New Jersey Section 2C:33-3.2 – Fines for violation of N.J.S.2C:33-3.

Understanding New Jersey Section 2C:33-3.2 – Fines for Violating N.J.S.2C:33-3

New Jersey Section 2C:33-3.2 sets out the fines for violating N.J.S.2C:33-3, which prohibits causing false public alarms. This section was enacted to allow municipalities and other responding agencies to recoup costs incurred when responding to prank 911 calls or other false public alarms.

Overview of N.J.S.2C:33-3

N.J.S.2C:33-3 makes it a disorderly persons offense if a person “knowingly maintains or keeps a false alarm device,” or “communicates information, knowing it to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt” to kill, injure or intimidate any person or damage property. This covers things like making prank 911 calls about fake emergencies, or pulling a fire alarm as a prank.

The law has several exceptions – it does not apply to fires lit for cooking, heating, recreational or ceremonial purposes, or to police, fire or other public safety officials who use false alarms for tactical drills or tests. There is also an exception for alarms triggered accidentally, by malfunction, or “under circumstances where no threat of personal injury or significant property damage would be reasonably anticipated.”

Fines Under N.J.S.2C:33-3.2

N.J.S.2C:33-3.2 allows courts to impose civil fines on top of any criminal penalties for violating N.J.S.2C:33-3. The fines can be up to $2,000 or the actual costs incurred by police, fire, EMS or other emergency responders.

So for example, if a prank 911 call results in a significant emergency response, the court can order the person who made the call to reimburse the police department, fire department, etc. for their costs related to the false alarm.

The law requires the State to prove the actual costs incurred. It also allows defendants to contest the costs if they believe they are unreasonable.

Purpose of the Law

The main purpose of N.J.S.2C:33-3.2 is to allow municipalities and other agencies to recoup wasted resources responding to prank or accidental false alarms.

Prank 911 calls and false fire alarms can be dangerous by needlessly tying up first responders who may be needed for real emergencies. They also waste taxpayer dollars when police, firefighters and paramedics respond unnecessarily.

This law provides a way for communities to recover some of those costs and also creates a deterrent to filing false alarms. It makes people think twice before pulling a prank that diverts emergency personnel away from where they are really needed.

Constitutional Challenges

Defense attorneys have challenged N.J.S.2C:33-3.2 on constitutional grounds with mixed results.

In State v. Widmaier, the defendant argued the law violates double jeopardy because it imposes civil fines on top of criminal punishment. However, the court rejected this, finding the fines are remedial, not punitive. They reimburse costs rather than punish defendants.

Another argument is that the law violates due process by lacking standards on assessing costs. However, courts have noted the law requires the State to prove the costs and allows defendants to contest them as unreasonable. So there are protections against arbitrary fines.

One successful challenge was in State v. Lordan, where the court found the law was unconstitutionally vague. The court said terms like “costs” and “actual costs incurred” were unclear about exactly what expenses could be recovered.

However, the NJ legislature amended the law in 2020 to add more specifics on what costs can be included, likely to address this vagueness issue.

Use in Sentencing

N.J.S.2C:33-3.2 gives judges discretion whether to impose these civil fines. It does not require them in every case.

Judges tend to reserve the fines for situations where the false alarm required a significant emergency response and drained substantial public resources. They are less likely when there was only a minor response.

Courts also consider the defendant’s ability to pay. Fines are not usually imposed on juveniles or people who are indigent. Instead, judges opt for alternative sanctions like community service.

Overall, the civil fines offer judges an additional option to hold false alarm offenders accountable and recoup costs for the community. When used judiciously, they can provide fair and reasonable punishment, deter future violations, and compensate municipalities for misuse of emergency resources.

Defenses

There are several defenses that can apply in cases under N.J.S.2C:33-3 and N.J.S.2C:33-3.2:

• No intent – If the false alarm was unintentional or accidental, this negates the “knowingly” requirement. This could apply if a smoke detector malfunctioned or a 911 call pocket-dialed unintentionally.
• No false information – If the report turned out to be true or have a reasonable basis, the defendant did not knowingly communicate false information.
• First Amendment – The statute cannot punish statements that are protected free speech under the First Amendment. Hyperbolic speech or statements of opinion may be protected.
• Mistake of fact – A sincere reasonable belief the information was true, even if mistaken, negates knowingly communicating false information.
• Unreasonable costs – Defendants can contest the actual costs incurred as unreasonable or excessive.

Conclusion

New Jersey’s law allowing civil fines for false public alarms provides a measured tool for judges to address these offenses. It serves the interests of justice and public safety by both deterring false alarms and compensating communities for the harm they cause.

When applied carefully, N.J.S.2C:33-3.2 represents a reasonable balance between punishing violators, protecting constitutional rights, and keeping first responders available for actual emergencies. It’s an innovative approach that other jurisdictions may look to as a model.