Sussex County Prosecutor's Office ยท Filed July 27, 2026
5 documents produced, 1 not produced
This record is different from every other one on this page. It was not filed by this site's owner. It was filed by another member of the public, and it was filed with the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office, the county agency that sets ALPR policy and runs compliance audits across all of Sussex County, not with the Borough of Hopatcong. At the requester's own request, this site does not name him.
The Sussex County Prosecutor's Office produced its own Automated License Plate Recognition Standard Operating Procedure (effective January 23, 2023) and three years of its own NJ SNAP annual audit certifications (2023, 2024, 2025). It denied the request for ALPR camera location information, citing the same core security exemptions Hopatcong cited on its own permits, backed by nine additional court cases arguing the request also sought general information rather than an identifiable record. That is the most detailed legal argument for withholding camera locations found anywhere in this site's records.
These are Sussex County Prosecutor's Office numbers, about the Prosecutor's Office's own compliance role, not Hopatcong Police Department's cameras. They should never be added to or confused with Hopatcong PD's own audit numbers shown in the Flock Safety ALPR camera records above. The Prosecutor's Office reported 0 violations in 2023, 6 minor violations in 2024, and 1 minor violation in 2025, for its role as what NJ SNAP calls an "administrating agency," an agency that runs compliance sampling for certain other agencies. Its own forms are inconsistent about whether it holds that role: the 2024 form answers yes and the 2025 form answers no, while both years list itself as the agency that ran its own sampling. That inconsistency is described here exactly as it appears in the source forms.
One coincidence, noted so it is not over-read: the Prosecutor's Office's policy took effect January 23, 2023, one day before Hopatcong Police Department's own policy (January 24, 2023). Both most likely reflect the same statewide compliance deadline under NJ Attorney General Directive 2022-12, not any special coordination between the two agencies.
A separate public records request, filed by another member of the public who has asked to remain unnamed, to the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office for its ALPR policy, its own compliance audits, and the physical locations of its cameras.
The original request document is not on file here.
For requests filed directly by this site, the request and its rider carry no personal information and are posted here in full. Some records on this site reflect a different requester's original filing, which this site may not have a copy of.
The Prosecutor's Office's response to a separate requester, itemized point by point. Denies camera-location information citing security exemptions and nine additional court cases arguing the request sought general information rather than an identifiable record. Confirms several other items are not in its possession.
The county's full ALPR policy, effective one day before Hopatcong PD's own SOP. Covers alert types, retention, query standards, and federal supply-chain restrictions.
The Prosecutor's Office's own compliance self-audit for 2023: 0 violations reported.
The Prosecutor's Office's own compliance self-audit for 2024: 6 minor violations reported, 0 significant.
The Prosecutor's Office's own compliance self-audit for 2025: 1 minor violation reported, 0 significant.
Every item below was requested but has no produced document on file. Some are still outstanding. For others, the agency has directly confirmed that no such record exists, which is itself a form of answer. Each card explains why the item matters and what the agency has said.
Why it matters: Denied. The Prosecutor's Office cited the same core security exemptions Hopatcong used on its own permits (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9, N.J.A.C. 13:1E-3.2), backed here by nine additional court cases arguing that a request for camera locations seeks general information rather than an identifiable existing record, and is "overly broad." This is the most detailed version of that legal argument found anywhere in this site's records, and is kept here as the government's own strongest case for the secrecy, alongside the community-sourced coordinates on the Camera Map.
Source: Sussex County Prosecutor's Office, request filed July 27, 2026.