Lawsuit alleges borough’s one-camera policy violates the New Jersey Constitution, the Open Public Meetings Act, and the public’s common-law right to record government meetings

When a Lindenwold resident in his 80s stepped up to the microphone at a council meeting in June, Alfonso Penna held up his cellphone to record the man’s exchange with Mayor Richard Roach Jr.

Roach interrupted the man and ordered Penna to stop recording. When Penna refused, the mayor directed a police officer to remove him. Penna agreed to leave about a minute later, and an officer escorted him from the room.

“The man was raising concerns about several borough-owned properties that he believed were in neglected condition,” Penna told The Vindicator. “I was trying to bring more attention to his concerns and record his interaction with the mayor.”

Penna, a 24-year-old resident of Lindenwold who regularly records public meetings and posts the videos on his personal Facebook page, returned to another council meeting in July and again tried to record it. This time, the police chief and two other officers were there. The chief told Penna the meeting would not continue unless he stopped recording.

Those confrontations are now at the center of a lawsuit over how far a municipality can go in restricting the public’s ability to record public meetings.

Attorneys Iris Bromberg and CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden filed the lawsuit on Penna’s behalf Friday in Superior Court in Camden County. It alleges that Lindenwold’s recording policy and officials’ attempts to enforce it violated the New Jersey Constitution, the Open Public Meetings Act, and the public’s common-law right to record government meetings.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that members of the public have a common-law right to record municipal meetings. In its 2007 decision in Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, the court said municipalities can impose reasonable restrictions intended to prevent disruptions, but those rules cannot effectively prevent the public from recording.

“Taking notes on your own government and sharing them with your neighbors is about as basic to self-government as it gets,” Bromberg told The Vindicator. “Courts have said smartphone recording is no more disruptive than pen-and-paper documentation.”

Lindenwold’s policy allows only one camera at a council meeting, generally on a first-come, first-served basis and subject to the governing body’s discretion. Anyone who wants to record must notify the council at least 30 minutes before the meeting and give the borough the original or a copy of the unedited recording within 48 hours.

The policy also requires a disclaimer stating that the video is not the borough’s official recording. Someone who violates the rules can be ordered to stop recording, have the recording confiscated, or lose the ability to record future council meetings.

A community group called Love Lindenwold routinely records council meetings and posts them on YouTube. Because the group regularly occupies the only available recording slot, the lawsuit argues, the policy effectively blocks anyone else from making an independent recording.

Bromberg noted that video recordings can capture things written notes cannot, including officials’ facial expressions, tone of voice, and conduct during a public meeting.

“That’s exactly why accountability and transparency depend on more than one person being allowed to keep that record and share it with their community,” she said. “Despite these basic civic principles, municipalities across New Jersey are still deciding, meeting by meeting, who gets to document them and who doesn’t — punishing the very civic engagement a healthy democracy depends on.”

The lawsuit names Lindenwold, Roach, Police Chief Michael McCarthy Jr., and police Officer James Wells as defendants. Roach and the two police officials are being sued individually and in their official capacities.

Two clashes over cellphone recordings

Penna unsuccessfully ran in the June Democratic primary against two incumbent council members. At the June 10 meeting, his cellphone made no sound, produced no flash, and did not obstruct anyone’s view, according to the lawsuit.

When Roach ordered him to stop recording, Penna invoked the Open Public Meetings Act and asserted that he had a right to continue. Roach directed police to remove him, according to the complaint.

As Penna left, Roach allegedly said, “See, the people of Lindenwold have spoken,” an apparent reference to the primary results. Penna’s lawyers argue that the remark raises an inference that the policy was used against a political critic rather than to prevent a disruption.

When Penna returned July 8, Roach stopped the meeting before the council addressed any agenda items and again ordered him to turn off his camera, according to the complaint.

McCarthy told Penna to stop recording or leave and said no one else would be able to address the public while Penna continued recording, the lawsuit alleges. Several residents defended Penna and said he was not disrupting the meeting.

Council members left the dais during the dispute. About nine minutes later, Council President Cheryle Randall-Sharpe announced that the meeting would proceed. Penna recorded the rest of it without incident.

“I had only my cellphone,” Penna said. “It is 2026, and I do not understand how a four-inch cellphone can be considered an obstruction or a distraction.”

Legal claims

New Jersey’s Open Public Meetings Act, commonly called the Sunshine Law, requires government meetings to remain open so residents can observe officials’ discussions and decisions. The law does not explicitly address cameras, but state courts have recognized a common-law right to record public meetings.

The lawsuit alleges that officials violated the law by forcing Penna to leave the June meeting while public comment was still underway and threatening to remove him from the July meeting to pressure him into turning off his camera.

Municipalities can regulate the placement of cameras, lighting, sound, and equipment that could interfere with a meeting. But Penna’s lawyers argue that Lindenwold’s policy is not narrowly connected to preventing actual disruptions, particularly when someone is recording silently with a handheld phone.

They also argue that the one-camera limit is not neutral because it gives the governing body discretion over who may record. The advance-notice requirement, mandatory delivery of unedited footage, disclaimer, and possible loss of future recording rights create additional barriers, they contend.

In the lawsuit, lawyers also argue that recording public officials performing their duties and publishing that recording for others to see is protected expression under the New Jersey Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the court to temporarily block Lindenwold from enforcing the one-camera restriction while the case proceeds. He ultimately wants the court to strike down the policy and prohibit the borough from requiring advance notice, demanding a copy of a recording, requiring a disclaimer, or taking away someone’s ability to record future meetings.

Penna is also seeking attorneys’ fees and court costs under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Mayor Roach did not respond to a request for comment as of press time. The Vindicator will update this story if he responds.

Expanding access to local government

Penna said he began attending public meetings about a year and a half ago and noticed that many were not being recorded. He began recording meetings of the land-use board, parks and recreation commission, and fire commission, and then began posting the videos on social media.

At many land-use meetings, Penna said, he is the only member of the public in attendance.

“If I don’t record it, there is very little public access to what happened. The audio recordings and meeting minutes may not become available until months later,” he said.

“I’m trying to bring more transparency to parts of our local government that receive very little public attention,” Penna said. “We already have very few people paying attention to local politics. Too often, officials try to keep the process within as small a circle as possible.”