Member Interest

  • Downloads and Forms

    Access downloadable documents as well as public and private NJSPBA forms. Continue…

  • Legislative News

    Keeping members informed of what is going on in the political world around them. Continue…

  • Legal Protection (LPP)

    A self funded member benefit that provides legal protection to active members of the NJSPBA in good standing. Continue…

  • Pension Planning

    A resource center to keep our members up to date on pension events, webinars, links, dates and information. Continue…


NJ State PBA Promotional Video

News

Bergen County PBA 102 Survivor & Welfare Fundraiser - Annual Cigar Night

Join us for the Bergen County PBA 102’s Annual Cigar Night on May 4, 2021 at the Graycliff, 122 Moonachie Ave., Moonachie, beginning at 7 p.m.

Cost is $125 per ticket, and includes cocktail hour and open bar. Proceeds benefit the New Jersey State PBA Survivor and Welfare Fund.

For tickets, contact Frank Sciacca 973-445-9532 or John Schwedhelm 201-220-2926, or email Pbalocal102@gmail.com

View Additional Information Here

20 and Out Passes Assembly; Sent to Governor

The State PBA initiated bill to reestablish the 20 and Out benefit was passed in the General Assembly today.  The bill now heads to the Governor for his consideration.  We have been in contact with Governor Murphy’s office to express the need for his support for the legislation.

The bill will restore the 20 and Out PFRS benefit for 2 years after its enactment in order to assess the financial impact of the benefit on the pension system.  While we believe that this retirement option will remain infrequently, as it has been for the last 20 years, we also must ensure that anything we pursue does not negatively impact the health of the PFRS.  The long term health and growth of PFRS is of obvious critical importance.  But restoring 20 and Out now ensures fairness to provide PFRS members benefits they were promised when they become officers two decades ago.  We firmly believe that the next 2 years will prove our fiscal analysis correct that 20 and Out will have little impact on PFRS, thereby disproving the inaccurate cost estimate proposed by the League of Municipalities and Association of Counties, thus opening the door to make 20 and Out permanent.

It is important to remind PBA members that existing State Law prohibits providing employer paid health benefits to a retiree unless a member has 25 years of service.  Therefore there are no health benefits provided to officers who retire at 20 years.  But the member would receive 50% of their final salary regardless of age as a pension for the rest of their life. 

Passage of the bill was a major priority for the State PBA and we would like to thank Senate President Sweeney and Speaker Coughlin for moving the bill and our sponsors, Senator Gopal, Assemblyman DeAngelo and Assemblyman Dancer for their steadfast support.

State PBA Proposed “20 and Out” bill on fast track

The Assembly Appropriations Committee today released Senate Bill 1017 to restore the 20 and Out retirement benefit to PFRS. The bill has already been scheduled for final passage in the Assembly on March 1st, 2021 where, following passage, it will be sent to the Governor for his signature.

Today’s action is the final Committee step in a years long process by the State PBA to restore justice to PFRS members who had this benefit taken from them by the Christie Administration.

Frequently Asked Questions - Marijuana Decriminalization & Legalized Cannabis As of February 23, 2021

This document contains frequently asked questions (FAQs) to address some of the substantial issues, concerns, and situations that will arise for law enforcement as we all strive to understand, implement, and apply the new cannabis legalization and marijuana decriminalization laws. We anticipate expanding the FAQs as we encounter additional, and more subtle and complex, issues and gain experience and insight into the challenges presented by the new laws.

  1. What should an officer do if they smell marijuana coming from a vehicle during a motor vehicle stop?

    First, the officer should take the traditional investigative steps to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the driver is operating the vehicle while under the influence, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. If so, the driver may be arrested and the vehicle may be searched. If the driver is not found to be under the influence, the new laws are clear that the odor of marijuana, either burned or raw, by itself does not establish reasonable suspicion to justify a continued stop, nor probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle or the person, in a marijuana possession case or even in a low-level (fourth-degree) possession with intent to distribute marijuana case. As a result, the vehicle and occupants must be released once the initial reason for the stop has been addressed.
     
  2. May an officer initiate or continue a pedestrian stop of an individual based on the officer detecting the odor of marijuana?

    No, the new laws are clear that the odor of marijuana, either burned or raw, by itself does not establish reasonable suspicion to justify or continue a pedestrian stop. In addition, the odor of marijuana by itself does not establish probable cause to conduct a search in a marijuana possession case or even a low-level (fourth-degree) possession with intent to distribute marijuana case. The age of the person being stopped is irrelevant in these situations.
     
  3. What happens when a law enforcement officer encounters an individual under the age of 21 who is in possession of marijuana, hashish, cannabis, or alcohol?

    Law enforcement officers must be cautious when they encounter an individual under the age of 21 who is in possession of marijuana, hashish, cannabis, or alcohol. The officer can seize the marijuana, hashish, cannabis, and alcohol and issue the appropriate written warning. However, the new law also sets forth the following prohibitions on officers when investigating possession or consumption of marijuana, hashish, cannabis, or alcohol by an underage individual to determine a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15:
    • Officers may not request consent from an individual who is under the age of 21;
    • Officers may not use odor of marijuana to stop an individual who is under the age of 21 or to search the individual’s personal property or vehicle;
    • Officers who observe marijuana in plain view will not be able to search the individual or the individual’s personal property or vehicle.
    • Officers may not arrest, detain, or otherwise take an individual under the age of 21 into custody for a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15 except to the extent required to issue a written warning or provide notice of a violation to a parent/guardian
     
  4. Does the new law alter the use of my body worn camera (BWC) in any way?

    The law requires that whenever an officer is equipped with a BWC, the BWC must be activated when responding to or handling a call involving a violation or suspected violation of the amended N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15, which addresses the underage possession or consumption of alcohol, marijuana, hashish, or cannabis. The BWC may not be deactivated for any reason throughout the entire encounter. Underage refers to people under the age of 21.
     
  5. How does decriminalization and legalization change fingerprinting?

    Marijuana is still by definition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-2 a “controlled dangerous substance,” and, therefore, appropriately charged violations involving marijuana or hashish are still subject to fingerprint compliance under N.J.S.A. 53:1-18.1. However, when law enforcement officers encounter an individual who has violated N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(12)(b) (distribution/possession with intent to distribute 1 ounce or less) or N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(3)(b) (possession of more than 6 ounces), the officer is prohibited under the law from arresting, detaining, or otherwise bringing that individual into the station, which means the officer will be unable to fingerprint the violator at the time of the incident. Therefore, those individuals must be fingerprinted at their first court appearance.

    Individuals under the age of 21 who are in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15(a)(1) are precluded from being fingerprinted under the new law

A21 - Legislation Act

A1897 - Marijuana Decriminalization

S3454 - Underage Possession & Use

AG Directive 2021-1 (Directive Governing Dismissals of Certain Pending Marijuana Charges)

Interim Guidance Regarding Marijuana Decriminalization

FAQs

*** Special Alert to PBA members & All Law Enforcement Officers***

Marijuana Legalization Bill Poses Serious Threats to Your Job

The State Legislature this morning passed legislation to formally legalize the use of marijuana in accordance with the Constitutional Amendment that passed in November.  Unfortunately, the legislation was amended with language that contains severe penalties on law enforcement officers who attempt to use the odor or possession of marijuana AND alcoholic beverages as a reason to stop and search minors to enforce the law.  We are urging every member of law enforcement to avoid approaching people with marijuana until a proper legal analysis and direction can be developed once this law is signed by the Governor.

The legislation is treacherous to you because it creates a penalty of 3rd Degree Deprivation of Civil Rights if an officer uses the odor or possession of marijuana or alcoholic beverages as the reason for initiating an investigatory stop of a person.  The new law states a law enforcement officer can not use the odor of marijuana or alcohol as reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop.  The new law states a minor CAN NOT consent to be searched and that a law enforcement officer no longer has probable cause to search a minor for illegally using marijuana or alcohol.  And if an officer violates a minor’s rights by using pot or alcohol as the reason for a search then the officer will be charged with deprivation of civil rights.

This bill dangerously ties your hands.  It establishes penalties of only warnings for illegal use by minors of marijuana or alcohol BUT it essentially prevents an officer from even approaching a person suspected of being a minor.  Absent the commission of another crime or clear legal guidance officers are being forced to ask themselves if writing a warning is worth risking being accused and charged with a 3rd degree crime?  The mere smell of marijuana and its use in your presence will no longer be grounds to search an individual.

While marijuana is now legal for those 21 and older this language is an assault on our ability to do our job and to enforce the law.  This language is an attack on law enforcement officers by making us the target of punishment rather than the individuals breaking the law.  This language will have dangerous consequences for the public and the police.

1 2 3 4 5  ... 

NJ Cops Magazine

February2021 Back Issues
Speaking Cops Podcast Shop NJSPBA Election Volunteers Member Login

President's Message

Patrick Colligan, NJSPBA President Patrick Colligan, President

If they can do it to us…

This year has certainly been one for the ages. A global pandemic, hurricanes, wildfires, the most divisive presidential election in our history, the murder of George Floyd, an asteroid that might hit be-fore election day and – because we haven’t had quite enough yet – murder hornets. I can hardly wait for November and December!

Needless to say, a few of these issues have had a profound effect on us in New Jersey. Twelve New Jersey officers lost their lives to COVID-19. Nine of them were PBA members. Some 120 officers throughout the country succumbed to the horrible disease, and tens of thousands of our brother and sister officers were profoundly affected. Many will never return to work.

As bad as we thought COVID was, May 25 was a day that changed policing forever. Some changes certainly will be for the better. Some will be downright dangerous, not only for the women and men who choose to do this job, but also for the citizens we’ve sworn to protect and serve.

So let’s fast forward to the federal Justice in Policing Act. In the rush to “do some-thing,” Congress drafted a really bad bill. The group that enjoys absolute immunity wants to take away our qualified immunity. I hope the “qualified” sufficiently describes our immunity. Yes, you are correct. We have to qualify for the immunity from lawsuits filed for damages resulting our mistakes. If you chose to act in a way that shocks the conscience or is so outside the norms of normal police work, you’re on your own. (And frankly, you should be). We make mistakes, no doubt about it. We aren’t Walmart greeters. We are in a dangerous and often ugly business. But many forget about that.

Some members of our New Jersey congressional delegation chose to sign onto that bill. One of them was even a co-sponsor. We’ve enjoyed some very close relationships and friendships with our delegation over the years. I hope I don’t have to tell you we were on the phone immediately after that bill came up. Marc, Rob and I were on some very long calls telling representatives exactly what that would do to our members and the very future of recruiting qualified candidates. A severe recruiting problem already exists.

There was no ambiguity in our conversations whatsoever. Removing qualified immunity was an absolute line in the sand. Of course, they were free to support the bill, but not without consequences.

I guess more than one of these elected officials thought we were bluffing. As they know by now, we weren’t. We have either walked away from our support or backed another congressional candidate. Yes, not without repercussions, but I live by a pretty simple rule in my life: Win, lose or draw, the day I can’t look myself in the mirror, I’ll walk away from this position.

Their unanimous answer of “it’s not passing anyway” was a shallow, feeble excuse. Depending on this election, that bill will probably be back and the “it’s not passing anyway” excuse won’t be such a shallow answer anymore.

So the delegation says, “If they do it to us, they can do it to anybody.” Not so quick folks. Maybe you weren’t listening to us on those calls. It was a line in the sand and unlike some of you, I mean what I say. The difference is, I can still proudly look at myself in a mirror today.