This document discusses the importance of the accreditation manager reviewing legal updates and attorney general directives, as they may impact agency policies and accreditation standards. It provides examples of recent court cases and attorney general directives that would require agencies to review and potentially modify their written directive system and related policies. The document emphasizes that legal updates and new directives can influence accreditation by necessitating training, equipment, or other changes to maintain compliance with standards.

1. Legal Updates and
Accreditation
The impact of case law and attorney general directive on
accreditation compliance.

2. NJPSAC
John DeMillio
Sergeant
Sea Girt Police Department
Assigned to Accreditation since 2009
jdemillio@njpsac.org

3. Legal Updates and Accreditation Manager
• The Accreditation Manager MUST have a pulse on legal updates.
• Each legal update published may have an impact on one or more
directives.
• Each legal update may potentially impact an accreditation
standard.

4. Review and Implement
• NJSACOP Standard 1.1.1 – The Written Directive System
• A written directive shall describe the agency's written directive system and
include at a minimum:
• Bullet i - A mechanism to receive, review and implement, where applicable,
Attorney General and local county prosecutor's guidelines, directives, and
uniform policies. (This is a new bullet added to standard 1.1.1)
• CALEA Standard 12.2.1 – The Written Directive System
• The agency has a written directive system that includes, at a minimum, the
following:
• Bullet i - procedures for review of proposed or revised policies, procedures,
rules, and regulations prior to their promulgation to ensure they do not
contradict other existing agency directives or applicable law.

5. Review and Implement
• NJSACOP standard 1.1.1 now requires an agency to have “A
mechanism to receive, review and implement, where applicable,
Attorney General and local county prosecutor's guidelines,
directives, and uniform policies.”
• This mechanism should be detailed in your Written Directive
policy/directive.
• Implement includes:
• Policy / Directive Formulation or Modification
• Training Needs
• Equipment / facility needs.

6. Training Requirement
• NJSACOP Standard 1.9.8 – In-Service Training Program
• Bullet a - A listing and frequency of mandatory in-service training
requirements;
• Clarification Statement: The agency should ensure that their sworn law
enforcement officers complete the mandatory in-service law enforcement
training established by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice to
include legal updates training.
• CALEA Standard 33.5.1
• A written directive requires all sworn personnel to complete an annual in-
service training program, including legal updates.
Additional Training Will Likely be Required to Implement Required Changes

7. Legal Updates – Influences on Accreditation
• Case Law
• Attorney General Directives
• New Laws

8. Case Law
• New court decisions need to be monitored on a regular bases.
• NJ Courts
• Receive court decisions when they are decided through the NJ Supreme Court
• https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/opinions.html
• Education Firms and Academies
• J. Harris - https://jharristraining.com/
• Google Scholar
• When a case is decided it should be thoroughly reviewed for
potential impacts on agency policy and accreditation standards.

9. Example – State v. Witt (2015)
• Back in 2009 the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of
State v. Pena-Flores
• This case made it nearly impossible to apply the automobile exception to
the search warrant requirement here in New Jersey.
• At that time Agencies SHOULD have adapted their “Search and Seizure”
• In 2015 State v. Witt redefined the “Automobile Exception” in New
Jersey
• Agency directives must change to meet the new court decisions
• Agency personnel must be trained and understand the impact of the
decision.
• Required - LEGAL UPDATE training.

10. Review and Study the Cases
• When a case is published - Read the case thoroughly and determine the
primary issue being argued.
• Search
• Stop / Detention
• Probable Cause
• Use of Force
• Ect.
• Determine any/all agency directive affected.
• Review required changes.
• Seek Legal Advice if needed
• Look at each standard – Some standards specifically require the directive to be
“in accordance with contemporary criminal procedural requirements”
• ALL AGENCY DIRECTIVE SHOULD BE “in accordance with contemporary criminal
procedural requirements”

11. Search and Seizure
• The search and seizure standards are often affected.
• NJ 3.1.1 - A written directive establishes criteria for warrantless searches in
accordance with contemporary criminal procedural requirements. Minimally,
the written directive shall address:
• Consent searches;
• Stop and frisk;
• Motor vehicle searches;
• Crime scene searches;
• Exigent circumstances, community caretaking, or emergency aid doctrine;
• Inventories of seized vehicles or other property;
• Plain view, plain touch, plain smell;
• Open fields;
• Other situations authorized by state and federal criminal procedure.
• CALEA 1.2.4 - A written directive governs search and seizure without a warrant
by agency personnel.

12. Recent Cases
• State v. Lori A. Hummel (2018)
• Inventory Search
• State v. Ornette Terry (2018)
• Search for Registration of Vehicle
• Collins v. Virginia (2018)
• Search Curtilage of a Home / Motor Vehicle Exception
• State v. Chisum (2019)
• Investigative Detention – Subsequent Search Incident to Arrest
• State v. A.M (2019)
• Miranda Warning (Spanish)

13. State v. Lori A. Hummel
• This case involved a subject being subject to a custodial
interrogation and having and outstanding warrant for her arrest
for another matter.
• The defendant entered her purse several times during the
interrogation.
• Eventually, an “Inventory Search” was conducted on the purse and
evidence was found (EBT Cards). She was released, then taken
into custody three days later.
• Court suppressed the evidence recovered during the inventory
search.

14. State v. Lori A. Hummel
• Does your agency directive authorize inventory searches?
• Inventory searches are authorized for:
• Protection of the inventoried property
• Shield police from false property claims
• Safeguard the police from potential danger
• Previous case – State v. Mangold, two-step inquiry:
• Is impoundment of property justified?
• Is inventory procedure legal?
• The questions raised in this case should have prompted a review of
agency directives to ensure it was consistent with the findings.
• If your policy is not consistent with this case:
• You may be out of compliance with NJSACOP 3.1.1f or CALEA 1.2.4

15. State v. Ornette Terry
• This case questions evidence found during a search of a vehicle for
documents (Registration and Insurance) /
• Handgun and Hollow Point Bullets found in plain view only after entering
the vehicle to conduct a document search.
• Trial Court allowed the evidence found during the search.
• The Appellate Court suppressed the evidence found during the
search.
• The New Jersey Supreme Court held “the officers acted
reasonably”

16. State v. Ornette Terry
• HOWEVER: Although the Court rule the search was good in this
case, they placed limits on when a document search can be
conducted.
• The Court stated:
• “When a police officer can readily determine that the driver or passenger is
the lawful possessor of the vehicle, despite an inability to produce the
registration, a warrantless search for proof of ownership will not be
justified.”
• Most agency policy allows for a document search. Was your
agency policy updated with the new limits set in this case?

17. Collins v. Virginia
• This case questioned a search conducted under the automobile
exception. Specifically, a warrantless entry of a home (or the
curtilage) in order to search a vehicle therein.
• Officers in VA were investigating a stolen motorcycle. Facebook
posts made by the defendant showed the stolen motorcycle
parked in the driveway of the defendant’s home.
• Officers went to the home and from the street, saw what
appeared to be a motorcycle under a tarp in the same location
where the photographs were taken.

18. Collins v. Virginia
• Officers walked up the driveway, removed the tarp, confirmed it
was the stolen motorcycle, waited for the defendant to arrive
home, and arrested him.
• The U.S. Supreme Court deemed an improper search.
• The automobile exception does not permit the warrantless entry
of a home or its curtilage in order to search a vehicle therein.
• What does your agency policy say in regards to the automobile
exception? Open fields? Plain view searches? Is there any impact
this case might have on your directives?

19. State v. Chisum
• This case argued a search incident to arrest after an investigative
detention. In this case the search uncovered a firearm on the
defendant.
• Police were called to a noise complaint at a hotel. The officers
identified the room where the noise was coming from. There was
a group of people in the room. The renter agreed to comply and
turn down the music. The police decided NOT to issue a summons
or take enforcement action.
• The police then ran people in the room for warrants and
conducted pat-searches when firearms were discovered on two
people, including the defendant.

20. State v. Chisum
• The court found the search incident to arrest was invalid because
the investigative detention, after the decision not to take
enforcement action, was invalid.
• Further stated: Once the noise was abated and the decision not
to issue a summons was made, the police had no basis to detain
the occupants, or basis to run warrant checks on them.
• What does your agency policy say about investigative detentions?
Is there any language which would violate this case? What about
your “stop and frisk” policy?

21. State v. A.M.
• This case considered whether under Miranda v. Arizona, the
defendant, who speaks limited English, waived his constitutional
right against self-incrimination.
• A.M. was being investigated for a sexual assault against his
fourteen-year-old step-granddaughter.
• A.M. spoke little English. A Spanish speaking detective assisted in
translating the interview.
• A Spanish language form was used to advise A.M. of his rights. The
defendant replied “sí” each time, initialed, and signed, waiving
his rights.

22. State v. A.M.
• The defense challenged the admission of the statement to police.
• The detective did not ask any questions to determine the
defendant’s educational background or literacy level and
questioned discrepancies between the video and the transcript.
• The trial court denied the motion to suppress the interview.
• The Appellate Division reversed, finding the State failed to prove
the defendant made a voluntary decision to waive his rights.
• The N.J. Supreme Court REVERSED the Appellate Division
judgement.

23. State v. A.M.
• Sounds like a win for law enforcement but, it may have an impact in
future interrogations. Policy should be adjusted to meet opinion
expressed in the decision.
• The Supreme Court held, “a better practice would have been to read
aloud the form’s waiver portion to the defendant…”
• A waiver of a defendant’s Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent
and voluntary in light of all circumstances surround the custodial
interrogations.
• The Court went on to say, “To eliminate questions about a suspect’s
understanding, the entire Miranda form should be read aloud to a
suspect being interrogated, OR the suspect should be asked to read the
entire form aloud.”

24. State v. A.M.
• The Court went on to suggest other means of verifying a persons
literacy and educations background.
• This case should cause a review of your interview and
interrogation directives, procedures, forms, and facilities.
• Does your directive provide a requirement to establish literacy or
understanding?
• Do you have the appropriate forms for alternate languages?
• NJSACOP Standard 3.2.1 c/d requires compliance with all
contemporary criminal procedural requirements.

25. Attorney General Directives
• 2016-6 – Bail Reform Directive
• 2017-2 – Internal Affairs
• 2018-1 – Release of Body Camera Recordings
• 2018-2 – Mandatory Random Drug Testing
• 2018-3 – Mandatory Early Warning Systems
• 2018-6 – Immigration Trust Directive
• Update to 2016-7 - Dissemination of Investigative Tips and Leads

26. Bail Reform – 2016-6
• Attorney General Directive 2016-6 was published to provide
guidance in complying with the Criminal Justice Reform Act.
• This single directives impacted a number of agency directives
• Arrest and Processing/Booking
• Field Reporting
• Fingerprinting
• Domestic Violence
• Records
• Court On-Call Procedures
• Maybe more in your agency

27. Bail Reform - Standards
NJSACOP
• 3.1.2 Adult Arrest
• A. Arrests with a warrant
• B. Arrest without a warrant.
• C. Reports required by the arrest.
• D. Fingerprinting Requirements
• 3.5.7 Domestic Violence
Investigation
• 1.8.3 Field Reporting System,
Time frames for submissions.
CALEA
• 1.2.5 Arrest with/without
Warrant
• 82.2.1 Field Reporting
• D / E Procedure in completing
reports/submitting and review

28. Internal Affairs – 2017-2
• Attorney General Directive 2017-2 modified the Attorney General’s
“Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures”
• It added mandatory notifications to be made to the complainant.
• The NJSACOP standard 1.3.1 is not really impacted by this
directive BUT most agency directives pertaining to I.A. are,
• CALEA standard 26.3.4 (TEIR LE2) is directly impacted. Bullet B
looks for a schedule for status notification to the complainant.

29. Internal Affairs – 2017-2
• Mandatory Notifications:
• The receiving officer SHALL advised the complainant that he or she will be
kept informed of the status of their complaint, if requested, and its
ultimate disposition.
• A letter SHALL be send to the complainant explaining the outcome of the
investigation.
• Exonerated – state and define for the civilian complainant
• Not Sustained – provide a brief explanation why

30. Release of Body Camera Recordings – 2018-1
• This directive provides guidance to law enforcement in the release of
body camera recordings in deadly force incidents.
• It is the responsibility of the County Prosecutor to determine on a case-by-case
basis whether a deadly-force recording will be made publicly available.
• Directives Impacted:
• Records / OPRA
• Mobile/BWC Video Recording
• Standards
• NJSACOP – 1.8.1e – Procedures and criteria for release of agency records
• CALEA – 82.1.1c - procedures and criteria for the release of agency records
• CALEA – 82.2.4 (O - TEIR LE2) Distribution of reports and records.

31. Release of Body Camera Recordings – 2018-1
NJSACOP
• 1.8.1e – Procedures and
criteria for release of agency
records
CALEA

32. Mandatory Random Drug Testing - 2018-2
• This directive makes the previously optional random drug testing
program mandatory.
• Requires establishment of drug testing policy.
• At least twice per calendar year of 10% of agency.
• This directive requires agencies implement the drug screening
program in their agency.
• NEW NJSACOP Standard 1.3.3 – Requires: A written directive
addresses the agency's procedures for drug screening its
personnel.

33. Mandatory Early Warning Systems - 2018-3
• Directive establishes a mandatory adoption of early warning
system by all agencies, or to REVISE their directives to be
consistent with this directive.
• Must publish all EWS policies on the agency’s website!
• NJSACOP Standard 2.2.3
• CALEA Standard 35.1.9

34. Immigration Trust Directive - 2018-6
• Immigration Trust Directive
• Had an impact on several directives and required the establishment of a
new directive.
• Arrest and Processing / Booking
• Interview and Interrogation
• Profiling and Discriminatory Practices
• New Policy – Address the process for seeking a U-Visa and a T-Visa
• Training requirements – Mandatory
• Accreditation Impact – Assessors may look for language to ensure we
comply with directive, specifically with agency directives concerning
NJSACOP 1.5.5b / CALEA 1.2.9a

35. Update to 2016-7 - Dissemination of
Investigative Tips and Leads
• This directive was updated to establish immediate notification of
investigative tips and leads.
• All NJ Law Enforcement shall immediately report any suspicious
activity with a possible nexus to terrorism to CTWatch to be
entered into NJSARS.
• NJSACOP 3.7.8 – Suspicious Activity Reporting
• List of activities
• Appointment of NJSARS liaison.
• CALEA 46.3.2 (TEIR LE2) Terrorism Awareness Information
Reporting

36. Other Guidelines to Review
• 2016-6 revision, v3.0 which added ODARA
• Impacts DV and Arrest and Processing
• 2016-5 – CLEAR training – New mandatory training requirement
• 2015-1 – Body Worn Cameras – Impacts standards on mobile video.

37. Directive Review – DMS Workflow
• In order to ensure all directives and
publications are current and compliant with
AG directives and are in compliance with
accreditation standards agencies should
review directives on a regular basis.
• PowerDMS has a tool to assist in the
management of directives.
• The Workflow tool will automatically trigger a
review of directives on a schedule you decide.
• Can automatically be sent to Groups responsible
for the review.
• A vote system is also available with comments.

38. Legal Updates and Accreditation
• Any questions?

39. Social Media
Social Media – Impact on Accreditation

40. Social Media

41. Social Media
• Social Media is having a serious impact on law enforcement
• Agencies posting on social media
• Information sharing
• Feel good posts
• Crime information
• Missing persons
• Officers posting activities on social media
• Personal activities
• Agency activities
• Bad guys using social media to conduct criminal activity
• Bad guys bragging about criminal activity on social media
• Public commenting on social media post
• Trolling / Harassing / Doxing
• Live streaming

42. Social Media
• Dangers to Law Enforcement
• Bad guys live streaming – Glory crimes
• Public filming officers and getting too close or interfering
• Public’s ability to learn TOO much about officers
• Officer posting too much about themselves
• Posting too much about the agency
• Officers posting personal feelings about agency or public
• Doxing of officers with information learned through social media
• Access to officers family members through social media

43. Social Media
• Recent Headlines:
• Border Patrol agents disciplined over offensive Facebook posts
• They had a secret Facebook group – or so they thought
• 72 Philadelphia police officers 'removed from the street' over troubling
social media posts
• ANTIFA SHARES NAMES AND PHOTOS OF 1,600 ICE EMPLOYEES
• Fake Accounts and Contact Investigated
• Fake social media accounts were created using officers information.

44. Social Media
• A solid social media policy is a must for today’s law enforcement
agencies.
• The social media operated by the agency should be under strict
control and directed toward furthering the mission of the agency.
• All social media accounts or electronic media in the name of the
agency must be officially sanctioned and approved by the CEO.
• Personnel should be aware of the dangers of using social media in
their private lives and the impact it may have on them.

45. Social Media
• NEW STANDARD:
• NJSACOP Standard 1.7.2 Electronic Social Media and Networking
• A written directive establishes the agency's position regarding the use of
electronic social media and networking. Minimally, the written directive
shall address:
A. The agency's use of electronic social media to support its mission and
objectives; and
B. The personal use of electronic social media/networking by its employees.
• CALEA Standard 54.1.1g Public Information Function (O Teir LE2)

46. Social Media – Agency Use
• Policy Should:
• Establish general guidelines and use
• Stress risks for both agency and members posting on social media
• Recognize the almost instantaneous spread associated with social media
posts. Also, the near impossibility of deleting posts.
• Detail the expectations of privacy
• Detail general social networking prohibited conduct
• Detail who is authorized to post in an “Official” capacity.
• Detail the potential uses of the official agency accounts.

47. Social Media – Agency Use
• Issues on Agency Accounts:
• Commenting by outsiders - deleting comments and blocking
• Policy should be clear about what can be deleted and when a person can be
blocked.
• A log of comments deleted and people blocked should be
maintained. Keep good records.

48. Social Media – Agency Use
• Undercover Accounts
• Use of undercover accounts can be a great source of information.
• There is a potential for abuse by officers – specifically because they believe
no one will know posts came from a police department.
• There is a risk in using photographs and media where actual people are
depicted.
• Policy should dictate that media used is created and owned by the agency or
found only in the public domain.
• Prohibit the use of copyrighted material.

49. Social Media – Agency Use
• Monitor Only Account
• A great way to assist in the background investigation process.
• These accounts, owned by the agency, are clearly identified but “follow” no
other person other than those who are undergoing an employment
background check.

50. Social Media – Personally Operated Accounts
• The agency should recognizes the First Amendment rights of
employees and the right to maintain personal web pages and
websites or other forms of electronic social networking
• Caution employees not to disclose their employment with the
agency, post images of logos, uniforms, or other agency items on
personal pages.
• Provide an approval process for posting images of the agency.
• Provide a standing order of exceptions
• Promotion – graduation - awards ceremonies

51. Social Media – Cathy’s Law
• New Jersey State Statute 2A:58D-2 governs the responsibilities of first
responders in protecting the privacy of victims at the scene of a motor vehicle
accident or other emergency situations.
• First responder who is dispatched to or is otherwise present at the scene of a motor
vehicle accident or other emergency situation, for the purpose of providing medical care
or other assistance, shall not photograph, film, videotape, record, or otherwise
reproduce in any manner, the image of a person being provided medical care or other
assistance, except in accordance with applicable rules, regulations, or operating
procedures of the agency employing the first responder.
• A first responder shall not disclose any photograph, film, videotape, record, or other
reproduction of the image of a person being provided medical care or other assistance at
the scene of a motor vehicle accident or other emergency situation without the prior
written consent of the person, or the person's next-of-kin if the person cannot provide
consent, unless that disclosure was for a legitimate law enforcement, public safety,
health care, or insurance purpose or pursuant to a court order.

52. Social Media – Impact on Accreditation
• NJSACOP Standard 1.7.2 is the obvious impact
• Assessors will have access to social media accounts.
• They will probably be viewed during an assessment.
• Social media posting from members of the public will also be out
there.
• Social media may show issues with compliance which need to be
addressed.
• Do not forget to look at other standards to ensure compliance:
• Public Information NJSACOP 1.7.1 / CALEA 54.1.1

53. Social Media
• Social Media today seems to be driving public policy and public
opinion.
• The agency can become the next social media star in an instant.
• An increasing number of incidents are being recorded by the
public and published on social media.
• It is too easy for agency personnel to get sucked in to the
comments and banter online.
• Online SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR ISSUES

54. Social Media Issues and Accreditation
• Any questions?