“Daniel’s Law” Survives First-Amendment Scrutiny: Narrow-Tailored Protection of Public-Officials’ Home Addresses Upheld

Introduction

In Charles Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick, the Supreme Court of New Jersey was asked to determine whether “Daniel’s Law” (L. 2020, c. 125) could constitutionally prevent a journalist from publishing a police director’s precise home address. Plaintiff Charles Kratovil, editor of the local news outlet “New Brunswick Today”, wished to expose what he believed was Police Director Anthony Caputo’s excessive commuting distance from New Brunswick. Caputo, however, invoked Daniel’s Law—enacted after the 2020 murder of Judge Esther Salas’s son, Daniel Anderl—to prohibit republication of his exact Cape May address.

Both the trial court and Appellate Division upheld the statute. On certification, the State’s highest court unanimously affirmed (with minor modification) that Daniel’s Law, as applied, is compatible with the freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-press guarantees of the First Amendment and Article I, ¶ 6 of the New Jersey Constitution. The Court held that although Caputo’s address concerned a matter of public interest, the statute is “narrowly tailored” to advance a “state interest of the highest order”: shielding certain justice-system officials and their families from violence and intimidation.

Summary of the Judgment

Truthful, lawfully obtained information: Caputo’s Cape May address, obtained through an OPRA request, is accurate and legally acquired.
Matter of public concern: Because the story questioned a public official’s ability to perform duties while living two hours away, the Court deemed the address related to a public concern.
Highest-order state interest: Protecting judges, prosecutors, child-protection investigators, and law-enforcement officers—and their households—from retaliation is paramount.
Narrow tailoring satisfied: The statute: (a) covers only four at-risk categories, (b) shields only home addresses and unpublished phone numbers, (c) triggers only after written notice and a ten-business-day grace period, and (d) applies to all speakers equally (not merely “the press”), thus avoiding under-inclusiveness.
No injunctive or declaratory relief: Kratovil’s complaint was properly dismissed; he is not entitled to relief under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Justice Patterson meticulously walked through the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called Daily Mail line:

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) – media cannot be punished for publishing truthful information in open court records.
Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) – gag order on reporting evidence from an open hearing is unconstitutional.
Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977) – injunction against publishing a juvenile defendant’s name/photo struck down.
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) – states may not punish truthful, lawfully obtained info on matters of public significance without a “state interest of the highest order.”
Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) – damages for identifying a rape victim were unconstitutional; statute was under-inclusive and lacked narrow tailoring.
Lower-court support: Ostergren v. Cuccinelli, 615 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010); District Court decision Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, 758 F. Supp. 3d 322 (D.N.J. 2024).

These cases create a three-step inquiry: (i) is the information truthful, lawfully obtained, and of public concern? (ii) does the statute advance a state interest “of the highest order”? (iii) is the restriction narrowly tailored? The New Jersey Court faithfully applied that template.

2. Legal Reasoning

Truth / legality / public concern – The Court accepted that Kratovil lawfully received the voter profile. It differed slightly from the Appellate Division by expressly holding the address relates to a matter of public concern given the absentee-official allegation.
Compelling (highest-order) interest – Citing legislative findings after the tragic murder of Daniel Anderl, amicus statistics on threats to law-enforcement personnel, and federal analogue legislation, the Court concluded public-safety interests are at the pinnacle.
Narrow tailoring – Four cumulative features convinced the Court the statute used the “least restrictive means”:
- Coverage limited to judges, prosecutors, law-enforcement officers, and DCPP investigators.
- Only two data points protected (home address, unpublished phone number).
- No liability unless the official opts in with written notice; ten-day period allows removal of the information.
- Restriction is speaker-neutral; applies uniformly to “any person, business, or association”.
The Court rejected three narrower alternatives suggested by Kratovil (mandatory custodian training/liability, media exception mirroring the new federal statute, elimination of criminal penalties), finding each would blunt the statute’s effectiveness.

3. Potential Impact

Journalism & Investigative Reporting – Reporters remain free to publish newsworthy criticisms of covered officials (e.g., “Caputo lives in Cape May”) but must refrain from redisclosing exact addresses once properly noticed. The decision encourages reliance on redaction or descriptive references (“block level,” “in Cape May County”) rather than full addresses.
Data Brokers & Online Aggregators – The ruling underscores the statute’s broader context: much litigation involves commercial re-publishers rather than traditional media. After notice, continuous display of addresses in bulk databases risks civil damages (≥ $1,000 per violation) or criminal liability for reckless/purposeful reposting.
Public Records Custodians – Although the Court declined to impose training/liability requirements, custodians will likely intensify review when responding to OPRA requests, especially once an official’s address has been placed on the Office of Information Privacy (OIP) “redaction list.”
State & Local Governments Nationwide – The New Jersey decision, plus the recent federal “Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022,” may spur other states to draft similarly narrow statutes. Courts will look to this opinion for guidance on tailoring and notice procedures.
First-Amendment Doctrine – The opinion reinforces that Daily Mail/Florida Star scrutiny is not invariably fatal; laws can survive if carefully circumscribed. It also illustrates state high courts’ willingness to declare a “state interest of the highest order” in physical safety.

Complex Concepts Simplified

As-Applied vs. Facial Challenge – An “as-applied” challenge argues the law is unconstitutional in the plaintiff’s specific circumstances; a “facial” challenge attacks the statute in all applications. This case addressed only the narrow, fact-bound scenario involving Kratovil and Caputo.
Notice & 10-Day Grace Period – Daniel’s Law activates only after an “authorized person” delivers written notice requesting nondisclosure. The recipient then has ten business days to remove or withhold the address/number before liability attaches.
Narrow Tailoring / Least Restrictive Means – A statute must achieve its goal without unnecessary breadth. By limiting protected data and requiring opt-in notice, Daniel’s Law minimizes speech restrictions while safeguarding officials.
State Interest of the Highest Order – When speech restrictions involve truthful information, courts ask whether the state’s goal is truly paramount (e.g., preventing violence). Only the most compelling interests qualify.
Prior Restraint – Government actions (usually court orders) that stop speech before it occurs. The Court found no prior restraint here because only after potential future litigation could penalties apply.

Conclusion

Charles Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick confirms that privacy-protection statutes can coexist with press freedoms when crafted with precision. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion:

Adopts the U.S. Supreme Court’s three-factor Daily Mail/Florida Star analysis;
Recognises the publication of an official’s address can be newsworthy yet still justifiably restricted;
Upholds Daniel’s Law as a narrowly tailored mechanism that balances open discourse with the imperative to safeguard vulnerable public servants and their families.

Going forward, journalists must heed Daniel’s Law’s notice framework, and legislatures elsewhere now possess a constitutional roadmap for similar measures. The decision stands as an important modern example of how state courts interpret First-Amendment principles when confronted with evolving threats against public officials in the digital age.