Resident seeks $10K after fighting tickets 'No trespassing' sign on preserved open space at heart of legal battle BY JESSICA SMITH Staff Writer OLD BRIDGE - A sign posted by the township sparked a legal battle between several police officers and one resident, who says she lost about $10,000 in the process. "For me to defend myself, it took a lot of time and money, for no good reason," resident Carol Preuss said. "Then I had to appeal it, too." When Preuss heard gunshots being fired near her home in January 2006, she called the police to report that people were trespassing on land that she believed was prohibited to trespassers. Though the land on Lambertson Road is designated open space, Preuss was under the impression that the public was not allowed access to it because of a "No Trespassing" sign posted on a chain that blocked the driveway to the former Smith house, which belonged to the family that last owned the farm. The land is part of a tract preserved with Green Acres funding and designated for a municipal golf course. According to Preuss, police arrived on the scene and told her that she must vacate the premises or she would receive a summons. She left, and was surprised two days later to find two tickets from Old Bridge Police Lt. Carl Policari, then a sergeant, in her mailbox. One was for blocking a driveway, and the other was for impeding the lawful taking of wildlife, both in relation to her being at the Green Acres site on Lambertson Road. Preuss said she later found out that three of the six individuals on the property that day were off-duty Old Bridge police officers. "She's saying one thing, lieutenants [Robert] Schleuter and Policari are saying another thing," said Old Bridge Police Lt. Robert Moser, spokesman for the department. "Everybody has their side of the story. The courts have spoken on this. We really have no comment." Preuss challenged the tickets in municipal court, but Judge Susan Scarola upheld them. There were six court dates scheduled for the hearing, but on several occasions, the officers were unavailable, Preuss said. After appealing the decision in state Superior Court, Judge James Mulvihill overturned the decision May 10. "The judge did specifically say that he did not find the officers especially to be credible, and he found my client completely credible," said Preuss' attorney, William Strazza, of Chester. "He found it very suspicious that the officers did not issue any summonses on the scene, but waited to send them in the mail." Since that time, Strazza sent a letter to Township Attorney Jerome Convery seeking to be compensated by the town for the monies lost during the legal proceedings. Preuss said the $10,000 figure is a rough estimate that includes legal and administrative fees, as well as lost work days. She also pointed out that the township's taxpayers have paid for the six municipal court hearings, the decision of which was overturned. Convery said he referred the letter to the township clerk to send it off to the claims department, as standard procedure dictates. He did say, however, that if an individual is found guilty of an offense in municipal court, there would have been probable cause. As such, even though the decision was not upheld in Superior Court, the township would not be obligated to compensate the individual, he said. Strazza said he and his client are considering filing a civil suit against the police officers and the township. "When there is no basis to be issuing any summons. . .what an officer is doing is improperly using his authority to get someone to do what they want them to do," Strazza said. "I would invite anyone to go take a look at Judge Mulvihill's decision, and I think it makes fair comment on the misconduct of the officers." Strazza said he had yet to get a response from the township, and would prefer to await a return correspondence before taking any further action. Preuss said she plans to file for an internal affairs investigation with the police department. Both Mayor Jim Phillips and Township Recreation Director Tom Badcock said the "No Trespassing" sign only applies to the driveway leading to the Smith house, and not the remainder of the open space property there. One portion of the land, they said, is being leased to John Houser for the purpose of farming. "I didn't want to see that land just laying there fallow," Phillips said. "Might as well put it to some useful purpose." Preuss had questions regarding the legality of the leasing, and what is being done with the money from the lease. According to Badcock, by law, any monies received from the use of open space must go into the township's open space account. Karen Hershey, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokesperson, said Green Acres rules do allow the leasing of property in certain circumstances. Phillips said the reason for the blocking of the driveway was to keep out vandals who had been dumping there. The plan for the Smith house is to restore it and incorporate it into the golf course, so that when it is constructed, patrons can view it as an historic artifact. Phillips said he, along with members of the historical association and others, went to the site and cleaned up garbage that was dumped there. "We're paying taxes for open space that we're not getting to use," Preuss said. "It's in my back yard, I would love to use it. You can't get on that property other than the driveway." The perimeter of the property is lined by deep drainage ditches, which Preuss said prevent anyone from accessing the tract other than through the blocked driveway. Badcock refuted Preuss' claim, saying residents can access the property by parking at Holy Redeemer Church, or by parking in an area near the corner of Amboy and Lambertson roads. "We aren't going to invest in a parking lot that's going to be torn out when the golf course is built because there are one or two people who want to park there and walk on the property," Badcock said. In an e-mail dated Feb. 16, Judith Yeany, chief of legal services with the DEP's Green Acres program, told Preuss that a representative of her office had contacted an Old Bridge official saying they must remove any "No Trespassing" signs from the property. Badcock said this was not the case. "They understand we don't want the house vandalized," Badcock said. According to Preuss, there is another "No Trespassing" sign posted several yards from the Green Acres sign, which further leads residents to believe they are prohibited from accessing the property. "[The] DEP is in communication with Old Bridge to figure out a way to protect that structure while ensuring there is reasonable public access," Hershey said. Regarding the hunting issue, it is left up to a municipality whether to allow hunting on Green Acres property. Old Bridge officials decided to prohibit hunting there because it is too close to residences and too small a piece of land, Badcock said. The officers who were hunting on that January day reportedly stated that they were only using the open space land to gain access to and from the private property where they had been given permission to hunt by the farmer who owned it. "I take the officers at their word," Badcock said. According to Preuss, when she arrived on the scene that day, the chain blocking the driveway was unlocked, and a vehicle belonging to someone in the group was parked there. Moser said the officers involved would not be able to speak publicly about the situation. "I don't see that there is any wrongdoing by the officers involved," Moser said.