Police blotter case in Red Bank, New Jersey raises First Amendment concerns

A judge will decide this week whether to hear the case of a local news outlet that has been accused of breaking the law for refusing to remove the details of a man’s now-expunged arrest from the police blotter on its website. The ruling could have far-reaching effects on local media.

Red Bank Municipal Judge Frank LaRocca decided late last month that Kyle Pietila’s citizen complaint against the hyperlocal news website Red Bank Green could move forward — even though the publisher of the website had updated the initial 2024 police blotter listing Pietila’s arrest on assault charges to include the expungement.

Bruce Rosen, the Hackensack attorney representing the local news outlet, wrote in his July 11 motion to dismiss the case that “news organizations do not have a duty to retract, remove, or update previously published true stories based on subsequent developments.”

Creating such an obligation would violate the local news site’s right to free speech, he added.

“You can’t edit history, and things are what they are,” Rosen, of the Pashman Stein Walder Hayden law firm, told The Jersey Vindicator this week.

“If newspapers had to change every single thing that’s wrong … and there was some sort of obligation, there would be no newspapers. Because you couldn’t possibly keep up with the way the world changes.”

The outlet and its publisher, Kenneth Katzgrau, would face only a fine of about $200 if the court ruled against them. But it’s the principle, Rosen said.

“I don’t know who got it in their heads that you can force someone to take something down,” Rosen said. “I just hope [LaRocca] corrects himself.”

Katzgrau told The Vindicator that there could be vast repercussions if the judge rules against them.

“It would create a situation where this statute could be weaponized against news outlets … where a citizen who has a gripe with [a news organization] could criminally charge its journalists personally,” he said.

“So it would create an immense number of legal issues and legal costs, and I think it could be existential for a lot of outlets,” Katzgrau said. “I think everybody would be astounded if it’s not dismissed. But I feel like stranger things have happened in the municipal court system.”

The Freedom of the Press Foundation also attacked the case, which it called “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“The Supreme Court has held over and over that journalists are entitled to publish truthful information they lawfully obtain,” the Brooklyn-based organization said in a scathing statement. “Any prosecutors who would even think to bring such charges either don’t know the first thing about the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold, or don’t care.”

The judge will decide Thursday morning whether to dismiss the case or move it to a municipal court bench trial, Rosen said.

Pietila could not be reached for comment. It’s unclear if he has a lawyer or is representing himself.

In his complaint, however, Pietila wrote he had been “falsely arrested,” and that the outlet’s rejection of his overtures to remove the police blotter item entirely from the website violated a state law that declares anyone who reveals an expunged arrest to be a disorderly person.

“I have provided Red Bank Green with dismissal/expungement paperwork multiple times, and they refuse to remove the content from their website,” he said in the complaint.

‘Once information is published, it should stay published’

The controversy began Sept. 18, 2024, when Red Bank Green published a police blotter report that included Pietila’s Aug. 31 arrest for simple assault near his Reckless Place home, according to Rosen’s motion to dismiss.

But the court dropped the charges against the 41-year-old Monmouth County man and expunged his record in March.

Afterward, both Pietila and his unidentified attorney hounded the outlet to take the police blotter item down.

But editor Brian Donohue demurred and told them to read the website’s policy, which states that “once information is published, it should stay published as-is unless a correction or clarification is warranted,” according to court documents.

“We do not remove or materially alter stories or images once they have been published,” the policy states. “If you have been acquitted or pleaded to a lesser charge after an arrest and would like our archive to reflect this, please send us the court record and we will gladly update the original story.”

The Green followed that policy — which mirrors that of many other news organizations — and added an editor’s note to the blotter report saying LaRocca had expunged Pietila’s arrest.

But Pietila continued to push for a total removal of the police blotter item.

In a June 4 phone call, Pietila allegedly asked for Donohue’s home address, then asked the editor, “How much money do you have?”

Donohue hung up, court documents said.

Later, Pietila filed the citizen’s complaint, which LaRocca ruled on June 26 had probable cause to proceed, according to court records.

Rosen eviscerated that decision in his motion to dismiss, writing there’s “no legal basis for such a theory and this court should never have granted probable cause for it.”

“The New Jersey Supreme Court has specifically stated that the media and private citizens cannot be prosecuted … even if they knowingly disclose or discuss an expunged arrest, because doing so would be a blatant violation of their federal and state constitutional rights of free speech.”

Rosen also noted that the outlet published the police blotter item long before the expungement, and state law does not require that it be removed.

“If anything, Red Bank Green should be commended for, after being informed of the expungement, adding a note explaining that the arrest had been expunged,” Rosen wrote. “It had no legal obligation to do so, but did so in accordance with its own policies and desire to report fairly and accurately to the public.”