J.N. VS. WEST WINDSOR PLAINSBORO REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (L-1828-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0109-19T1
J.N.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WEST WINDSOR PLAINSBORO
REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP,
Defendants-Respondents.
Argued telephonically July 15, 2020 –
Decided July 31, 2020
Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-1828-17.
Michael H. Nieschmidt argued the cause for appellant.
Jeffrey L. Shanaberger argued the cause for respondent
West Windsor Plainsboro Regional School District
(Hill Wallack LLP, attorneys; Jeffrey L. Shanaberger,
on the brief).
Casey P. Acker argued the cause for respondent West
Windsor Township (Lenox Law Firm, attorneys; Casey
P. Acker, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from the July 26, 2019 orders granting defendants'
motions for summary judgment and denying his cross-motion for summary
judgment. We affirm.
While a junior at West Windsor Plainsboro High School South (school),
plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was pulled over by the West Windsor
Township police on a Saturday afternoon in February 2014. After the officer
found drug paraphernalia in plaintiff's book bag, plaintiff was charged in a
juvenile delinquency complaint with possession of drug paraphernalia, in
violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:36-2.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-6.2(b), the West Windsor Plainsboro
Regional School District (District) and the West Windsor Township Police
Department were parties to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) which
contained a standing request by the District for relevant information concerning
its students. The purpose of the MOA is "to ensure cooperation between law
enforcement and education officials and ultimately to protect the educational
environment."
A-0109-19T1
2
Therefore, on the Monday following the imposition of plaintiff's charge,
the police contacted the District, specifically the school's principal, and
disclosed the facts concerning the motor vehicle stop. Because plaintiff was a
student-athlete, the principal informed the baseball coach about the traffic stop
and subsequent charge. 1 After plaintiff complied with a court order requiring
him to submit to a drug test and perform eight hours of community service, the
juvenile delinquency complaint was dismissed in August 2014.
Several years later, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging
a violation of his civil rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A.
10:6-1 to -2, because of the improper dissemination of his juvenile records.
After defendants moved for summary judgment, plaintiff filed a cross-motion
for summary judgment.
In a well-reasoned oral decision issued July 26, 2019, the trial court
concluded that defendants had not violated plaintiff's civil rights. The judge
noted that under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(c)(3), law enforcement was permitted to
release information regarding charges incurred by a juvenile to the principal of
the school attended by the juvenile. In addition, the MOA stated: "The West
1
All student-athletes were required to sign a contract agreeing to abide by a
thirty-day suspension from competition if they were found possessing or using
alcohol, tobacco or controlled substances.
A-0109-19T1
3
Windsor Police Department agrees automatically to disclose to the principal this
information regarding any juvenile delinquency charge filed . . . against any
student enrolled in the school." Therefore, the court concluded plaintiff had no
expectation of confidentiality. The judge granted defendants' motions for
summary judgment and denied plaintiff's cross-motion.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court: (1) improperly held the MOA
superseded the controlling New Jersey statutes; (2) erred when it found
defendants did not illegally disclose plaintiff's confidential juvenile
information; (3) mistakenly found defendants' disclosure did not violate
plaintiff's civil rights; and (4) incorrectly held defendants' disclosure did not
violate plaintiff's constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
In our de novo review of an order granting summary judgment, we apply
the same standard as the trial court. Green v. Monmouth Univ., 237 N.J. 516,
529 (2019) (citations omitted). Summary judgment must be granted "if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or
order as a matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c).
A-0109-19T1
4
A juvenile is protected from the disclosure of his or her records under
N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60. However, when a juvenile is charged with an offense,
N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(c)(3) carves out an exception for disclosure of the
information to "the principal of the school where the juvenile is enrolled . . . ."
The provision states:
(c) At the time of charge, adjudication or disposition,
information as to the identity of a juvenile charged with
an offense, the offense charged, the adjudication and
disposition shall, upon request, be disclosed to: . . . (3)
On a confidential basis, the principal of the school
where the juvenile is enrolled for use by the principal
and such members of the staff and faculty of the school
as the principal deems appropriate for maintaining
order, safety or discipline in the school or to planning
programs relevant to the juvenile's educational and
social development, provided that no record of such
information shall be maintained except as authorized by
regulation of the Department of Education . . . .
[N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(c)(3).]
In addition, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(e) gives law enforcement discretionary
authority to disclose juvenile information to schools, stating:
Nothing in this section prohibits a law enforcement or
prosecuting agency from providing the principal of a
school with information identifying one or more
juveniles who are under investigation or have been
taken into custody for commission of any act that would
constitute an offense if committed by an adult when the
law enforcement or prosecuting agency determines that
the information may be useful to the principal in
A-0109-19T1
5
maintaining order, safety or discipline in the school or
in planning programs relevant to the juvenile's
educational and social development. Information
provided to the principal pursuant to this subsection
shall be treated as confidential but may be made
available to such members of the staff and faculty of
the school as the principal deems appropriate for
maintaining order, safety or discipline in the school or
for planning programs relevant to the juvenile's
educational and social development. No information
provided pursuant to this section shall be maintained.
[N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(e).]
Moreover, under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-6.1(a), "boards of education shall adopt
and implement policies and procedures to ensure cooperation between school
staff and law enforcement authorities . . . ." Under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-6.2(b)(13),
"[s]chool district policies and procedures shall include . . . [a] memorandum of
agreement with appropriate law enforcement authorities."
Section 5.2 of the District's MOA governs the disclosure of information
when a juvenile is charged with an offense:
When a juvenile has been charged with an act of
delinquency that if committed by an adult would
constitute a crime or offense, it is requested and agreed
pursuant to . . . N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(c)(1) and (3) that
the West Windsor Police Department or County
Prosecutor’s Office shall promptly provide information
as to the identity of the juvenile, the offense charged,
the adjudication and the disposition to (1) the principal
of any school that is the victim of the offense; (2) the
principal of any school that employs the victim of the
A-0109-19T1
6
offense; and (3) the principal of any school where the
juvenile is enrolled.
Section 5.3 of the MOA authorizes police to provide information
regarding juveniles under certain circumstances:
Pursuant to the authority of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(e), the
West Windsor Police Department and/or the County
Prosecutor's Office agree(s) to notify verbally the
principal of the school at which the juvenile is enrolled
where the juvenile is under investigation or has been
taken into custody but has not been formally charged
with the commission of any act that would constitute an
offense if committed by an adult, provided that the
West Windsor Police Department or the County
Prosecutor's Office determines that the information
may be useful in maintaining order, safety or discipline
in the school or in planning programs relevant to the
juvenile's educational and social development, and
further provided that the sharing of information will not
interfere with or jeopardize an ongoing investigation or
prosecution of any person.
Plaintiff asserts the trial court erred in relying on N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(e)
as support for the disclosure by police to the school of his juvenile charge.
Plaintiff contends that prior to disclosure, the statute requires police to analyze
whether a charge against a juvenile "may be useful to the principal . . . ."
In making this argument, plaintiff disregards the exception to disclosure
articulated under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(c)(3) and the District's MOA which
specifically authorized and required police to provide information regarding any
A-0109-19T1
7
charged juvenile to the principal of the juvenile's school. Therefore, the actions
of police here complied with N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(c)(3) and was in response to
the District's standing request established under Section 5.2 of the MOA.
We are satisfied the trial court did not err in finding defendants did not
violate plaintiff's civil rights. As stated, the specific statutes granted authority
for the actions taken here by law enforcement and school officials.
On appeal, for the first time, plaintiff asserts defendants' actions violated
his right to equal protection under the law and New Jersey Constitution , Article
I, Paragraph 1. This claim was not presented in plaintiff's complaint nor argued
in the trial briefs. Plaintiff only fleetingly raised this argument during the oral
argument before the trial court. We therefore decline to address the contention
as it has not been properly presented to this court. See Nieder v. Royal Indem.
Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (citation omitted).
Affirmed.
A-0109-19T1
8