NOTICE TO THE BAR
REPORT OF THE SUPREME COURT WORKING GROUP ON
PRIVATE CITIZEN COMPLAINTS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURTS -
PUBLICATION FOR COMMENT
The Supreme Court invites written comments on the December 2017 Report of the
Working Group on Private Citizen Complaints in the Municipal Courts. The report is
published with this notice. The full report, including its several appendices, is available on
the Judiciary's internet web site at http://www.njcourts.gov/courts/supreme/reports.html.
Please send any comments on the report in writing by April 2, 2018 to:
Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D.
Acting Administrative Director of the Courts
Comments on Private Citizen Complaints Report
Hughes Justice Complex; P.O. Box 037
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037
Comments on the report may also be submitted by e-mail to the following address:
Comments.Mailbox@njcourts.gov.
The Supreme Court created the Working Group to make recommendations on the
following questions: (1) Should private citizen complaints continue to be accepted by the
Municipal Courts?; (2) Should limitations be placed on the types of matters for which a private
citizen complaint can be filed and/or against whom?; (3) Should some form of screening, either
by law enforcement or some other form, be required prior to a judicial officer making a probable
cause determination?
The Working Group focused on R. 7:2-1 (b) ("Acceptance of Complaint"), which provides
that "[t]he municipal court administrator or deputy court administrator shall accept for filing
every complaint made by any person." There has not been an examination of the requirement
to accept all citizen complaints since 1988. The Working Group's discussions centered "on the
acceptance of the complaint by the Municipal Court and the process that occurs before the
Complaint-Warrant or summons is issued." The Working Group's recommendations, set forth in
more detail in the report, are as follows:
Recommendation 1 {Substantive Rule Amendment): Every complaint made
by any person should continue to be accepted for filing, however R. 7:2-1 (b)
and R. 3:2-1 (a) should be amended to clarify that mere acceptance of the
complaint for filing does not mean that a finding of probable cause has been
made or that the Complaint-Warrant (CDR-2) or summons has been issued.
Recommendation 2 {Clarifying/Housekeeping Rule Amendments): R. 7:2-
2(a)(1) should be amended to remove the reference to dismissing a complaint
where a judge finds no probable cause or where the statutory time limitation
1
to issue a Complaint-Warrant (CDR-2) or summons has expired. Instead, the
judge should be directed to not issue the Complaint-Warrant (CDR-2) or
summons. Where a no probable cause finding is made and a ComplaintWarrant
or summons does not issue, the complaint should not be kept in a
held status. In addition, duplicative rule language should be removed and an
incorrect cross-reference should be corrected.
Recommendation 3 (Substantive Rule Amendment): New subparagraphs
should be created at the beginning of R. 7:2-2 that clearly define probable
cause. For purposes of clarity, the rule should be restructured so that
probable cause is no longer buried in R. 7:2-2(a)(1 ). In addition, a crossreference
to the current exceptions to finding probable cause (i.e., law
enforcement summons on complaint and code enforcement officer summons
on a complaint) should be added.
Recommendation 4 (Substantive Rule Amendment): R. 7:2-2(a)(1) should be
amended to provide that a judge or authorized municipal court administrator
or deputy court administrator Oudicial officer) may issue a Complaint-Warrant
(CDR-2) or a summons charging a disorderly persons offense, petty
disorderly persons offense or any other non-disorderly persons offense within
the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court made by a private citizen. In addition,
the rule should add a provision that a judge only may issue a CDR-2 or
summons charging any indictable offense made by a private citizen.
Recommendation 5 (Substantive Rule Amendment): R. 7:2-2 should be
amended to provide that prior to issuance, the Complaint-Warrant or
summons must be reviewed by a county prosecutor on private citizen
complaints charging disorderly persons offenses against a: (i) party official or
public servant as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1(e) and (g); (ii) a candidate or
nominee for public office as defined in N.J.S.A. 19:1-1; or (iii) a judicial
nominee. The county prosecutor can either approve ( decide to move forward
with the matter), disapprove (decide to not pursue charges/prosecute matter),
or modify the charge.
Recommendation 6 (Substantive Rule Amendment): R. 7:2-2 should be
amended to provide that prior to issuance, the Complaint-Warrant or
summons must be reviewed by a county prosecutor on private citizen
complaints charging any indictable offense against any individual. The county
prosecutor can either approve ( decide to move forward with the matter),
disapprove (decide to not pursue charges/prosecute matter), or modify the
charge. Part Ill rules should mirror the Part VII proposed rule amendments
on indictables.
Recommendation 7 (Clarifying Amendment): R. 7:2-2 should be amended to
clarify that a CDR-2 or summons charging any offense made by a private
citizen may be issued if it appears from the complaint, affidavit, certification,
citizen complaint information form, or testimony that there is probable cause.
The finding of probable cause shall be noted on the face of the CDR-2 or
2
summons and confirmed by the judicial officer's signature.
Recommendation 8 (Clarifying Amendment): R. 7:3-1(c)(1) should be
amended to correct a cross reference to R. 7:2-2. R. 7:3-1 (c)(2) should also
be amended to align with the proposed amendment to R. 7:2-2(a)(1)
(Recommendation 2) that removes the reference to dismissing the summons
or Complaint-Warrant where there is no probable cause. Instead, the
summons or Complaint-Warrant (CDR-2) shall not be issued.
The Supreme Court will not consider comments submitted anonymously. Thus,
those submitting comments by mail should include their name and address (and those
submitting comments by e-mail should include their name and e-mail address).
Comments are subject to public disclosure upon receipt.
Gfenn A. Grant, J.A. D. '
Acting Administrative Director of the Courts
Dated: February 20, 2018
3
