Authorize Class Three Officers at Houses of Worship

A1933 amends section 4 of P.L.1985, c.439 (C.40A:14-146.11) to expand the settings in which Class Three special law enforcement officers may serve and to clarify financial responsibilities when they serve in schools. The bill makes two principal changes and carries forward several existing restrictions without alteration.

First, the bill adds a new subdivision (b) to the Class Three section, authorizing officers of this class to exercise full powers and duties similar to those of a permanent, regularly appointed full-time police officer while providing security at a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or any other building used by a congregation as a place of religious worship. This is a new authorization; nothing in the carried-forward text extended Class Three authority to houses of worship before this amendment.

Second, within the existing subdivision (a) covering school and college security, the bill adds two sentences. The first requires that a school district which procures the services of Class Three officers to provide security at public schools in the district also shall procure these services for nonpublic schools in the district. The second places financial responsibility on the school district: the school district shall be responsible for compensating the local unit for the security services rendered by a Class Three officer in public and nonpublic schools. Note carefully what the bill does and does not mandate: it does not require any school district to hire Class Three officers in the first instance. The obligation to extend services to nonpublic schools, and to bear the cost, is triggered only if the district has already chosen to procure these officers for its public schools.

The bill reorganizes the existing Class Three text by adding subdivision (a) and (b) labels, but otherwise carries forward the existing school-security authorization without substantive change: officers remain authorized to exercise full police powers on school or college premises during hours when the public or nonpublic school or county college is normally in session or when it is occupied by students or their teachers or professors. The existing limited off-premises rule is also carried forward unchanged: while on duty in the jurisdiction of employment, an officer may respond to offenses or emergencies off school or college grounds if they occur in the officer's presence while traveling to a school facility or county college, but an officer shall not otherwise be dispatched or dedicated to any assignment off school or college property. This off-premises restriction applies by its placement within subdivision (a) and therefore governs the school-and-college context; the bill does not expressly extend or apply this restriction to the new house-of-worship authorization in subdivision (b). As drafted, whether the dispatch and dedication prohibition reaches the subdivision (b) religious-worship setting is not clearly resolved by the text.

The bill carries forward the firearm rules without change. The use of a firearm by an officer of this class shall be authorized pursuant to the provisions of subsection b. of section 7 of P.L.1985, c.439 (C.40A:14-146.14), tying authorization to requalification requirements in that subsection. Separately, an officer of this class shall not be authorized to carry a firearm while off duty unless the officer complies with the requirements set forth in subsection l. of N.J.S.2C:39-6 authorizing a retired law enforcement officer to carry a handgun. Both of these rules apply to Class Three officers as a class and are not limited to any one setting.

The American Council supports A1933 because communities of faith deserve the same quality of trained, accountable security personnel that New Jersey has already chosen to make available at its schools. Class Three officers are retired police professionals with full law enforcement training. Allowing them to serve at houses of worship addresses a documented and growing threat to congregations of every tradition. The school-district provisions also reflect a principle of equity: if a district chooses to invest in this protection for its public schools, the children and staff of nonpublic schools in the same district should not be left without it, and the district, not the individual school, bears the cost. We ask every member of the Assembly to vote yes on A1933.