By Andrew Macurdy
Since the pandemic, car thefts have increased around the country, including in New Jersey. Offenders at times enter homes in search of keys. It is a problem that calls for serious government response.
In this environment, elected officials who hold themselves up as tough on crime often seek to show the public they are doing something – anything -- about the situation.
That led the newly elected city council in my hometown of Summit to pass a “Resident Protection” ordinance in February, one month after being sworn into office. The ordinance instituted a municipal fine for pulling a car or house door handle on private property or taking “any action in an attempt” to gain unlicensed entry to the car or house.
The ordinance language is broad and vague. Even walking up towards a car or home could constitute “any action” in an attempt to gain access, thus justifying probable cause for a charge. The ordinance includes no exception for people who make a mistake, the way the existing state criminal trespass law does. One can imagine this ordinance leading to police interactions with delivery drivers or out-of-town visitors.
The Summit City government addressed this concern by suggesting the ordinance would never be charged by itself, but rather only appended to state criminal charges, such as auto theft or attempted auto theft.
Then what is the point? And when will we learn that gimmicks – in this case, one described by the Council as a “game-changer” -- are not real solutions?
A city ordinance violation by itself cannot even provide the basis for an arrest, only the issuance of a summons to appear in court. In my experience as a former federal and state prosecutor, the notion that would-be car thieves will be deterred by the potential for a municipal fine is naive, at best.
Individuals unswayed by the prospect of prison will not be moved by an additional financial penalty. Criminal statutes already carry fees that are almost never paid. In the case of juveniles committing the car thefts, it is unclear whether they could even be adjudicated under this ordinance in municipal court (as opposed to family court).
Officeholders pass ineffectual laws like this so that they can put out campaign flyers in election season highlighting their law-and-order efforts. That is why this ordinance was passed without consulting community leaders like the Summit Interfaith Council. Without soliciting the feedback of relevant prosecutors or defense attorneys. Without doing the vetting that one would hope from our policymakers.
Now it is being copied, in some instances word for word, by municipalities such as Bernards and Berkeley Heights. These actions will not make us safer, but they do waste city officials’ time and take the focus away from more productive efforts.
In my experience, the most effective avenues for preventing this type of crime are 1) increasing the likelihood that offenders are quickly caught and brought to justice and 2) making cars harder to steal in the first place (sometimes called “target hardening”).
On the first point, apprehending car theft suspects requires regional cooperation. In many instances, offenders are arrested in different towns after traveling in the stolen car. That necessitates significant coordination with other jurisdictions, as well as investment throughout the state in technology like automated license plate readers. Every recovered stolen car should be checked for fingerprints and DNA.
Not only should police departments participate in the Attorney General’sAuto Theft Task Force with the State Police, but municipal leaders must push for greater involvement by federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI. We need the U.S. Attorney’s Office to consistently dedicate federal resources to investigations and prosecutions against organized theft rings. Elected officials have a role to play in advocating for local, state, and federal law enforcement collaboration, as well as in holding County Prosecutors accountable for thorough prosecutions at the local level when offenders are caught.
On the second point, the fewer easy marks available, the less incentive there will be to target the area. That means continued awareness campaigns about locking car doors and keeping keys in secure, non-obvious locations in the home. Many police departments have given out free steering wheel locks to residents. The same could be done with pouches for key fob storage that prevent against criminals “boosting” the signal from keys inside the home near windows or doors.
Ultimately, addressing car theft requires thoughtful and coordinated approaches. People deserve real solutions from our government, or at least reasoned attempts. Not gimmicks.
Andrew Macurdy is a former federal and state prosecutor in New Jersey.
