Bail Reform: “An Administrative Burden”

by | Dec 21, 2016 | Blog, Criminal Law, Law Reform and Amendments

“Recognizing that administrative burdens are placed on police departments when the charging decision is delayed and police are required to maintain custody of a defendant pending that decision, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2.2.2, if either the Live Scan system or the Judiciary ‘s automated PSA system is not operational, or if the results of a preliminary automated pretrial risk­ assessment otherwise are not or will not be available within a reasonable period of time (e.g., within two hours of fingerprinting the defendant), an assistant prosecutor or deputy attorney general consulted in accordance with Section 3.2 of this Directive, or a supervisory officer designated pursuant to subsection 3.3.2, may proceed to make the complaint-summons versus complaint-warrant determination by applying the provisions/presumptions set forth in Section 4 that do not depend on the results of an automated pretrial risk assessment. The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable period of time to delay the charging decision while awaiting the results of the automated pretrial risk-assessment process following Live Scan fingerprinting shall be based on the administrative burdens placed on the department by the delay (e.g., the need to re-assign an officer from patrol/call-for-service duties to stay in the station to monitor the defendant held in custody, the need for the arresting officer to return to patrol duty, etc.). Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize delay to the extent that the defendant is not presented to a judge or other judicial officer within 12 hours of arrest as required by Rule 3:4-1.”

Again, we see more broad language that would permit law enforcement to use their own subjective discretion as opposed to the automated systems that are supposed to apply objective criteria. Here, law enforcement is not even required to wait for a break down in the automated system, but only for the results to “not be available within a reasonable period of time” or for a delay in the results to create “an administrative burden” in maintaining custody of the defendant. It is difficult to imagine how temporarily holding an arrestee in a secure cell within a secure police station would create an undue administrative burden.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My boyfriend used Fred Sisto twice and had nothing but positive results. Fred was professional, courteous, and punctual. His office was also very attentive and understanding when he had to speak with them regarding his case. I would recommend using Fred to anyone in the monmouth or ocean county region if they had any criminal case regarding the possession of marijuana
C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
....and his Dog Gonzo is a great attorney.
Duane H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am writing to share my experience working with Fred From the very beginning, he provided outstanding service and demonstrated a high level of professionalism. He was attentive to my needs, communicated clearly, and always made sure I understood each step of the process. What impressed me most was his efficiency—he handled my case quickly without compromising on quality. His dedication and expertise gave me confidence and peace of mind throughout the entire process. I highly recommend Fred to anyone seeking reliable and effective legal support. His commitment to his clients and ability to deliver results promptly truly set him apart.
Aida F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am thankful and fortunate to have had Fred represent me as counsel. His expertise, responsiveness and professionalism are second to none. I was more than satisfied with the outcome of my case and the level of service Fred's practice provided.
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Excellent advice. Clam and accretive. Handled my case professionally and efficiently. Thank you for the great service. -D.
Danni K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My charges were dismissed and he quickly got an expungement for me. He's worth way more than what I paid for. I will always be grateful. He never missed a single call, text or email from me. He also keeps me informed of all checkpoints
Bre D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very professional, always available to answer any questions I had. Plus, I didn't lose my license all thanks to him. Great lawyer overall
David B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is knowledgeable and he has great working relationships with the courts. He HONESTLY is seeking the best deal for you he is not all about the money!! Thanks Fred you saved me BIG TIME!!
Casey B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very good
Nazario B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto handled my case very well. I was happy with outcome. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him to any of my friends or family.
David V