New Jersey Section 2C:35-5.6 – Definitions relative to removal, restraint of certain offenders

New Jersey Section 2C:35-5.6 provides definitions related to the removal and restraint of certain drug offenders in the state. This section is part of a broader law passed in 2005 that allows courts to issue restraining orders prohibiting drug offenders from entering certain locations associated with their offense.

Background

The New Jersey legislature passed the law containing 2C:35-5.6 in response to concerns about drug dealing occurring openly in public areas. The goal was to give law enforcement and courts a new tool to restrict the access of convicted drug offenders to locations where they had been arrested or had engaged in illegal drug activity.

Section 2C:35-5.6 contains definitions for key terms used throughout the law, including “person,” “place,” and “restraining order.” Understanding these definitions is important for properly applying and enforcing restraining orders issued under this law.

Key Definitions

Person

Section 2C:35-5.6(a) defines “person” broadly to include any individual charged with or convicted of a drug offense or any juvenile charged with delinquency or adjudicated delinquent for a drug offense. This allows the law to be applied to both adults and juveniles.

Place

The definition of “place” in 2C:35-5.6(b) includes any location associated with the drug offense, such as where the offense occurred, where drugs were stored or sold, where money was kept, etc. A “place” can include a full premises, residence, business, or just a specific area or location.

This broad definition allows courts flexibility in prohibiting access to locations related to the offense, even if the offender does not own or control the entire property. For example, an order could prohibit access to just the street corner where deals occurred.

Restraining Order

Section 2C:35-5.6(c) defines a “restraining order” as a court order prohibiting the person from entering or remaining at the place or prohibiting the person from having contact with specified individuals. These restraining orders are issued under 2C:35-5.7.

Implications

The implications of Section 2C:35-5.6’s definitions include:

• Allows for orders against both adults and juveniles
• Gives courts wide authority over locations associated with offense
• Restraining orders can restrict access to locations and contact with people

Defense lawyers have argued the definitions are overly broad, while prosecutors claim they provide flexibility needed to address drug crimes. Appellate courts have generally upheld the definitions as constitutional.

Enforcement

Police play a key role in enforcing restraining orders issued under 2C:35-5.7. Officers must be familiar with the definitions in 2C:35-5.6 to properly identify violations. For example, understanding the broad definition of “place” is necessary to recognize if an offender has entered a prohibited location.

Prosecutors also carefully apply 2C:35-5.6’s definitions when filing charges for restraining order violations under 2C:35-5.8. Defense attorneys look for ways the definitions may have been stretched beyond legislative intent.

Debates and Changes

There has been some debate over revising the definitions in 2C:35-5.6. A bill in 2012 sought to narrow the definition of “place” to only apply to locations actually owned or controlled by the offender, but it failed to pass. Police groups opposed the change, arguing it would limit effectiveness.

However, there have been no substantive changes to the definitions in 2C:35-5.6 since the law was enacted in 2005. The broad definitions continue to give law enforcement and courts wide authority in issuing and enforcing restraining orders against drug offenders. But defense lawyers continue to argue the definitions are unconstitutionally vague in some applications.

Looking Ahead

As New Jersey continues to grapple with drug crimes, Section 2C:35-5.6 will likely remain an important tool for restricting access of convicted offenders. However, there may be future debate about reining in some definitions, particularly “place,” if they are seen as overreaching. Changes would likely need to balance effectiveness for law enforcement versus rights of defendants.

For now, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and others must be familiar with the key definitions in 2C:35-5.6 to properly apply the law as intended. Understanding the broad scope of terms like “person” and “place” will be critical for enforcing orders and protecting rights of offenders. Careful application of these definitions will ensure the law serves its public safety goals without overstepping reasonable bounds.