NJ Court Rules Police Bodycam Footage Must Be Released

Appellate court overturns lower court order to destroy video of mayor's interview

Published on Mar. 6, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A New Jersey appeals court has reversed a lower court ruling that ordered police body-worn camera footage of a police interview with a former mayor to be withheld from the public and destroyed. The footage was recorded in 2022 when police officers interviewed former Spotswood Mayor Jacqueline Palmer about a homeless man entering Borough Hall, during which Palmer allegedly made a racist remark. The appeals court ruled the footage qualifies as a government record under the state's Open Public Records Act and must be reconsidered for release, with possible redactions.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing debate over police transparency and the public's right to access body camera footage, especially when it involves allegations of misconduct by public officials. The court's decision upholds the intent of New Jersey's Body-Worn Camera Law, which was enacted to allow the public to see and hear the truth of what happens during police encounters.

The details

In April 2022, police officers interviewed former Spotswood Mayor Jacqueline Palmer in her office after she raised concerns about a homeless man entering Borough Hall. During the interview, Palmer allegedly made a racist remark. Palmer and the Borough of Spotswood later filed an order to block the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office from releasing the footage, arguing it was improperly recorded and violated Palmer's privacy. A lower court agreed, ruling the recordings were not subject to public release under the state's Open Public Records Act (OPRA). The decision was appealed by USA TODAY Co. and a local resident, who argued the footage must be released under OPRA, the state's Body-Worn Camera Law, or common-law principles of public access. The appeals court sided with the appellants, ruling the body-worn camera footage qualifies as a government record and must be reconsidered for release, with possible redactions.

  • The footage was recorded on April 28, 2022.
  • The lower court ruling was issued on May 29, 2024.
  • The appeals court ruling was issued on March 5, 2026.
  • The appeals court stayed its ruling for 30 days to allow time for an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The players

Jacqueline Palmer

Former mayor of Spotswood, New Jersey who was interviewed by police in her office in 2022, during which she allegedly made a racist remark.

Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office

The office that recorded the body-worn camera footage of the interview with former Mayor Palmer and was ordered to determine what redactions, if any, should be made before releasing the footage.

USA TODAY Co.

The owner of MyCentralJersey.com, which appealed the lower court's decision to block the release of the body-worn camera footage.

Steven Wronko

A borough resident who also appealed the lower court's decision to block the release of the body-worn camera footage.

Richard Sasso

President of the Spotswood PBA, who filed a lawsuit against Palmer and the borough alleging violations of the state Whistleblower Law and arguing the recordings would show Palmer's "antagonism" toward police and possible "racially charged" comments.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Today's decision is a win for transparency. It will make the public more informed and make it easier for the press to do their jobs.”

— CJ Griffin, Attorney for USA TODAY Co. (MyCentralJersey.com)

“The Legislature enacted the Body Camera Law precisely so the public can see and hear the truth of what happened when allegations of misconduct are made. Taxpayers have paid tens of millions of dollars to equip every officer in this state with cameras. When videos are withheld, it defeats the very purpose of the cameras.”

— CJ Griffin, Attorney for USA TODAY Co. (MyCentralJersey.com)

What’s next

The Appellate Division stayed its ruling for 30 days to allow time for an appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office has been directed to determine within 60 days what redactions, if any, should be made to the footage before its release. Any party objecting to the redactions may file a new lawsuit in Superior Court.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between police transparency and privacy concerns, as well as the importance of the public's right to access body camera footage, especially when it involves allegations of misconduct by public officials. The court's decision upholds the intent of New Jersey's Body-Worn Camera Law and reinforces the principle that taxpayer-funded body camera footage should be available to the public, with appropriate redactions to protect individual privacy.