By state statute, every dog owner must procure an annual dog license from their municipality. The proceeds are applied to municipal rabies prevention and animal control programs. The license application includes the owner's name and address.

In Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, our Supreme Court has just held, by a 5-2 vote, that these dog license records are public records subject to disclosure under the Open Public Records Act, and that OPRA's exemption for personal privacy does not prevent disclosure. The majority concluded, based on its prior decision in Brennan v. Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, that OPRA's personal privacy exemption does not generally prohibit the release of private people's names and addresses unless there is an "objectively reasonable" expectation of privacy. It went on to conclude that owning a dog is a public act. Because "owners—and the dog itself—are regularly exposed to the public during daily walks, grooming and veterinarian visit," there is no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact of dog ownership.

Justices Pierre-Louis and Albin dissented. Justice Pierre-Louis argued that the core purpose of OPRA was to promote openness in government, and that the private ownership of dog licenses was irrelevant to the "articulated purpose of transparency in government." Instead, she wrote, the only reason Bozzi sought the information was to promote his invisible fence business by learning the names of potential customers. In those circumstances, she concluded, the dog owners' expectation of privacy from commercial solicitation was objectively reasonable.