Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

...--";; ( \ September 10, 20081 Volume 2\ No. 17 " ) "Megan's Law" was a compilation of laws that pertained to CSOs (see New Jersey Stat. Ann. ~~2C:7-1 to 2C:7-19, and 2C:43-6.4). Megan's Law required, among other things: registration; notification as to residence In the community by the CSO; and parole supervision, usually for life, of the CSO by the Department of Correctiop.s (DOC) over things such as residence, rehabilitation, and employment. The trial courts in both cases invalidated the Ordinances, finding them preempted by Megan's Law. They also found the Ordinances were in violation of due process, ex post factor and double jeopardy clauses of the New Jersey Constitution. The Townships appealed. Finding the cases presented the same issue, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division consolidated them on appeal. . DECISION: Affirmed. '\ } The court concluded that the Ordinances were preempted by Me- gan's Law and were therefore invalid. Because it decided the appeals on preemption grounds, it did not address the constitutional issues . that were raised and decided by the trial courts. In reaching its conclusion, the court explained that if the New Jer- sey Legislature intended to, under Megan's Law, exclusively regulate the activities of CSOs living in the community, then the Ordinances would be preempted by Megan's Law. In order; to deterlnine wheth- er the Legislature intended preemption, the court looked at five fac- tors: (1) Did the Ordinances conflict with Megan's Law (that is did the Ordinances forbid what the Legislature permitted or permit what the Legislature forbid)? (2) Was Megan's Law intended,. expressly or impliedly, to exclusively regulate the activities of CSOs living in the community? (3) Was the oversight of CSOs living in the conllnunity something that required uniform treatment? (4) Was the statewide scheme implemented by Megan's Law so pervasive or 'comprehensive that it 'precluded the coexistence of municipal regulation? And, (5) Did the Ordinances stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the Legislature? Addressing the first factor, the court found that the Ordinances conflicted with Megan's Law. The court found that the Ordinances conflicted with Megan's Law because: (1) in prohibiting CSOs from residipg in virtually all, or nearly all, of the entire Township, they . interfered with the ability of parole officers to carry out their duty under Megan's Law to.find the most appropriate housing for CSOs with goals of rehabilitation and reintegration into theco1I1munity; (2) they had no termination clause, while Megan's Law relieved CSOs @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 3 . 63