Return to Browsing

9 N.J.A.R. 274

Div. of Gaming Enforcement v. Boardwalk Regency
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 9 N.J.A.R. 274
Decision Date: 1986
Agency: CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION
Synopsis: In a memorandum opinion accompanying an order requiring the disclosure of an alleged informant in a Casino Control case, the administrative law judge ruled that while non-disclosure of an inform- ant's identity might be suitable in some i'nstances, this was not the case. Here, there was no criminal activity accompanying the regu- latory proceeding nor did the judge find any substantial governmental interest in secrecy which would outweigh the litigant's need of dis- covery. Upon interlocutory review pursuant to N.J.t.C. 1:1-9.7, the Casino Control Commission reversed the ruling by the administrative law judge. The Commission chose not to determine whether the informer's privilege of Evid R. 36 applied to this case, noting the pendency of Faghani, 198 N.J. Super 449 (App. Div. 1985), leave to appeal granted, 101 N.J. 259 (1985)). Rather the Commission chose to determine whether the Division had made a particular showing of a need for confidentiality. Using a balancing approach, the Commission determined that the Division's concern for confidentiality outweighed the respondent's need for discovery of the informant's identity. Among the factors cited were: (1) the informant was acting under a duty to report violations of the Casino Control Act imposed upon all casino employees by a statute, N.J.S.A. 5:12-80(g), which also prohibits any retaliatory ac- State of New Jersey 275 tion against the informant; (2) the Division's unique status as both a regulatory and law enforcement agency; (3) the Division's legitimate concern for the confidentiality of its sources generally; (4) the respon- dent's admission of the conduct allegedly constituting a violation, and (5) the absence of any indication that the informant had played a significant part in the alleged violation or had any involvement in the investigation after informing the Division of the alleged misconduct. Notwithstanding the determination that disclosure of the inform- ant's identity was not now required, the Division was directed to ascertain whether its informant was aware of any authorization by the patron to revise his checks, and if so, to inform the respondent who would then be permitted to raise the disclosure question anew. Kevin F. O'Toole, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of petitioner (W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney) G. Michael Brown, Esq., on behalf of respondent, Jane Haverstick (Brown & Michael, attorneys) Nicholas Casiello, Jr., Esq., on behalf of respondent, Boardwalk Re- gency Corporation (Horn, Kaplan, Goldberg, Gorny & Daniel, attorneys)
Rule(s) Cited: 1:1-9.7 
Statute(s) Cited: 5:12-80(g)