J.B. v. New Jersey State Parole Board
433 N.J. Super. 327
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Four former sex-offense offenders (J.B., L.A., B.M., W.M.) convicted, served prison terms, and are under lifelong parole supervision (CSL/PSL) subject to conditions imposed by the New Jersey State Parole Board.
- Primary contested conditions: (1) restrictions on accessing social media/Internet services; (2) compulsory periodic polygraph examinations; plus L.A.'s separate challenges to a Halloween curfew and an electronic-monitoring sanction.
- Parole Board adopted regulations (N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11 and amendments) describing Internet restrictions and supplemental polygraph rules after this litigation began; administrative appeals by the inmates were denied by final agency decisions.
- Appellants raised constitutional challenges (First Amendment free speech/association, due process), statutory/APA challenges, and procedural due-process complaints about notice and review opportunities.
- The Appellate Division: (a) rejected facial constitutional and APA attacks on the Internet restrictions but preserved as-applied challenges after exhaustion of administrative remedies; (b) declined to decide the polygraph constitutional questions on the existing record and remanded the polygraph issue for evidentiary fact-finding and expert proof; (c) upheld the Halloween curfew; and (d) found L.A.’s electronic-monitoring challenge moot (monitoring had ended).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutionality of Parole Board Internet/social-media restrictions | Restrictions unconstitutionally burden free speech/association, overbroad, impede rehabilitation and daily life; inadequate notice/procedures | Restrictions reasonably tailored to public safety and risk management for sex offenders; administrative process exists to seek site-specific permission | Internet restrictions upheld on their face; as-applied challenges preserved after pursuing parole-board exemption procedure |
| Polygraph testing requirement for PSL/CSL parolees | Polygraph compulsion violates constitutional rights; process was procedurally defective | Parole Board needs polygraphs for monitoring, rehabilitation and risk-management; regulations now adopted; authority exists to require testing | Court did not resolve merits; polygraph issues referred to trial court for supplemental evidentiary fact-finding (scientific/expert proof and findings) |
| Halloween curfew imposed on L.A. | Curfew violates liberty/due process | Curfew is an appropriate supervisory condition to protect public and foster rehabilitation; Parole Board afforded notice/decision | Curfew upheld |
| Electronic monitoring sanction imposed on L.A. | Electronic monitoring (20-hr curfew) unconstitutional/unduly punitive | Sanction within Parole Board authority to enforce compliance | Challenge dismissed as moot (monitoring completed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole involves conditional liberty and may be subject to supervisory conditions)
- Jamgochian v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 196 N.J. 222 (N.J. 2008) (CSL/PSL parolees may be subject to restrictive conditions but are protected from arbitrary action; notice and opportunity to contest required)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1995) (recidivism risk and characteristics of sex offenders justify statutory controls)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1973) (facial invalidation of statutes is disfavored; use facial challenges sparingly)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (courts should avoid broad facial rulings where factual development is needed)
- United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (upheld supervised-release Internet restrictions as reasonably related to offense/risk)
- United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (upheld Internet restriction as condition of supervised release given defendant's history)