VAUGHN SIMMONS v. CITY OF NEWARK
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NOS. A-4204-16T2
A-4276-16T2
VAUGHN SIMMONS,
Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEWARK,
Respondent.
_________________________________
Submitted September 24, 2018 – Decided October 19, 2018
Before Judges Messano and Rose.
On appeal from the New Jersey Government Records
Council, GRC Nos. 2015-343 and 2015-329.
Vaughn Simmons, appellant pro se.
Kenyatta K. Stewart, Acting Corporation Counsel, City
of Newark, attorney for respondent City of Newark
(Samora F. Noguera, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on
the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Government Records Council (Cameryn J.
Hinton, Deputy Attorney General, on the statements in
lieu of briefs).
PER CURIAM
In these matters, calendared back to back and consolidated for purposes
of this opinion, complainant Vaughn Simmons appeals from the January 31,
20171 and April 27, 2017 final agency decisions of the Government Records
Council (GRC), denying Simmons' requests for disclosure of certain records
pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. We
affirm.
We provide a brief background, reciting the facts and procedural history
pertinent to these appeals. Following an investigation of two armed robberies
in December 2009, Newark Police Detective Angel Perez appeared before a
municipal court judge and obtained a warrant to arrest Simmons. It is unclear
whether Perez's testimony was recorded. In June 2010, Perez testified before a
1
Simmons filed a request for reconsideration of the GRC's January 31 decision,
alleging criminal conduct by the City of Newark Police Department (NPD). On
April 25, 2017, the GRC issued a final decision, denying that request. However,
Simmons' notice of appeal does not designate the GRC's April 25 final decision
and, as such, we decline to address it. See R. 2:5-1(e)(3)(i); 1266 Apartment
Corp. v. New Horizon Deli, Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004)
(recognizing that we review "only the judgment or orders designated in the
notice of appeal").
A-4204-16T2
2
grand jury, which returned indictments charging Simmons with both robberies
and weapons-related offenses. Simmons claims Perez fabricated evidence
against him resulting in his convictions and imprisonment for some of the
charges.
Five years later, Simmons filed two separate OPRA requests with the City
of Newark for: (1) copies of "the complaint and [disciplinary] history of
Detective Angel Perez . . . [including] any promotions and demotions of this
same law enforcement agent" (the personnel records request); and (2) the "audio
C.D. recording of the probable cause testimony/transcript or the equivalent
communicat[ion before the municipal judge]" (the probable cause recording
request). The City ultimately denied both requests, contending: (1) the
personnel records request sought information from internal affairs files that are
privileged and confidential, although a "diligent search" of Perez's file reveale d
no records of demotions or promotions; and (2) the probable cause recording
request sought records that are not maintained by the City's OPRA department,
but might be maintained by the Newark Municipal Court, the Superior Court's
Essex Vicinage, or the Essex County Prosecutor's Office.
Simmons filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the GRC for both
requests, because the City's response to each request was untimely. Regarding
A-4204-16T2
3
the personnel records request, the City's custodian of records initially responded
to Simmons, within the statutory seven-day period,2 but sought extensions to
conduct a search of the requested documents with assistance from the NPD.
Concerning the probable cause recording request, the custodian filed a statement
of information certifying his office was not made aware of Simmons' request
until the GRC contacted the custodian, due to "an administrative oversight."
In separate final agency decisions, the GRC upheld the City's denials of
access to both of Simmons' requests. Common to both decisions, the GRC found
the City failed to respond timely, resulting in a "'deemed' denial." See N.J.S.A.
47:1A-5(i). However, in both instances, the GRC determined the City's denial
was not knowing or willful.
Specifically, the GRC found the City's denial of access to Perez's
personnel records was not contrary to OPRA's requirements because those
2 N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), which requires, in pertinent part, that
a custodian of a government record shall grant access
to a government record or deny a request for access to
a government record as soon as possible, but not later
than seven business days after receiving the request,
provided that the record is currently available and not
in storage or archived. In the event a custodian fails to
respond within seven business days after receiving a
request, the failure to respond shall be deemed a denial
of the request[.]
A-4204-16T2
4
records are confidential and exempt from public access. Further, the City
ultimately responded to Simmons after receiving a response from the NPD
regarding its search efforts. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the GRC
determined "the [c]ustodian's actions [did] not rise to the level of a knowing and
willful violation of OPRA [or an] unreasonable denial of access."
Concerning the probable cause recording request, the GRC found
persuasive the custodian's certification that his office does not maintain those
records, and Simmons "failed to submit any competent, credible evidence to
refute the [c]ustodian's certification." Again, the GRC found the totality of the
circumstances did not warrant a finding that the custodian knowingly and
willfully violated OPRA. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Simmons raises the following points for our consideration
regarding the personnel records request:
POINT I
[SIMMONS'] RECORD REQUEST FOR [PEREZ'S]
INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE LIMITED TO
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE OFFICER AND ANY
DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE DETECTIVE
FABRICATED EVIDENCE IN A CASE AGAINST
[SIMMONS] AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
GRANTS [SIMMONS] ACCESS TO THE FILES.
A-4204-16T2
5
POINT II
THE . . . GRC ERRED AND DID NOT CONSIDER
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS IN [SIMMONS']
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH IF
CONSIDERED WOULD HAVE REVERSED
CUSTODIAN[']S DENIAL.
POINT III
THE . . . GRC ERRED IN NOT REVERSING . . .
[THE] CUSTODIAN[']S DENIAL BECAUSE
[SIMMONS'] RECORD REQUEST IN-PART FOR
PROMOTIONAL AND DEMOTIONAL RECORD
SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE
DETECTIVE HAD TO BE PROMOTED TO THAT
RANK.
Further, Simmons raises the following arguments regarding the probable
cause recording request:
POINT I
[A.] THE . . . CUSTODIAN ERRED IN DENYING
[SIMMONS'] RECORD REQUEST BECAUSE
[SIMMONS] TIMELY SOUGHT THE REQUESTED
RECORDS FROM ALL [OF] THE APPROPRIATE
DEPARTMENTS BUT WAS DENIED.
B. [SIMMONS] ARGUES THE . . . CUSTODIAN
ERRED IN STATING THE CITY OF NEWARK
DOES NOT MAINTAIN OR HAVE CONTROL
OVER [SIMMONS'] REQUEST.
C. THE . . . CUSTODIAN['S] ACTIONS WERE
KNOWING AND WILLFUL.
A-4204-16T2
6
POINT II
THE . . . GRC ERRED IN DENYING [SIMMONS']
RECORD REQUEST BECAUSE THE . . .
CUSTODIAN ADMITTED MISTAKE AND RELIED
ON A RULE FOR DENIAL . . . WHICH [SIMMONS]
ARGUES HAS NO MERIT.
POINT III
THE . . . GRC ERRED IN NOT REVERSING
[SIMMONS'] RECORD REQUEST BECAUSE [IT]
DID NOT CONSIDER ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
Our review of a GRC decision "is governed by the same standards as
review of a decision by any other state agency." Fisher v. Div. of Law, 400 N.J.
Super. 61, 70 (App. Div. 2008) (citation omitted), and is therefore limited. In
re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). We "will not overturn an agency's
decision unless it violates express or implied legislative policies, is based on
factual findings that are not supported by substantial credible evidence, or is
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." Fisher, 400 N.J. Super. at 70.
Whether an agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
requires a reviewing court to determine,
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency
follow the law; (2) whether the record contains
substantial evidence to support the findings on which
the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying
A-4204-16T2
7
the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably
have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194.]
The burden of demonstrating that the agency's decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, or capricious rests with the appellant. See Barone v. Dep't of
Human Servs., Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 210 N.J. Super. 276,
285 (App. Div. 1986), aff'd, 107 N.J. 355 (1987).
The GRC is authorized to interpret OPRA. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(b).
Although the agency's determination regarding the applicability of OPRA is a
legal conclusion subject to plenary review, see O'Shea v. Township of West
Milford, 410 N.J. Super. 371, 379 (App. Div. 2009), "under our deferential
standard of review, we give weight to the GRC's interpretation of OPRA."
McGee v. Twp. of E. Amwell, 416 N.J. Super. 602, 616 (App. Div. 2010). "We
do not, however, simply rubber stamp the agency's decision." Bart v. City of
Paterson Hous. Auth., 403 N.J. Super. 609, 618 (App. Div. 2008) (citation
omitted).
"OPRA's purpose is 'to maximize public knowledge about public affairs
in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to minimize the evils inherent in a
secluded process.'" Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 64-65 (2008)
A-4204-16T2
8
(quoting Asbury Park Press v. Ocean Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 374 N.J. Super.
312, 329 (Law Div. 2004)). However, OPRA does not "'authorize a party to
make a blanket request for every document' a public agency has on file." Bent
v. Stafford Police Dep't, Custodian of Records, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App.
Div. 2005) (quoting Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J.
Super. 205, 213 (App. Div. 2005)). "OPRA does not authorize unbridled
searches of an agency's property." Ibid. "Not every paper prepared by a public
employee fits within the definition of a government record for purposes of
OPRA." Bart, 403 N.J. Super. at 617.
To achieve its purpose, OPRA provides that "government records shall be
readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this
State, [subject to] certain exceptions[․]" N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.
OPRA broadly defines the term "government record" to include:
any paper, written or printed book, document,
drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data
processed or image processed document,
information stored or maintained electronically or
by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any
copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept
on file in the course of his[, her,] or its official
business by any officer, commission, agency or
authority of the State or of any political subdivision
thereof, including subordinate boards thereof, or that
has been received in the ordinary course of his[, her,]
or its official business by any such officer,
A-4204-16T2
9
commission, agency, or authority of the State or of
any political subdivision thereof, including
subordinate boards thereof.
[N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.]
Certain government records, including personnel records, however, are
exempt from public access under OPRA. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. Pertinent to
this appeal, OPRA's personnel record exemption "begins with a presumption of
non-disclosure and proceeds with a few narrow exceptions . . . ." Kovalcik v.
Somerset Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 206 N.J. 581, 594 (2011). When interpreting
this exemption's scope, "courts have tended to favor the protection of employee
confidentiality." McGee, 416 N.J. Super. at 615.
Having reviewed the record, and applying our highly deferential standard
of review, we find no basis to disturb the GRC's final decisions. Rather, there
is sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole supporting the GRC's
decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).
In sum, Perez's disciplinary history, including any promotions or
demotions, even if they did exist, clearly are personnel records, which are
exempt from public disclosure pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. Secondly, the
probable cause recording, assuming it exists, is not in the City's custody. It
follows, therefore, that the City cannot produce records that either do not exist
A-4204-16T2
10
or are not in its custody. Accordingly, Simmons has not met his burden of
demonstrating the GRC's decisions were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
See Barone, 210 N.J. Super. at 285.
To the extent we have not addressed Simmons' remaining contentions, we
find they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-4204-16T2
11
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
