The Supreme Court scheduled three regional hearings to elicit testimony on why older, minor municipal court complaints pending for more than 15 years should not be dismissed. Administrative Order 01-2018, docketed as PAS-L-3211-18, was issued on the heels of a report prepared by the Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Court Operations, Fines and Fees released on July 17 to address the efficiency of municipal courts.
Among a number of recommendations is the development of a process to dismiss old complaints, taking into account the seriousness of the offense charged, the age of the case, and other relevant factors. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) noted hundreds of thousands of cases still open and unresolved that are more than 10 years old involving minor infractions, and specifically do not include indictable offenses, disorderly persons charges, petty disorderly persons charges, and certain motor vehicle charges.
The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) submitted written comments to be considered by the panel. It delineated between non-moving and moving violations, agreeing that warrants related to non-moving violations (i.e., parking tickets, ordinance violations and fish/game charges) that are 15 years or older should be dismissed. However, warrants related to moving violations “raise additional issues that weigh against automatic dismissal,” said NJSBA President John E. Keefe Jr.
The association urged the panel to consider a further distinction among moving violations between those that are minor – such as equipment failures that do not impose penalty points – and more serious offenses such as improper passing. Minor moving violations that are 15 years or older should probably be dismissed, said Keefe. “Dismissing a more serious older violation would simply reward a defendant’s behavior in not following through with required court appearances, resulting in more favorable treatment of those defendants that avoid court as compared to those who follow through with their court appearances,” said Keefe.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court appointed three assignment judges -- Ronald Bookbinder, Ernest Caposela and Yolanda Ciccone -- to conduct a series of hearings in northern, central and southern New Jersey. At least 60 days prior to any scheduled hearing, the panel was required to distribute to each municipality a list of cases that fall within the scope of the July 19 order issued by the AOC. The morning session of each hearing will provide an opportunity for members of the public and public interest groups to speak on the issue. The afternoon session will be available for representatives of affected municipalities, including mayors, attorneys for the municipalities and municipal prosecutors.
The hearings will take place as follows:
October 22, 10 a.m.
Essex County Veterans Courthouse
50 West Market Street
Courtroom 1114 – 11th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
October 23, 10 a.m.
Somerset County Courthouse
20 North Bridge Street
Courtroom 301
Somerville, New Jersey 08876
October 24, 10 a.m.
Burlington County Olde Courthouse
120 High Street
Courtroom 1
Mount Holly, New Jersey 08057
For a copy of the order or for more information, click here.
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.