Your Rights as a Dog Owner Are Not as Private as You Might Think
Sep 30, 2021 | Written by: | Share
You may have heard the term “OPRA” before and wondered what it means. And no, it has no significance to Oprah Winfrey. OPRA stands for the Open Public Records Act. It is a law that permits the public to obtain public records and/or information from a government entity. It is important to note that not all records requested are subject to production. The statute defines what is subject to release. Nonetheless, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided that the identities of pet owners, including their names and addresses, does not fall under the privacy exception of OPRA and must be released upon an OPRA request. However, the name and breed of the dog and if it is a companion or service dog does not need to be disclosed in response to an OPRA request. The decision in Bozzi v. City of Jersey City came after a business proprietor sought information under OPRA from municipalities to market his company, which installs electric dog fences, to dog owners. He requested information as to the identifies and contact information of those who held dog licenses.
Jersey City, joined by amicus parties, claimed the information was not subject to disclosure under OPRA. The arguments against disclosure asserted that the applicants had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the information they provide in the application, that the information in the application fell within the statutory privacy exemptions to disclosure, and that disclosure did not serve the Act’s purpose of government transparency by ensuring broad public access to government records. One argument against disclosure claimed disclosing the names and addresses of dog owners would effectively increase the risk of burglary for non-dog owners on the theory that burglars would likely refrain from breaking and entering a home with a dog. Another argument claimed that disclosing the names and addresses of dog license applicants could inadvertently disclose the current address of domestic violence victims who chose to own a dog, including protection, to their perpetrators.
The Court found that a dog application was a government document under the Act, presumably because it was a document created by the local government, for which dog owners were required to complete and return to the local governing authority. The Court then determined that a dog applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to all information provided in a dog application, and the applicant’s name and address were not the type of private information subject to the Act’s express privacy exemptions to disclosure. The Court noted that dog owners routinely walk or otherwise present their dogs in public and therefore do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their dog ownership. The Court also noted that a person’s name and address are already in the public eye due to social media, cell phones, and internet services. In addition, the Court noted that the Legislature regularly amends the OPRA exclusions and has not chosen to exempt specific information contained in dog license applications from disclosure.
A dissenting opinion disagreed that the names and addresses of dog license applicants were subject to disclosure under OPRA. The Dissent noted that the intent of OPRA was to promote the transparency of a governing body’s operations to the public, and that the processing of a dog license application was not the type of government operation that required disclosure of the dog license applicant’s name and address. The Dissent noted that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy for some of the information provided in the dog license application, inferring that people have a right to some degree to be free of meddling inquiries into their personal lives. The public display of a dog only indicates the person is a dog owner or caretaker; it does not disclose the name or address of the owner.
While not yet tested, it appears the impact of the Court’s opinion in Bozzi v. City of Jersey City is not limited to dog owners. This decision opens the door for any business owner or proprietor to obtain information to market and target homeowners. Perhaps the Legislature will consider in the future whether personal information in a resident’s application for any government license or service is truly related to the public’s need for transparency of government operations. In the meantime, do not be surprised if you start receiving solicitations in the mail for items you never knew you wanted or needed.
Tracy B. Bussel, Esq., is a partner at Gebhardt & Kiefer, PC, and practices primarily in the areas of employment law, civil rights litigation, general liability, insurance defense, and the representation of public entities. Contact Ms. Bussel at 908-735-5161 or via email.
Jacob A. Papay, Jr. is a partner with Gebhardt & Kiefer, PC, and practices primarily in the areas of construction defect claims, construction injury claims, first-party insurer claims, insurance coverage disputes, subrogation, provider health care law, commercial law, defense of professional negligence, and public entity general liability. He represents numerous insurers, Third Party Administrators, medical groups, and businesses, and he has successfully defended public entity officials and employers in wrongful death, discrimination, excessive force and other civil rights claims. In addition, Mr. Papay represents small businesses in mergers, acquisitions, trade secrets, employment and unfair trade practice claims.
If you have a suggestion for a future blog topic, please feel free to submit it via the Contact Us form.
Any statements made herein are solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.