The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | September 2024
Continued from previous page trial court concluded that the ordinance authorized only nine lieutenant positions and , including the individual on terminal leave , there were currently ten lieutenants in the department .
To remedy the situation , in August 2006 , Middletown adopted another amendatory ordinance , which referenced in its preamble the litigation and the order of the trial court . The ordinance added a section authorizing the permanent appointment of an officer to replace not more than one sergeant or one lieutenant no longer on active service who is on terminal leave pending resignation or retirement .
The Plaintiff then expanded his Reuter argument . His expanded contention was broadened to allege that Middletown ’ s ordinance was noncompliant with Reuter requirements because it “ does not delineate a table of organization or the duties of each position listed .” The trial court ultimately agreed , based upon comments in this court ’ s Reuter decision stating that an ordinance creating a police department “ must establish the ‘ line of authority ,’ i . e ., organizational chart , and , when it is determined such positions are necessary , provide the appointment of a Chief and other department personnel . The ordinance must also establish the terms of office , compensation , and responsibility .” The “ line of authority ” reference is from the enabling statute , N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 , which provides in relevant part :
The governing body of any municipality , by ordinance , may create and establish , as an executive and enforcement function of municipal government , a police force , whether as a department or as a division , bureau or other agency thereof , and provide for the maintenance , regulation and control thereof . Any such ordinance shall , in a manner consistent with the form of government adopted by the municipality and with general law , provide for a line of authority relating to the police function and for the adoption and promulgation by the appropriate authority of rules and regulations for the government of the force and for the discipline of its members . The ordinance may provide for the appointment of a chief of police and such members , officers and personnel as shall be deemed necessary , the determination of their terms of office , the fixing of their compensation and the prescription of their powers , functions and duties , all as the governing body shall deem necessary for the effective government of the force . Any such ordinance , or rules and regulations , shall provide that the chief of police , if such a position is established , shall be the head of the police force and that he shall be directly responsible to the appropriate authority for the efficiency and routine day to day operations thereof , and that he shall , pursuant to policies established by the appropriate authority :
a . |
Administer and enforce rules and regulations …; |
b . |
Have , exercise , and discharge the functions , powers and duties of the force ; |
c . |
Prescribe the duties and assignments of all subordinates and other personnel ; |
d . |
Delegate such of his authority as he may deem necessary …; and |
e . |
Report at least monthly to the appropriate authority … |
As used in this section , “ appropriate authority ” means the mayor , manager , or such other appropriate executive or |
administration officer …. |
Except as provided herein , the municipal governing body and individual members thereof shall act in all matters relating to the police function in the municipality as a body , or through the appropriate authority if other than the governing body .
The Middletown ordinance designated the Township Administrator as the “ appropriate authority ” pursuant to N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 .
Middletown argued on appeal that the trial court read Reuter too broadly in invalidating its ordinance because it did not include an organizational chart and specific duties for officers within each rank . The Appellate Court agreed with Middletown . The Supreme Court had affirmed in Reuter that an ordinance is required . When the Court said in Reuter that a police ordinance must include an “ organizational chart ,” they equated the “ line of authority ” required by N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 to an “ organizational chart ,” meaning a listing by rank and the number within each rank of the authorized members of the department , not a literal chart . In this case , the court found the Middletown ordinance fully compliant with this requirement .
The plaintiff in the Loigman case also challenged the Middletown ordinance because of the absence of the definitions of the responsibilities or duties of officers within each rank . The court entered into an important discussion of this topic . The decision noted that , with respect to the challenged component , the Middletown ordinance set forth in significant detail the responsibility of officers assigned to the various divisions established within the department . And , pursuant to N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118c ( and the cognate provision of the Middletown ordinance ), the Chief of Police possesses the
6