Procedural History

Complaint filed.  On February 14, 2023, via email, a Complaint was filed by Brian M. Nelson, Esq., Township Attorney on behalf of the Township of Middletown, in which it submits that P.L. 2014, Chapter 31, which eliminated monetary bail in favor of a more equitable risk-based assessment for pretrial detention, but which imposes high costs on municipalities seeking to maintain order notwithstanding the widespread release of suspected criminals, is an unfunded mandate.

A summary of the Township of Middletown Complaint, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Township of Middletown Complaint, please click here.

Council publication.  Because of the identity of the issue raised, on February 15, 2023, via email and hand delivered letter, the Council ordered that the complaint should be served on the Attorney General, the Department of Law & Public Safety, the Director at the Department of Law & Public Safety, and the officials listed in Council Rule 9a.  The Council also determined that the Attorney General would be directed to file an Answer to the Complaint, and that any other official served with the Complaint that chose to do so might file an Answer, as Respondent.

To view the full version of the Council’s correspondence to all interested parties, please click here.

Respondent files request for extension to file. On February 27, 2023, via email, Joseph C. Fanaroff, DAG, on behalf of Respondent, State of New Jersey, with the consent of opposing counsel, Brian Nelson, Esq., requested a three week extension to file their responsive pleading.

To view the full version of the Respondent, State of New Jersey, request for an extension to file, please click here.

The Council approves Respondent request for an extension to file. On February 27, 2023, via email, the Council approved the Respondent's request for an extension, given the the complex issue underlying the complaint.  Due to the request for an extension being approved, the filing date has been moved from March 7, 2023 to March 28, 2023.

Respondent, SONJ, files Letter Brief in Support of Respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment. On March 27, 2023, via email and hand delivery, Joseph C. Fanaroff, AAG, on behalf of Respondent, SONJ, submitted their Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment; a Letter Brief in Support of Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment; Proposed Form of Order; and Certification of Service.

A summary of the Respondent, SONJ, Letter Brief in Support of Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Respondent, SONJ, Letter Brief in Support of Respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment, please click here.

Claimant, Township of Middletown files Letter Brief in Response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 19, 2023, via email and mail, Brian M. Nelson, Esq., on behalf of the Township of Middletown, filed a letter brief in lieu of a formal brief in opposition to the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.

A summary of the Claimant's, Township of Middletown, Letter Brief in Response to Respondent's Motion for Summary, may be viewed under Pleading Summaries.

To view the full version of the Claimant's, Township of Middletown, Letter Brief in Opposition to the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, please click here.

Council issues Opinion. On June 29, 2023, via email and hand delivery, the Council issued their Opinion granting the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

To view the full version of the Council's Opinion, please click here.

PLEADING SUMMARIES

Claimant Township of Middletown Summary of Complaint:

“This Complaint addresses P.L. 2014, Chapter 31, which eliminated monetary bail in favor of a more equitable risk-based assessment for pretrial detention, but which imposes high costs on municipalities seeking to maintain order notwithstanding the widespread release of suspected criminals.  New Jersey’s bail reform statute aims to change the fact that pretrial release from jail had been largely contingent on a defendant’s ability to post bail, regardless of the severity of the crime or risk that the defendant would fail to appear for trial.  Unfortunately, however, the practical implications of this bail reform statute are causing the Township of Middletown – and likely other municipalities across the State – to incur over $325,000 annually in increased public safety costs.

Pursuant to the bail reform encompassed within P.L. 2014, Chapter 31, only defendants who pose a serious risk of danger or flight are detained in jail pending trial.  Defendants deemed to be “low risk” are now released pending trial and cannot be detained solely because they cannot afford to post bail.  Although laudable in theory, the result is that non-violent offenders released from jail, while still posing a risk to public safety through reckless and wanton behavior, are continuing and repeating their criminal behavior pending trial.  New Jersey municipalities are forced to increase their law enforcement efforts, specifically to combat the rising rates of motor vehicle theft and home invasions, without any mechanism by which to fund these increased public safety costs.  Accordingly, P.L. 2014, Chapter 31 constitutes an unfunded mandate

1. Prior to the passage of P.L. 2014, Chapter 31, the State of New Jersey relied primarily on setting monetary bail as a condition of releasing defendants prior to trial.
2. With the passage of P.L. 2014, Chapter 31, the State shifted toward a risk-based system designed to ensure that only defendants who pose a serious risk of danger or flight are detained pending trial, and defendants deemed “low risk” are released pending trial.
3. Unless a defendant faces life imprisonment, defendants now are entitled to the presumption that they will be released following the commission of a crime while they await trial.
4. Notably, this change results in the mear-immediate release of non-violent suspected offenders to the public streets in unprecedented numbers. The release of these offenders has resulted in increased recidivism with respect to non-violent crimes in general and motor vehicle thefts in particular.
5. Since the effective date of the bail reform law in January 2017, motor vehicle thefts and associated crimes in Monmouth County have increased by 40% with more than one-third of those being arrested and released committing the same crime again.
6. The substantial increase in motor vehicle thefts is placing a strain on local governments and municipal law enforcement officials, who must significantly increase police patrols and expenditures to combat the surge in motor vehicle thefts and associated crimes that statistically correlates with the effective date of the bail reform law.
7. Since the bail reform law became effective, the Township of Middletown’s taxpayers have been forced to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars of unfunded costs associated with combatting and investigating motor vehicle thefts and associated crimes on an annually recurring basis.
8. Despite these increased costs, P.L. 2014, Chapter 31 does not provide for any practical means to offset the additional municipal expenditures necessitated by the return of criminal offenders to society pending trial.
9. For those reasons, New Jersey’s bail reform law violates J.S.A. 52:13H-2 because the State has “not authorize(d) resources to offset the additional direct expenditures required for the implementation of the law….” P.L. 2014, Chapter 31 is an unfunded mandate.”

The above summary is a quotation from the Complaint filed by Brian M. Nelson, Esq., Township Attorney, on behalf of the Township of Middletown, on February 14, 2023.

Respondent, SONJ, Motion For Summary Judgment:

  “On February 14, 2023, the Township of Middletown (hereinafter “Complainant”) filed a complaint with the Council on Local Mandates (“the Council”) challenging the constitutionality of P.L. 2014, c. 31 (codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 et seq. and hereinafter “Criminal Justice Reform Act” or “CJRA”).  The complaint alleges that the Complainant has incurred additional public safety costs because of the CJRA’s enactment and argues that these costs represent an unfunded mandate on it and other municipalities in New Jersey.

  The respondents in this case are the Governor of New Jersey, the Attorney General of New Jersey, the President of the State Senate, the Speaker of the General Assembly, the Senate Minority Leader, the Assembly Minority Leader, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the General Assembly (collectively, “Respondents”).

  In 2014, the Legislature passed the CJRA in conjunction with a constitutional amendment approved by the voters that replaced the constitutional right to bail with a new system of pretrial release and detention for defendants charged with a crime that no longer relied on the defendant’s ability to pay monetary bail.  N.J. Const. Art. I, ¶11.  Rather, the constitutional amendment called for using a risk-based model for judges to make pretrial release and detention decisions.  The model focuses not on a defendant’s financial means, but the risk that the defendant will fail to appear for court in the future, whether the defendant presents a danger to the community, or may commit new crimes while awaiting trial.  The CJRA implemented these changes, by, among other things, adopting a risk assessment tool judges utilize when deciding whether to release or detain a defendant pending trial.

  Several weeks before the CJRA’s effective date of January 1, 2017, the New Jersey Association of Counties (“NJAC”) filed a complaint with the Council alleging that the CJRA constituted an unfunded mandate on counties and municipalities.  In Re Complaint Filed By The New Jersey Association of Counties, COLM-0004-16.  NJAC’s complaint raised the same claim advanced by Complainant, namely, that the CJRA acts as an unfunded mandate on local government by inter alia requiring localities to expend additional public safety funds due to the manner in which pre-trial release decisions are made.  In Re Complaint Filed By The New Jersey Association of Counties at 7 (April 26, 2017).[1]  The Council, in a reported decision, rejected NJAC’s claims and found that the CJRA was exempt from review as an unfunded mandate because it implements a provision of the New Jersey Constitution.  Id.  At 22; see also N.J. Const. Art. VIII, §2, ¶5 (c) (5).

  Respondents move for summary judgment.  The Council has already determined that it is without jurisdiction to review the CJRA because the law implements a constitutional provision."

[1] A true and correct copy of the Council’s decision is attached as Exhibit A.

The above summary is a quotation from the Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Joseph C. Fanaroff, AAG, on behalf of Respondent, the State of New Jersey, on March 27, 2023.

Claimant, Township of Middletown Letter Brief in Response to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment: "Please accept for filing this letter brief in lieu of a formal brief in response to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Township opposes Respondents' Motion based the arguments advanced in the Township's Complaint."

The above summary is a quotation from the Letter Brief in Response to Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Brian M. Nelson, Esq., on behalf of Claimant, Township of Middletown, on May 19, 2023.