In June of 1961, the States Attorney General was instructed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to open an investigation into claims that police officers in two of the Burroughs were fixing traffic tickets.

Shenika

In June of 1961, the States Attorney General was instructed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to open an investigation into claims that police officers in two of the Burroughs were fixing traffic tickets. The officers in question were Bellmawr’s Chief of Police Garrity and one of his officers. The other three officers were from the Burrough of Barrington. The States Attorney General performed the investigation as directed. States investigation turned up several additional crimes involving the officers. Along with the altered traffic tickets, there was evidence that the petitioners took part in falsifying municipal court records, and using money produced from bail and fines for unauthorized purposes. During the investigation, there were two sworn statements taken from each officer. Only a portion of the statements was used during the trial. In two separate trials, each of the officers involved was convicted of obstructing state motor traffic laws.

There were differences in the way the first depositions between both Burroughs were taken. In Bellmawr, they cooperated, and it was reported that Garrity had arranged to have counsel there, but he did not feel the need. On the other hand, the officers in Barrington were represented by counsel at the time of their statements. The second statements were similar; however, the officers are appealing because the statements were involuntarily taken since there was a fear of being discharged if they utilized their Constitutional Right to remain silent.

If I were the judge in this appeal, I would rule for the State. I would not change the ruling. They are all sworn-in officers who are aware of their rights and the services they are required to provide. The rights of an officer are different from those of the general population.