Authorizes court to impose rescue operation costs of public entity under certain circumstances.
Summary
Assembly Bill 653 would authorize a court to order a person convicted of certain offenses to pay the costs of a public entity’s rescue or recovery operation. The bill applies when a person is guilty of criminal mischief and also guilty of reckless driving, careless driving, or operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner. In those cases, the court could assess the value of services and expenses incurred by public entities, including law enforcement and emergency medical services, that responded to recover or rescue the person, and, if applicable, the person’s pet or property.
The bill is aimed at situations where dangerous conduct leads to emergency response costs, such as incidents involving reckless driving or hazardous behavior that requires rescue. It expressly supplements Title 39 of the Revised Statutes and would take effect immediately if enacted. The measure does not create a new criminal offense; rather, it adds a potential financial consequence tied to existing convictions.
Impact
The bill would amend New Jersey law to give courts discretion to impose rescue-operation cost recovery in addition to any other penalties for qualifying criminal mischief and motor vehicle offenses. It would affect defendants convicted under N.J.S.2C:17-3, R.S.39:4-96, R.S.39:4-97, or C.39:4-97.2, and would allow public entities to seek reimbursement for law enforcement, emergency medical, and related rescue services. The practical effect would be to shift some emergency response costs from taxpayers to individuals whose conduct triggered the rescue or recovery operation.
Sentiment
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context shows no formal debate or opposition on the record. The bill’s sponsor statement presents it as a common-sense cost-recovery measure for public entities that respond to dangerous, avoidable incidents. Overall, the bill text suggests a generally supportive policy rationale focused on accountability and reimbursement for public resources.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether courts should be allowed to make convicted individuals pay the costs of rescue operations, especially when those costs can be substantial and may be added on top of existing criminal penalties. Supporters are likely to emphasize fairness to taxpayers and deterrence for reckless conduct, while potential critics may question how broadly costs would be assessed, whether the standard is too punitive, and whether defendants should bear emergency-response expenses even when the rescue also benefits public safety. The bill also raises practical questions about how courts would calculate the value of services and determine which expenses are sufficiently connected to the incident.