New Jersey Section 2C:35-20 – Forensic laboratory fees

New Jersey Imposes Mandatory Forensic Laboratory Fees on Drug Offenders

New Jersey statute 2C:35-20 requires that any person convicted of a drug offense under Chapter 35 of the criminal code be assessed a $50 forensic laboratory analysis fee for each offense. This mandatory fee is imposed in addition to any other fines, penalties or assessments that may apply.

The purpose of the forensic lab fee is to offset the costs incurred by the State in analyzing seized drugs and conducting lab tests related to criminal drug prosecutions. With New Jersey facing tight budgets, policymakers have turned to user fees and court assessments to fund parts of the criminal justice system.

Key Details on New Jersey’s Forensic Lab Fee Law

The key details regarding the mandatory $50 forensic lab fee under 2C:35-20 include:

• Applies to all convictions under Chapter 35, which covers most drug possession, distribution, manufacturing and paraphernalia charges
• Fee is assessed “for each offense,” so those convicted of multiple counts face higher fees
• Fee is mandatory and the court has no discretion to waive it
• Revenue generated goes to the State forensic laboratory fund to pay for drug testing
• Failure to pay can result in further penalties but cannot extend a jail/prison sentence

This fee has been part of New Jersey law for decades. An earlier version from 1989 set the fee at $25 per offense. Over time, legislators have come to rely on forensic lab fees as an easy way to shift financial burdens onto offenders with little political opposition.

Debating the Merits of Mandatory Forensic Lab Fees

Proponents of mandatory fees like those required by Section 2C:35-20 argue that it is fair for drug offenders to pay for the costs associated with investigating and prosecuting drug crimes. This helps spare taxpayers and allows the state to recoup expenses. Given tight budgets, user fees enable labs and drug enforcement units to have funding sources not reliant on the annual appropriations process.

Critics counter that mandatory fees lead to excessive financial penalties because most drug offenders lack the means to pay sizeable sums. Fee amounts often have no correlation to the actual costs for lab tests in specific cases. And unpaid fees can snowball into further economic sanctions like collection fees, interest charges and driver’s license suspensions.

There is also little evidence that mandatory fee laws have improved collection rates or provided meaningful revenue for states. In New Jersey, a recent report found that the State collects only a small fraction of fees, fines and penalties imposed by judges at sentencing. The added assessments can be counterproductive by saddling offenders with unpayable debts, which undermines reentry and rehabilitation.

Constitutional Challenges to Forensic Lab Fees

While mandatory fees are popular with legislators, some criminal defense attorneys have challenged forensic lab fees and other user assessments on constitutional grounds.

One argument is that mandatory fees violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment when the amounts are disproportionate to the offense committed. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that financial penalties can be unconstitutionally excessive in certain cases based on inability to pay.

Other challenges focus on due process rights, arguing that offenders are deprived of liberty and property by unpaid fees that trigger ongoing court intervention and penalties. There are also 6th Amendment implications when a defendant’s right to counsel is undermined by their inability to pay fines, fees and assessments.

So far, these constitutional arguments have gained little traction in state courts when applied specifically to mandatory forensic lab fees such as those imposed under New Jersey 2C:35-20. But as criminal justice debts continue to rise, there may be more litigation aimed at certain user fees and financial penalties.

Financial Penalties Create Barriers for Reentry

While the constitutionality of user fees is still unsettled, there is clear evidence that court-ordered financial obligations create barriers for people leaving incarceration. Offenders released from New Jersey prisons are saddled with thousands in fines, fees and restitution debts. Unpaid criminal justice debts can prevent people from obtaining housing, employment, occupational licenses and public aid.

In effect, mandatory fees like the $50 forensic lab assessment extend punishment beyond the court-imposed sentence. And aggressive collection tactics can undermine reintegration and pull people back into the criminal justice system.

These collateral consequences run counter to the rehabilitative goals of New Jersey’s criminal code. As state legislators consider reforms to address mass incarceration, rethinking mandatory fees that don’t improve public safety could support more effective reentry outcomes.

The New Jersey Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission has proposed giving judges more discretion to waive or reduce fines and fees at sentencing based on a defendant’s financial means. While politically challenging, revising fee structures could reduce barriers to reintegration and refocus the system on rehabilitation rather than revenue collection.