|
|
| Frankford asked to repeal loitering law |
| |
|
Photo by Amy Paterson/New Jersey Herald
Anthony Scocozza, founder of the Culver Lake Crime Watch, talks about the causeway at Culver Lake where Frankford Township posted “No Trespassing” signs in 2007 at the request of the group because of noisy late night parties on the spot. The township attorney recently discovered the ordinance while doing an update of the township’s lawbooks, and said they had to repeal it because of a 1982 state Supreme Court decision that declared loitering ordinances unenforceable.
|
|
|
|
| |
By CHRISTINA TATU
ctatu@njherald.com
When the “no loitering” signs went up, the late-night parties at the Culver Lake causeway stopped.
Rabble-rousers took heed and residents living near the causeway said they were no longer awakened in the middle of the night to the sounds of screaming party-goers. The shards of broken beer bottles and other remnants from the weekend parties also went away.
The 2007 ordinance allowed the township to fine loiterers up to $250 for the first offense, with possible arrest for repeat offenses.
As useful as it may have been, Frankford’s loitering ordinance is not allowed to hang around the township’s law books. Last month, the township had to repeal the ordinance due to an oversight by the 2007 Township Committee that such laws were deemed unenforceable after a state Supreme Court ruling 27 years ago.
Township attorney Kevin Benbrook discovered the ordinance while performing an update of the township’s law books, said Mayor Paul Sutphen.
Sussex County Administrator John Eskilson said such laws still may be common, even though they were determined to be unenforceable after the 1982 state Supreme Court decision in State vs. Crawley.
“Unless you are updating your code book, which is really time consuming and expensive, you might find a whole lot of antiquated laws on the books,” Eskilson said.
“It takes months and is extremely time consuming and can be costly because you are engaging a code company and billable hours for the attorney.”
Anthony Scocozza, founder of the Culver Lake Crime Watch, said his group approached the Township Committee in 2007, requesting they pass a loitering ordinance to prevent the late-night parties. Scocozza, a member of the New Jersey State Triad Association, a non-profit law enforcement group that oversees neighborhood watch groups, said a member of the association encouraged him to approach his township about enacting a loitering ordinance.
Scocozza said without the ordinance, state police could not fine or arrest the partiers unless they could prove underage drinking or illegal drug activity was going on. The ordinance defined loiterers as “those remaining idle or walking aimlessly about in essentially one location,” and allowed for the placement of “no loitering” signs.
Sutphen said the signs recently were removed.
It was the civil rights movement of the 1960s and ’70s that set the tone for New Jersey’s decision to rule loitering ordinances unconstitutional, said Rutgers Law Professor Frank Askin. During that time, members of the civil rights movement were being arrested for expressing free speech.
When the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice was enacted in 1979, it did not include loitering as a criminal offense. The decision in State vs. Crawley further solidified that decision.
“There was no clear definition of what loitering was, so no one really knew what was being prohibited, and if there was a definition, it was too broad,” Askin said. “If there’s just three or more people hanging out, what’s the problem? What’s the harm?”
Jon Paff, chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project, has been working for three years to get municipalities to take the outdated laws off their books.
So far he has succeeded in getting 14 municipalities to remove the ordinances, including Andover Township and Newton.
“When you can say, ‘We think you are going to do something, therefore we are going to arrest you,’ that just gives the police the ultimate authority to arrest whoever they want,” Paff said. “There are too many opportunities for (the officer’s) prejudices to enter into the decision making. We need to have evidence that an actual crime has been committed, not that it looks like one might happen.”
Paff said other laws, such as state statute 2C:33-7, which prohibits the obstruction of highways and other public passages, may prevent trouble.
That statute says police must prove a person was acting recklessly by blocking a public road or passage way. It also allows police to ask those involved in a political protest to move to a safer location if they are blocking foot or vehicle traffic.
Newton and Andover Township’s loitering ordinances were passed in the 1970s. Andover repealed its ordinance earlier this year and Newton repealed its ordinance last year.
“I think it was an effective tool in making sure people didn’t congregate, loiter and obstruct,” said Newton Police Lt. Robert Osborn. “We did on occasion utilize it, especially in the downtown business area.”
Osborn said police usually gave the benefit of the doubt, issuing a warning first, but repeat offenders could be issued a summons.
Newton now utilizes ordinances prohibiting the obstruction of a public passageway and a no-trespassing ordinance, allowing a landlord to authorize police to remove trespassers blocking the steps of an apartment building, he said.
Sutphen said Frankford does have a noise ordinance, based on state guidelines, but said it is difficult to enforce because police must be able to prove the noise is above a certain decibel level.
Matthew Weng, attorney for the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said he has received many phone calls from municipalities confused about the state’s loitering law.
“If they are causing a ruckus or drunk, that certainly can be criminalized,” he said.
Townships also can consider passing a curfew for underage residents.
Created: 11/4/2009 | Updated: 11/4/2009
|
|
|
