N.J. bill would put state in charge of monitoring troopers

A consent agreement allowing the Justice Department to monitor state police in New Jersey could be dissolved under a bill that would shift the responsibility to the state Attorney General's Office.

The monitoring began a decade ago in an attempt to eliminate racial profiling.

Under the bill, which awaits Gov. Corzine's signature after its passage last week, the Attorney General's Office would assume oversight and monitoring of motor-vehicle stops by troopers, investigations of misconduct, and training and policies of the state police.

Corzine's advisory committee on police standards recommended the change more than a year ago to pave the way for the attorney general to petition a federal judge to lift the consent agreement.

The bill also codifies a series of changes made by state police during the monitoring. These include the installation of cameras in all patrol vehicles and the collection of data during motor-vehicle stops to make sure minorities are not disproportionately stopped or searched.

In 1999, the state agreed to the monitoring to avoid a civil-rights lawsuit after two white troopers wounded three unarmed minority men during a stop on the New Jersey Turnpike. Around the same time, several lawsuits alleged minorities were stopped and searched more frequently than other motorists.

"This closes a chapter where there were some problems with the state police," said Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson (D., Bergen), one of the bill's sponsors. "What we're really doing here is cementing the changes that the state police have made already in moving in the right direction."

David Wald, a spokesman for Attorney General Anne Milgram, said Milgram believed the monitor's reports during the last few years "demonstrated the state police have achieved significant reforms and that this legislation makes sure the progress continues and there's not any backsliding."

The bill calls for reports every six months and for audits by the state comptroller to ensure accountability.

Troopers hailed the change as vindication and the removal of an undeserved stigma, while critics said the bill didn't go far enough to rid the state of racial profiling.

Dave Jones, president of the state troopers' fraternal association, said ending the consent agreement would boost morale. Now that the monitor's reports prove the state police are professional, he said, the government "owes it to the 3,000 troopers out there to say that this is not a rogue band of racists but the finest group of law enforcement professionals in the nation."

Jones said the bill came "as close as you can get to that nearly impossible balance of public safety and civil liberties, which is an incredible balancing act for everyone in law enforcement."

Racial-profiling complaints, he said, have dropped from hundreds to double digits since the installation of dashboard cameras.

Justice Department officials have said the state police have made enough progress to end monitoring.

But Bill Buckman, a prominent Moorestown lawyer who successfully sued the state police in a number of racial-profiling cases, said the bill stopped short of meaningful change.

"The attorney general always had supervisory power over the state police and has had the mind-set of whitewashing the problem, which led to the federal monitoring," he said. "I fear that under this bill, we'll slip back into that same culture."

Buckman said the bill lacked monitoring of local police for racial profiling and also did not provide tools for minorities who are wronged and have the burden of proving discrimination. The bill, he said, fails to allow public access to data that could show a trooper's racial bias in making motor-vehicle stops.

Still, Buckman said he knew the governor and attorney general had been pushing to end federal monitoring and was glad to see the state committing to keeping an eye on racial profiling. The bill, he said, "is weak, but it's better than nothing, particularly if the consent decree is going to die."