Address Protection for Police, Judges, and Public Officials

In July 2020, a lawyer who had appeared before federal judge Esther Salas went to her New Jersey home posing as a delivery driver. He shot her husband and killed her twenty-year-old son, Daniel Anderl, at the front door. He had found the family's home address online. Months later, New Jersey passed Daniel's Law, giving judges, prosecutors, police officers, and their families the right to demand that companies stop publishing their home addresses and unpublished phone numbers. Several states have since adopted similar protections. Here is who qualifies, how the requests work, and the honest state of play, because the law is powerful and currently contested.

Who does Daniel's Law protect?

In New Jersey, the covered group includes active, formerly active, and retired judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and correctional officers, together with their immediate family members. That last part matters, because the harm in the case that prompted the law fell on a family member rather than the official. Covered people can request in writing that any company or entity refrain from disclosing their home address or unpublished home telephone number, and the obligation runs to data brokers, people-search sites, and other organizations that publish such details.

How does a request work?

You submit a written non-disclosure request to the company. Once received, the recipient has 10 days to comply. Failure to do so exposes them to civil liability, with the statute providing damages of 1,000 dollars per violation, alongside the possibility of punitive damages and attorneys fees.

The law also contains an unusual feature: covered people can assign their claims to a third party, which allows one organization to pursue enforcement on behalf of many individuals at once. In practice a single privacy company has become the assignee for roughly 19,000 covered individuals and has filed well over a hundred lawsuits against data brokers on their behalf. That mechanism is why this comparatively small state statute has generated more data broker litigation than almost any other privacy law in the country.

Is the law settled?

Not entirely, and you should know that before relying on it. Data brokers and some media organizations have challenged Daniel's Law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, arguing it is overly broad and restricts truthful speech. Those constitutional challenges have repeatedly failed, with a federal judge rejecting them as without merit in late 2024 and another court denying a similar challenge in April 2026.

The live dispute is now about fault. The federal appeals court asked New Jersey's Supreme Court to decide whether a company must have acted with some culpable state of mind to be liable, or whether the statute imposes liability regardless. In August 2026 the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on that question that was widely read as favorable to the data brokers. Separately, state legislators have proposed amendments intended to curb mass litigation while preserving the protection itself. The right to demand removal is not in doubt; the scale of damages available for non-compliance is what is being fought over.

What if I am not in one of these professions?

You do not get this specific right, but you are not without options. Many states run address confidentiality programs for survivors of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault, which provide a substitute address and keep the real one out of public records like voter rolls. Everyone else relies on the ordinary tools: opt-outs at each people-search site, state privacy law deletion rights where they exist, and practical steps like using a mailing address for correspondence.

It is worth noticing what these laws imply. Legislators concluded that a published home address is dangerous enough to warrant a statutory right of removal for people at elevated risk. The address itself is no less findable for everyone else, as covered in why your home address is online, and for anyone facing a personal threat rather than an occupational one, people-search sites and survivor safety covers the protective steps in more depth.

Does a covered person still need to do removals?

Yes, and this is the practical point for anyone who qualifies. A statutory right creates leverage, not automatic compliance. The litigation exists precisely because thousands of takedown requests went unanswered. Requests still have to be sent to each company, tracked against the 10-day clock, and followed up when ignored.

The law also covers a defined set of details, the home address and unpublished phone number, while a typical people-search profile publishes considerably more: age, past addresses, relatives, associates, and employment. And because brokers rebuild profiles from fresh public records, an address removed today can reappear after a property filing or vehicle registration. Consumer Reports found that removals handled by hand or by automation cleared only about 27 percent of exposed listings, while those run by real people who monitor and refile reached roughly 70 percent. For someone whose safety depends on the result, the monitoring half is the half that matters.

Frequently asked questions

Do other states have laws like Daniel's Law?

Yes, several states have adopted protections for judges, law enforcement, and other officials, generally in response to rising threats against court personnel. The details differ on who qualifies, what information is covered, and what remedies exist, so check your own state's version rather than assuming New Jersey's terms apply.

Does the protection cover retired officers?

In New Jersey the covered group includes formerly active and retired personnel as well as current ones, along with immediate family members. This reflects that risk from past cases does not end at retirement. Other states may define eligibility more narrowly.

What information does it actually cover?

Principally the home address and unpublished home telephone number. Other details that appear in a typical profile, such as age, previous addresses, and named relatives, generally fall outside the statute, which is why broader removal work remains relevant even for covered individuals.

Should I send requests myself or use a service?

Either can work. Sending them yourself preserves your own claims and costs nothing but time; the volume of companies and the need to track deadlines is what drives most people toward help. For legal advice about enforcing a statutory right, speak to a lawyer rather than a removal service.