Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:7-15 – Immunity for failure to investigate, disclose information.

New Jersey Section 2C:7-15 – Immunity for failure to investigate, disclose information

Section 2C:7-15 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice provides immunity from civil liability for failure to investigate or disclose certain information related to sex offenders. This section was enacted as part of New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, which established requirements for sex offender registration and community notification.

Overview of Megan’s Law in New Jersey

Megan’s Law was passed in New Jersey in 1994 after the tragic rape and murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka by a convicted sex offender living in her neighborhood. Her parents had not been aware of his criminal history. Megan’s Law aimed to prevent similar crimes by requiring sex offenders to register with law enforcement and providing for community notification when necessary to protect public safety.

Some key components of Megan’s Law in New Jersey include:

• Sex offender registration – Convicted sex offenders must register with local law enforcement. This involves providing information on their name, address, employer, vehicle, and criminal record. Offenders must periodically verify and update the information. 
• Tier classification – Offenders are classified into three tiers based on the seriousness of their offense. This determines how often they must register and how long they remain in the registry. 
• Community notification – Law enforcement may notify schools, community organizations, residents, etc. when a sex offender moves into the area. The scope depends on the offender’s tier classification. 
• Sex offender internet registry – New Jersey maintains a public website allowing users to search for sex offenders in their neighborhood. 

Immunity under Section 2C:7-15

Section 2C:7-15 provides immunity from civil lawsuits for the following:

• Failure to investigate criminal history of a person required to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law
• Failure to disclose information about a registered sex offender to the community

The immunity applies to public officials, public employees, and public agencies involved in administering Megan’s Law. It aims to protect them from liability for good faith mistakes or oversights in implementing the law’s registration and notification provisions.

For example, if a school negligently fails to provide notification about a tier 3 sex offender who moves nearby, and that offender commits another crime, the school cannot be sued for the oversight. The immunity does not apply to intentional or grossly negligent acts. 

Policy Rationale

The main policy arguments in favor of immunity under Section 2C:7-15 are:

• Avoid overdeterrence – Without immunity, officials might become overly cautious in disclosing offender information to avoid liability, undermining public safety.
• Focus on administration rather than litigation – Immunity lets agencies concentrate resources on properly implementing Megan’s Law rather than defending against lawsuits.
• Prevent chilling effect – Potential liability could discourage people from taking on the difficult task of administering the sex offender registry.
• Balance competing interests – Immunity balances community right-to-know against offender privacy and rehabilitation interests.

However, critics argue immunity goes too far in shielding negligent conduct from accountability. Some contend it violates victims’ due process rights to remedy and deterrence under state tort law.

Court Interpretations

New Jersey courts have generally construed the immunity provided by Section 2C:7-15 broadly. For instance, in Doe v. Poritz (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Megan’s Law’s registration and notification schemes. It ruled the immunity provisions shielded corrections officials from liability for stigmatizing effects of community notification.

However, immunity does not apply to intentional misconduct. In C.A. ex rel. Applegrad v. Bentolila (2002), a federal court allowed a §1983 claim alleging police maliciously posted untrue sex offender flyers about the plaintiff as retaliation.

Overall, Section 2C:7-15 provides fairly robust immunity to facilitate Megan’s Law enforcement, but does not shield overtly malicious acts. It reflects a legislative policy choice to accept a small risk of under-disclosure to lower barriers to the law’s administration.