Seems Google failed me. Due to slight variances in the search terms I used to find the anti-cellphone usage while driving law I failed to come across an exception for particular authorities. I had found the press release which referred to N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3. The law linked on the site I referred to in the original post, which amended rather then added to the statutes, did not include the following section:

39:4-97.4 Inapplicability of act to certain officials.

2.The prohibitions set forth in this act shall not be applicable to any of the following persons while in the actual performance of their official duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a paid, part-paid, or volunteer fire department or company; or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle.

I’ve yet to track down where and when this exception was added or if it was part of the existing law and was kept to apply to the newly added/amended text.

The officer who I was in contact with last wrote me this:

Hello,

Thank you for your last response and I now understand your concern regarding NJS 39:4-97.3 (Use of handheld devices while operating a motor vehicle). I also appreciate the fact that your wish is not to punish the officer, but rather to question the overall reason and validity for the statute itself. In spite of the fact that there is a statute regarding the use of hand held devices by law enforcement personnel, this agency does in fact have an in-house policy that prohibits officers from using cell phones while operating their patrol vehicles, unless there is an emergent situation that warrants the use of the device. Based upon your request, this matter will be investigated and most likely be resolved with the officer being counseled in regards to this allegation.

For your convenience, I have cited the above mentioned statute:

NJS 39:4-97.4 (Inapplicability of act to certain officials).
The prohibitions set forth in this act shall not be applicable to any of the following persons while in the actual performance of their duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a paid, part-paid, or volunteer fire department or company; or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle.

As we all know, laws and statutes are always subject to individual legal interpretation. For example, this particular statute refers to “while in the actual performance of their duties”. Could it be that simply patrolling the borough of Fort Lee may be considered an actual performance of their duties? Perhaps it could, depending upon one individual’s interpretation.

At this time, I would again like to thank you for your leniency towards the officer. Unlike yourself, there are many people who are on a mission to attack our officer’s to the fullest extent for minor infractions such as this one, forgetting that the very same officer would bravely respond to their aid when they are faced with a life or death situation of their own.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me any time.

I hadn’t mentioned in the email chain what I wrote at the end of the original post so he must have seen it there. I’m glad to see this officer is, or at least appears to be, OK with my public response to this matter as those who are regulars would know not all at the FLPD have been pleased with my posts regarding my problems in obtaining handgun purchasing permits.

Regarding NJS 39:4-97.4, I have to take exception with it especially given the reasons for the prohibition. The primary reason is safety. One poster used in the campaign to raise awareness of the law reads: “Put the phone down. No conversation is worth a ticket or your life.” As I’ve mentioned I’m against such prohibitions due to the nature of the act. The use of a cell phone while driving is not an aggressive act. Being distracted while operating a motor vehicle is not in and of itself an infringement on another’s rights. Driving recklessly is what threatens other driver’s safety and deserves some level of attention. The cause for such actions are, at least on the surface, of little relevance. For arguments sake lets accept the claim that hand-held cell phone usage is more distracting and therefore more dangerous to allow then hands free usage or changing the radio station or listening to often infuriating political talk radio. Accepting that theory, I would say that if there is anyone who I’d rather not have distracted while on the road it would be “the following persons while in the actual performance of their duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a paid, part-paid, or volunteer fire department or company; or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle.” All those listed should at all times be focusing on their respective job. Their jobs require not only that they pay attention to the road and the surroundings, which can be difficult enough especially in a densely populated area, but also communicating with some dispatcher and particularly for law enforcement officers watching for criminal activity. Anyone who has ever had something catch their eye as they drive through town or caught themselves sightseeing while driving know how dangerous it can be when you take your eyes and mind off the vehicles and pedestrians around you. A patrolling officer’s job is practically to drive around and do just that. Adding another distraction, especially one that has been said to degrade driving ability to that similar to being drunk, is not in line with the stated intentions of the law.

The officer points out, somewhat obviously, that these laws are up for interpretation. Does “actual performance of their duties” include patrol? I believe it absolutely is performance of their duties. What the law may imply and/or should say is “this act shall not be applicable to any of the following persons in and for the actual performance of their duties.” I would hope the exception did not intend to allow those listed to just sit on the phone and chat it up with a friend or loved one or check the balance of their checking account. Given the ambiguity (and arguable contradiction) of the law and the increased distraction it can cause I’m fine with and glad there is an in-house restriction. It unfortunately does not bring the FLPD officers and the general driver to equal treatment. The officer in this case will simply get a talking to yet had the actions and cars been reversed I’d probably be in possession of a $100 to $250 ticket and the choice of payment or bringing it to court with all the possible unpleasant outcomes regarding them. I can hope that the FLPD realize this difference and uses discretion when considering utilizing the authority granted to them by NJS 39:4-97.3. Even better I think would be that in addition to reserving such power for individuals who actually endanger others, institute an unofficial policy that recommends any officer caught breaking in-house rules or State or local statutes which threatened no one and caused no harm to donate what would be the fine for the regular driver to a local private charity.

And in response to the final paragraph. Many, including some libertarians, are extremely critical of police. Like with many aspects of life the good or neutral or expected are glossed over and the negatives are often exaggerated. And while it is important to acknowledge when something is done right it is more important to criticize when something is done wrong. The good acts do not negate the bad ones nor vise-versa. When an officer acts in defense of another’s person or property they have acted due to contractual obligations with regard to their job or for other personal motivations but they are not obligated to do so in that there is no legitimate reason to force him/her to perform such acts. They are in the right should they act or not act. If they act they are acting on the behalf of the victim, hopefully with their consent, against the aggressor and if they do not act they have obviously not initiated any force, fraud, theft or the threat of. However, if the officer is enforcing a statute which punishes or prohibits another individual’s actions which in themselves did not cause harm to another or their property the officer has become the aggressor. So just as I don’t want police to enforce laws prohibiting consensual / victimless actions I don’t want officers who themselves perform the victimless action to be aggressed against or punished. What I do want in the least is consistency and accountability. I want to make sure that the public knows of any inconsistencies in the enforcement of laws and that those in supposed positions of authority are aware that there are those of us who are paying attention to such things. To minimize the possibility of the blue code of silence. To minimize and reduce the growing feeling that those who work in the government are in a class above the rest of us.

Update:

I’ve responded to the above email requesting that should the officer find out my identity, due to the fact that some in the FLPD will inevitably read these posts, that I be given his. While I feel that it’s legitimate for that information to be public I offered to keep it private. While I acknowledge I’ve enabled this situation I feel it’s a reasonable request. I also asked if there is a publicly available copy of the FLPD standard operating procedures and polices.

While driving in Fort Lee, New Jersey today I came up behind a Fort Lee Police Department car stopped for a red light at Glen Road and Brinkerhoff Avenue at approximately 10:07am. The car number was 464. The officer was talking on what appeared to be his personal cell phone. After the light turned green the officer started to turn left from Brinkerhoff Ave onto Glen Road. As he turned he moved the phone from one side of his head to the other.

His lights were not on nor were his sirens.

The overview from the State of New Jersey website says:

On November 2, 2007, Governor Jon S. Corzine signed into law a bill which amends N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3 to make the use of a wireless hand-held telephone or electronic communication device by the operator of a moving motor vehicle a primary offense. The complete text of the law amending N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3 can be found at P.L. 2007, c.198.

• It is a primary offense for a motorist to talk or text message with a hand-held wireless telephone or electronic communication device while driving.
• Use of a hand-held wireless telephone or electronic communication device includes, but is not limited to:
  • Talking or listening to another person.
  • Text messaging or sending an electronic message.
• The fine for violating this statute is $100.00; no points will be assessed for the offense.
• The operator of a motor vehicle may use a hand-held wireless telephone while driving with one hand on the steering wheel only if:
  • The operator has reason to fear for his/her life or safety, or believes that a criminal act may be perpetrated against him/herself or another person.
  • The operator is using this device to report to appropriate authorities: a fire; traffic crash; serious road hazard; medical or hazardous material emergency; or another motorist who is driving in a reckless, careless or otherwise unsafe manner or who appears to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• The amended law takes effect on March 1, 2008.
• The Division of Highway Traffic Safety, in partnership with the Motor Vehicle Commission, will conduct a public education campaign beginning in mid-February.

Additional information is linked from the overview site to here.

The State of New Jersey driver manual also clearly states that using a mobile phone while driving is a stoppable offense.

Here is the legislation: 2007c198_law.pdf

I don’t desire the officer of car 464 to be punished. I want for statutues such as this to be removed from the books. In the least I’d like to see police officers to ignore victimless crimes. Driving while on a cellphone is not a real crime. No one was harmed by his actions. There is no victim. If he was threatening other drivers by eradically driving due to being distracted with his phone conversation he should then be approached and cited but being on the phone in and of itself should not be a stoppable or finable offense.

http://www.southbergenite.com/NC/0/1971.html

People driving along Park Avenue near Borough Hall two weeks ago were greeted by a sign held up by the sunroof of a parked car. The sign advertised a protest of the Rutherford Police Department to be held on Sunday, Nov. 8, in Lincoln Park across from the station.

The protest was organized by John Grappone, a lifetime Rutherford resident and current student at Felician College. Grappone says that on Oct. 23 he was verbally abused and threatened by an off-duty officer.

John Grappone’s highly publicized police protest was basically rained out last week. Police cars regularly circled Lincoln Park as about half a dozen people gathered in the gazebo for the protest organized by Grappone, who claims an off-duty Rutherford officer verbally abused him on Oct. 23.

Grappone said he pulled up to the intersection at the corner of Donaldson and Mortimer avenues and stopped his car. In front of him, blocking his way was an on-duty police officer in his vehicle and an off-duty officer talking to him. Grappone says he flashed his high beams to let them know he was trying to pass. The two officers moved out of the way, Grappone drove by and, as he did, he said he heard the off-duty officer yell a threat at him.

A heated verbal dispute between Grappone and the off-duty officer ensued, he said. Finally, the on-duty officer told the other to leave and pulled Grappone over for a traffic stop, said Grappone. Grappone said he went right to the police station to file a complaint against the off-duty officer. At the station, he claims he was told that by filing the report he would be issued a summons for failing to yield at a pedestrian crossing, a ticket that the on-duty officer didn’t issue him at the scene.

The South Bergenite filed an Open Public Records Act request with the department, but was informed that all internal affairs complaints are kept confidential by the decision of the state attorney general. Police Director John Thompson said the final decision, or “disposition,” is public information, but records of the investigation aren’t publicly available and even the officer investigated is kept off limits. He acknowledged that a complaint had been received and that an investigation had begun, but said no further information could be released. Even Grappone wouldn’t be able to get a copy of the report he filed, according to Thompson. The attorney general’s rules also conceal the name of the complainant, which could be a resident but could just as easily be someone else within a police department.

Grappone, who placed his cell phone number in an advertisement placed in this newspaper, said he received numerous calls from people who supported him but who wouldn’t attend the protest. He’s heard similar stories from Felician students and other residents.

“If this didn’t happen to me I wouldn’t be spending money on an ad to organize a protest,” he said. “I want to get it out there that this happened.”

Only about six people ended up showing up for the protest, which got moved to the park’s gazebo because of rain. Nevertheless, police cars regularly made the rounds around the park all the while.

“People are scared to do this,” he said. “They know nothing’s going to happen because of the blue wall of silence.”

There are four different dispositions that result from an internal affairs investigation, according to Thompson. The complaint can be sustained, which means there was evidence to prove it happened; not sustained, which means the investigation failed to yield sufficient evidence to prove or disprove; exonerated, which means the alleged actions did occur but it was determined the officer was justified; or unfounded, which means it was determined they didn’t occur.

According to records obtained by the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s Open Government Task Force, the Rutherford Police Department had 65 internal affairs complaints in 2004 through 2006. The only town in Bergen County with a higher number of total complaints during that time period was Fort Lee, which had 127, though Englewood, Elmwood Park, Fair Lawn and Lodi had comparable numbers in the double digits. Of those 65 complaints, 31 were sustained and resulted in some form of internal discipline. Eight were not sustained, two were exonerated and 15 were unfounded.

Interesting. I happen to live in Fort Lee and recently issued a complaint… though not officially. It’d be interesting to see why they nearly doubled the complaints of second highest. Perhaps due to the George Washington Bridge dumping out into the town? Should be compared to Weekhawken’s complaints. Do the number of complaints scale with the traffic density? Or with the number of official incidents? Or do they have bigger attitudes like the average NYPD officer? My experiences with the FLPD haven’t been the most pleasant. My recent adventures will be posted at a later time but more generally… I’ve received parking tickets for parking where the curb is yellow yet completely unnecessarily so. Street parking is tight enough as it is yet 1.5 or 2 car lengths of curb are technically unusable even though there would be no significant different in ability to view around corners due to a car parked their. Yet I’ve seen just the other day a FLPD officer drive by and ignore a cab driver who was pushing another cab car with his. I’m not saying he should have reacted so long as they were being safe… but if the ideology is to subvert risky situations… a car being pushed around corners by another through town appears far more dangerous then a parked car. Yet let us remember the ease at which a ticket is rendered. They even have a specialized machine to do it for them on thermal paper. Great revenue stream. Why tax when you can use thuggery? At least it’s not as bad as Michigan. I think.

After 10 months I’ve finally been issued hand gun purchaser permits. I submitted the paperwork on February 5th.  Generally they are supposed to issue them within a month or so. What was the delay?

1. They sat on my application. After a month or two I called the Fort Lee Police Department as to the status of the application. Two letters were to be sent out to people who need to respond to a few questions and write out why they think I should have a gun. Those letters, as ridiculous as they are, had not been sent. They claimed they had sent them but when they arrived less then a week later their postage date was after the call.
2. The letters arrive to the expected recipients. Both were filled out and returned.  One recipient who responded with something to the effect “Because it’s his 2nd Amendment protected right.” to the “Why” question had their letter rejected. The reason wasn’t acceptable. The letter was sent again but it took longer to arrive then it should have.
3. When the letter was returned nothing was heard back for some time. When contacted requesting the status of the application I was told the other letter never was received. I was told in the last conversation that both had been received. Since the person who they claimed not to have the response from had moved I had to give them an updated address and the letter was resent. It was filled out and returned and I never heard back. Note that I was explicitly told I would be contacted as soon as they received the paperwork.
4. I called them recently and the person in the records department tried to tell me that if I hadn’t been contacted it wasn’t ready. I requested transfer to the officer who handles things and he was unavailable. After leaving a message I waited a few days to hear back. I get the call today and he tells me that it’s ready for pick up.

Good thing I can take my business elsewhere…

I found this out about two weeks about but had forgotten to post about it.

After getting xyz to resubmit a letter of recommendation to the Fort Lee police department so I may get permission to exersize my natural right to self defense which is reinforced in the government calling itself the United States of America’s 2nd Amendment. Two weeks ago I called again after not hearing a word since the letter was sent. I was told that the other person who I had put down had not yet sent back the recommendation letter. I know his is a lie for two reasons. First is that I lived with the person at the time and know they had sent it out months ago. Second, the officer who handles this told me over the phone that he had received the letter when I called in April.

And yet some people wonder why anyone would not go through the system who weren’t criminals. Reminds me of immigration. The general public has no idea how corrupt and inefficient the system is and has no interest in finding out before passing judgement. The government bureaucrats are not there to serve nor protect you. They are there to leech and abuse.

I never updated the blog about my Firearms Permit out of sheer laziness. I wasn’t too busy or distracted–I just wasn’t interested in recapping the story into text form after I talked bile’s ear off about it last Wednesday. If there was a way to do voice posts (idea!), I would have opted in that direction. At any rate, in case there was anyone on the edge of their seat over it, the thrilling conclusion of: You have the right to bear arms. Period.

I left work early last Wednesday and headed over to the Nutley Police Department where I ended up waiting in the “lobby” before I was admitted entry to the Detectives’ Offices upstairs. There was a woman in the lobby with me, pacing and showing 8×11 black and white photos of what looked like a fallen tree to a police officer and dispatcher. She kept saying that she wasn’t able to move her car because of the tree. She spoke in broken English. I couldn’t tell what her first language was. The police officer, a hard-looking older woman, asked her if she called the police when this happened. She said yes, waved the photos back and forth, and impatiently said the cops told her they would eventually get to her but had other things to do that day. At that point, the police officer buzzed me through the main door, and I walked up to the second floor.

I had to ring a bell because the door was locked. An older man opened the door and let me in. I gave him my first name, and he said, “Oh yes, your permit. Just take a seat.” I watched him open the file cabinet and go through some papers. This was the same man that took my prints and chatted with me on the phone the week prior. He came back over after a few minutes to tell me the laminating machine was warming up and that I owed them roughly $70. When I told him I paid in September, he never questioned me and was shocked it had taken this long to get my papers together. He fingerprinted my permit and brought me to the sink, instructed me on the proper way of washing away ink (scrub with liquid soap and only use water when the ink is completely gone; the soap loses its effectiveness when mixed with water). When I finished I walked over to the laminating machine. I asked him for his name, shook his hand and thanked him for being so incredibly helpful and informative every time I called. Dennis gave me that, I’m just doing my job look and smiled. After explaining to me exactly how I should go about purchasing a firearm, we talked about gun laws again and how ineffective most police officers can be about the subject.

He agreed that bile being charged $56 twice for applying in North Arlington and shortly after moving to Fort Lee was garbage. He started telling me a story about how he received an application a while back from a guy that answered “yes” pertaining to him having a record. The explanation? The kid was in the town park after curfew when he was in high school. The same applicant also explained that he had charges brought up on him for assault with a weapon. Dennis said when he saw that, he had to dig up what the charge was. After investigating old records, he discovered that this guy was charged with firing a potato gun with his younger brother 10 years ago. When he brought this information to the Chief of Police, Dennis said he asked if they were really going to get in the way of this person’s right to defend themselves because of a childhood prank? He shook his head and said, “It’s ridiculous.” He never told me if the applicant ever received his permit.

Before I left, he assured me that when I apply for another Purchaser’s Permit, it won’t take that long at all.

The Second Amendment needs more people like Dennis in law enforcement. As much as I was annoyed that it took so long, I’m glad I got a relatively hassle-free experience out of it. And there you have it, another positive police story on the blog. Maybe next time I go back and see Dennis, I’ll ask him if he’s a member of LEAP.