Bill > S1651

Introduced Session

This bill would provide for a new type of municipal court, to be known as a "county-municipal court." It would have some similarities in its operation to joint municipal courts that may be established by two or more municipalities pursuant to subsection b. of N.J.S.2B:12-1, but would be established by a county governing body, and the municipalities in that county would agree, by ordinance, to have violations occurring within their municipal boundaries heard in the new court. Any county could establish and administer a county-municipal court. The new court would be an inferior court of limited jurisdiction, adjudicating all matters for which a municipal court currently has jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.2B:12-17 et seq., such as violations of county and municipal ordinances, and motor vehicle and traffic laws, as well as handle any criminal pretrial release and pretrial detention hearings for eligible defendants conducted pursuant to the criminal justice reform that took effect January 1, 2017 (see P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-15 et al.)) as referred by the Assignment Judge for the vicinage pursuant to the Rules of Court. As to the court's creation, a county would establish its new court by ordinance, and that ordinance would provide an initial date on which the court would begin hearing matters. The county would be responsible for providing one or more suitable courtrooms, chambers, offices, equipment and supplies for the county-municipal court in the same county courthouse utilized by the Superior Court in that county. The county could either provide for an administrator and other necessary employees for the county-municipal court and for their compensation or permit, by agreement with the Administrative Office of the Courts, for the court's operation by employees and staff of the Superior Court located in the same courthouse. All fees, fines, charges, and costs collected by the county-municipal court would be the same as currently provided by law for municipal courts. Each municipality within a county that establishes a county-municipal court would have to agree, by ordinance enacted and implemented no later than two years next following the date on which the new court would initially begin hearing matters, to have violations occurring within its municipal boundaries heard in the new court. The municipality would not be responsible for any administrative costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the new court. However, if a municipality failed to agree within the two-year period to have violations heard by the new court, the Assignment Judge of the vicinage for the county would order that any violations occurring in the non-compliant municipality be heard in the new court, and the municipality would be responsible for all administrative costs specified in the judge's order until such time as it agreed to have violations heard by that court. If a municipality had previously established a municipal court, the municipality would, in the ordinance joining with the county-municipal court, specify a date on which the previously established municipal court will be abolished and thereafter all violations heard in the new court. The date set forth in the ordinance could be no more than one year next following the date on which the ordinance is enacted. It would not be necessary for all of the county's municipalities to coordinate their court's abolishment and joining with the new county-municipal court to be the same date, as the new court could begin hearing matters even though less than all of the municipalities of the county had abolished their municipal courts and begun having cases heard in the new court. On the date established by a municipality in its ordinance for abolishing its previously established court and initially having violations heard in the new court: (1) all causes and proceeding of whatever character pending in the municipal court would be transferred, along with the files for those causes and proceedings, to the county-municipal court; and (2) all the functions, powers, and duties conferred on the municipal court abolished by the ordinance, to the extent not inconsistent with the functions, powers, and duties of the county-municipal court, would be transferred to and could be exercised by the county-municipal court. All files for causes and proceedings not transferred to the new court, and all books, papers, records, and documents, along with all office equipment, furnishing, and other property of the municipal court abolished by the ordinance would be disposed of by the municipality in a manner set forth in that abolishing ordinance, or one or more subsequent ordinances. The nomination and appointment of judges of a county-municipal court, being a court with jurisdiction extending to more than one municipality, would be done by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate as required by the State Constitution under Article VI, Section VI, paragraph 1. Depending upon the type of county government involved in the establishment of the new court, either the county executive or the county governing body would be authorized to submit names of judicial candidates to the Governor for consideration as a potential nominee. Each judge of a county-municipal court would serve for a fixed term of five years. A judge could serve no more than three consecutive five-year terms. If a judge was appointed to complete the remainder of an unexpired term, that judge could serve no more than three additional, consecutive five-year terms. The county prosecutor, not municipal prosecutors, would represent the State, county, or municipality in the prosecution of all offenses and proceedings within the jurisdiction of a county-municipal court. Since the new county-municipal court would hear violations of motor vehicle and traffic laws, the bill would permit an establishing county to use the State's Automated Traffic System that is now used by existing municipal courts to exchange information and assist with court financial accounting, case processing, statistical reporting services, and other components of automated municipal court operations. Additionally, as to all costs, fines, fees and forfeitures of bail imposed by a county-municipal court, these would generally be paid to the county treasury of the county where the court is located, to assist in defraying the county's cost of operating the court. Concerning the bill's overall intent to provide counties the option of establishing county-municipal courts, and the resulting shift of municipal court operations to those counties that establish such courts, it is the opinion of the sponsor that the counties will be able to readily leverage the revenue streams from fines, fees, and other sources generated by the municipal courts being abolished within the counties. Those existing revenue streams, aggregated at the county level, will provide a cost-neutral funding shift to the county for county-municipal court operations. The sponsor further believes that permitting each county-municipal court to assist in handling criminal pretrial release and pretrial detention hearings for eligible defendants when assigned by the Assignment Judge for the vicinage within which a county-municipal court is located will assist the Superior Court, on an as needed basis, with the implementation of the major criminal justice reforms that took effect January 1, 2017.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Declan O'Scanlon (R)*, 

Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee (on 01/09/2024)

Official Document