J.K. v. New Jersey State Parole Board (084035) (Statewide), A-76-19

Background

J.K., a dual U.S./Polish citizen, was sentenced in 2005 to Community Supervision for Life (CSL) following a conviction for attempting to lure a minor.
In 2015 J.K. petitioned the New Jersey State Parole Board to relocate to Poland while remaining under Board supervision; initial petition was denied.
The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, instructing the Board to consider whether it could supervise or impose conditions if J.K. relocated.
On remand the Board requested updated affidavits, translations, and a concrete plan for how CSL conditions (reporting, counseling, urine monitoring, notification of arrest, travel) would be handled in Poland; J.K. refused to provide the requested documentation.
A two-member Board panel denied the second application; the Board affirmed on administrative appeal and the Appellate Division upheld that denial; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.
The Supreme Court affirmed: it held the Board’s denial was not arbitrary or capricious (J.K.’s record was inadequate) and that Policy #09.821 (permitting review of international-residency requests) is within the Board’s statutory authority; constitutional and new rulemaking claims were not reached.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Board authority to adopt Policy #09.821 permitting international relocation under continued supervision	Board has statutory authority to impose/modify conditions and may allow relocation while retaining supervision	No explicit statutory grant for international transfers; UAOPS only addresses interstate transfers; international transfer would effectively terminate legislatively-mandated supervision	Policy #09.821 is within the Board's broad statutory authority to impose/alter conditions; international relocation under supervision is permissible
2. Whether denial of J.K.’s application was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable	Denial was arbitrary; J.K. has a right to relocate as a dual citizen and Board overstated documentation requirements	Denial was justified because J.K. refused to supply affidavits, translations, and a supervision plan the Board reasonably requested	Denial was not arbitrary; record before the Board was inadequate and Board reasonably required information to assess continued CSL supervision
3. Applicability of Sanchez and J.S. (prior appellate decisions)	Sanchez/J.S. imply Board must permit relocation or at least assess continued supervision regardless of receiving jurisdiction’s stance	Those cases are distinguishable: Sanchez involved interstate transfer where receiving state refused UAOPS supervision; J.S. was remanded because the Board failed to consider supervision	Sanchez and J.S. are distinguishable; here the Board did consider supervision and J.K. refused to supply needed information, so denial stands
4. Constitutional and procedural rulemaking claims (right to travel, substantive due process, and adequacy of Policy adoption)	J.K. (and amicus) contend relocation implicates fundamental rights and Policy adoption procedures may be defective	Claims were not preserved or necessary to resolve; Board asserts it will promulgate regulations if required	Court declined to decide constitutional or new procedural-rulemaking claims as unnecessary or unpreserved; directed J.K. to proceed under Policy #09.821 before the Board

Key Cases Cited

Sanchez v. State Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 2004) (interstate-transfer context; receiving state's refusal to supervise under UAOPS insufficient alone to require retention)
J.S. v. State Parole Bd., 452 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2017) (remanded where Board failed to consider whether supervision could continue after foreign relocation)
Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., PFRS, 219 N.J. 369 (2014) (standard of review for agency action: sustain unless arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable)
DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (statutory-construction principles; interpretive guidance)
O’Keefe v. Passaic Valley Water Comm’n, 132 N.J. 234 (1993) (courts may decline to reach constitutional issues not necessary to disposition)