A spokesperson from the NJAOG released the following statement:

“Every year, the more than 40,000 law enforcement officers in New Jersey have millions of interactions with members of the public. The majority of these occur without incident. In New Jersey and across the country, a considerable amount of policies and practices have been enacted to ensure both the public and law enforcement officers leave these interactions peacefully and safely. When these interactions result in a use of force, there is considerable review and scrutiny – including mandatory reporting of a use of force event within 24 hours, agency-level reviews of every incident, an annual review of agency patterns, county level reviews of these events, and state level investigation into all deadly force events, regardless of whether actual death results.

“New Jersey was the first state to standardize the reporting of all uses of force and to put details on a public dashboard, and to this day fewer than half of states collect data on such incidents. The data collection and analysis helped identify needs that have been addressed through initiatives such as standardized de-escalation training for officers and the creation and expansion of the ARRIVE Together program, which is now available in every county in the state and has had more than 11,200 interactions with no arrests related to the interactions, no serious injuries to officers or those they are assisting, and no uses of force except for the force necessary to effectuate an involuntary transport at the direction of a mental health screener or mandated by the screening law.”

- How many NJ municipalities currently have ARRIVE Together? Do you have a current list that breaks it down by police agency rather than county?

On the ARRIVE Together Dashboard, interactions, municipalities, and partner agencies are updated monthly. Click on the map on the dashboard to see a list of participating municipalities within each county. In July 2025, the map was updated to include the percentage of municipalities that participate, as well as the percentage of the county population that is served.

- If mental health professionals are on the scene of an encounter, can you give us a practical sense of the role they would play?

The role of the mental health providers varies, as each encounter is unique. Broadly, however, mental health providers may, among other things, engage directly with distressed individuals, provide referrals for treatment, and/or speak with relatives. Many of our mental health providers have spoken publicly about their experiences.

- Obviously the ultimate goal of ARRIVE Together is to have mental health professional arrive with police officers, but right now, they’re more often providing follow-up after the fact. Given funding realities, etc. is there a pathway toward having mental health professionals and police actually arrive together in the majority of cases? Is there a timeframe for when that might happen?

Law enforcement and first responders in general are often the first to recognize a public health concern impacting public safety. Historically, they were the ones called upon to address these situations. We now recognize that providing law enforcement with partners within the mental health profession can lead to better outcomes for all involved. The ultimate goal of ARRIVE is to produce these better outcomes by providing law enforcement with a mental health resource when they are responding to calls involving individuals that may benefit from mental health assistance. One of the benefits of ARRIVE is that models are developed on a local level to reflect their needs and their resources. While ARRIVE Together’s original pilot was a co-response model, Attorney General Platkin has encouraged collaboration with law enforcement, communities, and mental health partners to adapt the initiative for each participating municipality. Prioritizing working together is what is unique about ARRIVE and makes it a national model.

- ARRIVE Together data classifies some interactions as “follow up” and others as “close follow-up”. What’s the difference? How soon after an incident must a follow-up be to qualify as a “close follow-up?”

When municipalities use the “follow-up” model, mental health professionals contact an individual after the interaction with law enforcement. Under the “close-in-time follow-up” model, law enforcement officers arrive on the location first, and when it’s determined that the situation would benefit from the presence of a mental health professional, one joins law enforcement at the location. The terms ‘close follow-up’ and ‘close-in-time-follow-up’ were developed by our partners in the field, and are used interchangeably.

- How effective has this directive been in reducing potentially unnecessary uses of force, particularly when it comes to people experiencing mental health crises?

Historically, reporting was plagued by a lack of standardization in defining these incidents. We’ve implemented policy and guidelines for law enforcement officers to ensure the peaceful resolution of events concerning a barricaded subject. Law enforcement leaders, career prosecutors, mental health professionals, community stakeholders and advocates, and faith leaders all came together to craft this groundbreaking policy – the first statewide policy of its kind nationwide.

And for good reason. Barricaded incidents are unique situations, and this addendum to the Use of Force Policy was designed to increase the chances of nonviolent resolutions to police encounters involving barricaded individuals, who are often in a mental or behavioral crisis and armed. A multidisciplinary group of experts studied these situations and concluded that, when viable, slowing down the pace of the interaction is crucial for the safety of law enforcement officers and the barricaded subject; the first few minutes of the encounter are the most volatile and unpredictable. First responding officers are key to stabilizing the situation and summoning additional, situation-specific resources, including mental health professionals. The opportunity for a nonviolent resolution increases significantly as time passes. The addendum helps to ensure that every agency is utilizing best practices, including integrating mental health professionals into the response.

Recognizing the sensitivity, attention, and strong concerns from the community that can understandably result from a fatal police encounter, OAG has dedicated staff to work with families, providing updates on an investigation as it is happening, before any charges have been brought or information has been filed in the public court record. Those updates are provided as information is gathered and confirmed, as part of our office’s attempts to strike a balance between providing essential transparency and information while also getting the facts right, abiding by the rules of professional conduct, and not compromising an ongoing investigation. Part of our process is making video of these encounters and the circumstances immediately surrounding them publicly available after the criminal investigation is substantially complete. This is when investigators have completed interviews of all available material witnesses and physical and documentary evidence have been gathered. Releasing videos and evidence publicly, prior to the substantial completion of key investigative steps, could affect or distort the memory of involved witnesses. On balance, the integrity of the homicide investigation must be preserved prior to publicly releasing footage of the fatal encounter.

In New Jersey, the grand jury process, by law, is not public. However, in the case of a fatal police encounter, the family is informed of the grand jury decision prior to it being made public.

While OPIA strives for transparency to the extent possible, we are limited by State law. The New Jersey Constitution and State law address grand jury secrecy. Article I, Paragraph 8 of the New Jersey Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”

It is well-settled law that grand jury proceedings are generally secret. This principle is enshrined in case law as well as the Rules of Court. To help protect the secrecy of the proceedings, the Legislature requires every grand juror to swear under oath to “keep secret the proceedings of the grand jury.”

The Independent Prosecutor Directive balances these principles of secrecy in grand jury proceedings with the interest of the public in transparency. Specifically, the Directive requires that when the Grand Jury declines to criminally charge any of the principal officers, the Independent Investigator prepare a statement for public dissemination which “shall comply with all rules of Grand Jury secrecy.” The Standard Operating Procedures which implement the directive also make clear that while the public statement shall summarize the factual findings of the investigation, it must also comply with the rules regarding Grand Jury secrecy.