Source: https://njlp.org/news/loitering/1707-bridgeton-still-citing-people-under-ordinance-that-was-superseded-in-2003?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 15:42:26
Document Index: 109877665

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 251', '§ 251', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4']

New Jersey Libertarian Party - Bridgeton still citing people under ordinance that was superseded in 2003
Created: 23 April 2015 | Written by John Paff | Print
We wish to register our complaint regarding the Bridgeton Municipal Court's continued practice of allowing statutory charges to be pled down to violations of a superseded, preempted City Code provision. Following are the elements of our complaint:
2. “CO 4-3.2D” (i.e. § 4-3.2(d) of the superseded code) prohibited "loitering" that would:
3. The present Code § 251-9 does not contain an identical proscription. Rather, § 251-9 proscribes the following two types of "loitering":
5. On April 1, 2010 (letter on-line here), I complained to the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office that downgrading statutory charges to § 4-3.2(d) violations was prohibited by a 1998 Attorney General Directive.
6. In her August 13, 2010 response (on-line here) Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae advised me that the 1998 Directive was "still in effect" and that it was important for municipal prosecutors to "make every effort to obey this directive and avoid improper downgrades." She said that she had "been in contact with the City Solicitor for the City of Bridgeton" and that the Solicitor has "taken steps to see that new problems do not arise."
7. Despite Prosecutor Webb-McRae's intervention in 2010, the Bridgeton Municipal Court continues to allow statutory charges to be downgraded to § 4-3.2(d) even though § 4-3.2(d) has not existed since 2003 and even though it is preempted by the New Jersey Criminal Code.