Do Not Install CCTV Or Access Control In A Drug House In New Jersey
TIL it is illegal to install or maintain "steel doors, wooden planking, cross bars, alarm systems, dogs, lookouts or any other means... to prevent, impede, delay or provide warning of the entry into a structure or any part of a structure by law enforcement officers" if the building or structure is used "for the manufacture, distribution, dispensing or possession or control with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense, controlled dangerous substances" in the State of New Jersey. Seems like a CCTV system would be covered by this law (pdf).
The tiny police department of the smallish town I recently moved away from aquired themselves an armored vehicle recently. They've been having great fun doing no-knock raids, both in-town and for departments in surrounding towns, and the suspects keep getting charged with "keeping a fortified house" among other charges (never resisting arrest, though, because it's not that kind of place, which is why they used to knock on the door and allow suspects to surrender peacefully).
This law appears to be essentially useful only to trump up charges. There's already plenty illegal about a crack house...
I guess if there are cameras or nice locks installed on a drughouse, laws like this provide another avenue to pursue a warrant?
...steel doors, wooden planking, cross bars, alarm systems, dogs, lookouts or any other means...
Its illegal for criminals to use 'lookouts'? What's next no 'running away'? Or even no 'lying'? Though the law's power to deter can't be easily underestimated:
Donny Dealer: Good, it's all here, 50 keys of the Purest Peruvian Flake Yayo, nice work Danny...
Danny Dealer: Thanks Boss, oh and fyi, Denny is bringing by those Uzi's you w--
Donny Dealer: Danny! What the flake is that?! I told you no lookouts! Do you have any idea what the penalty is for maintaining a lookout in this state?? (Shoots Danny) Idiot...
to prevent, impede, delay or provide warning of the entry into a structure or any part of a structure by law enforcement officers.
Funny cameras are not mentioned explicitly, but I agree that even though the first IP camera was only a gleam in Martin Gren's eye at the time this was enacted, that the courts would certainly apply the law now to security cameras in general.
Yes, running away is illegal. It's "resisting arrest- flight alleged".
I'm pretty sure lying to the police is illegal, too, but I can't find a citation.
TL;DR New Jersey is weird.
Yes, steel doors are illegal, running away is illegal... lying to the police is illegal... New Jersey is weird.
And, yet, people wonder why the best and the brightest criminals are literally fleeing the 'Garden State' for greener pastures, leaving behind only a small community of 'honest criminals' and a few of Governor Christie's aides, who have residency requirements...
...who knowingly flees or attempts to elude any police or law enforcement officer after having received any signal from such officer...
Sorry, didn't have time to check out your link yesterday. Anyway, like the lying thing below, running away can certainly be illegal. But I'm talking about your basic Crime 101 stuff, like lookouts, like we were talking about.
Normally when you go thru the added trouble and expense of commisioning a lookout station and staffing it properly with trained lookouts, you intend to use the warning as time to reflect upon which of the 3 Fs Fight, Flee, or Fib is prudent to employ. If and when you have steadied your keel upon fleeing, experience has shown that is best not to wait for any signal from the officer regarding your impending apprehension. Rather a prompt and accelerated retreat or relocation is in order, via the manner deemed most efficacious to your situation. Often (in smaller crime rings) this decision will be made on-the-spot by the lookout himself, often with an impromptu declaration of 'Let's get the F*k out of here!'. This I don't think is illegal, per se.
Still if I were of a criminal persuasion, I would take a good look at nearby Delaware's more accomodating climate, in addition to their laws of syndication and the resultant tax benefits.
Ari- Care to name which town it was? I do a lot of work in Northern NJ.
-Mike
Lakewood, New Jersey, in Ocean County.
Lying = making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) (for example Martha Stewart was convicted under this law).
Nice find, Horace! Although I was just going for a laugh, humor usually comes from truth. And here's the truth about lying:
Yes, certainly some forms of lying are illegal, statements under oath, for instance being one of the more clearcut examples. But surely you see that in the context of my intended humorous exaggeration, i.e. watching and fleeing being illegal, that I would most likely be referring to the simple denial of guilt when questioned by authorities, (a situation that even the most junior criminal would have formerly avoided by using the time-tested combo of look-out & run-away.)
This is not normally considered actionable, at least by the Feds:
The circumstance often arises in which a false statement is made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent. The issue is whether such a statement is within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. It is the Department's policy not to charge a § 1001 violation in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government.
What crimes aren't lied about? Besides those involving wackos or civil disobedience, most every criminal lies. So they kind of build a simple denial penalty into the grand total, instead of breaking out the line-item detail, if you will.
When's the last time you heard of someone charged with one count of murder and one count of saying he didn't do it? If that sounds funny at all, then that's all I was after...
Prosecutors do not like to go to trial - unlike what you may have gleaned from Perry Mason or Matlock.
By adding 14 BS 'crimes' to the charge sheet, the prosecutor is front-loading... they never plan on prosecuting those things - they just use them to get the bad dude to cop to the one charge they actually want to convict him of - primarily to avoid the cost of trial.
So to get the dude to cop to the sale of controlled substance rap, they 'drop' conspiracy to sell controlled substance, using a vehicle to transport controlled substance, possession with intent to sell controlled substance, unlicensed possession of controlled substance, smelling like a controlled substance, etc...
they just use them to get the bad dude to cop to the one charge they actually want to convict him of - primarily to avoid the cost of trial
That's quite generous of you, since the cynic would point out another factor weighing heavily upon the prosecuter's decision to 'plea' a case; his conviction rate. Which fortunately does not include dropped charges in its calculation and so little (except justice) is to be gained by going to trial and risk losing percentage points.
Prosecutors do not like to go to trial - unlike what you may have gleaned from Perry Mason or Matlock.
True, "Perry Matlock" did present a skewed look at jurisprudence, which unfortunately may have formed the bulk of many americans legal education. Though the average 'gleaner' may have thought the prosecutor's actions to be overzealous, (because he was always portrayed stridently accusing the innocent), a more refined view reveals a dutiful and principled prosecutor willing to seek justice even when this meant near certain public and professional humiliation for the hundreth time! Remember, most every Perry case had the same M.O.: defendant publicly declares violence against victim, a surplus of direct and circumstantial evidence is found against defendant, little or nothing exculpatory is introduced ...until the first gavel comes down. Wouldn't you want your DA to be relentless in such cases? Add in the fact that Perry never really defended anyone directly, he (as the true prosecutor) only convinced us that some else was guilty. Finally, Perry's defendants hardly ever actually made it to trial (tho matlock did), most episodes were resolved in pre-trial hearings, and so the prosecutor's position was just one of arguing that the defendant should be bound for trial.
Newest Discussions
| Discussion | Posts | Latest |
|---|---|---|
|
Started by
Undisclosed End User #1
|
3
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #2 |
|
Started by
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
|
21
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #7 |
|
Started by
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
|
8
|
about 1 hour by Undisclosed Distributor #5 |
|
Started by
John Honovich
|
32
|
about 2 hours by Anton Miller |
|
Started by
Undisclosed End User #1
|
7
|
9 minutes by Sean Nelson |