That sure didn't take long!
Just days after an Ocean County judge granted emergent restraints blocking the Jackson Township Police Department from forcing a man to submit to fingerprinting under a statute he argued did not apply to him, Jackson officials have backed down and formally withdrawn the demand, FAA News reports.
The stunningly quick resolution comes after Gerardo Garciatorres sued Jackson Township, its Police Department and Police Officer Steve Bado, alleging that JPD threatened him with an additional criminal charge unless he surrendered his fingerprints - even though he was charged only with a disorderly persons offense that, according to the lawsuit, did not trigger the fingerprinting statute invoked by police.
As previously reported by FAA News, Ocean County Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge Guy P. Ryan responded to the emergent lawsuit by immediately restraining Jackson Police from enforcing the fingerprint notice or bringing another charge against Garciatorres for refusing to comply.
Judge Ryan's initial Order found that Garciatorres had demonstrated a probability of success on the merits and that immediate and irreparable harm would probably result without judicial intervention.
Now, before the Township ever had to defend the demand at the scheduled September 16 hearing, the fight is over.
Under a Consent Order signed by counsel for both sides and entered by Judge Ryan, the Jackson defendants formally withdrew the August 11 Fingerprinting Requirement.
More importantly, Jackson agreed that the Township, Police Department, their officers, agents, employees and others acting on their behalf "shall take no action of any kind" under the withdrawn notice or under N.J.S.A. 53:1-15 as it had been invoked against Garciatorres.
That expressly includes any attempt to issue, file or refer for prosecution a charge based upon his failure to appear for - or refusal to undergo - the fingerprinting demanded by police.
The reversal is particularly striking given the language of the original JPD notice.
Police had not merely requested that Garciatorres provide fingerprints. According to the lawsuit, the Department issued him a formal "FINGERPRINTING REQUIREMENT" directing him to report to headquarters and warning that failure to comply "will result in an additional charge."
Garciatorres went to Superior Court instead.
His lawsuit argued that N.J.S.A. 53:1-15 identifies particular circumstances requiring fingerprinting, while his pending disorderly persons charge did not fall within them. His attorneys also pointed to something potentially much more significant: the notice was allegedly generated from a preprinted Jackson Police departmental form bearing a January 2023 revision date.
That led the Complaint to allege that the disputed demand reflected an official Township or Police Department policy, custom or practice, rather than simply an isolated mistake by one officer.
The litigation therefore raised an obvious question extending well beyond Garciatorres: How many other people may have received the same form and simply complied?
LAWSUIT ENDS — BUT THE POLICY QUESTION DOESN'T
The Consent Order resolves Garciatorres's individual dispute. It does not, however, appear to announce a department-wide change in Jackson's fingerprinting practices.
The Order contains a savings clause preserving fingerprinting if Garciatorres later becomes subject to it through circumstances actually enumerated by N.J.S.A. 53:1-15 or another lawful authority. It otherwise confines the settlement to the August 11 notice and the application of the statute invoked in that notice.
So while Garciatorres has obtained the immediate result he sought - he will not be fingerprinted pursuant to the disputed notice and cannot be prosecuted for refusing it - a broader public-policy question remains unanswered.
Township officials have not publicly commented on the controversy, nor have they announced whether the Police Department has withdrawn, revised or continued using the preprinted fingerprinting form challenged in the lawsuit.
That distinction matters.
Jackson's settlement means the Department will not enforce this fingerprinting demand against this plaintiff. It does not, on its face, establish what JPD intends to do the next time someone charged only with a disorderly persons offense receives the same form.
The individual showdown is finished. But the larger question raised by the lawsuit remains: Will Jackson Police change the departmental practice that allegedly produced the demand in the first place - or did officials simply make this particular lawsuit disappear?
FAA News will continue following the matter.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment