In March 2018, U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman wrote an unpublished opinion about constitutional violations that had occurred in a New Jersey municipal court where an indigent defendant charged with a minor littering offense had expected to receive justice but instead confronted a judge who viewed his case as a revenue-generating opportunity for the municipality. The opinion got little attention at the time except by Chief Justice Rabner, who used the case as an example in an April 17, 2018, memorandum to New Jersey’s municipal and Superior Court judges calling for reform of New Jersey’s municipal courts.

The facts of the municipal court case as recounted in the federal opinion, Kneisser v. McInerney, were startling. Plaintiff Kneisser, a 20-year-old college student employed part-time at $9 per hour, was issued a summons for tossing a cigarette butt from his car window. When he appeared in municipal court to plead guilty, Judge McInerney announced in opening remarks, “If you refuse to pay your fine, I will sentence you to the county jail.” After being fined $239 including court costs, Kneisser told the judge he could not pay anything that day, didn’t know anyone who could help him pay, and requested a payment plan. The judge’s immediate response: “All right. I’ll sentence you to five days in jail. Go with the officer.” Kneisser was then arrested, handcuffed, searched and taken to a cell where he was held until day’s end, when he was returned to court to belatedly discuss his indigent status. Judge Hillman’s thoughtful opinion in Kneisser’s §1983 action (a) granted his summary judgment motion as to Burlington Township and its municipal court, finding that his Fourth, Sixth and 14th Amendment rights had been violated; and (b) held that there were disputed issues of fact as to whether Judge McInerney was entitled to judicial immunity because it was unclear whether he was acting as a judge or as an administrator collecting money for the township. Judge Hillman noted that “Defendants’ [coercive collection] policy and practice was in effect for a long time, and it still may be.” A settlement of this case for $180,000 was recently announced in the Law Journal.