NJ Court Denies Dog Owners’ Privacy Rights (But Appears to Recognize Privacy Rights of Dogs)

This post was originally published on Epic

The newest Jersey Supreme Court nowadays decided that dog owners in the condition do not have a colorable claims to privacy in their names plus addresses— but there may be the privacy interest in the names plus breeds of their dogs. The situation, Bozzi v. Associated with Jersey City , requested whether the privacy exemption towards the state’ s freedom info law required government firms to withhold the names plus addresses of dog permit holders when the only reason for disclosure was industrial interest in selling dog things. EPIC filed an amicus brief and presented mouth argument in case, arguing that the privacy passions in names and details in government documents is definitely well established under federal legislation and the state should the actual federal example. The court’ s majority found simply no colorable claim to privacy pertaining to dog owners because “ having a dog is, inherently, the public endeavor” — proprietors take their dogs upon “ daily walks, tidying sessions, veterinarian visits, ” “ celebrate their pets on social media or fender stickers” and “ get into their dogs into community shows. ” But , since the two dissenting justices retorted, “ dog owners appearing in public areas with their dogs do not achieve this while simultaneously advertising their own full names and contact information. ” Further undermining the particular majority’ s reasoning was your court’ s recognition that will other information in the dog permit record— such as the name plus breed of the dog, which is subjected to the public to the same education as dog ownership, plus moreso than the names plus addresses of owners— might need to be redacted because of the personal privacy interests at stake. EPIC consistently participates as amicus in the event involving involuntary disclosure of personal information in order to third parties.

Leave A Comment

17 − 11 =