N.J. panel deals setback to police-camera law
TRENTON - A little-known New Jersey board charged with ensuring that state mandates are paired with funding sources on Tuesday called into question the 2014 state law that requires police departments to outfit newly purchased patrol vehicles with dashboard cameras.
TRENTON - A little-known New Jersey board charged with ensuring that state mandates are paired with funding sources on Tuesday called into question the 2014 state law that requires police departments to outfit newly purchased patrol vehicles with dashboard cameras.
The Council on Local Mandates, responding to a complaint from Deptford Township, said it would place a temporary injunction on the law because implementing it could cause "irreparable harm" to the township and others like it. A formal order halting the mandate is expected within weeks.
The decision by the board came on the complaint by Deptford that the funding source provided in the state law - a surcharge on DWI fines - was severely inadequate. The board found that Deptford's complaint had a "high likelihood of success on the merits."
The final ruling of the board, four of whose nine seats are vacant, could greatly affect the current expectations of police agencies in the state as national attention is focused on monitoring police activity with cameras.
"If they funded this thing, Deptford Township [officers] probably would have been wearing body cameras," said Deptford Mayor Paul Medany, who said he was unsure of the cameras' effectiveness. "We can't play with taxpayer dollars."
Some departments have turned to borrowing and fund-raising campaigns to offset costs. Proponents of the cameras say departments should treat the devices like all other tools routinely worked into budgets.
The measure requiring dashboard cameras - which can also be satisfied if an officer wears a body camera - was signed by Gov. Christie in September 2014. Lawmakers enacted an additional $25 fee on DWI fines to help municipalities pay for the cameras and associated costs.
Deptford officials, however, said those collections would fall far short of meeting the costs of buying and maintaining the cameras, video storage, and licensing fees. Based on estimated costs and past DWI convictions, the town projected, it will take more than seven years to regain the money to kick-start the program and buy the first in-car camera - about $17,000 - using DWI dollars.
Medany said the council's decision "semi-validated our position," which is supported by the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.
"We're not opposed to body cameras. We think they're good policy," said Ed Purcell, staff attorney with the league. "But the New Jersey Constitution requires that when the state proposes a mandate, it has to pay for it."
The state Attorney General's Office, charged with defending the law, had moved to have Deptford's complaint dismissed. The council denied the motion Tuesday.
Besides its statewide implications for police cameras, the matter has raised a big question for the council: Whether it has the authority to rule on the adequacy of the revenue source attached to a state mandate.
The nine-member board was created through a 1995 constitutional amendment, which members noted Tuesday was silent on whether the council could consider a funding source's adequacy. Language in an enabling statute, however, reads, "The council shall not have the authority to determine whether the funding of any statute or any rule or regulation is adequate."
"I see a real conflict between the language of the constitution and the language of the statute," said member Victor McDonald, a former legislature staffer appointed by Senate Minority Leader Thomas H. Kean Jr.
While the council has previously found funding for mandates to be "illusory," John A. Sweeney, the acting chair and a former assignment judge in Burlington County, said it had "sort of danced around" the issue.
Sweeney instructed the parties to file briefs analyzing the issue. The "ultimate disposition of this case will depend on adequacy of funding and whether this council definitely has in its purview [the ability] to decide," Sweeney said after the hearing.
The council - its four empty seats awaiting appointments from Christie - has in the past dealt with various state requirements, including for local authorities to remove deer carcasses. It deemed that mandate unfunded.
If the council finds the police camera law constitutes an unfunded mandate, the requirement would no longer be valid.
If that happened, police departments could continue to use cameras voluntarily. In July, when the governor's office announced an initiative to equip state troopers with body cameras, it said it would make available $2.5 million for grants to police departments throughout the state seeking to purchase body cameras.
Louis Tuthill, an assistant professor of criminology at Rutgers-Camden, has helped craft grant proposals to the U.S. Department of Justice for body cameras for several police departments. While departments may encounter costs for implementation, he said, the cameras could save money by averting lawsuits.
"Yes, it's an up-front cost, but it's also an insurance policy," he said. "There are a lot of lawsuits and complaints waged against officers that may have weight or may not. If you don't have a dashboard camera or a body camera, then what you have is the officer's word vs. the person's."
Tuthill, also a former social science analyst for the Justice Department, said the cameras also serve as a deterrent and can help when training officers.
"I think it's going to be a bit of time before we can weigh the cost-benefit of this," he said, "but at this moment, I can say the benefits are probably going to outweigh the costs."
856-779-3917
@AJFichera