through the Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") to advertise his electric dog fence services. The City refused Bozzi's request, claiming that the requested information was protected by the OPRA's privacy exemption. The trial court found that the OPRA did not protect names and addresses in dog license records from public disclosure and ordered the City to provide Bozzi with the requested information. The appellate court upheld the trial court's order. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the City's petition for review.

Background

Legal Background

The OPRA provides the public access to government records to promote government transparency. The law also contains a privacy provision requiring government agencies to withhold records when disclosure would violate an individual's expectation of privacy. The OPRA does not explicitly exempt all name and address information in government records from disclosure, but does explicitly exempt names and addresses in certain circumstances.

The OPRA was enacted decades after the federal government transparency law, the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Federal courts have long recognized a right to privacy in personal information contained in government records. Like the OPRA, FOIA has a privacy provision, Exemption 6, which similarly protects personal information from public disclosure. Numerous cases interpreting Exemption 6 have found a privacy interest in names and addresses in government records. When faced with the question of disclosure, courts balance the potential harm to privacy against the public's need for the information. Because FOIA's primary purpose is to shed light on government activities, the public interest in the requested records must provide some insight into the functioning of government. Courts have generally found that disclosure for purely commercial interests, without an accompanying public interest in the workings of government, would not serve the FOIA's public interest in government transparency. Courts refuse to disclose names, addresses, and other personal information in these cases.

Factual Background

Ernest Bozzi made a number of public records requests to various local government agencies under the OPRA for dog license records. These records include the names and home addresses of individuals who have registered their dogs as required by law. Bozzi intended to use the information to advertise his invisible dog fence installation services across New Jersey.

The City refused to disclose the list of records based on the OPRA's privacy exemption. The City emphasized that individuals were legally required to provide the information to the government and did not make the choice voluntarily. Moreover, Bozzi intended to use the names and addresses purely to solicit business; disclosure would not serve the public interest because it would not inform the public of government activities, the primary purpose of open records laws. The City also warned that Bozzi's request was not limited to his own use of the information but also extended to other parties who could use it for any purpose after obtaining the list from Bozzi. The risk to individuals' privacy in their names and addresses was significant, and the City argued that the OPRA, New Jersey Constitution, and U.S. Constitution exempted this kind of personal information from disclosure in this situation.

Procedural History

In May 2019, the trial court determined that public disclosure was proper under the OPRA and ordered the City to provide Bozzi with the requested information. The City appealed the order. In a brief opinion, the appeals court upheld the trial court's determination. The court found that the issues and arguments raised mirrored those decided in an earlier case, Bozzi v. Borough of Roselle Park.

In Roselle Park, Bozzi had requested dog license records from another municipality, and the agency refused to disclose the information. The trial court agreed with the agency, reasoning that the licensees did not expect that information the government required to register their dog would be disclosed for other purposes. The appeals court reversed the trial court's decision and found that Bozzi was entitled to the requested information under the OPRA. The court noted that the OPRA had numerous explicit exemptions, but name and home address information was not generally exempt. The court also noted that the Legislature did not amend the law to protect this information despite a Privacy Study Commission's suggestion to do so. While the court recognized that disclosure would enable businesses to send unsolicited communications to anyone who obtained a dog license, it refused to find that individuals reasonably expected privacy in their names and addresses since people regularly receive unsolicited mail.

EPIC's Interest