New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that successful bidders at public auctions are not entitled to a presumption of privacy.

In a unanimous ruling, the court, overturning the Appellate Division, said persons who purchase seized items from public agencies may have their names and addresses released under the state's Open Public Records Act.

The case involves 39 people who claimed they purchased sports memorabilia items that were being auctioned off by the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office after the items were seized by law enforcement. But the items turned out to be counterfeit, the plaintiffs alleged.

John Molinelli, the Bergen County prosecutor at the time, said the counterfeit items were to be destroyed to avoid winding up in the hands of unsuspecting collectors.

Good-government activist William Brennan sought to obtain the names and home addresses of those who won the bids. Brennan had contended the prosecutor's office knowingly allowed counterfeit memorabilia to be auctioned.

The Bergen County Prosecutor's Office responded to Brennan's public records request by concluding that the information sought was exempt from OPRA. The Appellate Division agreed.

Brennan appealed, and Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, writing for the court Wednesday, said the successful bidders had no reasonable expectation to privacy.

“OPRA favors broad access to public records,” Rabner said. “A party must present a colorable claim that public access to records would invade a person's reasonable expectation of privacy,” Rabner said.

“It is not reasonable to expect that details about a public auction of government property—including the names and addresses of people who bought the seized property—will remain private,” Rabner said.

“OPRA does not contain a broad-based exemption for the disclosure of names and home addresses that appear in government records,” the chief justice added.

“The bidders knew they were participating in a public auction,” he said. “And the participants knew they were biding on seized property forfeited to the government.

“Forfeiture proceedings and public auctions of forfeited property are not conducted in private,” Rabner said.

Rabner held that courts need not examine factors for and against disclosure set forth in the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in Doe v. Poritz each time a party attempts to invoke a privacy interest. He distinguished Supreme Court cases where the Doe factors were consulted—Burnett v. County of Bergen and Carter v. Doe, from 2009 and 2017, respectively—saying that neither one “requires courts to analyze the Doe factors every time a party asserts that a privacy interest exists.”

Brennan's attorney, Donald Burke Jr., issued a statement in response to the ruling.

“We are grateful the Court, in its unanimous opinion, reaffirmed its commitment to OPRA's fundamental principles. Democracy thrives on transparency. Today is a great day for openness and accountability,” said Burke, who heads a firm in Toms River.

The Bergen County Prosecutor's Office had opposed Brennan's OPRA request. Its attorney, Craig Bossong of Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt & Faber, didn't return a call seeking comment.

Brennan, a former firefighter, ran an unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign last year and made headlines when he filed a suit against then-Republican Gov. Chris Christie over the so-called Bridgegate scandal. That suit ultimately was thrown out.