Supreme court puts spotlight on local police departments

Byram - Lights. Cameras. Action. That’s the direction the state Supreme Court has given local police departments, which are now being required to electronically record interrogations from the moment a suspect has been informed of his rights. Authorities believe the new rule recently handed down by New Jersey’s highest court is more extensive and tougher, yet helpful to both the public and law enforcement. “I think it will make convictions easier,” said Sparta police chief Ernie Reigstad. “People will be able to see the suspect in their demeanor on the night of a crime.” Reigstad said the Sparta force is already using hand-held cameras in its existing headquarters and has had audio and videotaping equipment in its patrol cars for quite some time. “We’ve done this before; it’s not something entirely new,” he said. “Now we’re mandated, but it’s not like it’s unchartered territory.” The police chief said his department’s new facilities in the municipal building under construction were designed to comply with the court’s ruling. “We’re all set to go,” said Reigstad. “The rule has its pros and cons, but like everything else, we follow what the rules are.” Byram police chief Raymond Rafferty said he received the videotaping equipment this week to install at headquarters and inside squad cars and is ironing out a departmental policy. He said an indoor system can cost about $2,500 and $5,000 for a patrol car. Only a handful of states are required to videotape or audiotape suspects during questioning. Up until now, New Jersey law enforcement had to start taping only a suspect’s final statement or confession. The new rule requires taping to start much earlier - often as soon as the suspect at a place of detention is advised of his rights. Rafferty doesn’t expect his officers to be intimidated when confronted by the spotlights. “If the officers don’t do anything wrong when they interrogate, it won’t hurt them,” he said. “This is another tool to help them get a conviction. Without being able to see someone firsthand, a jury doesn’t know what goes on. Now they’ll be able to see for themselves.” In adopting the new rule, the Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of a committee of lawyers, judges, prosecutors, public defenders and police officers. “We don’t want a coerced confession any more than the defense does,” said Reigstad. “Having a person on tape is no problem for us.” Failure to record an interrogation could lead to omission of testimony at trial. In those cases, jurors would be advised that they were being deprived of a full interrogation. The law does not apply in cases when tape recording is not logistical or when a suspect blurts out a confession. “Our officers have integrity without a camera,” said Rafferty. “This will only further bring out their police work for the intentions of a jury.” The new requirements will be phased in beginning in January with homicide interrogations. The law expands in the following year to include questioning regarding arson, robbery, burglary and sex, drug or weapons crimes punishable by more than five years in prison.