[directive] Reasons for Denying Pretrial Intervention Applications  Pursuant to the rule established in State v. Caliquiri, 158 N.J. 28 (1999), prosecutors are prohibited from “categorically” denying PTI applications on the grounds that the defendant is charged with a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (Drug- Free School Zone) and thus faces a mandatory minimum sentence subject only to waiver pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12.  However, where a defendant would be subject pursuant to these Guidelines to a Special Offense Characteristic, Aggravating Factor, or Special Application and Enhancement Feature, the prosecutor should cite those case-specific circumstances as further bolstering the general presumption against PTI admission established by the Court in Caliquiri.  In doing so, the prosecutor should frame the legal/factual arguments in terms of the PTI criteria that are set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e and in R. 3:28.  For example, if the charged school zone offense involved the possession of firearms or the use or threatened use of other weapons (Special Offense Characteristic #1, or else the basis for Special Application and Enhancement Feature D), those facts and circumstances would be relevant in bolstering the presumption against PTI admission under a number of statutory PTI criteria, including but not limited to: the nature of the offense (criterion #1); the facts of the case (criterion #2); the needs and interests of society (criterion #7); the extent to which the defendant may present a substantial danger to others (criterion #9); the possible injurious consequences of the defendant’s behavior (criterion #10); whether the crime is of such a nature that the value of supervisory treatment would be outweighed by the public need for prosecution (criterion #14); and that Page 21 [...] Guidelines 2 (2004 Revisions) the harm done to society by abandoning criminal prosecution would outweigh the benefits to society from channeling the defendant into a supervisory treatment program (criteria #17).  It should be noted that the PTI Guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court permit defendants to apply for PTI even though they were on parole or probation at the time of the offense, provided that the chief probation officer or district parole supervisor is consulted.  See PTI Guideline 3(f) following R. 3:28.  The Brimage Guidelines establish in Section 11.5 a Special Enhancement and Application Feature where the present offense was committed while the defendant was under parole or probation supervision.  Accordingly, and so as to reconcile the requirements of the Brimage Guidelines and the Rules of Court governing PTI applications, the prosecutor in these circumstances should argue, for example, that the fact that the present offense was committed while the defendant was under supervision indicates that there is a low probability that the causes of the defendant’s criminal behavior can be controlled by proper treatment (statutory criterion #5); that the defendant would not be conducive to change through his or her participation in supervisory treatment (criterion #6); that the defendant’s crime constitutes part of a continuing pattern of anti-social behavior (criterion #8); and that the defendant’s record of criminal violations (criterion #9) militates against overcoming the presumption that his or her PTI application should be rejected.