In March 2023, the New Jersey Office of Attorney General took the extraordinary step of taking over the Paterson Police Department (PPD) following an officer-involved shooting. The AG justified the takeover of the department by citing to, among other things, “the loss of faith in the leadership of the Department, longstanding fiscal challenges, and mounting public safety concerns in the City of Paterson.”
The AG replaced Police Chief Engelbert Ribeiro with an Officer-in-Charge (OIC), reassigned Ribeiro to the Police Training Commission, and asserted plenary authority over the department. Paterson officials, including Public Safety Director Mirza Bulur and Mayor André Sayegh, challenged the AG’s actions as exceeding his authority, arguing that they violated state law and municipal home rule principles.
On October 6, 2023, Bulur and Ribeiro filed a verified complaint in the Law Division pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-50 to – 62. They named the AG, the OAG, and “various fictitious entities” as the defendants. Over the plaintiffs’ objection, the trial court issued an order transferring venue to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. There, the plaintiffs renewed their argument that the AG’s supersession exceeded his authority.
The Court first addressed procedural issues, rejecting the AG’s argument that the City’s challenges were untimely.
The Court reviewed the AG’s statutory authority. It analyzed the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, which explicitly authorizes the AG to supersede county prosecutors but is silent on municipal police departments. The Court noted that while N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181 implicitly permits the AG to enforce internal affairs guidelines, this did not extend to a wholesale takeover of a police department. The Court also examined Directive No. 2022-14, in which the AG purported to expand supersession authority, but found no legislative ratification of this unilateral action.
The Court scrutinized L. 2023, c. 94, a law passed after the supersession allowing the AG to appoint an OIC without certain training certifications. The AG argued this implied legislative approval of the supersession, but the Court disagreed; stating the law’s narrow purpose was to address OIC qualifications, not authorize supersession. “There is simply no legislative history to support the notion that the Legislature intended the law to authorize an expansion of defendants’ supersession powers.”
The Court rejected the AG’s reliance on case law affirming supervisory authority over law enforcement, distinguishing between general oversight and complete supersession. It held that while the AG may supervise municipal police through county prosecutors, no statute or precedent authorized direct, nonconsensual supersession of a local department. The Court concluded the AG’s actions exceeded his authority, holding, “The Legislature’s grant of express supersession authority to the AG is quite clear, and it encompasses a spectrum of authority including complete supersession, discretionary limited supersession, and mandatory limited supersession. Sections 106 and 107 are silent concerning the AG’s direct supersession of a municipal police department.”
The Court reversed the supersession, ordering the AG to return operational control to Paterson, reinstate Ribeiro as chief, and provide an accounting of expenditures within 21 days. It preserved the AG’s existing oversight of the PPD’s internal affairs unit, which the City had not challenged.
The Court’s ruling clarified the limits of the AG’s authority, affirming that while the AG retains broad supervisory powers, unilateral supersession of a municipal police department requires explicit legislative authorization.
Bulur v. N.J. Off. of the AG, 329 A.3d 395 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).