News


TRENTON- State President Peter Andreyev testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee today regarding juvenile crimes, car thefts and burglaries.

Testimony of Peter Andreyev
New Jersey State PBA
June 13, 2024

Thank you Chairman Stack and members of the Committee for this opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Peter Andreyev and I am the President of the 30,000 member New Jersey State PBA. I am joined today by my Executive Vice President Michael Freeman.

We are glad that you are having this hearing today because New Jersey can no longer ignore that we have an ongoing problem with juvenile crime, the use of juveniles by criminal gangs to do their dirty work and a growing mentality among minors that they are untouchable when they break the law.

Before I discuss some underlying problems related to juveniles, car thefts, burglaries and other problems I want to be very clear on our position. I believe there is great value, not only for public safety but morally as well, to do what we can to keep minors out of the criminal justice system. Some teens are forced into crime. Some find it through lack of options in life. And some simply make mistakes. None of us want to see someone spend a lifetime in jail starting at a young age if we can help it.

Deferring juveniles from prison is a worthy goal. But it should not be a policy that fails to address the risks posed by not considering a punishment equal to the crime. Unfortunately, the State of New Jersey has gone too far in one direction in its criminal justice policy over the past decade that we are seeing criminal organizations take great advantage of it.

Some serious crime like car theft and burglaries occur as a crime of opportunity. A car is left running or unlocked. A house left unsecured. Valuables left on a counter in a store unattended. These crimes happen every day.

But what we are seeing Statewide is a coordinated use of minors by criminal organizations and our criminal justice policies do little to aid law enforcement in fighting back.

The vast majority of car thefts that occur in NJ are committed by members of criminal organizations. These groups use juveniles for scouting neighborhoods and to steal the vehicles because there is virtually no chance of detention when they are caught by police, and everyone involved is keenly aware of this fact.

And this is where our State policy becomes an impediment to us. Without the threat of detention we can’t effectively build a case against the ring leaders who are adults that pay the juveniles for each car they steal. The juvenile may be caught but they are right back to the neighborhoods looking for more cars to steal.

And since juvenile crimes are not part of the bail reform scheme when that same individual is caught over 18 the entire process starts from scratch as if they had no criminal record.

And for those who doubt that our hands are tied in this fight I point you to Attorney General Directive 2020-12. This policy essentially mandates the issuance of a Complaint-Summons in Lieu of Complaint-Warrant before a juvenile is immediately released into the custody of a parent, guardian or custodian. Crimes like residential burglary, vehicle theft and eluding are not graded sufficiently for presumption of detention unless there is a firearm present or there is death or serious bodily injury.

The juvenile “employee” who is caught will therefore be released in a matter of hours to return to work causing very little disruption to the car theft business. The social ills that may produce the mindset that car theft is a viable job opportunity are beyond our scope, but criminal investigations often require cooperating witnesses who are interested in self-preservation by providing information about their accomplices to avoid or minimize the consequences they face.

It is universally known that there are no consequences for a juvenile taken into custody that would incentivize them to inform since they must be released within 6 hours in almost all cases under the AG Directive I referenced.

I also don’t need to remind any of you that in the last few years we have seen an explosion of disruptions from pop-up parties to underage drinking to mass hysteria on our boardwalks and parks. This is also a direct result of changes made to the adjudication of minors who are drinking or using cannabis.

As many of you know, we did not oppose the legalization of cannabis for adults. But since the enabling law was passed we have been told time and again that nothing stops a police officer from using their many “tools” to deal with drunk or rowdy minors. I must tell you honestly that whatever tools you think we have the law has simply tied our hands and the result is there for all to see.

For your information, I have been a police officer in Point Pleasant Beach for over 30 years. I was in charge of the Boardwalk for many of those. I have dealt with drunks, crowds, fights and instances of mob mentality. And I am telling you that what is happening now is not normal. What is happening now is a direct result of changes in the criminal justice policy of the State.

I will give you one direct example of what I mean. When cannabis was legalized the law established written warnings for minors in possession of it. Yet the law does not require a minor to show ID to an officer to write the warning. So how do we enforce the law when the same law says we can’t enforce it? This is also confirmed by an Attorney General FAQ, updated on March 8, 2021, on the subject that says and I quote “simply refusing to provide identifying information” is not obstruction.

Since that same law says we can’t search a minor, can’t detain a minor and can’t arrest a minor for public use of alcohol or cannabis what exactly are the tools cops are supposed to use to address this situation? Do you think a minor cares about getting a written warning their parents aren’t required to see assuming, that is, they provide us ID to write the warning?

These organized groups of kids are not dumb. They know the law says we can’t do anything to them so they gather, drink, things get wild and then all hell breaks loose. The public deserves to not wait until after things have gotten out of control for the police to be able to make arrests or bring minors down to the station to call their parents.

Finally, we need to take a serious look at bail reform. You can pass any law you want after this but under the current bail reform rules none of them will matter. We hear constantly that bail reform is a success.

Well, if the measurement is releasing even dangerous people back to our communities then I guess you can call it a success. My limited time before you does not allow for me to detail many of the areas bail reform needs to be addressed. But I think there are two things to consider.

First, the Criminal Sentencing Commission needs to have representation from rank-and-file police officers recommended by the State PBA. Our members are the ones dealing with crimes before they ever get to a prosecutor, defender, lawyer or judge. And yet we are excluded from talking about the real-world impact of their recommendations without a seat at the table.

Second, you must seriously consider reviewing the process by which the AOC developed the algorithm that created the Public Safety Assessments used by judges during pretrial detention review. This algorithm was not developed by police, prosecutors or judges but was instead farmed out to the Arnold Foundation, a nonprofit whose anti-cop rhetoric can be found right on their website.

When their approach is centered on comments such as: “police too often rely on punitive enforcement and unnecessary force”; and,

Jails are full because of “law enforcement agencies that arrest more people for minor offenses and over-police communities of color” what do think their system to recommend detention or release is going to say? Justice should be blind. Those positions are hardly impartial and the process needs to change as a result.

I can assure you my members have sworn an oath to protect and serve and will continue to do so to the best of their ability. But we can’t protect the public when the law and policy of the State is designed to keep us from doing it.

As you know well, the State PBA is first and foremost a resource for you and we will gladly engage in meaningful discussions and analysis to support you in your legislative efforts any time.

Thank you for allowing me to make these comments today

WOODBRIDGE - New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Colligan today called on Trenton Council President Kathy McBride to allow a vote to take place on the resolution she recently tabled allocating $4 million in coronavirus relief funds for new radio equipment for the city’s first responders. 

McBride’s decision to pull the resolution without explanation in advance of Tuesday’s council meeting means Trenton’s police and first responders will soon have no means of communication to coordinate in the event of an emergency and can only result in putting city residents in peril. 

“Council President McBride appears to be prioritizing anything but the people she is supposed to represent in refusing to allow this resolution to come to a vote,” said Colligan.  “It is imperative that Trenton police and first responders have the means to effectively communicate and coordinate in the event of an incident, and the resources are available to achieve the commonsense solution of providing those services.  There is only one outcome for residents if this misguided decision to table Tuesday’s resolution is allowed to move forward, and it would simply defy all reason to knowingly put city residents in danger.”

The State PBA has for decades fought to make New Jersey’s law enforcement officers the most professional and best trained in the nation.  While we too are angered when police officers abuse their power, we also believe that everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law.  Police officers especially.  Unfortunately, the Attorney General’s “Major Discipline” Directive does not treat every officer equally. 

While the term “major discipline” sounds like an officer has severely violated the public trust, in reality police officer discipline wildly differs from town to town.  Major discipline in some places could be handed down for a uniform violation.  The Attorney General’s Directive is far too broad and it treats all officers unequally.  While we have pledged to work with the Attorney General on enhancing our profession this new policy does not recognize those arbitrary differences.  The Policy is going to smear officers unfairly who have not violated the public trust and I would respectfully suggest it needs to go back to the drawing board.

I have directed Legal Counsel for the State PBA to review the policy to ensure that officer rights are protected.

View Official Statement Here