Holland v. Rosen
| Decision Date | 21 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17–4317 (JBS–KMW) |
| Citation | 277 F.Supp.3d 707 |
| Parties | Brittan B. HOLLAND and Lexington National Insurance Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Kelly ROSEN, Mary E. Colalillo, and Christopher Porrino, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Justin Taylor Quinn, Esq., ROBINSON MILLER LLC, One Newark Center, 19th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Paul D. Clement, Esq. (pro hac vice), Michael F. Williams, Esq., Christopher G. Michel, Esq. (pro hac vice), Andrew. C. Lawrence, Esq. (pro hac vice), KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 655 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stuart Mark Feinblatt, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Joseph Riggs, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Hughes Justice Complex, 25 W. Market Street, Trenton, NJ 08625, Attorneys for Defendants
Alexander R. Shalom, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, 89 Market Street, 7th Floor, P.O. Box 32159, Newark, NJ 07102, Brandon J. Buskey, Esq. (pro hac vice), Andrea Woods, Esq. (pro hac vice), American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004, Attorneys for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Drug Policy Alliance, Latino Action Network, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People—New Jersey State Conference
II. BACKGROUND...714
IV. DISCUSSION...726
I. INTRODUCTION
This dispute centers on the constitutionality of New Jersey's recently-enacted Criminal Justice Reform Act ("CJRA"). The matter is presently before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiffs Brittan B. Holland ("Holland") and Lexington National Insurance Corporation ("Lexington") for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants Kelly Rosen, the Team Leader for Pretrial Services in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey; Mary E. Colalillo, the Camden County Prosecutor; and Christopher S. Porrino, the Attorney General of New Jersey, (collectively, "the State Defendants" or "Defendants"), as well as their agents, "from taking any actions to enforce statutory provisions [of the CJRA] ... that allow imposition of severe restrictions on the pre-trial liberty of presumptively innocent criminal defendants without offering the option of monetary bail."
Holland is presently on pretrial release from the Superior Court of New Jersey on conditions including home confinement (except for employment) and electronic monitoring, but not cash bail, as he faces charges for second-degree aggravated assault. Lexington is a bail bond provider that alleges its business in New Jersey has essentially dried up since the CJRA took effect on January 1, 2017, although it does not allege it has a bonding relationship with Holland or any other person processed under the CJRA.
The primary issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have a "reasonable probability of eventual success" on their claims that the CJRA violates Holland's Fourth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. This inquiry necessarily requires the Court to also consider jurisdictional issues, such as whether Plaintiffs have standing to bring their constitutional claims and whether the Court must abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), in light of Holland's ongoing state prosecution.
The Court heard oral argument at a Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on August 22, 2017 [Docket Item 42], and no testimony was offered beyond various affidavits and attached documents. After careful consideration, Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be denied for the reasons explained below. The following constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law upon Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
II. BACKGROUND
As under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey State Constitution ("State Constitution") provides: "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required." N.J. Const. art. 1, ¶ 12. For more than a century, the State Constitution additionally required: "[a]ll persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption great." N.J. Const. of 1844, art. I, ¶ 10 ; see also N.J. Const. of 1947, art. I, ¶ 11 (2016) ().1 Thus, New Jersey has long considered the right of an individual to bail before trial to be "a fundamental one." State v. Johnson, 61 N.J. 351, 355, 294 A.2d 245 (1972).
The constitutional guarantee that a criminal defendant be "bailable by sufficient sureties" produced tension in New Jersey's criminal justice system. On one hand, "any defendants—even those who posed a substantial risk of flight or danger to the community—could be released if they had access to untainted funds to post as bail." State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 52–53, 160 A.3d 1 (2017). On the other hand, "poorer defendants accused of less serious crimes, who presented minimal risk, were held in custody if they could not post even modest amounts of bail." Id. at 53, 160 A.3d 1.
For example, a 2013 Report revealed that on a particular day in 2012, a total of 13,003 inmates were housed in 20 of New Jersey's 22 county jails. Marie VanNostrand, Ph.D., Luminosity & the Drug Policy Alliance, New Jersey Jail Population Analysis 8 (Mar. 2013), https://university.pretrial.org/viewdocument/new-jersey-jail-popu) [hereinafter, "VanNostrand Report"]. About 9,500 inmates (or 73% of the sampled jail population) were confined because they were awaiting trial or sentencing in either Superior or Municipal Court. Id. at 11.2 Most importantly, more than 5,000 inmates (or 38.5% of the sampled jail population) were in custody simply because they could not afford bail. Id. at 13.3
A total of 1,547 of those inmates (or 12% of the sampled jail population) were in pretrial custody because they could not afford $2,500 or less, including about 800 inmates who could have secured their release for $500 or less. Id."In other words, one in eight inmates, who posed little risk, sat in jail pretrial because they were poor, while defendants charged with serious crimes who posed a substantial risk of danger or flight could be released into the community without monitoring so long as they could make bail." Robinson, 229 N.J. at 53, 160 A.3d 1.
In 2012, Governor Chris Christie called for a constitutional amendment to reform New Jersey's pretrial detention system. Id. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner of the New Jersey Supreme Court subsequently established a Joint Committee on Criminal Justice ("the Joint Committee") to examine "issues relating to bail and the delays in bringing criminal cases to trial." Joint Committee, Report of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice at 1 (Mar. 10, 2014), available at https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/courts/assets/criminal/finalreport3202014.pdf. The Joint Committee was comprised of members from all three branches of state government and included judges, prosecutors, public defenders, private counsel, court administrators, and staff from the Legislature and Governor's office. Id.
On March 10, 2014, the Report of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice was issued. Id. According to the Joint Committee:
the current system presents problems at both ends of the spectrum: defendants charged with less serious offenses, who pose little risk of flight or danger to the community, too often remain in jail before trial because they cannot post relatively modest amounts of bail, while other defendants who face more serious charges and have access to funds are released even if they pose a danger to the community or a substantial risk of flight.
Id. at 2. To that end, the Joint Committee first recommended that "New Jersey should move from a largely ‘resource-based’ system of pretrial release to a ‘risk-based’ system of pretrial release." Id. at 8. Among several other proposals, the Joint Committee further recommended that "[a] statute should be enacted requiring that an objective risk assessment be performed for defendants housed in jail pretrial, using an assessment instrument that determines the level of risk of a defendant," and "[n]onmonetary conditions of release that correspond to the level of risk should be established." Id.
After conducting hearings on the Joint Committee's findings and recommendations, the State Legislature proposed and passed the Criminal Justice Reform Act, S. 946, A. 1910 (2014). On August 11, 2014, Governor Christie signed the CJRA into law. L. 2014, c. 31 (codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:162–15 to -26).
Enforcement of the CJRA was predicated on ratification of a proposed amendment to the State Constitution that would authorize New Jersey courts to deny the pretrial release of certain defendants. See N.J.S.A. 2A:162–15 Note. In a state-wide referendum held on November 4, 2014, New...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. Galveston Cnty.
...to pretrial release." ODonnell IV , 260 F.Supp.3d at 816. Preiser is, therefore, inapplicable here. See Holland v. Rosen , 277 F.Supp.3d 707, 738 (D.N.J. 2017) ( Preiser inapplicable because the plaintiff "does not seek an injunction ordering his immediate or speedier release into the commu......
-
Collins v. Daniels
...defendants who caused her pretrial detention and supervision but are not members of the state judiciary. See, e.g. , Holland v. Rosen , 277 F.Supp.3d 707, 723 (D.N.J. 2017), aff'd 895 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2018) (naming as a defendant the person who "enforce[ed] the pretrial release conditions"......
-
Holland v. Rosen
...Proposed Order of Plaintiffs Granting Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction at 2, Holland v. Rosen , 277 F.Supp.3d 707 (D.N.J. 2017) ( No. 17–4317 ).After considering the standing of Holland and Lexington to bring suit, we conclude, as did the District Court ......
-
Booth v. Galveston Cnty.
...to pretrial release." ODonnell IV, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 816. Preiser is, therefore, inapplicable here. See Holland v. Rosen, 277 F. Supp. 3d 707, 738 (D.N.J. 2017) (Preiser inapplicable because the plaintiff "does not seek an injunction ordering his immediate or speedier release into the comm......
-
ABSTAINING FROM ABSTENTION: WHY YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOES NOT APPLY IN 42 U.S.C [section] 1983 BAIL LITIGATION.
...Booth v. Galveston County, 352 F. Supp. 3d 718, 732-33 (S.D. Tex. 2019)(explaining why Younger does not apply); Holland v. Rosen, 277 F. Supp. 3d 707, 737 (D.N.J. 2017), aff'd, 895 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2018), cert, denied, 139 S.Ct. 440 (2018) (same); Welchen v. Cnty. of Sacramento & Kamal......