Gannett Satellite Information Network challenges Spotswood and prosecutor over police body camera footage disclosure

A recent appellate court decision has overturned a lower court’s denial of public access to police body-worn camera (BWC) recordings involving conversations in a municipal mayor’s office, raising important questions about transparency and privacy in law enforcement operations. The dispute concerns whether BWC footage recorded without verbal notification to those being filmed must be destroyed or can be released under New Jersey statutes, including the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the Body Worn Camera Law (BWCL).

The complaint was filed by the Borough of Spotswood in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County (Docket No. L-0563-24), seeking to prevent the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office from releasing BWC recordings made by municipal police officers during incidents at the Borough offices on April 22 and 28, 2022. Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC—a newspaper chain—and citizen Steven Wronko intervened as parties opposing the Borough’s request for an injunction against disclosure.

According to the appellate opinion dated March 5, 2026, the core issue is how to interpret two provisions within the BWCL: subsection (r), which requires immediate destruction of BWC recordings made “in contravention” of applicable law, and subsection (d), which states that failure to verbally notify a person about recording “shall not affect admissibility” of evidence. The trial court had previously sided with Spotswood and former Mayor Jacqueline Palmer in finding that because officers did not provide explicit verbal notice before recording Palmer in her office on April 28, 2022, those videos were improperly obtained and should not be disclosed.

However, Gannett and Wronko argued that both OPRA and BWCL require disclosure unless specific statutory exemptions apply. They maintained that even if notification was lacking, subsection (d) explicitly preserves admissibility and thus precludes mandatory destruction under subsection (r). The Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office partially supported this position by asserting that while some redactions might be necessary for security or deliberative reasons under OPRA exemptions, wholesale denial was unwarranted. The Attorney General of New Jersey also appeared as amicus curiae and contended that “the trial court erred when it concluded the April 28 BWC recordings are not ‘government records’ under OPRA,” emphasizing that retention obligations still apply even if notification requirements were unmet.

The appellate panel found that “the destruction provision in subsection (r) must be sensibly construed to yield in certain situations to the disclosure and evidential use contemplated by subsection (d).” It held that reading subsection (r) as requiring automatic destruction for lack of notice would render subsection (d) meaningless—contradicting legislative intent. As stated in the opinion: “The officers’ failure to notify Palmer verbally… did not automatically require their destruction and does not render them inadmissible pursuant to subsection (r).”

Further analysis addressed whether these BWC recordings qualified as government records subject to OPRA. The court noted OPRA defines such records broadly—including documents “made,” “maintained,” or “received” during official business—and concluded retention requirements applied once an internal affairs complaint was lodged regarding the incident. Thus, regardless of alleged procedural missteps during recording, these videos fell within OPRA’s scope unless exempted for other reasons such as building security or privileged communications.

In addition to reversing denial of access based solely on lack of notification or claims of surreptitiousness—finding no evidence officers acted with stealth—the appellate panel directed a remand for further proceedings. Specifically, it ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to re-evaluate what portions of the BWC footage may warrant redaction due to statutory exemptions related to security measures or confidential discussions. Similarly, related internal affairs documents already redacted by order were also subject to further review.

The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief preventing release; intervenors requested full disclosure under both statutory right-to-access laws and common-law principles; while respondents raised privacy concerns for officials involved but did not prevail on arguments regarding mandatory destruction or exclusion from government record status.

Legal representation included CJ Griffin for Gannett Satellite Information Network; Christina N. Stripp for Steven Wronko; Kathryn V. Hatfield for Borough of Spotswood; Matthew C. Moench for Jacqueline Palmer; Michael S. Williams for Middlesex County Prosecutor; and Elizabeth Kern representing amicus State of New Jersey through the Attorney General’s Office. Judges Sabatino, Natali, and Walcott-Henderson presided over Appellate Division Docket No. A-3457-23.