A newly instituted policy for city police officers may force them to deliver a less than ideal response to victims of assault and other minor crimes looking to make a complaint: Take it to court.

In an Oct. 23 memo obtained by NJ Advance Media, Chief Anthony Campos informed officers that they should refer any victim complaining about crimes such as simple assault, criminal mischief and harassment to file complaints in municipal court, rather than creating a formal report themselves.

The strategy was instituted “in order to streamline operations and make better usage of police resources”, Campos said in the memo.

It also covers disorderly persons offenses such as improper behavior and offensive language, as well as complaints about bad checks and false information provided to police. The new procedure allows for exceptions for any crime that involves domestic violence or could constitute the level of an indictable offense.

(Reuters) - A New Jersey father whose 4-year-old son shot and killed a 6-year-old neighbor pleaded guilty on Thursday to endangering the welfare of children by keeping unsecured firearms, authorities said.

Anthony Senatore, 35, of Toms River will be sentenced to three years in prison as part of a plea deal, according to a statement by Atlantic County, New Jersey Prosecutor James McClain.

On April 8, 2013, Senatore's son found a loaded .22 caliber rifle in his father's bedroom and shot Brandon Holt in the head, the statement said. Holt died the following day at Jersey Shore University Medical Center.

Senatore was found to have five unsecured guns that were accessible to his children, the prosecutor said.

His sentencing was scheduled for Feb. 5.

An Ohio doctor recently found himself in a predicament that is becoming all too common these days. While hosting a birthday party for his terminally ill son, six police officers showed up at the doctor's door and attacked him. Cellphones captured what took place as someone grabbed the doctor around the neck and body slammed him before he was tasered. He was tasered to the point of inducing a heart attack and kidney failure.

Originally, the doctor thought all of this was happening because some party attendees may have parked in the neighbor's yard. However, he came to find out that police pulled him to the ground and tasered him because they had a warrant based on false information from his ex-girlfriend.  The ex told police that the doctor violated her restraining order by harassing her at a gas station.

Eventually, the case was investigated. However, it was not by the police. The defense attorney found security video at the alleged gas station, which showed the woman, but not the doctor. Other video footage showed the doctor at a completely different location at a cell phone store. The case was later dismissed, but the harm is done.

Thanks to false allegations as a means to "get back" at an ex, the doctor suffered a heart attack and kidney failure, had his son witness him being attacked by the police and taser just before his death at what would have been a joyous celebration.

At some point, people will learn that you can not just make up stories to have other arrests as a form of payback. 

When you watch Law and Order, you notice right away that the police always remind someone being arrested that they have the right to remain silent. This is because legally, the police have to provide you with your Miranda rights. However, recent court decisions have slowly started to make criminal defense attorneys shake their head in disbelief regarding how being silent is now used against you.

For example, in California, a man caused a car accident, injuring a girl and killing her sister. At the accident scene, he was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. At no time did he ask the officer how the people in the other car were doing. The man was later charged with vehicular manslaughter. While sitting in the back of the police car, the man was not read his Miranda rights. In fact, two hours went by before the man was read his Miranda rights.  During the criminal trial, the prosecutor told the jury that the man did not ask about the individuals well being from the other car. The prosecutor then said that this failure to ask about the victims pointed to the "consciousness of his own guilt" and showed his "indifference to the consequences caused by his reckless driving."

Wait. Didn't the man have the right to remain silent? Are they saying that because he chose to invoke his right it is now used at trial to show what an awful person he is? Is this what society has become? Courts have found that suspects do not have to be read their rights upon being arrested. Instead, a suspect needs to be read his rights before being questioned. What happens if a lot of time goes by in between being arrested and questioned? Does this mean that if you are silent, your absence of saying anything will imply your guilt and be used against you later?

In the case above, the California Supreme Court ruled that the man's silence at the accident scene COULD be used against him. What is a person supposed to do if anything they say can be used against them and anything they don't say can be used against them?

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar decision in a case involving a silent suspect prior to arrest. In that case, the suspect actually answered police questions for about two hours, but only gave vague answers and refused to go in detail about a gun found in his house. Well, the prosecutor used that against him at trial. 

So, what do you do if you are arrested? The court said that the only exception is if a defendant expressly tells the police he is invoking his 5th Amendment right. This means that  you need to announce that you are relying on your 5th Amendment privilege. That way when you sit silently waiting, your silence is not used against you. It means that it is no longer enough to simply refuse to talk to the police.