862.225.1965
On June 17, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Charles Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick, ___ N.J. ___ (2025), which upheld the constitutionality of Daniel’s Law, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1; N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1, as applied to a journalist’s planned republication of a police official’s home address. The Court ruled that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a state interest of the highest order—protecting public officials from harm and threats.
Facts and Procedural History Involving Daniel’s Law New Jersey
In 2023, journalist Charles Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, received a redacted voter profile through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request showing that Police Director Anthony Caputo was registered to vote in Cape May—over two hours from New Brunswick. After further communication, Kratovil obtained an unredacted version revealing Caputo’s exact address. He intended to publish a story questioning whether Caputo could effectively serve his position from such a distant location.
Caputo, asserting coverage under Daniel’s Law sent Kratovil a formal notice requesting that his exact home address not be republished. Kratovil filed suit, arguing that the law infringed upon his rights to free speech and a free press under the New Jersey Constitution. The trial court ruled against Kratovil, as did the Appellate Division. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed as modified.
Addressing the First Amendment in the Context of Daniel’s Law New Jersey
The Court first examined whether Caputo’s address was (1) truthful, (2) lawfully obtained, and (3) of public significance—criteria from U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97, 98, 102-03 (1979), and Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 530 (1989). The Court concluded that Caputo’s address met all three criteria. Although Caputo argued that he often stayed in New Brunswick, he did not dispute that his primary residence was in Cape May. The address was obtained lawfully via an OPRA request, and its publication pertained directly to a matter of public concern—his ability to serve the city effectively.
The Court corrected the Appellate Division’s narrow interpretation by affirming that Caputo’s exact address was related to the broader issue of public accountability. The Court emphasized that Daniel’s Law had to be evaluated in light of the First Amendment but also within the unique factual context it was being applied.
Evaluating the State’s Compelling Interest Behind Daniel’s Law New Jersey
The second issue was whether Daniel’s Law serves a state interest of the highest order. The Court unanimously agreed that it does. Passed in response to the tragic murder of Daniel Anderl—the son of a federal judge—the law was created to protect public officials and their families from threats and acts of violence.
The Court found this purpose compelling and supported by substantial legislative history, public policy, and contemporary threats against law enforcement and judicial officers. The law’s intent to prevent violence through the restriction of sensitive personal information was deemed critical to maintaining the integrity and safety of public service.
Narrow Tailoring and the Application of Daniel’s Law New Jersey
The Court also analyzed whether Daniel’s Law was narrowly tailored to achieve its stated purpose. It concluded that the law passed this test. First, the law applies only to specific categories of individuals—judges, law enforcement, child protection investigators, and prosecutors. Second, it only restricts publication of exact home addresses and unpublished phone numbers—not general editorial content.
Additionally, the law does not take effect unless proper notice is provided, giving individuals like Kratovil a clear window to comply. The Court distinguished this notice requirement from laws that impose penalties without warning, finding it to be a reasonable, constitutionally permissible safeguard. It also pointed out that Daniel’s Law applies equally to all individuals and entities—not just the media—avoiding the under-inclusivity flaws seen in earlier precedents.
Final Decision and Key Takeaways on Daniel’s Law New Jersey
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling, with a key modification: it acknowledged that the publication of Caputo’s exact address fell within the sphere of public concern. Ultimately, the Court upheld Daniel’s Law as constitutional in its application to Kratovil, emphasizing that it lawfully balances the right to free speech with the need to protect public officials from credible threats.
Key takeaways:
- The Court reaffirmed that truthful, lawfully obtained information on public officials may still be restricted under narrow conditions.
- Daniel’s Law was deemed narrowly tailored and justified by a compelling government interest.
- This ruling strengthens protections for public officials while recognizing the continuing role of investigative journalism.
Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.
No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
