Siccardi v. State

• Decision Date: 13 December 1971
• Parties: , 51 A.L.R.3d 494 Michael A. SICCARDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 545

59 N.J. 545

284 A.2d 533, 51 A.L.R.3d 494

Michael A. SICCARDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Oct. 26, 1971.

Decided Dec. 13, 1971.

John N. Post for the appellant (Post & Staub, Westfield, attorneys).

Elson P. Kendall, Asst. Prosecutor, for respondent (Karl Asch, Union County Prosecutor, attorney).

Fred H. Kumpf, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Attorney General, intervenor (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney; Fred H. Kumpf, Deputy Atty. Gen. and Phyllis J. Kessler, Law Student Assistant, on the brief).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

JACOBS, J.

The plaintiff Michael A. Siccardi applied under N.J.S.A. 2A:151--44 for a permit to carry a handgun. His application was denied by the Union County Court and he appealed to the Appellate Division which remanded the cause for enlargement of the record. That was done and thereafter we granted the plaintiff's petition for certification.

Siccardi is a resident of Plainfield and manages the Liberty Theater which is located on Front Street in Plainfield. His permit application asserted that (1) he was required to carry substantial sums of money from the theater to a nearby 'bank depository in the late evening hours,' (2) the theater is located 'within the perimeter of the area of recent civil disorder in Plainfield,' (3) 'there have been numerous incidents involving beatings and robberies in the immediate area of the theater' and (4) he has received 'numerous telephone threats' and his 'life has been threatened' by persons confronting him 'in the theater and on the street.' After investigation, Chief Campbell of the Plainfield Police Department, recommended denial and this was followed, after hearing, by the denial in the County Court. The evidence presented in the County Court pursuant to the Appellate Division's remand indicated the following:

In 1965 Siccardi sought a permit to carry a handgun. Chief Paine of the Plainfield Police Department found that there was an insufficient showing of 'need' as required by the statute and Siccardi did not pursue the matter in the County Court. Indeed Siccardi has never held a permit to carry a handgun though he possesses guns both at home and at the theater; such possession at home and theater is not in issue here (N.J.S.A. 2A:151--42(a)) though it may evidentially be the subject of legislative provisions which do not call for carrying permits issuable only on a suitable showing of need. See N.J.S.A. 2A:151--32--36; Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 248 A.2d 521 (1968), Appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812, 89 S.Ct. 1486, 22 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969). Siccardi wants the permit so that he can carry a gun concealed on his person during trips from the theater to the bank depository and on his trips between the theater and his home. See N.J.S.A. 2A:151--41--46; State v. Cusick, 116 N.J.Super. 482, 485--486, 282 A.2d 781 (App.Div.1971). He lives in an old residential low crime area about six minutes travel time from the theater. He has lived in the same house since 1927 and it has never been broken into. Though he has been manager of the theater for over twenty years, he has never been assaulted or attacked on his trips between his home and the theater. Though the Siccardi family has operated the theater for over thirty-five years, no member has thus been attacked or assaulted, nor has there ever been any incident involving the theater's proceeds.

Chief Campbell testified that he investigated Siccardi's application and in his opinion 'Siccardi failed to justify a need for carrying a weapon.' He pointed out that the Plainfield Police Department provides escort service which was always available to Siccardi in connection with his trips to the bank depository. He did not recall ever getting any complaint from Siccardi about failing to provide the escort service though he did recall that Siccardi had mentioned that he had to wait 'and when I explained to him why he seemed to understand it and accept it.' Siccardi himself acknowledged that he was fully aware that he could, if he so wished, employ suitable private security guards or a private escort service at a cost of about $3.75 or $4 per hour.

So far as reference in Siccardi's application to the 'perimeter of the area' of recent disturbances was concerned, Chief Campbell considered that it had no 'bearing on his request to carry a weapon.' He pointed out that there are approximately a hundred businesses in the area and no applications for gun permits had been made with respect to those businesses. With reference to Siccardi's statement as to 'beatings and robberies,' Chief Campbell testified that he would not classify the sites involved in the beatings and robberies as being 'in the area of the theater.' And finally, he testified that he did not recall any complaints by Siccardi that his life had been threatened. He did recall that Siccardi had told him about some threat by a man who lived near the theater but that man, whom he regarded as a 'militant type of person,' had threatened 'many people in the City of Plainfield.' Obviously, Chief Campbell was satisfied that there had been no serious threats against Siccardi calling for further police investigation or action or warranting the issuance of a carrying permit to Siccardi for his self-protection.

Chief Campbell testified that he had been with the Plainfield Police Department since 1949 and had been Acting Chief or Chief since 1967. In 1969 only three applications for carrying permits were approved by him for Plainfield; one to a gun dealer, another to a man employed in a security capacity and a third which is the subject of an appeal now pending before us. He was convinced that possession of a handgun is not well calculated to thwart street robberies he knew of no instance during his long tenure where a private citizen not connected with the police department had 'thwarted an armed robbery on the streets of Plainfield through the use of a gun.' Indeed Siccardi himself testified that if he were granted a permit he would not use his gun to thwart a robbery but only in self-defense; as he put it: 'If someone had a gun pointed at me and I had $50,000 in my hand, I would give him the money.'

Several police chiefs and a representative of the State Police testified as expert witnesses before the County Court; they all supported a highly restrictive approach in the granting of carrying permits. Thus Chief Roy of the Elizabeth Police Department acknowledged that his standards of 'need' were changing 'toward the side of more stringency.' He had been with the Elizabeth Police Department for almost thirty years and knew of no instance in which a private person who was robbed or assaulted had attempted to thwart the attack through the use of a permitted weapon in his possession. He expressed the view that carrying a permitted weapon is a 'practically negligible deterrent in crime.' He noted that 'what happens is that the criminal selects his particular time when the victim is unaware of the attack. It is a sudden, very swift type of attack where the individual is caught off guard and has no opportunity to get his weapon to use it and this is the reason why the individual, even if he had a weapon, could be just as much a victim of a robbery as an individual who did not have a weapon.'

Chief Mass of the Shrewsbury Police Department has been a police officer for eighteen years; he also is president of the New Jersey State Chief's Association. He knew of no instance in his experience where a private person attacked in the street successfully defended himself through the use of a permitted gun. He considered that carrying the gun has no deterrent effect and noted that the crime is usually 'over and done with' before the person carrying the permitted weapon can effectively react. He would not approve an application for a carrying permit unless there was a showing of a 'crucial need' such as, E.g., substantiated threats indicating imminent danger to the applicant's life or personal security.

Chief Haney of the Cranford Police Department knew of no instance in Cranford where a permitted gun was used to thwart a holdup or protect the permittee; he considered that the private person's possession of the concealed weapon did not serve at all as a deterrent to crime. He confined his approvals largely to security officers; he had approved only one permit application during the past three years. Chief Moran of the Westfield Police Department approved a single application by a head of a private detective agency; other applications were not pursued when he advised that his department would provide escort service to company employees carrying substantial payrolls. He testified that he concurred with the testimony given by the other Chiefs with respect to the appropriateness of a highly restrictive approach to the granting of carrying permits.

Sergeant Klauss heads the investigation unit of the State Police which processes permit applications for districts having no police chiefs. He detailed the action taken by his department in connection with permit applications and pointed to the many denials where escort services were available and where there had been no substantiated threats to life or personal security. He noted that 'stricter measures concerning the issuance of permits are being applied' and that denials are common where there is no showing that they are 'absolutely necessary under the circumstances.' He expressed the view that the words 'necessary' and 'need' go hand in hand regarding an application, and 'if we feel that the need is not there' or 'there are other means for a person to transport monies, or other methods to protect property, so to speak, then, of course, we deny the application.' He expressed agreement with the testimony of the police chiefs, noting that the concealed weapon does not operate as a deterrent and that attacks happen with 'so ...