Municipal Investigating Comm. v. Servello, 200 N.J. Super.
413 (Law Div. 1984).
C. Creation of Police Departments
The powers of the chief of police are derived from
municipal ordinances and regulations, not from state
statutes. Falcone v. De Furia, 103 N.J. 219, 221 (1986).
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118 empowered municipal governing
bodies to enact by ordinance “a line of authority for
police” to appoint a police chief and others. In Falcone,
the court determined that the designation of an officer
“detective” fell within the appointment power of the local
governing body, and not within the duty of assignments
of the police chief. The court also recognized that
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118 was created “to avoid undue
interference by a governing body into the operation of the
police force.” Id. at 222. See Reuter v. Borough Council,
328 N.J. Super. 547 (App. Div. 2000) (municipality
which appointed police department positions by
resolution contravened N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118 require-
ment to create by ordinance an “organizational chart” for
police force); Policemen’s Benev. Ass’n v. Township of North
Brunswick, 318 N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div.) (N.J.S.A.
40A:14-118 provides municipality with ability to create
by ordinance a police department headed by Police
Director, not Police Chief), certif. denied, 161 N.J. 150
(1999).
D. Vehicular Pursuits
In September of 1999, the Attorney General issued
a revised policy on Vehicular Pursuit in the Directives to
Police Enforcement. The Attorney General’s directive
advances guidelines on how police departments should
decide whether, when and how to pursue criminal
offenders who flee in vehicles. The directive also sets forth
guidelines on the use of tire deflation devices.
POLYGRAPHSPOLYGRAPHSPOLYGRAPHSPOLYGRAPHSPOLYGRAPHS
I. DEFINITION
The polygraph is a device that measures and records
involuntary body responses to stress. These may include
changes in blood pressure, pulse and respiration, as well
as skin responses. Their interpretation may lead the
examiner to conclude that the subject’s answers to the
questions posed by the examiner were truthful,
untruthful or inconclusive. For the test to be at all
acceptable, it must be conducted under carefully
controlled circumstances and the examiner must be a
person sufficiently trained and skilled in the
interpretation of the test results. State v. Community
Distributors, Inc. 64 N.J. 479, 482 (1974).II. ADMISSIBILITY
Prior to 1972, polygraph evidence was absolutely
inadmissible in a criminal case in the State of New Jersey
regardless to whether or not the results were favorable to
a defendant. See State v. Royster, 57 N.J. 472, 485-86,
cert. denied, 404 U.S. 910, 92 S.Ct. 235, 30 L.Ed.2d 182
(1971); State v. Kavanaugh, 52 N.J. 7, 15 n.2, cert. denied,
393 U.S. 924, 89 S.Ct. 254, 21 L.Ed.2d 259 (1968);
State v. Peetros, 45 N.J. 540, 546 (1965); State v. Driver,
38 N.J. 255, 261 (1962); State v. Walker, 37 N.J. 208,
216, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 850, 83 S.Ct. 89, 9 L.Ed. 2d
86 (1962); State v. Cole, 131 N.J. Super, 470, 471 (App.
Div. 1974), certif. denied, 68 N.J. 135 (1975). Rejection
was based on the failure of the procedure to attain
scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of
ascertaining truth or deception. State v. Driver, 38 N.J.
at 261. It was suggested that the results might be
different upon a showing of a higher degree of recognition
of the reliability of such scientific aids. State v. Walker, 37
N.J. at 215.A necessary corollary to this exclusionary rule
prohibits reference to the accused’s refusal or offer to
submit to a polygraph test. State v. Clark, 128 N.J. Super.
120, 126 (App. Div. 1974), aff’d, 66 N.J. 339 (1975);
State v. Driver, 38 N.J. at 261; State v. Peetros, 45 N.J. at
545-46. See State v. Marks, 201 N.J. Super. 514 (App.
Div. 1985). Similarly, direct or indirect inferences to the
results of a polygraph test which implicate the accused are
condemned, regardless of whether the test was
administered to the defendant, an accomplice or a
witness. State v. Clark, 126 N.J. Super. at 126; State v.
Parsons, 83 N.J. Super. 430 (App. Div. 1964); State v.
Arnwine, 67 N.J. Super. 483, 495 (App. Div. 1961). See