Dear Piscataway Township,

This is a request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Records requested:

List of all 9-1-1 calls made to Piscataway Police Dispatch for which EMS was requested from September 6, 2021 to present.

Records are requested to include:

- Date of service
- Time of service
- Address of service
- Name of responding EMS service

In lieu of a running list which is a record that may not (but should) be available, individual CAD logs for each 9-1-1 call received for which EMS was requested would be an acceptable alternative.

Yours faithfully,

F.T. Wilkens

Kelly Mitch, Piscataway Township

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    Facebook ca016c28 3121 4ccf a1c8 df4d7c72502411111.png

    0K Download

  • Attachment

    Twitter 5bd3d799 8a42 4756 b15b e41237910f6d11111.png

    0K Download

Good Afternoon,


There is no list in the Township’s possession that is responsive to this
OPRA request, and the Township is not required to create such a list. (see
Matthews v. City of Atlantic City (Atlantic), GRC Complaint No. 2008-123
(February 2009): The Council decided that a custodian “was under no
obligation to create a list compatible to the Complainant’s OPRA request
because OPRA does not require a custodian to produce new documents . . .”
Id. at 6. And see Librizzi v. Twp. of Verona Police Dep’t, GRC Complaint
No. 2009-213 (August 2010): The Council held that the custodian was under
no obligation to create a record in response to the complainant’s OPRA


The Township has attempted to see if there was a way to differentiate the
CAD reports to determine what reports would be responsive to this request.
Unfortunately there is no way to determine same without an individual
review of each and every CAD report. There are 10960 CAD reports that
would have to be reviewed to determine whether the call included a request
for an EMS response, or whether the CAD may have turned into an EMS
response. The Township has no obligation to do research to determine what
documents would be responsive. Please note that if a request is for all of
these records is the intention, this request is overly broad and therefore
denied. Requests must be made for specific identifiable documents to allow
the Township to reasonably search for said documents rather than research
to determine which documents may or may not be responsive (See Donato v.
Township of Union, GRC Complaint No. 2005-182 (February 2007), and Burnett
v. County of Gloucester, (App. Div. 2010).


See also:


Lagerkvist v. Office of the Governor, 443 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div.
2015): Here, the court held that Defendant’s statement that the otherwise
invalid request was “unclear” was adequate when paired with applicable
case law. Further, the court reasoned that the Plaintiff’s request:
[W]ould have had to make a preliminary determination as to which travel
records correlated to the governor and to his senior officials, past and
present, over a span of years. The custodian would then have had to
attempt to single out those which were third-party funded events. Next, he
would have had to collect all documents corresponding to those events and
search to ensure he had accumulated everything, including both paper and
electronic correspondence. OPRA does not convert a custodian into a
researcher, Id. at 237. The court finally held that Defendant was under no
obligation to accomplish a “reasonable solution” when a request is invalid
because it is overly broad. The court disagreed with Plaintiff’s argument
that the “substantial disruption” portion of OPRA at N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g)
required custodians to attempt to reach a reasonable accommodation when
responding to an overly broad request.


MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534
(App. Div. 2005): The Court held that "[w]hile OPRA provides an
alternative means of access to government documents not otherwise exempted
from its reach, it is not intended as a research tool litigants may use to
force government officials to identify and siphon useful information.
Rather, OPRA simply operates to make identifiable government records
‘readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination.’ N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1." (emphasis added). The Court further held that "[u]nder OPRA,
agencies are required to disclose only ‘identifiable’ government records
not otherwise exempt . . . In short, OPRA does not countenance open-ended
searches of an agency's files." Id. at 549 (emphasis added). 


Your request is now closed.  


Thank you,






Kelly Mitch

Deputy Township Clerk
[1][IMG] Clerks Dept

[email address]

[2][IMG]  [3][IMG] 


Visible links