10/16/2026
A Message from the Ridgewood Chief of Police Forest Ross Lyons Regarding Public Records and Transparency
Recently, there has been some public concern and confusion regarding the release of police records, whether through the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), the common-law right of access, or the criminal discovery process. I wanted to provide a brief explanation of how these different legal processes work and why records may be available under one process but not another.
The release of government records is a complex and constantly evolving area of law. This is particularly complex when it comes to documents involved in potential criminal investigations. Changes in legislation, court decisions, and legal interpretations affect what information can be released, when it can be released, and what information must remain confidential.
Open Public Records Act (OPRA):
Under New Jersey law, OPRA generally provides public access to records made, maintained, or received by government agencies in the course of official business. However, not every record in the possession of a police department is subject to public disclosure.
Certain records, particularly criminal investigative materials, may be exempt from disclosure. Whether a record is required by law to be made or maintained can be an important factor in determining whether the criminal investigatory records exemption applies.
When someone submits an OPRA request, they may receive a response stating that no responsive records exist or that the requested records are exempt from disclosure. These are different legal determinations. A denial based on an exemption does not mean that the department has no information concerning the incident or the record does not exist. It means that the requested material cannot be released under OPRA.
Common-Law Right of Access:
New Jersey also recognizes a separate legal process known as the common-law right of access.
Under the common law, records that are exempt from disclosure under OPRA may still be available after a separate legal review. This involves balancing the requester’s interest in obtaining the information against legitimate confidentiality, privacy, investigative, and public safety concerns.
What makes this particularly complicated is that circumstances can change.
For example, information that cannot be released during an active criminal investigation may become eligible for disclosure after the investigation concludes. That does not mean records automatically become public once an investigation is closed. Each request must be evaluated individually, and the legal standards of balancing interests must be applied to the circumstances involved.
One of the important considerations in this process is protecting people who come forward to report crimes, misconduct, or other concerns to law enforcement. Individuals should be able to contact the police without unnecessarily exposing themselves to retaliation, harassment, or violations of their privacy.
Those protections must be balanced against the public’s legitimate interest in government transparency.
Videos and Other Investigative Evidence:
Another area of confusion involves videos, documents, photographs, and other non-testimonial evidence provided to or collected by the police department.
Simply because the police possess a particular video or document does not mean it must automatically be released to the public. Depending on the nature of the material, statutory exemptions, privacy protections, and other legal restrictions may apply.
For example, consider a video depicting an assault. Even after the criminal case has concluded, the video may contain sensitive information about the victim or other individuals. Those privacy interests must be considered before determining whether the recording, or any portion of it, can lawfully be released.
In some circumstances, redactions may be appropriate. These might include blurring identifying information, muting protected audio, or removing portions that are legally exempt from disclosure.
There is an important distinction between improperly altering original evidence and preparing a legally redacted copy for public release. The integrity of the original evidence must be preserved.
Criminal Discovery:
The criminal discovery process is separate from both OPRA and common-law access.
Discovery allows parties in criminal proceedings to obtain evidence and information necessary for the preparation and presentation of their defense, subject to applicable court rules and protective orders.
A video provided to a defense attorney through discovery is not automatically available for general public release. The fact that evidence must be disclosed for purposes of a criminal proceeding does not eliminate the privacy or confidentiality protections that may otherwise apply.
These different legal requirements help explain why the same information may be provided through one process while remaining unavailable through another.
Our Commitment to Transparency and Accountability
I recognize that these distinctions can be confusing and, at times, frustrating for members of the public seeking information.
The Ridgewood Police Department makes every effort to remain current with the laws, regulations, and court decisions governing the release of public records. Our responsibility is to provide the greatest degree of transparency permitted by law while protecting the legitimate privacy and safety interests of the people we serve.
These responsibilities are not always easy to reconcile. Each request may involve different facts, different legal considerations, and different privacy concerns.
Finally, I want to be very clear: If anyone believes that wrongdoing or misconduct has occurred on the part of the Ridgewood Police Department, I strongly encourage them to contact the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office and request that their concerns be reviewed.
We welcome appropriate independent oversight and take our obligation to operate lawfully, ethically, and professionally very seriously.
The Ridgewood Police Department remains committed to transparency, accountability, and protecting the privacy rights of the people who place their trust in us. We will continue to make every effort to meet those obligations while navigating an area of law that continues to change.
Forest Ross Lyons
Chief of Police
Ridgewood Police Department
