N.J. high court will hear reporter’s challenge to law meant to protect public workers

New Jersey’s high court will weigh whether a law shielding addresses of judges and others tramples First Amendment protections. (Amanda Brown for New Jersey Monitor)

New Jersey’s Supreme Court has agreed to take up a reporter’s challenge to a state law that criminalizes the disclosure of the addresses and other personal information of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel.

The reporter, Charlie Kratovil, editor of local outlet New Brunswick Today, has battled New Brunswick officials over his reporting on the home address of a now-retired city official who lived more than two hours away from the city in Cape May.

The city warned Kratovil that if he published the official’s home address he could face civil and criminal prosecution under the controversial statute — called Daniel’s Law — but Kratovil has argued any prosecution would violate his freedom of speech.

A Superior Court Judge ruled against Kratovil last September, finding the law was so narrowly tailored that its purpose — protecting judges and other officials — was sufficient to overcome its constitutional burdens. An appellate panel upheld the ruling in April.

Kratovil’s fight with New Brunswick began in May 2023 after he discussed the home address of the city’s police director, Anthony Caputo, with council members during a public meeting — where he said the street name but not exact address. Two weeks later, the city sent Kratovil a cease-and-desist letter invoking Daniel’s Law to prevent publication of Caputo’s address. Kratovil then sued the city, asking a judge to bar city officials from taking action.

Caputo retired in January. Kratovil said he obtained Caputo’s address from voter registration records obtained under the Open Public Records Act

New Jersey lawmakers enacted Daniel’s Law after the attempted assassination of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas left her son, Daniel Anderl, dead and her husband critically wounded.

Legislators have since expanded the law to shield the personal information of child protective investigators.

In June, scores of data brokers urged a federal judge to declare the law unconstitutionally limited speech, arguing it had failed to accomplish its stated goal because addresses of people covered by the law remain readily available online, including on government websites.