A dispute over whether a state agency must disclose confidential internal affairs records about law enforcement officers has led to an appellate court decision that could affect public access to police disciplinary information in New Jersey. The issue centers on requests for so-called Appendix K reports, which summarize internal affairs activity and are produced by law enforcement agencies for county prosecutors on a quarterly basis.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender filed an appeal in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, challenging a trial court’s dismissal of its complaint against the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Public Integrity and Accountability, and its Records and Identification Bureau. The complaint sought access under common law to several years’ worth of Appendix K reports generated by the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office and submitted to the Attorney General’s office.
According to court documents, Appendix K reports contain summary information about internal affairs investigations involving police officers. These include details such as officer names, case numbers, allegations, outcomes, and other data that are typically kept confidential. The Office of the Public Defender argued that this information is important both for defending clients—by potentially impeaching testifying officers or obtaining additional discovery—and for broader policy advocacy regarding policing practices.
The request followed an incident in November 2022 when the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office inadvertently posted an unredacted Appendix K report online. This document included identifying information about officers and complainants that is supposed to remain confidential under state policy and Supreme Court precedent set in Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office (2022). After discovering this posting, the OPD sought additional similar records but was denied by state agencies.
In response to these events, the OPD filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request in December 2023 seeking all relevant Appendix K documents from 2013 onward. Defendants responded by providing only publicly available statistical summaries without officer names or detailed case information. When pressed for more complete records—including those with pending or substantiated complaints—the defendants denied further disclosure on grounds that such materials are confidential under both OPRA and statutory guidelines established by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181 and reinforced by recent Attorney General directives.
The OPD then brought suit in Mercer County Superior Court asserting a common law right of access to these records. In its filings, it stated: “There is a compelling public interest in information summarizing efforts to hold police officers accountable, deter official misconduct, assess whether the internal affairs process is working properly, and foster trust in our system of law enforcement.” It also claimed a significant interest “in accessing such summary information contained within Appendix K submissions … by accurately assessing the strength of criminal cases against its clients.”
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice after finding that disclosure would risk revealing ongoing investigations and unsubstantiated allegations, potentially chilling witness cooperation and impairing internal affairs processes. The judge applied factors outlined in Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office (2022) and Loigman v. Kimmelman (1986), concluding: “The Loigman and Rivera factors weigh heavily in favor of non-disclosure … particularly concerned that disclosure … will result in release of ongoing internal affairs investigations [and] have a chilling effect on witnesses and victims.”
On reconsideration—after OPD suggested redacting sensitive details—the trial court maintained its position that even redacted versions would not significantly change what was already available through public summaries provided by defendants.
On appeal, however, the Appellate Division vacated part of this decision. The panel found error in how the lower court relied on State v. Higgs (2023), which governs criminal discovery procedures rather than general public access under common law principles. The appellate opinion states: “We vacate the court’s decision insofar as it relied on Higgs as a justification to deny … access … [and] remand[] to reconsider … without reliance on Higgs.” The panel instructed the trial court upon remand to clarify factual issues regarding what types of information might be appropriately released from Appendix K documents—with suitable redactions—to balance transparency interests against privacy concerns.
The case involves arguments presented by Ashley Brooks (Assistant Deputy Public Defender) for appellant; Andrew C. Matlack (Deputy Attorney General) for respondents; and Michael J. Zoller representing amicus curiae Libertarians for Transparent Government. Judges Sabatino, Natali, and Walcott-Henderson presided over this matter under Docket No. A-1041-24.
