X-Mayor Gorman’s Battle with Gloucester City PD
Sunday, March 1, 2026
Former Gloucester Mayor Gorman Fighting A Legal Battle With The City That Elected Him; Battle is Over City Police Department Records
William E. Cleary Sr. | Cleary’s Notebook News
(The following article published December 2006)—
Reporter’s Note: Since 2004, former Gloucester City Mayor Robert Gorman has been embroiled in a court battle with the City of Gloucester and its Police Department over information he believes should be released under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). During my research, I discovered a recent decision on these proceedings dated December 14, 2006. A link to that decision appears at the bottom of this article. I must warn you—it is quite lengthy.
According to the legal document, while Mr. Gorman was still Mayor of Gloucester City, unflattering material about him was posted on NJ.com. The document states that Mr. Gorman believed some of these posts were made by Gloucester City Police Officers, possibly while on duty at police headquarters. Apparently, during his time as Mayor, Mr. Gorman asked the Police Department to investigate these allegations. The document also states that “Mr. Gorman believed that the Gloucester City Police Department was trying to harm and/or harass him and now wants to review the results and status of the various internal investigations he requested while he was still mayor of Gloucester City.”
In continuing my research, I found an article about this dispute published in the Courier Post in July 2006. That story appears below.
Trying to Access Public Information
“(Courier Post, July 5, 2006) Robert Gorman, former mayor of Gloucester City, believes he was ticketed improperly—for driving without illumination on his license plate—after he criticized members of his city’s police force for speeding while on routine patrols.”
Gorman, who left the mayor’s position after moving to Moorestown last year, is now seeking a copy of the patrol-car videotape made shortly before he was ticketed.
“The request, made in July 2004, initially sought more than a dozen documents. City officials provided some records, said others did not exist, and indicated that some—like the patrol car videotape—should not be made available.” “The Government Records Council last month (June 9, 2005) referred the case to an administrative law judge, who will determine, among other issues, whether the patrol-car videotape is a public record and whether Gloucester City can charge Gorman $48,000 to provide copies of “all no tag light tickets issued by the Gloucester City police department.””
According to the city’s estimate, this request includes more than 40,000 tickets.
“The city’s records custodian in the case is Solicitor James Maley. The custodian would normally be City Clerk Paul Kain, but he is related to Gorman. According to the GRC, Maley has stated that parts of the patrol-car tape are confidential and that the tape can be edited only by a law-enforcement agency.” “In February, Maley told the GRC that the city’s police department “does not have the capability to edit the tape to remove the confidential information it contains.”” “He also said city police had discussed Gorman’s request “with the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and the local office of the FBI, and all three have refused their request to edit the tape because they will only do that for law enforcement purposes, and they do not consider this request to be a law enforcement purpose.””
Gorman disputed that view, telling the GRC that Gloucester City police “are capable of editing the tape themselves because of the fact that they have already edited the exact tape” when his traffic violation was heard in municipal court.
“For Gorman, the fight is about more than a traffic ticket. “I want a precedent,” says Gorman, who believes his case will determine whether patrol car videotapes are public records.”
Gorman also says he is no longer seeking copies of the 40,000 traffic tickets.
To view the most recent legal documents on this case read more
COMMENTS
Comment:
Bob,
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify the situation. It makes much more sense to me now. It sounds like you did what you could to address the problem. Ultimately, it’s up to the Police Department commanders to rectify the issue, and they are the ones who bear liability.
I’m curious—why did you want to view just that one tape? I would think there are numerous tapes on file if every patrol car has one. Was it specifically the officer who wrote you the ticket that you wanted to check up on? It seems like there’s more to this story than we know about, especially with the mention of NJ.com. Anyone can post anything they want on that website—free speech and all. However, if officers were posting from the Police Department while on duty, that would clearly be a violation of department policy. Again, I suppose it’s up to the department commanders to investigate and address any violations.
Frank G.
Response from Former Mayor Bob Gorman
Based on the recent post, several people have asked why I am seeking to have the police video tape made public. The fact is, this has nothing to do with receiving a ticket for not having a light above my license plate. That minor ticket was issued several years ago, and the fine was paid in full in 2004. During that court hearing, only a portion of the tape dealing with my “No Tag Light” ticket was shown.
The reason I requested a full copy of the video tape back in 2003 stems from a more serious concern: several officers—not all—were occasionally driving through city streets at excessive speeds and ignoring traffic laws during non-emergency calls. Knowing that this particular tape existed, I requested a full copy with non-public information excluded. I addressed this issue publicly in the Gloucester City News at the time, and several residents agreed that something had to be done.
As Mayor, I attempted to address this dangerous situation through the Police Committee; however, police administration refused to follow through. I fully understand that officers are sometimes required to drive at high speeds during emergency situations. However, for non-emergency calls, they should comply with all traffic laws. Numerous residents complained to me about this dangerous practice, and I wanted to address it before someone got hurt. When internal channels failed, I later followed up with an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request as a private citizen.
The Open Public Records Council issued an interim decision stating that the tapes were public records; however, the city appealed this decision.
I agree with Frank G. that the purpose of these tapes is to protect everyone—including the child who happens to be chasing a ball into the street and is unable to get out of the way of a speeding vehicle.
I want to be clear: I specifically requested that the video copy exclude personal information about others. I only requested public information. I agree that personal driver’s license information should not be released to the public.
As Councilman and later as Mayor, I took the lead in acquiring these recording devices precisely so that if there was ever a question about police actions, the video recording would help sort things out. The vast majority of the time, these tapes assist police officers in making open-and-shut cases. However, on rare occasions, they reveal improper actions by officers. The point of my actions was never to discipline anyone, but rather to address a very dangerous situation before tragedy struck.
Gloucester City Police Officers are good and honest people who deserve credit for their service to the community. However, we all should be willing to acknowledge and correct bad habits when public safety is at stake.
To clarify another point: I simply made a request for public information. I have not hired a lawyer, nor do I intend to do so. This was a straightforward request to receive a copy of a video tape to help protect the public—nothing more, nothing less.
I’d like to thank Bill Cleary for maintaining this excellent website and wish everyone a safe and happy New Year.
Bob Gorman
“Bill,
I’m curious about why Gorman wants a copy of this videotape. He stated that a copy was viewed during his municipal court appearance for the tag light ticket he received. If the tape was played in court and reviewed by him, the Judge, and the Prosecutor, wouldn’t any inappropriate officer conduct have been addressed at that time?
I’d also be interested in knowing the outcome of the court case—that should be public record. Was he found guilty? Based on the article, it sounds like Gorman, with all his family connections in city government, believes he’s above the law and shouldn’t be subject to traffic stops and tickets. According to the article, the City Police issued some 40,000 of these tickets, which suggests he wasn’t singled out for this infraction.
Whether video tapes from patrol cars should be subject to OPRA is genuinely a tough call. I don’t see a problem with the video portion being public, but the audio portion raises serious concerns. Consider this: if I’m stopped by police and they call in my personal information to check for outstanding warrants, all my information ends up on that tape—driver’s license number, social security number, birthday, address, and more. In this age of rampant identity theft, I don’t believe anyone should be able to request and receive this sensitive information simply because they want a copy of the tape.
I understand these tapes are discoverable for court proceedings, and rightly so. That’s an important protection. However, since Gorman already viewed the tape in court, what’s his justification for needing a personal copy?
I believe those video cameras in patrol cars serve everyone’s protection. They protect officers from false claims of abuse or misconduct, and they equally protect citizens from the same. Just look at those Deptford officers who assaulted a prisoner in the back seat of their patrol car. Without that tape, it would have been the prisoner’s word against the cops—and we know how that usually ends.”
I don’t believe the City is trying to hide anything here, especially since the tape has already been viewed in open court.
“Frank G.” “Bill,
I took time to read through the results of your investigation, and I can identify nearly a dozen areas that could spark healthy public discussion. However, I’d like to focus on a few key points.The tape once made becomes fair game under the rules for discovery if not in the OPRA arena. My Grand Jury experience leads me to believe this.” “This process has to be quite frustrating to Bob Gorman. As a city official he used the same tactics the police are using to deal with the common citizen. I\’m not so sure Bob Gorman is wasting taxpayer money any more than the police department. After all, in this matter the public servant is trying to shield its actions from public view.” “If Gorman is willing to put himself on public view why should our public servants have the right to block the exercise of his right. Isn\’t that what George Norcross III did in the Palmyra Tapes.”
