Public information is always public, right?

New Jersey's Supreme Court is going to decide if that's 100 percent true, 100 percent of the time.

This case involves Charles Kratovil, the editor of a local news website - New Brunswick Today - and a very, very New Jersey sounding story: An ex-cop hired as New Brunswick police director despite living two hours away in Cape May. The director, Anthony Caputo, is now retired.

In unearthing that story, Kratovil obtained through public records Caputo's address in Cape May. In seeking comment from city officials for the story, he told them he had the address.

That began a court case that two years later is now before the state's highest court.

The dispute centers on Daniel's Law, which was passed after a man invaded the home of a federal judge in 2020 and fatally shot her son.

The law allows judges and all law enforcement officials to have their home addresses and phone numbers removed from public records.

City officials said in a letter to the editor that the law covered Caputo's address. So if Kratovil published the address in a story, he would violate the law.

Helped by the ACLU, Kratovil challenged the city's contention in court. Lower courts have upheld the city's argument, which brought things to the Supreme Court.

At a hearing earlier this month, Alex Shalom, an ACLU lawyer representing the journalist, stressed that Kratovil got Caputo's address from Cape May County election officials. In other words, it was legally obtained.

So, why can't he use it in an article?

The city's argument in court was that Kratovil can write about Caputo's Cape May residence, but not the actual street address.

Associate Justice Michael Noriega picked up on this theme, saying that:

"That article can go out exactly as you described, just without the address," he said.

Shalom wasn't so sure. He suggested that the exact address, and other details of Caputo's neighborhood, may be pertinent.

This point should be explored.

The fact Kratovil received the actual address from a county official is understood.

But traditionally, newspapers and other media outlets do not report an individual's home address.

If Joe Smith is running for Congress in CD-7, he is "Joe Smith of Clinton." He is not "Joe Smith of 245 Maple Avenue ..."

An exception would be if a home was the location of a crime, or a suspected crime, But that is not the case here.

Associate Justice Anne Patterson, in fact, mentioned the gist of this story is the distance Caputo lived from his job, not his actual address.

Kratovil, through his attorney, is arguing that he has the right to publish information given to him. Fair point.

Whatever the court decides, it's interesting to note that Caputo's Cape May residence has long been in the public domain.

The central reason, of course, for investigating this story was the possibility this was a no-show job.

With Caputo retired, that point seems moot.

Just for the record, the city said in court that Caputo stayed in Middlesex County during the week and went to Cape May on weekends.