Two men challenge arrest, removal from council meeting – Star News Group

LAVALLETTE — Two men, Steven Wronko and Michael Vintzileos, are challenging the legality of their arrest and removal from a July 24 meeting of the Lavallette borough council that they were attempting to videotape.

In a motion seeking dismissal of all charges, they note that neither state nor borough law prohibits the videotaping of such meetings, and they cite an email exchange in which they had given advance notice of their intention to do so. They also deny engaging in any disruptive behavior at the meeting.

The summons they were issued charges them with violating 2C:33-8 of the New Jersey State Code of Criminal Justice, titled “Disrupting Meetings and Processions,” which further states: “A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he does an act tending to obstruct or interfere with it physically.”

The borough summons alleges that Mr. Wronko and Mr. Vintzileos did so by acting to “purposely prevent or disrupt through an act of physical interference a lawful meeting, specifically by filming, through the use of a tripod camera at the council meeting without producing prior written approval and disrupting the governing body at the start of a council meeting, preventing its start.”

A municipal court date is set for Oct. 10 for both individuals, according to Borough Attorney William Burns, following an Aug. 8 arraignment that was held virtually by the municipal court. Mr. Burns declined to comment further on the case.

In separate interviews with The Ocean Star this week, Borough Administrator John Bennett and Mayor Walter LaCicero pointed to Resolution 2023-15, which was passed at the council’s Jan. 3 organizational meeting and cites rules the mayor, council and members of the public are expected to follow at such meetings. 

The resolution states that “Permission for public videotaping of any and all council meetings can be obtained verbally or in writing prior to the meeting from the Borough Clerk.” It also states that equipment used for that purpose be minimal in nature, so as to not detract or distract anyone from the public or council, and should not be a hindrance to those in the public.

Mr. Bennett, who declined to comment on the charges against Mr. Wronko and Mr. Vintzileos, described the rules as “parameters” for behavior at meetings and also said, “We have always just taken ‘permission’ to be notification.” 

Public meetings in New Jersey, including borough council meetings, are routinely recorded by news reporters and members of the public without prior notification or requests for permission.

MAYOR ALSO CITES RULES

Mayor LaCicero, who was also present at the July 24 meeting, said, “Our rules and regs require they identify themselves and request permission to do the filming beforehand, and they simply refused to do that.”

In the motion to dismiss the summons, Mr. Wronko cites the Tarus vs. Pine Hill case. On March 7, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that videotaping public meetings is part of the common law right to obtain public information and that the ad hoc restriction on videotaping in this specific case was unreasonable.

The motion to dismiss states, “In this matter, the Borough had not formally established any guidelines on the right to videotape at the time of plaintiff arrests. The record will show that plaintiffs’ video camera was compact, quiet and generally unobtrusive and without any external lighting. Plaintiff, in each instance, set up the camera monopod in front of his chair and did not, through his videotaping, physically interfere with the Council’s business or other citizens’ access to the proceedings. As such, plaintiffs actions were not ‘disrupting the meeting’…and did not ‘interfere with the conduct of the meeting’.”

The motion cites an email exchange between Mr. Wronko and the borough clerk regarding the incident. It states: “The plaintiff provided defendants significant notice of his intention to exercise his and his colleague’s right to videotape, with a request to the clerk on July 14.” 

According to the motion, Mr. Wronko had previously emailed the borough clerk and stated, “I will be recording all future council meetings, per my rights under common law.” 

The clerk is cited as replying, “Hello, Please see our attached policy regarding your below email. Have a great weekend!”  

According to the motion, both plaintiffs provided arresting officer Sgt. Adam LaCicero with a copy of Tarus vs. Pine Hill and stated they had permission to film. 

“Sgt. LaCicero attempted to mitigate this by stating in the complaint ‘without producing prior written approval.’’’ the motion states. “As there are no formal ordinances established and it is a right to record the public meeting, this is not and could not be a reasonable requirement to record the public meeting.”

Mr. Wronko and Mr. Vintzileos provided The Ocean Star with video footage showing them walking into the meeting, already filming, and then being arrested by Sgt. LaCicero.

“My request for dismissal with prejudice is based on the Supreme Court decision Tarus vs. Pine Hill which affirmed the public right to record the public meeting and that merely setting up a video camera to record does not ‘physically interfere or disrupt’ the public meeting,” said Mr, Wronko in the motion.  

According to the motion, “The officers present at the arrest were all put on notice that the Supreme Court ruling was in a folder in front of them and should take steps to remedy the situation. They refused. I suggested they inform the zone prosecutor of the situation and they refused. They were informed they were violating our civil rights and our common law right to record the public meeting. Sgt. LaCicero stated, ‘good I hope you win and get a lot of money, I don’t care’.” 

The videos and account of the incident conversation are also included in a GoFundMe page set up by Mr. Wronko for his legal defense “against Lavallette tyrants.” 

Sgt. LaCicero could not be reached for comment. Police Chief Christian LaCicero declined to comment as the case is still pending. Both officers are sons of Mayor LaCicero. 

Mayor LaCicero told The Ocean Star, “I find that it’s ironic that they are defending their First Amendment rights, and they believe that none of the people in attendance have any right to privacy because they are at a public meeting, yet they don’t want to give us their information. They want to remain anonymous. I find that ironic in my opinion. They want their privacy but they don’t want anybody else to have it.” 

The mayor further said, “I believe that everybody at the meeting has a right to know who is speaking, what, if any, connection they have to the Borough of Lavallette.”