New Jersey’s Law on Theft from Cargo Carriers

New Jersey has a specific law dealing with theft from cargo carriers, found in Section 2C:20-2.6 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice. This law covers crimes involving the theft of property from cargo carriers like trucks, trains, planes, and ships. The law outlines the degrees of crimes and penalties for different theft offenses involving cargo carriers in New Jersey.

Overview of the Law

Section 2C:20-2.6 was enacted to address the unique issues surrounding cargo theft, which differs from other types of theft. Cargo by its nature is often high-value and transient, moving through the state rapidly via interstate commerce. The law recognizes the need for increased penalties due to the sophistication and organization frequently involved in cargo theft operations.

The statute establishes cargo theft as a crime, ranging from a third-degree offense to a first-degree offense, depending on the value of property stolen and other factors. Harsher penalties apply to those who lead cargo theft networks. The law also specifically prohibits maintaining or operating any facility used for storing or reselling stolen cargo, making this a third-degree crime in New Jersey.

Degrees of Crimes and Penalties

The degree of the crime and applicable sentences under 2C:20-2.6 depend on the value of the stolen property:

• Theft of cargo valued at $500 or less is a disorderly persons offense. This can carry up to 6 months in jail.
• Theft of cargo valued between $500 and $75,000 is a third-degree crime. This can carry 3-5 years in prison.
• Theft of cargo valued between $75,000 and $500,000 is a second-degree crime. This can carry 5-10 years in prison.
• Theft of cargo valued over $500,000 is a first-degree crime. This can carry 10-20 years in prison.

First-degree charges may apply in cases of theft from cargo carriers involving firearms, explosives, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons – regardless of value.

Penalties for Fencing Stolen Cargo

Under 2C:20-2.6, knowingly maintaining or operating any premises, place or facility used for the storage or resale of stolen cargo is a third-degree crime. This applies to “fencing” operations where people or businesses knowingly store, repackage or sell goods stolen from cargo carriers.

Enhanced Penalties for Cargo Theft Network Leaders

Harsher penalties apply to those who lead schemes or courses of conduct involving the theft of cargo. This includes:

• Leader of a theft network involving stolen property worth $75,000-$500,000 faces first-degree charges (10-20 years).
• Leader of a theft network involving stolen property exceeding $500,000 faces first-degree charges (20-30 years).

Defenses

Those charged under 2C:20-2.6 may raise various defenses to fight the charges:

• Lack of criminal intent – if the person did not knowingly or purposefully commit theft from a cargo carrier.
• Duress – if the person acted under threat of harm. However, this applies only to disorderly persons or third-degree crimes.
• Entrapment – if the person was induced by law enforcement to commit the crime.
• Intoxication – if the person was too impaired to form criminal intent.
• Mistake of fact – if the person had a reasonable mistaken belief about the cargo, e.g. that it was abandoned or they had permission to take it.

Implications and Analysis

The passage of 2C:20-2.6 provided law enforcement and prosecutors with specific tools to combat cargo theft rings operating in New Jersey. The law recognizes the sophistication and interstate nature of many cargo theft schemes.

However, defense lawyers have argued the enhanced penalties could lead to disproportionate sentences, and that sentencing ranges should be left to judicial discretion. The grading of offenses based on dollar values has also been criticized as arbitrary.

Overall, 2C:20-2.6 represents a legislative attempt to address the harms of cargo theft and break up criminal networks profiting from this activity. But as with any criminal statute, there are debates around proper sentencing and use of prosecutorial discretion. The law will likely continue evolving as courts interpret and apply it.