All police vehicles in New Jersey to have cameras

By Nathan Mayberg
TRENTON — The next time you are stopped by a police officer in New Jersey, a video camera may be rolling.

A bill passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Chris Christie last month will mandate that all police vehicles carry a video recording device or that a camera is attached to their uniform or belt.

Several local departments already utilize cameras on their vehicles.

In Vernon, 10 of the department's cars have cameras, Lt. Brian Jernick said. Jernick said the department has been using them on the cars for more than a year.

"In most situations, it helps law enforcement," Jernick said. "We're able to show, if we need to, what actually happened at a scene."

Jernick said cameras have been "helpful to us, especially in DWI cases."

There have been cases where officers were accused of misconduct and the videotape was able to prove that the officers acted properly, he said.

The law was introduced by Assemblyman Paul Moriarty (D-Washington Township), whose arrest on DWI charges led him to push for the legislation. Moriarty fought the charge, claiming he was not intoxicated and had been unfairly targeted for arrest. A videotape of the arrest from the police car's camera exonerated him.

The legislation will only require the cameras on newly purchased or leased vehicles that are used primarily for traffic stops, Moriarty said.

Moriarty said he would like to have the cameras used for most vehicles and police activities but said this was the first part in "baby steps" to ensure there is videotaped documentation of arrests and police activity.

The law hasn't yet gone into effect. The state Attorney General's Office must establish the guidelines for how the cameras will be used by departments. Moriarty expects to be meeting with the Attorney General's Office to set up the rules.

Among the issues that need to be sorted out, are rules relating to privacy, record retention and public access to the tapes. Moriarty believes certain videos of domestic violence incidents or confidential reports to police should be protected from public view.

Moriarty said he is hearing positive feedback from police officers and municipal leaders who say the videotapes help.

"They say it saves them money," he said.

The video evidence can reduce the amount of overtime assigned to officers who have to appear in court.

"There are less contested cases," he said. "There are less claims of impropriety... less lawsuits."

Andover Township Police Chief Gil Taglialatela said his company has been using cameras on the departments police cars for several years.

"It's a great aid when there is a claim against the police officer," Taglialatela said. "It makes it clear-cut."

The cameras have been used to disprove several claims against officers over the years, he said. The complaints typically revolve around "their demeanor or their attitude or the way they've handled the situations," he said. None of the videotapes ever showed police wrongdoing, he said. "There was no disciplinary action" as a result of the video footage, Taglialatela said.

Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-Morris Plains), whose district includes West Milford, said he voted against the legislation because it was "an unfunded mandate." Webber said cameras are a good idea if a town can afford them.

"The state has no way to pay for it. I don't want the taxpayers to pay for it," Webber said.

Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce (R-Parsippany), who also represents West Milford, said she didn't support the legislation for the same reasons.

While she believed cameras on police cars was beneficial, she said she doesn't like the mandate by the state.

That mandate would cost small towns money which could cause taxes to rise, she said.

"By us passing another mandate, we put additional financial pressure on muncipalities to pay for something they don't have enough funds for," DeCroce said. "I believe in home rule."

Asking towns to fund the cost of the equipment by a new DWI surcharge is not a good funding source, she said.

The expense to Andover Township was approximately $5,300 per camera on five vehicles or approximately $26,500, $700 for an antenna on each vehicle, $11,250 for a digtal server and $3,000 for installation, Taglialatela said.

State Senator Joseph Pennacchio (R-Morris), whose district includes West Milford, said he supports the mandate for cameras.

"Time in and time out, these cameras on police cars prove what a good job our police officers do," Pennacchio said. "It protects them, decreases their liability,"

Ari Rosmarin, Public Policy Director for the New Jersey American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization supports the use of cameras as a police accountability tool.

"Cameras can help shed light on what happens in moments of conflict or can help reduce the 'he said, she said' when there is a differing account," he said.

Rosmarin said questions about who will have access to the video footage still need to be sorted out, as well as guidelines about when body cameras should be turned on.

"Is it appropriate for an officer to videotape in somebody's home?" he asked. "It's very thorny."

He said most of the records should be accesible and subject to the Open Public Records Act.

Ultimately, the guidelines will be written by the Attorney General's Office which oversees police departments in the state. The office was given the power to control the guidelines through the legislation.

There will be a public comment period after the guidelines are written.

Moriarty said the legislature can always pass an additional bill in the future to better clarify how the video cameras can be used.

Moriarty was driving in his hometown of Washington Township in 2012 when he was pulled over by a town police officer and accused of cutting off the police officer and driving while under the influence. Moriarty refused a breathalyzer test which carries its own penalty in New Jersey unless the defendant can show the officer didn't have probable cause for the test or stop. The video showed that the officer had been waiting in the median before seeing Moriarty's car pass by in the right lane. Moriarty's car never left the right lane in the video.

As an assemblyman, Moriarty has legislative license plates. Moriarty said he doesn't know why he was targeted though he knew the officer had been fired from the police department for allegedly lying in an internal affairs probe, but was ultimately reinstated into the department. Moriarty was the former mayor of the town. The officer has since been charged with 14 criminal counts in relation to his arrest of Moriarty.

"I certainly came to understand how important video cameras can be. If there hadn't been a video camera in the police car that stopped me, I wouldn't be in the legislature now," Moriarty said. "There is no reason police shouldn't have this as part of their arsenal."

Most officers are good, Moriarty said.

"Like any profession, there are bad actors," he said.

According to the legislation and information from the Administrative Office of the Courts, there were more than 69,000 convictions for driving under the influence in New Jersey between 2010 and 2012.

The legislation originally passed the state legislature in 2013 but wasn't signed by Christie. The law passed again in June and was signed by Christie in September. A message left with Christie's press office was not returned.

Reporter Nathan Mayberg can be reached at comm.reporter@strausnews.com or by calling 845-469-9000 ext. 359.