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.

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.

• 9:00AM Watched a Libertarian debate featuring: Alden Link, Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Wayne Allyn Root, and Michael Jingozian. It was moderated by Gardner Goldsmith and former Libertarian presidential candidate Don Gorman. Part 1, Part 2. Link was less enthusiastic than Fred Thompson. He admitted that the only reason for his candidacy was to raise awareness for and push nuclear power. Imperato had a problem understanding that if you place your face so close to the mic that you could kiss it it doesn’t sound good. He’s not even a libertarian. He’s anti non-American. He wants to place fees on everyone else who comes in contact with us from naturalization to exports. Phillies had the most consistent LP platform. He also appears to be the most educated on the issues in general and is very realistic and frank about what he would and could do as president. He also fully admits that’s an incredibly unlikely situation and he’s more interested in making the LP a legit party in the eyes of the general public. Root is a libertarian Republican really but more Republican than libertarian unlike Ron Paul. He’s really got the attitude and money experience that would be nice to see in a LP candidate but his platform isn’t nearly as good as Phillies’. He does have an interesting plan on growing the party which I’d like to see him do regardless of whether he wins the LP candidacy. Jingozian wasn’t very motivated. I didn’t feel that he was putting all that much effort into his candidacy and came across as ignorant often on topics. There were people video recording this but at the time of posting I’ve been unable to find it online.
• 12:00PM Closing Ceremony. Bob Schultz introduces John McManus of the John Birch Society. He have the speech called What About the Constitution? At around 1:10PM Ron Paul was introduced. He brought Barry Goldwater Jr. with him. The video below isn’t complete but it’s a decent speech.
• After Paul had left the room people started to leave and xyz and myself decided to head home. We went around to say goodbye to our new acquaintances. Gardner Goldsmith, Mark Edge, etc. Unfortunately some people were busy dealing with Paul so Chris Lawless, Glen Jacobs and a few others were missed. I met some Objectivists during the forum, both who hate and like Paul, who invited me to the Atlas Society’s Summer Seminar. It’s 2 weeks after PorcFest which I’m more interested in attending so I it’s not likely I’ll attend (that and it’s in Oregon and I’m not in agreement with some of the major tenets of Objectivism as far as I currently understand them).
• We got in the car, went to exit the parking deck and there was a large group of Paul supporters blocking the exit. Seems Dr. Paul was just leaving. We crept through the back of the crowd and headed home. Took about 4 hours.

http://www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum/

• It’s cold. A very very dry 7°F. Snow plowed 4-5 feet high on some roads.
• Ran into Chris from NH again. Same guy xyz and I ran into in Manchester during the Ron Paul Family Walk and at the Ron Paul Philadelphia rally. I hadn’t realized that he was part of those running the Liberty Forum. It’s great to see people so dedicated.
• Got to meet Ian Bernard and Mark Edgington of Free Talk Live, FreeKeene.com and Keene Weekly News. Nice to meet those who you donate money to even if only briefly while they grabbed some finger food before they went on to do their show. I really enjoy their show… but they really need a tech guy on the show. If I move up to NH maybe I could participate in the show.
• Chatted with George Phillies, Libertarian candidate for POTUS for 10+ minutes. A bit awkward given I was wearing my Ron Paul Revolution T-Shirt and xyz had a Ron Paul 2008 pin on her coat. We talked about the 2008 race in general, the Libertarian candidates in general, how Kubby and Smith are supporting Ron Paul, Unity08 and Bloomberg’s possible run, how to get some of the Ron Paul Revolution’s people and money into the Libertarian Party and all the hubbub on the LP’s planks. We got a photo of xyz and Mr. Phillies.
• Purchased Gardner Goldsmith’s new book Live Free or Die and had it signed. Sakal/CAI has a raffle going for those who bought Gardner’s book for an iPod. We’ll see if I won by Monday.
• Dave Ridley is here putting together another episode of his Ridley Report.
• Also very briefly met Bernard von NotHaus. Didn’t get to talk about anything however.
• It was really a meet and greet type environment tonight. There are about 300 or so currently signed up for the Forum. I’ll be taking notes the next couple days and will report if I continue to have Net access.

http://freestateproject.org/libertyforum

January 3-6, 2008 : Nashua, New Hampshire

The FSP’s Liberty Forum is a convention of liberty loving individuals. Three full days of speakers, food, arguments and fun. Speakers include: Bernard von NotHaus of the Liberty Dollar, Senator John Sununu, Jim Babka of Downsize DC, Peter Christ of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Tom Cryer who’s known as “the man who beat the IRS“, and many others. Word is Ron Paul may be speaking too though nothing has been announced yet. xyz and myself will be there the 4th to the 6th. Just recently they have allowed people to select events individually instead of just the whole event. If you’re planning on going use the promotional code “2008RP” or “2008FTL” to get 10% off. I’d recommend signing up ASAP as the hotel is filling up and if and when Ron Paul’s participation is announced it will likely sell out quickly.

• Register
• Speakers
• Schedule
• Hotel
• Exhibitors