Case Title: Robert Wayne Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-93-05

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 93 September Term 2005 ROBERT WAYNE TARUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF PINE HILL, MAYOR LESLIE GALLAGHER and POLICE CHIEF JOHN WELKER, Defendants-Respondents, and JOHN B. KEARNEY, ESQUIRE and JOHN B. KEARNEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants. Argued October 31, 2006 Decided March 7, 2007 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 381 N.J. Super. 412 (2005). Thomas Bruno, II, argued the cause for appellant (Abramson & Denenberg, attorneys). Michael O. Kassak argued the cause for respondents Borough of Pine Hill and Mayor Leslie Gallagher (White and Williams, attorneys; Robert E. Campbell, on the briefs). William A. Garrigle argued the cause for respondent Police Chief John Welker (Garrigle and Palm, attorneys; Mr. Garrigle and Cynthia L. Sozio, on the briefs). John B. Kearney argued the cause for respondents Borough of Pine Hill and individual defendants on the punitive damage claims (Kearney & Schweitzer, attorneys). Jennifer A. Klear submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (Drinker Biddle & Reath and Edward L. Barocas, Legal Director, attorneys). CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. During our nation s formative days, Patrick Henry declared that [t]he liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 169-70 (J. Elliot ed., 1881). With that rationale for open government as our backdrop, in this appeal we examine the breadth of the public s right of access to governmental proceedings under New Jersey law. At two municipal proceedings in 2000, disputes arose between plaintiff and defendants concerning plaintiff s efforts to videotape the Council meetings. During each meeting, because he refused to comply with the Mayor s order to cease videotaping, the police chief removed plaintiff from the premises and arrested him. Plaintiff was found not guilty of disorderly conduct and subsequently filed this lawsuit. We are thus presented with the questions whether plaintiff has a right, under the common law or the New Jersey Constitution, to videotape those public meetings and, if so, whether defendants violated such a right. We must also decide whether there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff. We affirm the Appellate Division s determination that there exists a common law right to videotape a municipal council meeting subject to reasonable restrictions. We find, however, that the Borough and its Mayor violated plaintiff s common law right by imposing arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions that prevented plaintiff from videotaping the Council meetings in question. We also conclude that plaintiff s arrest was premised on probable cause. A. [Id. at 154 (quoting Nevens v. Chino, 44 Cal. Rptr. 50, 52 (Dist. Ct. App. 1965)).] Thus, over time, quill and parchment gave way to pen and pad; audio recording devices supplanted stenography. [187 N.J. Super. at 570.] In affirming the lower court s decision, the Appellate Division expounded on that idea: Video cameras and recorders have become a commonplace item in our every day life. They are a common security device and confront us at the bank, in stores and even in apartment houses. Exposure to video recording of all of us is a normal occurrence on the streets and in public gatherings such as athletic contests and sporting events where participants and spectators are under constant television surveillance. Such exposure is actively sought by all those running for public office in order to place their image and their ideas before the voters. [Maurice River II, supra, 193 N.J. Super. at 492.] Use of video cameras and our reliance on video to acquire information has expanded dramatically since the Maurice River decisions. Today, hand-held video cameras are everywhere -- attached to our computers, a common feature in consumer still-shot cameras, and even built into recent generations of mobile telephones. The broad and pervasive use of video cameras at public events evidences a societal acceptance of their use in public fora. Commensurate with the use of video recording in society is its intrinsic value in documenting events. Videotaping is a legitimate way of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence . . . . Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534, 541 (E.D. Pa. 2005). The combination of audio and visual information also affords the most complete record of public proceedings. Csorny v. Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch. Dist., 305 A.D.2d 83, 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) ( Video cameras provide the most accurate and effective way of memorializing local democracy in action. ) Thus, video cameras present distinct advantages over other recording devices, and, with improvements in technology, are no more disruptive than pen and paper or audio tape recorder. To be sure, some courts have expressed concern over possible negative consequences of allowing videotaping of public proceedings, particularly in the context of judicial proceedings. The use of cameras in the courtroom might cause the judge, juror or witness to be distracted, endangering the trial s decorum and integrity. United States v. Kerley, 753 F.2d 617, 622 (7th Cir. 1985). However, those concerns, and myriad others relating to judicial proceedings, are inapposite to the issue now before the Court because public bodies have a vastly different civic function than courts. See footnote 1 So too, we are not persuaded by fears that the use of video cameras in non-judicial settings will generate intimidation and harassment. We agree with Belcher, supra, where the court reasoned that [i]f an individual is willing to stand up and talk in the sometimes volatile setting of a thronged public meeting, at which members of the press are customarily present, that person has little to fear (and much to gain) from the presence of a tape recorder. 569 F. Supp. at 383. The court found the benefits far outweighed any negative consequences, and would not defeat the salutary ends which are served by allowing [public] meetings to be taped, at least without convincing evidence to support the proposition of audience intimidation. Ibid. (citing Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 575, 101 S. Ct. 802, 810, 66 L. Ed. 2d 740, 752 (1981)). Trepidation over the effect of video cameras in public meetings is overstated. The prevalence of video cameras in society and the open nature of public meetings militate against such hyperbolic concerns. Although some citizens may be fearful of video cameras, we find that consideration insufficient to deny the right to videotape. Further, no right of privacy protects a citizen s public comments. Those who attend [public] meetings . . . fully realize that their comments and remarks are being made in a public forum. Mitchell v. Bd. of Educ., 113 A.D.2d 924, 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). As such, [t]he argument that members of the public should be protected from the use of their words, and that they have [a] privacy interest in their own comments, is therefore wholly specious. Ibid. Taken as a whole, the benefits of video recording far outweigh the perceived drawbacks, and the modern use of video cameras buttresses the common law right to videotape. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-93 SEPTEMBER TERM 2005 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court ROBERT WAYNE TARUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF PINE HILL, MAYOR LESLIE GALLAGHER and POLICE CHIEF JOHN WELKER, Defendants-Respondents, And JOHN B. KEARNEY, ESQUIRE and JOHN B. KEARNEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants. DECIDED March 7, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Chief Justice Zazzali CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY