Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Loigman v. Kimmelman

Loigman v. Kimmelman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

November 4, 1985, Argued ; February 25, 1986, Decided

A-40

Opinion

 [*101]  [**960]   In this case we are called upon to balance the citizen's right of access to official information with the government's need for confidentiality in the conduct of law-enforcement investigations. Here, the citizen seeks access to what is described as an Attorney General's audit of the confidential account of the Monmouth County Prosecutor. Such accounts are designed to enable a prosecutor to conduct undercover operations, reward informers, and [***2]  perform other sensitive law-enforcement functions.

The plaintiff is a practicing attorney of Monmouth County. He had sought information from the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders with respect to disbursements made under the county prosecutor's confidential account and his petty-cash and confiscated-monies accounts. He learned that the Attorney General had conducted a review of the matters. He requested a copy of what is referred to as an audit of the account. The Attorney General declined to turn over the material on the ground that it was a confidential internal investigation, privileged from disclosure. The plaintiff brought suit in the Superior Court under the State's Right to Know Law, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -4, asserting that the document was a public record "required by law to be made, maintained or kept on file." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2. ] Under the Right to Know Law, any citizen, without any showing of personal or particular interest, has an unqualified right to inspect such documents if they are, in fact, such public records. Irval Realty Inc. v. Board of Pub. Util. Comm'rs, 61 N.J. 366, 372-73 (1972).

The Attorney General moved to dismiss the plaintiff's [***3]  complaint on the ground that the record of the confidential investigation of the accounts of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's  [*102]  office was not one required by law to be maintained or kept on file, and was not, therefore, a "public record" under the statute. At oral argument on the return day of the State's motion, the plaintiff for the first time, and without any papers in support of the argument, asserted a common-law right of access to the materials. The trial court granted the State's motion for judgment on both grounds.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

102 N.J. 98 *; 505 A.2d 958 **; 1986 N.J. LEXIS 870 ***

LARRY S. LOIGMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. IRWIN I. KIMMELMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND ALEXANDER D. LEHRER, PROSECUTOR OF MONMOUTH COUNTY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

Prior History:  [***1]  On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

CORE TERMS

confidential, documents, disclosure, exemption, in camera, public record, public interest, records, inspection, attorney general, common-law, courts, trial court, investigatory, informers, claim of exemption, law-enforcement, automatic, audit, cases

Administrative Law, Governmental Information, Freedom of Information, General Overview, Tax Law, State & Local Taxes, Administration & Procedure, Judicial Review, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Defenses & Exemptions From Public Disclosure, Law Enforcement Records, Interagency Memoranda, Evidence, Privileges, Government Privileges, Freedom of Information Act, Official Information Privilege, Executive Privilege, Discovery, Privileged Communications, Self-Critical Analysis Privilege, Constitutional Law, Substantive Due Process, Privacy, Personal Information, Informer Privilege, Governments, State & Territorial Governments, Employees & Officials, Judicial Officers, Judges, Criminal Law & Procedure, Preliminary Proceedings, Discovery & Inspection, In Camera Inspections, Enforcement, Judicial Review, Standards of Review