By Nathan Mayberg
TRENTON — The next time you are stopped by a police officer in New Jersey, a video camera may be rolling.
A bill passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Chris Christie last month will mandate that all new police vehicles carry a video recording device or that a camera is attached to their uniform or belt.
Several local departments already utilize cameras on their vehicles.
In Vernon, 10 of the department's cars have cameras, Lt. Brian Jernick said. Jernick said the department has been using them on the cars for more than a year.
"In most situations, it helps law enforcement," Jernick said. "We're able to show, if we need to, what actually happened at a scene."
Jernick said cameras have been "helpful to us, especially in DWI cases."
There have been cases where officers were accused of misconduct and the videotape was able to prove that the officers acted properly, he said.
The law was introduced by Assemblyman Paul Moriarty (D-Washington Township), whose arrest on DWI charges led him to push for the legislation. Moriarty fought the charge, claiming he was not intoxicated and had been unfairly targeted for arrest. A videotape of the arrest from the police car's camera exonerated him.
The legislation will only require the cameras on newly purchased or leased vehicles that are used primarily for traffic stops, Moriarty said.
Moriarty said he would like to have the cameras used for most vehicles and police activities but said this was the first part in "baby steps" to ensure there is videotaped documentation of arrests and police activity.
The law hasn't yet gone into effect. The state Attorney General's Office must establish the guidelines for how the cameras will be used by departments. Moriarty expects to be meeting with the Attorney General's Office to set up the rules.
There will be a public comment period afterwards.
Moriarty said the legislature can always pass an additional bill in the future to better clarify how the video cameras can be used.
Among the issues that need to be sorted out, are rules relating to privacy, record retention and public access to the tapes. Moriarty believes certain videos of domestic violence incidents or confidential reports to police should be protected from public view.
Moriarty said he is hearing positive feedback from police officers and municipal leaders who say the videotapes help.
"They say it saves them money," he said.
The video evidence can reduce the amount of overtime assigned to officers who have to appear in court.
"There are less contested cases," he said. "There are less claims of impropriety... less lawsuits."
West Milford Police Department Chief Timothy Storbeck said his department has been utilizing cameras on its vehicles for at least nine years.
“Our patrol vehicles all have cameras,” he said.
The cameras used to record with VHS tapes, he said, but now use digital recordings which are saved onto a memory card and automatically upload to the department’s server when the car pulls into the department’s parking lot.
Storbeck, who has been with the department for 23 years, said the cameras are “another resource that (officers) have at their availability.”
Storbeck said cameras can be helpful in documenting incidents, including DWI cases. They can help with on-scene interviews, he added.
Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-Morris Plains), whose district includes West Milford, said he voted against the legislation because it was "an unfunded mandate." Webber said cameras are a good idea if a town can afford them.
"The state has no way to pay for it. I don't want the taxpayers to pay for it," Webber said.
A new $25 surcharge on DWI offenses is supposed to help pay for part of the costs.
Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce (R-Parsippany), who also represents West Milford, said she didn't support the legislation for the same reasons.
Asking towns to fund the cost of the equipment by a new DWI surcharge is not a good funding source, she said.
The expense to Andover Township was approximately $5,300 per camera on five vehicles or approximately $26,500, $700 for an antenna on each vehicle, $11,250 for a digtal server and $3,000 for installation, Taglialatela said
Moriarty was driving in his hometown of Washington Township in 2012 when he was pulled over by a town police officer and accused of cutting off the police officer and driving while under the influence. Moriarty refused a breathalyzer test which carries its own penalty in New Jersey unless the defendant can show the officer didn't have probable cause for the test or stop. The video showed that the officer had been waiting in the median before seeing Moriarty's car pass by in the right lane. Moriarty's car never left the right lane in the video.
As an assemblyman, Moriarty has legislative license plates. Moriarty was the former mayor of Washington Township and had left office after the officer had been fired. Moriarty said he doesn't know why he was targeted though he knew the officer had been fired from the police department for allegedly lying in an internal affairs probe, but was ultimately reinstated into the department. The officer has since been charged with 14 criminal counts in relation to his arrest of Moriarty.
"I certainly came to understand how important video cameras can be. If there hadn't been a video camera in the police car that stopped me, I wouldn't be in the legislature now," Moriarty said. "There is no reason police shouldn't have this as part of their arsenal."
Most officers are good, Moriarty said.
"Like any profession, there are bad actors," he said.
According to the legislation and information from the Administrative Office of the Courts, there were more than 69,000 convictions for driving under the influence in New Jersey between 2010 and 2012.
The legislation originally passed the state legislature in 2013 but wasn't signed by Christie. The law passed again in June and was signed by Christie in September. A message left with Christie’s press office was not returned.
Reporter Nathan Mayberg can be reached at comm.reporter@strausnews.com or by calling 845-469-9000 ext. 359.