Bozzi v. Jersey City

Whether New Jersey's Open Public Records Act protects from public disclosure the names and addresses of individuals possessing a government-issued dog license.
  • EPIC Urges NJ Supreme Court to Protect Privacy of Personal Information in Government Records: 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. (Dec. 15, 2020)
  • More top news »
  • EPIC to OPM: "If You Can't Protect It, Don't Collect It" » (May. 25, 2016)
    In comments to the Office of Personnel Management, EPIC urged the federal agency to limit the personal data it collects from job applicants. OPM currently gathers detailed personal information, including biometric data, Social Security numbers, educational history, medical records, foreign travel, drug use, and financial records. In 2015, OPM lost the personal data of 21.5 million people in a massive data breach. The OPM Director and CIO were forced to resign. OPM now proposes to collect even more personal data on more people, including distant relatives of job applicants. EPIC has previously urged the Supreme Court to recognize a right of "information privacy" that would limit the ability of the federal government to collect personal information.
  • EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Strike Down Voter ID Law » (May. 17, 2016)
    EPIC has urged a federal appellate court to find unconstitutional a Texas law that requires voters to obtain photo IDs. A lower court held that Senate Bill 14 violates the Voting Rights Act and burdens the constitutional right to vote. Texas appealed. In response, EPIC argued that the ID requirement also burdens the constitutional right of informational privacy. “Individuals should not be subject to excessive identification requirements to exercise fundamental democratic rights,” EPIC stated. EPIC has previously filed amicus briefs defending the right to informational privacy.
  • European Commission Makes Data Protection a Top Priority » (Mar. 18, 2011)
    Viviane Reding, European Commission Vice President and European Union Justice Commissioner, announced that data protection would be her "top legislative priority." She said the Commission will focus on "four pillars" of privacy rights: the "right to be forgotten . . . transparency . . . privacy by default . . . [and] protection regardless of data location." Reding also spoke about the importance of enforcement to ensure a "high level of protection." EPIC President Marc Rotenberg spoke before the European Commission recently and EPIC has urged the United States to ratify Convention 108, the International Privacy Convention. For more information, see EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive.
  • EPIC Reminds DHS that "Fusion Centers" are Subject to the Federal Privacy Act » (Dec. 16, 2010)
    EPIC has submitted comments [1], [2] to two departments in the Department of Homeland Security concerning the establishment of federal "fusion centers" that would contained detailed personal information on US citizens. The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to exempt these databases from key protections in the Privacy Act. EPIC said that the Department must comply with Privacy Act requirements. The Media Freedom and Information Access Practicum Information Society Project at Yale Law Law School has also submitted comments on the DHS plan. For more information, see EPIC: Information Fusion Centers and Privacy, EPIC: Total Information Awareness, and EPIC v. Virginia Department of State Police (Fusion Center Secrecy Bill).
  • EPIC Urges Supreme Court to Protect NASA Scientists' Privacy » (Aug. 9, 2010)
    EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging the Justices to protect the privacy of scientists working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Twenty-seven legal and technical experts signed the brief. In NASA v. Nelson, the Court has been asked to determine whether the scientists' right to "informational privacy" prohibits NASA from collecting information concerning the individuals' medical records as a condition of employment. The agency admits that the scientists perform unclassified, non-sensitive work. EPIC's brief argues that compelled disclosure would risk exposing sensitive, personal health information that is insufficiently protected by NASA. For more information, see EPIC NASA v. Nelson.

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

EPIC brings a unique perspective to this case, informed by its previous work on informational privacy and its extensive FOIA litigation experience. EPIC has filed amicus briefs in numerous cases concerning the right to privacy in personal information contained in government records. In these briefs, EPIC has consistently argued that the right to informational privacy protects personally identifying information contained in government records, broad public disclosure threatens that right, and courts should consequently refuse or limit disclosure. EPIC also frequently litigates FOIA cases when government agencies withhold information that would inform the public of government activities implicating privacy.

Legal Documents

New Jersey Supreme Court (No. 084392)

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (No. A-4204-18T2) (Appeals Court)

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (Nos. A-4742-17T4/A-4743-17T4) (Bozzi v. Borough of Roselle Park)

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County (No. L-0354-19) (Trial Court)

Resources

EPIC Resources

Share this page:

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.
US Needs a Data Protection Agency
2020 Election Security