The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | September 2024
Continued from previous page
authority to “[ p ] rescribe the duties and assignments of all subordinates and other personnel .” Therefore , even if under the Reuter case specification of responsibility of officers is required , the requirement is met .
After this discussion , the Appellate Court then shifted the focus of its analysis . The court declared that , based upon the interrelated provisions of N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 , the legislative history of the 1981 amendments to that section , and prior case law , the line of authority reference in the statute refers to the relationship from the chief upward . In other words , it refers to the relationship between the police chief , as the head of the department , and the municipal governing body . The statute requires that an ordinance creating a police department “ 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 .”
If the ordinance provides for a chief of police , that individual “ shall be the head of the police force and … shall be directly responsible to the appropriate authority ” for the operation of the department . The statute then confers on the chief specified authority , including the prescribing of duties and assignments of all subordinates in the department . Finally , the statute provides that “ 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 1981 amendments to the statute are often referred to as “ The Police Chiefs ’ Bill of Rights .” Indeed , the Supreme Court has stated :
In 1981 the Legislature amended N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 to redefine the relationship between a municipal govern ing body and the chief of police . The amendment states that municipalities by ordinance shall ‘ provide for a line of authority relating to the police function … By granting chiefs of police express statutory authority , the statute sought to avoid undue interference by a governing body into the operation of the police force . [ Falcone v . De Furia , 103 N . J . 219 , 221-22 ( 1986 ).]
The court then noted that in her concurring and dissenting opinion in Reuter , Justice LeVecchia outlined the legislative history of the 1981 amendments to N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 . The Loigman court recounted that “ this history demonstrates that the purpose of the amendments was to prevent meddling by elected officials in the day-to-day operations of local police departments .” This was accomplished by mandating the establishment by ordinance of a “ line of authority ” between the chief of police and a designated appropriate authority acting on behalf of the civilian government . The court stated that the “ legislative history confirms that , consistent with the Court ’ s earlier comments in Falcone , the line of authority provision in N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 referred to the relationship between the chief of police and the municipal governing body to prevent interference by elected officials in police department operations .”
In conclusion , the court state that “ line of authority ” provision in N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 does not require the inclusion in a police ordinance of provisions dealing with the internal structure of the department from the chief down through the ranks . This conclusion and holding on this basis is not at variance with the holding in Reuter that a police ordinance must create positions within the police department by ordinance and specify the maximum number of positions within each rank . The court also saw no impropriety in the provision implemented by the Middletown Ordinance allowing for the appointment of not more than one lieutenant or sergeant into a slot currently held by and individual serving in that rank who is out on terminal leave pending resignation or authorizing these limited additional positions for limited time frames under carefully circumscribed conditions was met .”
In the end , the Appellate Court overturned the lower court ’ s order , and upheld the validity of the ordinance adopted by Middletown Township .
7