In Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that citizens of the State of New Jersey do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning dog ownership, as owning a dog is a “substantially public endeavor.” 2021 N.J. LEXIS 885, at *9 (Sep. 20, 2021). The underlying facts of the case involved a Plaintiff/licensed home improvement contractor who sought copies of dog license records from Jersey City pursuant to the common law right of access and the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. Specifically, Plaintiff requested the dog owners’ names and addresses to advertise his invisible fence installation services. Bozzi, N.J. LEXIS 885, at *9.
The Plaintiff’s request raised privacy concerns, with the city arguing against disclosure, highlighting inherent concerns such as (1) residents not listed as dog owners might be perceived as more vulnerable to burglary, (2) the revelation of the addresses of those targeted by stalking/threats, and (3) knowing dog-owners’ addresses might encourage would-be burglars to bring a weapon. Id. at 11. Nevertheless, after analyzing OPRA, the Court sided with the Plaintiff.
The Court focused on the fact that OPRA contains twenty-three enumerated exceptions from disclosure, which include the names and addresses of those on record as having a license to hunt with a firearm. Id. at 17. Absent from these specifically enumerated exceptions was dog ownership, or according to the Court, any apparent overarching legislative intent directed at the nondisclosure of names or home addresses. Id. at 18. Moreover, the Court explained that even where information is not listed in the enumerated exceptions, its disclosure can still be prevented per OPRA’s privacy clause. Id. at 19. This clause focuses on a person’s, “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy,” with this expectation determined primarily by a focus on information typically kept private versus information extended to the public. Id.
However, the Court viewed the situation in Bozzi as failing to trigger the protection of the privacy clause. Relying on past precedent as set forth in Brennan v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 233 N.J. 330 (2018), the Court found that there is no uniform prohibition on the disclosure of names and addresses, so their analytical focus must be targeted at, “the ownership and licensing of a dog.” The Court was not persuaded that dog ownership and licensure warranted the protection of the privacy clause, describing dog ownership as an “inherently public endeavor.” Id. at 21. Specifically, the Court described dog owners as being, “regularly exposed to the public during daily walks, grooming sessions, and veterinarian visits.” Id. The Court also highlighted the fact that many dog owners share their pet on social media and through other public platforms. Id. at 21.
Though, the Court did limit the disclosure, finding that sharing information as to dog breed or purpose must be kept confidential for the health and safety of the public. Id. at 22. The Court rationalized that certain high-value dog breeds might attract unwanted attention and that a dog’s purpose such as for service or law enforcement should also remain private. Nevertheless, the effect of the Court’s ruling remains the same. If you are a licensed dog owner in New Jersey, your name and address can now be disclosed under OPRA.