Court Clears Release of Redacted Police Internal Affairs Report

TRENTON, N.J. — The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Monday that Jersey City must release an internal affairs report about a police lieutenant’s conduct, even though his 2019 arrest has been expunged.

In a unanimous decision, the court said the city cannot use the expungement as a reason to block access to the report. However, the justices ordered lower courts to remove any content that directly references the arrest or criminal case before the report is made public.

Justice Rachel Wainer Apter, writing for the court, said the expungement law “bars a law enforcement agency from releasing any information that would reveal an arrest, conviction, or related proceeding that it knows has been expunged.”

Background of the Case

The case stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed by the New Jersey Monitor after Jersey City denied a request for the internal affairs report under the state’s Open Public Records Act. The report involves Jersey City Police Lt. Michael Timmins, who was charged with terroristic threats and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Authorities say Timmins, after drinking six to eight beers at his Sussex County home in August 2019, fired a shotgun at party guests during a dispute involving his daughter’s boyfriend. He later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and entered a pretrial intervention program. His record was expunged afterward.

Although Timmins’ arrest was made public in 2021 under a state attorney general directive, Jersey City argued that the expungement prevented any further release of information. The court disagreed, ruling that the internal affairs report is not a criminal investigatory document and can be released under the common law right of access, as long as it doesn’t contain information protected by the expungement statute.

Public Interest and Privacy

Attorney CJ Griffin, representing the New Jersey Monitor, said the ruling strengthens public oversight of police conduct. She said the decision prevents Jersey City from shielding the public from learning more about the officer’s “wildly dangerous actions that could have easily killed someone.”

But Griffin noted that the ruling also requires a judge to redact from the report any references to Timmins’ arrest and criminal case and then apply a balancing test to determine if the report's public interest outweighs Timmins' privacy rights.

“We know what occurred in this case because of prior public disclosures, but what if we didn’t? The redactions would keep the public from monitoring how prosecutors give officers special treatment. Or it could even lead the public to assume that this officer engaged in this lawless behavior, yet was not arrested like any other civilian would be,” she said.

The outcome could set a precedent for similar cases in New Jersey, affecting how internal police investigations tied to expunged records are handled going forward.