New Jersey Injury Lawyer Blog

Two cases recently decided by New Jersey's Appellate Division addressed a statute which was previously thought to provide immunity to 911 operators engaged in the course of their employment. The Appellate Division in Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department and Wilson v. City of Jersey City held that 911 operators and dispatchers could be held liable for injuries sustained or proximately cause by their failure to adhere to established protocols and guidelines. In Massachi, a female student was abducted directly outside the Seton Hall University Campus in South Orange, New Jersey. Two of her friends immediately called 911 to report the abduction. The 911 operator failed to follow the appropriate departmental procedures and guidelines in that although she put the information into the 911 computer system, she failed to note the last known location of the abductor's car, failed to note that the car was in motion, failed to record the vehicle's path of travel and mis-identified the car as a Chevy Blazer as opposed to a Plymouth Blazer. Further, she failed to keep the person reporting the crime on the phone to enable to provide an update to the responding unit.

In addition to the above, two off-duty Essex County Sheriff's Officers also witnessed the abduction and also called 911. The 911 operator that they spoke with ran the license plate of the abductor's vehicle and printed out the name and address of the vehicle's owner. Unfortunately, he failed to issue a general alert to all police units in neighboring municipalities and also failed to contact the police in the municipality where the abductor resided. It was the plaintiff's decedent's claim that the girl who was abducted was ultimately murdered due to the fact that the police units could not properly respond as a result of the 911 dispatcher's failure to comply with guidelines.

Importantly, a New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10) provides various immunities to phone carriers and dispatchers concerning the failure of the 911 system. The Appellate Division under the two cases before it, specifically held that the above-referenced statute does not afford immunity to the 911 emergency communication center or its employees where they negligently render 911 services including dispatching police to an incorrect location, failing to keep the caller on the line to update the police of the location of the perpetrator and for failing to broadcast an alert to surround municipalities. Accordingly, although there is immunity for the failure of the system to work, there will be no immunity for 911 operators or dispatchers where they fail to follow protocol.

In the event you or a family member believes you have suffered injuries as a result of improper actions of a 911 operator, it is imperative that you seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney.

Law enforcement officers have been named as defendants in two recent cases based on alleged misconduct in their arrest and apprehension of alleged criminals. In the first case, four college aged students are seeking one million dollars in monetary damages from the Franklin Township Police Department (Massachusetts) in a suit filed in Federal Court in Boston where it is alleged that an officer used excessive force on a routine traffic stop. Specifically, it is reportedly alleged that the officer pulled out his gun and punched on the the plaintiff's in the face.

In another case, a New Haven Connecticut man has filed a lawsuit against the New Haven Police Department seeking ten million dollars in damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment where he was recently acquitted of murder charges by a jury. According to reports, he alleges that the defendant officers conspired to fabricate evidence against him in an attempt to obtain a conviction.

In New Jersey, there are various causes of action that one may bring against law enforcement officers for wrongful acts. These causes of action are based on State common law and both Federal and State Constitutional law. A citizen may be entitled to monetary damages, punitive damages and counsel fees if it is proven that the law enforcement officer violated the citizen's Constitutional rights pursuant to 42 USC 1983, et. seq. Such violations may include effectuating an arrest without probable cause, charging a citizen with a crime without probable cause, targeting a citizen for arrest or harassment based on a Constitutionally protected status such as race, creed, color, national origin, religion, age or sexual orientation, depriving a citizen of property or property rights with Due Process, utilizing excessive force (force more than is reasonably required) in effectuating an otherwise valid arrest, failing to provide appropriate medical care to a citizen in custody, or utilizing improper punishment techniques.

However, it should be noted that law enforcement officers have wide latitude when carrying out their duties. Case law in New Jersey and throughout the nation holds that a law enforcement officer will not be responsible for alleged Constitutional violations when they can establish that they have acted in good faith and without intent to violate Constitutional rights. Thus, where there is a reasonable belief by the officer that the law was broken, he will not be held responsible for an arrest even if it later turns out that a crime was not committed. This is called Qualified Immunity.