Resident questions action taken by Manalapan officer

Ihad the unfortunate experience (recently) of receiving a jaywalking summons from a Manalapan police officer. I was at the crosswalk on Route and proceeded to the intersection to cross over to get my morning coffee. I ascertained that there were no vehicles on the horizon and opted to proceed. I was with another individual and the officer directed both of us to his patrol car.

He informed us that we were jaywalking. I told him we crossed at the intersection and were within the white lines. He indicated that the law is that you have to wait for the light to change and the law is the law. I expressed my disagreement to him and indicated that his interpretation of the law was absurd.

Are the signals and cautions designed to be absolutes or are they meant to serve as caution indicators? I have been crossing streets for 33 years and feel I possess reasonable judgment to determine if there are zero cars on the road that it is safe to cross. On the summons the officer indicated there was “light traffic”; unfortunately, the summons does not have category for “no traffic” as there was not a single vehicle present on the southbound side.

The literal interpretation the officer took is absurd. While I acknowledge the intention is to prevent individuals from crossing the highway in the middle, my situation did not fall into this category. But so be it, if the officer chose to take hard-line stance on the law, then that is his prerogative; unfortunately, I do not believe it is his prerogative to do what he did next.

The disturbing part came after being issued the summons, as I went to get my coffee, I noticed that the other individual the officer pulled over was allowed to go free and was not issued a summons. Other individuals who witnessed this were outraged and urged me to pursue the matter.

I am not sure what discriminatory motive the officer had for exercising his discretion, but if the “law is the law” as the officer expressed when issuing me the summons, why was this individual who committed the same offense as me allowed to be excused for his behavior? I would think the profiling and discriminatory nature of his treatment toward me would be deemed a bigger offense than jaywalking.

I called the police department when I arrived at work and I spoke with a member of the department to bring to his attention to the incident. He seemed rather amused by my claims and informed me that the officer has discretion with whom he can issue a summons.

This begs to the question where is the line in the sand drawn? Do officers now possess the right to determine what laws should be obeyed? When they should be obeyed and by whom they should be obeyed?

How much of a role does an offender’s attitude play in an officer’s discretion? If I as an individual choose to verbally express my disagreement with an interpretation of a law, should I be penalized more than an individual who chose to be silent?

I attempted to rectify this issue through discussion and attempted to encourage a dialogue with the officer to understand his flawed thought process prior to considering escalation points, but the supervising officer urged me to escalate to my counsel or other avenues of my choosing as the officer retains his right to exercise bias and discretion when he chooses.

Michael R. Santoro

Manalapan