Court Affirms New Jersey Law Allowing “Certain Public Officials” to Request Privacy for Home Addresses from Private Entities

In the ongoing legal discourse surrounding privacy protection for public officials, the case of Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC has emerged as a significant point of reference, particularly regarding the implications of New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law. Established in response to a tragic assassination attempt on U.S. District Judge Esther Salas and the subsequent fatal shooting of her son in 2020, Daniel’s Law is designed to protect the home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers of law enforcement officers and their immediate family members. The legislation recognizes that public servants in the justice system face increasing threats and assaults due to their roles, thus creating a framework for safeguarding their private information against unwarranted disclosure.

Daniel’s Law aims to enhance the safety and security of these "covered persons" by facilitating a process through which they can officially request the withholding of their identifying details from public records. This request must be complied with by relevant entities within ten business days. The law not only defines "covered persons" as active and retired judicial officials, law enforcement, and specific investigative roles but also emphasizes that any breach of this confidentiality poses a significant risk to their safety. The law’s enactment signals a broader acknowledgment of the hazards faced by those in the public eye, particularly amidst reports of violence towards judicial and law enforcement personnel, highlighting the urgent necessity for protective measures tailored to their unique vulnerabilities.

In the recent judicial interpretation of Daniel’s Law, Judge Harvey Bartle concluded that the law constitutes a content-based speech restriction, which is essential for understanding its constitutional implications. The court underscored that freedom of speech must be balanced against the right to privacy, taking precedent from the Supreme Court ruling in The Florida Star v. B.J.F. By setting a framework for evaluating laws that impact both privacy and free expression, the court found that the information protected under Daniel’s Law—home addresses and phone numbers—holds no significant public interest for accountability. The court maintained that while covered persons perform public duties, their private contact information does not equate to essential public oversight. Instead, Daniel’s Law creates a necessary barrier to address the real and present danger posed to these individuals.

Beyond establishing constitutionality, the court also addressed the defendants’ claims regarding the law’s underinclusiveness, which suggested that Daniel’s Law inadequately fulfills its purpose due to exceptions allowing the disclosure of certain public records like property information. However, the court distinguished between information that is readily accessible online and that which requires extensive research through governmental archives. This distinction underscores the law’s intent to mitigate immediate safety risks rather than merely restrict general access to information about public officials. The legislation thus represents a targeted approach to safeguarding the vulnerable, rather than an arbitrary restriction of free information.

Furthermore, criticisms directed at the law’s application were discussed, particularly concerning the stipulation that non-disclosure requests could be made without direct evidence of threats. The court supported the proactive nature of Daniel’s Law, asserting that the ability to request protection is not only practical but vital in preempting potential dangers. The notion that such measures would be ineffective unless predicated on "true threats" was rejected, reinforcing the understanding that early preventative actions are crucial in ensuring public safety amidst threats that have historically manifested into violent acts.

In conclusion, Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC provides substantive judicial insight into Daniel’s Law, depicting it not merely as a legislative tool but as an essential safeguard addressing the complexities associated with public service roles within a fraught social environment. The law serves as a compelling illustration of a state’s responsibility to protect those who uphold justice, balancing the interplay between freedom of information and the pressing need for the personal safety of officers in the judicial system. As the case continues to unfold, its implications could shape the discourse on privacy, safety, and the boundaries of public accountability in the context of increasingly polarized social dynamics.