Robert Lavezzi v. State of N.J. (072856), 219 N.J. 163

In Dec. 2005 Essex County Prosecutor’s Office executed a search warrant and seized non‑contraband personal property (collectibles, model trains) belonging to Robert and Karen Lavezzi during a criminal investigation that was later abandoned.
Plaintiffs allege some seized items were lost or damaged while in custody; some items were returned later but many were not and others were water/damage‑ruined.
Plaintiffs sued the Prosecutor’s Office and individual investigators for negligence, conversion, and unlawful taking; County sought defense and indemnification from the NJ Attorney General under the Tort Claims Act (TCA) and Wright v. State.
The Attorney General denied defense/indemnification, treating the property storage/return decision as administrative (county) rather than law‑enforcement (state) conduct; Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning long‑term retention was administrative.
Supreme Court granted certification and reversed: on the limited record the seizure and retention of evidence during an investigation are law‑enforcement functions that trigger the State’s duty to defend and indemnify under Wright and the TCA; State may seek reimbursement from County later if loss resulted from a county‑controlled facility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State must defend/indemnify county prosecutor employees for alleged loss/damage to seized property	Lavezzi: loss/damage derives from seizure/retention during a criminal investigation, so falls within State law‑enforcement duties and triggers defense/indemnification under Wright/TCA	State/AG: processing, storage, and return of property are administrative functions of the prosecutor’s office (county responsibility), not State law‑enforcement functions	Held: At this preliminary stage seizure and retention during investigation are law‑enforcement functions; State must defend/indemnify. If later record shows loss due to county‑controlled facility maintenance, State may seek reimbursement from County.

Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422 (N.J. 2001) (establishes State duty to defend/indemnify county prosecutors for torts committed in performance of law‑enforcement duties)
Prado v. State, 186 N.J. 413 (N.J. 2006) (standard for Attorney General’s duty to defend under TCA)
Dunne v. Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 69 N.J. 244 (N.J. 1976) (recognizes hybrid state/county status of county prosecutor offices)
Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491 (3d Cir. 1996) (personnel/administrative decisions by prosecutors are county functions, not State law‑enforcement functions)
Courier News v. Hunterdon Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office, 378 N.J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 2005) (custodial storage and OPRA denial treated as administrative, county responsibility)
Cashen v. Spann, 66 N.J. 541 (N.J. 1975) (county prosecutors may be treated as State agents when conduct arises from criminal investigation)