Court rejects constitutional challenge of law shielding public officials’ addresses

A state appellate panel on Friday ruled against a journalist who challenged the constitutionality of a state law barring the publication of judges’, prosecutors’, and law enforcement officers’ home addresses.

The three-judge panel affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying journalist Charlie Kratovil’s request for an injunction to prohibit New Brunswick officials from pursuing penalties against him if he publishes the home address of Anthony Caputo, who lived in Cape May while serving as director of the city’s police department and parking authority.

The appellate panel, as well as the trial court, agreed with Kratovil that Caputo’s residency in Cape May, two hours from his public job, was a matter of public concern. But both also agreed his exact street address was not.

Kratovil, founder and editor of New Brunswick Today, disagreed and said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

“The opinion released today oversimplifies the matter of public interest as the mere fact that Mr. Caputo lived in Cape May while holding positions in New Brunswick,” Kratovil said in a statement. “There is much more to the story, and I would like to tell that story without the facts being edited by the judiciary.”

After first learning of Caputo’s residency last year, Kratovil did further reporting and discovered additional real estate purchases and job promotions in both New Brunswick and Cape May involving Caputo and his former deputy director. Because of his findings, the officials’ home addresses have “increased relevance” that are of public interest, he added.

Kratovil’s lawsuit was the first to challenge the constitutionality of Daniel’s Law, which is named after a federal judge’s son who was gunned down at the judge’s home in 2020 by a disgruntled attorney who found the family’s address online.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other media organizations filed briefs supporting Kratovil. Groups including the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, the State Troopers Fraternal Association, and the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police filed briefs in the case defending Daniel’s Law as necessary to protect public officials.

The appellate judges rejected Kratovil’s claim that applying Daniel’s Law to his investigation of Caputo would stifle journalism.

“We also agree with the trial court that protecting public officials from violent attacks and harassment is a compelling State interest of the highest order,” they wrote.

Attorney Vito Gagliardi, who represented the State Association of Chiefs of Police, applauded the decision, saying the judges “understood what this case was about.”

“There was no infringement on anyone’s right to free speech here. The plaintiff was free to write the story he wanted about the police director living in Cape May, just so long as he didn’t include his street address in violation of Daniel’s Law,” Gagliardi said. “We are gratified that the court agreed that protecting the addresses of our judges and law enforcement officials was a state interest of the highest order.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey represented Kratovil in his lawsuit against Caputo and New Brunswick.

Alexander Shalom, the ACLU-NJ’s director of Supreme Court advocacy, warned the ruling will have a chilling effect on journalism.

The court failed to apply “well-established law that protects journalists’ ability to report information they get from government on matters of public concern, Shalom said.

“If left undisturbed, the decision will not only keep a gag on Mr. Kratovil, but also have a devastating effect on reporters and members of the public who rely upon them to hold public officials accountable,” he said. “Without intervention from the Supreme Court, journalists and news organizations would be chilled from reporting on official misconduct and other issues of critical public importance.”