Bill > A4170

Introduced Session

This bill would require that persons convicted of certain offenses forfeit their public office, position or employment. These persons would also be permanently barred from holding public office, position or employment in the future. Under current law, set out in N.J.S.2C:51-2, a person must forfeit his public office, position or employment and be barred from holding any future office or position of honor, trust or profit under this State or any of its administrative or political subdivisions if, among other grounds, the person is convicted of an offense involving or touching on the office, position or employment. The statute provides that the phrase "involving or touching on his public office, position or employment" means that "the offense was related directly to the person's performance in, or circumstances flowing from, the specific public office, position or employment held by the person." This definition was added to the statute by P.L.2007, c.49, which increased the penalties for public corruption crimes. As noted in that bill statement, the definition was in accordance with a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court, McCann v. Clerk of the City of Jersey City, 167 N.J. 311 (2001), that interpreted the "involving or touching" language in N.J.S.2C:51-2. However, it is the view of the sponsor that the definition in McCann and in the 2007 enactment is not expansive enough and does not encompass certain situations where public employees' abuse of the public trust should warrant their dismissal from employment. For example, in State v. Hupka, 203 N.J. 222 (2010), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that forfeiture of office and disqualification from future public employment were not warranted in a case where a sheriff's officer, who also worked part-time as a police officer, pled guilty to criminal sexual contact, a crime of the fourth degree. He had originally been indicted for aggravated sexual assault, a crime of the first degree, and sexual assault, a crime of the second degree, after a female friend alleged that he had sexually assaulted her in her apartment. (A crime of the fourth degree is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to 18 months or a fine of up to $10,000, or both; a crime of the second degree, by a term of five to 10 years or a fine of up to $150,000, or both; and a crime of the first degree, by a term of 10 to 20 years or a fine of up to $200,000 or both.) In a 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Hupka's conviction was not sufficiently related to his position as a law enforcement officer to trigger the forfeiture and disqualification provisions of the statute, because he was off-duty at the time of the incident, in a private home with a person that he knew. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Rabner wrote that, in his view, Mr. Hupka's actions did warrant forfeiture and disqualification, as they directly related to his performance as a law enforcement official. The Chief Justice wrote that the decision in an older Supreme Court case, Moore v. Youth Correctional Institute, 119 N.J. 256 (1990), set out the appropriate standards for review. In that decision, the court held that in determining whether an offense involves and touches on employment, "there is a need to assess the gravity of the crime as revealed by its nature, its context, and the identity of the victim ... [and] ... to assess the qualifications required of the employee's public employment." This bill would add the language in Moore to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:51-2. Under the bill, the "involving or touching on his public office, position or employment" definition would include the following new language: "In determining whether the offense was so related, the court shall assess the gravity of the offense as revealed by its nature, its context, and the identity of the victim, and shall assess the qualifications required of the specific public office, position or employment." In addition, the bill specifies that the court may make a determination that an offense was related directly to the person's performance in, or circumstances flowing from, the specific public office, position or employment held by the person notwithstanding the fact that the offense did not take place during employment hours or on employment grounds.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Carol Murphy (D)*, 

Introduced, Referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee (on 02/19/2026)

Official Document