Rumson Amends Disorderly Persons Code, Advocates Say More To Be Done

RUMSON, NJ — In a recent council meeting, Rumson repealed parts of their Disorderly Persons Code, but advocates say the borough needs to go further.

Disorderly Persons regulations typically encompass minor criminal offenses and behaviors such as public disturbances, loud noises, or harassment.

Though violations of these regulations are seen as minor, they can lead to consequences such as community service, probation and even fines for those who violate them.

In Rumson, the Disorderly Persons Code prohibits actions such as distributing pamphlets without a permit, loud noises, loitering in public places and offensive remarks.

On Dec. 10, the borough council unanimously voted to amend Chapter III, Police Regulations, Section 2 of the code, repealing most of the chapter's prohibitions (such as selling lewd objects or indecent behavior) but maintaining others, such as loitering in public places, offensive remarks and requiring permits to distribute pamphlets.

At the NJ Libertarian Party’s Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project, Chair John Paff works to get NJ municipalities to repeal outdated loitering ordinances that should have been — but were not — repealed when the NJ Code of Criminal Justice was enacted in 1979.

The code (with exceptions in certain cases), makes loitering ordinances invalid throughout New Jersey.

“When they [the legislature] created the criminal code, they noticed there were a lot of problems with loitering and vagrancy, but also a lot of historical experience with police misusing their power,” Paff said.

“So they decided not to criminalize loitering in the state of New Jersey,” Paff continued. “And since they decided not to criminalize loitering at a state level, no municipality or political subdivision can criminalize that which they have expressly permitted either.”

In 1982, the Supreme Court of New Jersey took the code a step further by ruling that Newark could not enforce their loitering ordinance, and therefore other NJ municipalities couldn’t have these ordinances either.

Though loitering could no longer be criminalized, Paff said many NJ towns and boroughs simply never got around to repealing outdated ordinances that were still on their books.

Since its formation, the Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project has successfully had loitering ordinances repealed in over 30 towns, including Colts Neck, Little Silver, Long Branch and Oceanport.

In addition, the project also encourages municipalities to repeal outdated disorderly conduct regulations, and rules of similar nature.

In regards to Rumson, Paff questioned why the borough was leaving certain ordinances in the Disorderly Persons Code, and urged the borough to repeal the ordinances left out of their recent amendment.

“Rumson’s repeal didn’t repeal all the things that are wrong with that ordinance,” Paff said. “They’re leaving in some glaring exceptions…and that would be my question: why are you keeping some of the ordinances?”

In an email statement sent to Patch, Rumson Administrator & Municipal Clerk Tom Rogers said the borough amended their ordinances “where the Borough’s Ordinance was either in line with or competed with the State Statute, which already thoroughly covers the issue of Disorderly Persons.”

“The Rumson Police Department would use the State’s Disorderly Persons Statute, should the need arise,” Rogers said. “The Borough Attorney recommended the Ordinance Amendments that were made.”

Should someone make a recommendation of another ordinance that needs to be addressed, Rogers said the council would consider it.

But while these ordinances stay in place, Paff worries that people could still face punishment for outdated regulations, or pay fines to downgrade their charges to municipal violations.

“You can lose your job or not be able to get a job if you have a disorderly conduct or statutory disorderly persons charge that you’ve been convicted of,” Paff said. “So when a person is being charged with something, they’re usually very happy to be able to say ‘Look, I’ll pay a couple 100 dollars, just get me out of this charge.’”

According to Paff, residents shouldn’t be paying to get out of these charges in the first place. In 1998, Attorney General Peter Verniero even prohibited it (with limited exceptions), disallowing municipal courts from agreeing to plea bargains where someone charged with a statutory offense pleads down to a municipal ordinance violation.

“This is the law of the land, whether any borough likes it or not,” Paff said. "Nobody should have to suffer if these ordinances have been declared invalid for almost 50 years.”

To learn more about the Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project, you can visit their website.

To see the full repeal ordinance, you can click here.