or investigatory proceedings have arisen that may circumscribe the individual’s asserted need for the materials. [102 N.J. at 113, 505 A.2d 958.] “As we noted, the court should balance ‘[ajgainst these and any other relevant factors * * * the importance of the information sought to the plaintiffs vindication of the public interest.’ ” South Jersey Publishing, supra, 124 N.J. at 488, 591 A.2d 921 (quoting Loigman, supra, 102 N.J. at 113, 505 A.2d 958). In its balancing, a court might find it necessary to compel production of the sought-after records and conduct an in camera review thereof. Ibid.; see Loigman, supra, 102 N.J. at 106, 505 A.2d 958 (stating that “implicit in the concept [of an in camera review] is a judicial weighing of that showing 573, 583, 610 A.2d 903 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 429, 627 A.2d 1135
holding wife did not have a duty to warn a police officer who was shot while escorting her home that her husband had threatened to kill any police officer holding that newspaper had sufficient interest to obtain access to police investigative files and autopsy report regarding suspect who had been shot to death while in police custody holding that an individuals bodily integrity was violated where a citizen was beaten to death while in police custody holding that if a police officer inflicted no constitutional injury on a suspect it is inconceivable that the police commissioners could be liable to the suspect holding that the due process clause requires the responsible government or governmental agency to provide medical care to suspects in police custody who have been injured while being apprehended by police