Between Expungement and Transparency: The “Redact-Then-Balance” Rule for Police Internal-Affairs Records — Commentary on States Newsroom Inc. v. City of Jersey City (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2025)

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of New Jersey’s unanimous opinion in States Newsroom Inc. v. City of Jersey City, A-25-24 (Aug. 4, 2025), addresses a collision of two powerful legal currents: an individual officer’s statutory right to have his criminal record “forgotten” through expungement, and the public’s common-law right to inspect police internal-affairs (IA) reports recognized only three years earlier in Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office, 250 N.J. 124 (2022).

At the case’s core is a journalist’s request for an IA report about a Jersey City Police Department lieutenant who fired a shotgun near his girlfriend and her son. The lieutenant’s prosecution ended in Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) and was later expunged. Jersey City refused to release the IA report, arguing that the expungement statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32.1, barred disclosure. The Court disagreed in part, forging a new doctrinal rule: internal-affairs reports are not themselves “criminal records” and therefore survive expungement, but any information inside them that would reveal an expunged arrest, conviction, or disposition must first be redacted. Only after that statutory scrubbing may a court perform the Rivera/Loigman balancing test to decide whether the remainder should be released.

II. Summary of the Judgment

• Expungement ≠ Total Secrecy. IA reports are administrative, not criminal, records; they are therefore not automatically “expunged.”
• Statutory Supremacy. Sections 15(a) and 30 of the expungement statute categorically forbid a law-enforcement agency from disclosing information revealing an expunged arrest, conviction, or related proceeding. That material must be redacted.
• “Redact-Then-Balance” Procedure. After statutory redactions, trial courts must apply the common-law balancing test (the six Loigman factors plus the five Rivera factors). If disclosure prevails, the additional privacy redactions listed in Rivera (names of complainants, personal identifiers, medical data, etc.) are added before release.
• Remand and Sealing. The matter was remanded for in-camera redaction and balancing. The Appellate Division’s directive to re-evaluate the wholesale sealing of the court docket under Hammock v. Hoffmann-LaRoche stood.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office (2022) — First recognized common-law access to IA reports; added five public-interest factors to the traditional Loigman test.
2. Loigman v. Kimmelman (1986) — Six-factor framework for weighing governmental vs. public interests in disclosure.
3. New Jersey Expungement Statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32.1 — Defines expungement and the statutory duties of disclosure-denial in §§ 15 & 30.
4. Attorney-General Directives 2020-5 & 2020-6 and the Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures (IAPP) — Provide the executive backdrop for IA confidentiality and mandated “major discipline” summaries.
5. G.D. v. Kenny (2011) — Clarified that expungement does not “rewrite history.”
6. DCPP v. A.P. (2024) — Interpreted §19’s “good cause” exception but deemed inapposite here (IA access ≠ subsequent proceeding).
7. Home News, Mount Laurel, Higg-A-Rella — Earlier right-of-access cases cited for the proposition that statutes and regulations “factor into” — but do not necessarily control — common-law balancing.
8. Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. v. NJPLIGA (2013) — Affirmed legislative supremacy over common law.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Analysis. IA reports do not appear in §1(b)’s list of documents automatically expunged (“complaints, warrants, fingerprints, rap sheets…”). They are therefore outside the statute’s expungement mechanism.
2. Agency Possession. Although the report itself is not a criminal record, it may contain or quote such records. When a law-enforcement agency possesses expunged materials, §§15 and 30 compel it to: (a) segregate or delete those materials; (b) state “no record” if asked about them; and (c) avoid revealing their very existence.
3. Statutory vs. Common Law Hierarchy. The opinion reiterates that the common law is subordinate to positive legislation. A court cannot order disclosure of material the Legislature has expressly barred.
4. Redaction Solution. The statutory duty can coexist with Rivera: redact first (to comply with §§15/30), then conduct the Rivera/Loigman balancing on what remains, and finally apply Rivera’s privacy redactions.
5. Policy Considerations. The Court invokes G.D. to note the expungement statute “does not impose a regime of silence on those who know the truth.” The public interest in police accountability therefore remains strong once criminal-case identifiers are stripped out.

C. Practical Impact

• Standardized Protocol. Trial courts and records custodians now have a three-step roadmap (“redact-then-balance-then-release”) whenever expungement and IA access intersect.
• Municipal Clerks & OPRA Custodians. Fear of criminal liability under §30 is alleviated: custodians may honor IA requests so long as they excise expunged criminal references.
• Media & Public Interest Litigants. The decision widens the pathway opened in Rivera, confirming that expungement cannot be invoked as a blanket shield for administrative police discipline.
• Law-Enforcement Agencies. Agencies must develop internal review protocols to locate and redact expunged criminal data within IA files before responding to common-law requests.
• Future Litigation. We can expect litigation over what exactly “would reveal” an expunged proceeding—e.g., dates matching case dockets, indirect references, or narrative facts identical to an arrest report.
• Legislative Invitation. The Court signals that if the Legislature wants broader secrecy it must say so expressly; otherwise courts will continue to apply the new rule.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. What Is “Expungement”?

In New Jersey, expungement is a court-ordered process that isolates specified criminal records from public view. The person may legally deny the arrest or conviction, and agencies must respond “no record.” Think of it as sealing particular folders in a vast filing cabinet—but it does not rewrite newspaper articles or ban everyone else from discussing the incident.

2. Internal-Affairs (IA) Reports vs. Criminal Records

An IA report is an administrative document created by a police department to decide if an officer broke departmental rules. A criminal record documents whether someone violated state criminal law. An officer’s off-duty actions can generate both.

3. Common-Law Right of Access

Separate from OPRA, New Jersey recognizes a judge-made right for citizens to inspect government records when the public interest outweighs confidentiality concerns. Courts weigh factors from Loigman and, for IA material, additional Rivera factors.

4. Redaction

Redaction is surgical deletion. The Court’s framework forces agencies to remove text or pages that explicitly or implicitly expose an expunged criminal case, but leaves the remainder intact for possible release.

5. The “Statutory Supremacy” Principle

If a statute plainly says “Do not disclose X,” no amount of common-law balancing can override that command. Courts may only navigate around the prohibited data (by redacting) but cannot compel its release.

V. Conclusion

States Newsroom Inc. v. City of Jersey City cements a pivotal reconciliation between two policy imperatives: (1) protecting rehabilitated individuals from the enduring stigma of criminal records, and (2) ensuring public scrutiny of police discipline. By framing a clear, stepwise “redact-then-balance” rule, the Court preserves the Legislature’s intent that expunged matters remain invisible as criminal records while simultaneously safeguarding the judiciary’s role in promoting governmental transparency under the common law.

The decision’s broader significance lies in reinforcing that expungement is not an eraser of all memory, merely of the criminal-justice footprint. Administrative and journalistic oversight of law-enforcement conduct therefore survives, albeit in redacted form. Future disputes will likely pivot on the grey edge between descriptive narrative and disclosure of an expunged proceeding, but the doctrinal architecture is now firmly in place.