|
Surveillance camera spurs
lawsuit from Freehold Township rabbi
NICK PETRUNCIO
Asbury
Park Press
Wednesday Aug 29, 2007
FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP — Municipal officials' training
of a surveillance camera on an Orthodox rabbi's home has prompted
a federal lawsuit.
Attorney Gerald Marks of Red Bank, who represents Rabbi Avraham
Bernstein of Stillwells Corner Road, filed the suit Tuesday in
U.S. District Court in Trenton.
The suit alleges the camera — which was aimed through a
municipal building window toward the front of Bernstein's property
across the street — was set in retaliation to an ongoing
legal battle and interferes further with the rabbi's right to
the free exercise of religion in his home.
"We affectionately refer to it as the "rabbi cam,'
" said Marks, who is also representing the rabbi in a lawsuit
previously filed in state Superior Court in Freehold.
(Article continues below)
Township Attorney Duane Davison acknowledged the camera was set
up and said it was done so the township could get an accurate
count of the number of people going into the home during the Jewish
sabbath, which is a concern of the township, along with the frequency
of the gatherings there.
The township, before the state suit was filed, accused the rabbi
of operating a house of worship out of his home in violation of
municipal zoning ordinances and filed charges in Municipal Court.
Bernstein sued the township, alleging the municipality was violating
his First Amendment rights, his state constitutional rights and
a federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000.
Davison said the township has "bent over backwards"
to work with the rabbi and the neighbors who have complained about
the gatherings of people in the rabbi's backyard.
He said the issue comes down to the intensity of the use, specifically
the number of people going to the rabbi's home and frequency of
the activity, and nothing more.
The rabbi, according to Davison, said 10 to 20 people were coming
to his home during the sabbath. Neighbors, he said, put the number
between 50 and 70 and sometimes up to 100. The surveillance camera
showed the truth was somewhere between the two extremes, at 35
to 50 people, he said.
"We needed to determine what was really going on here,"
Davison said.
While Marks said the surveillance was prejudicial, Davison said
the camera was set up during a finite period of time — from
the end of May until late July or the beginning of August —
and was done so at a distance from which no faces were recognizable
and from a vantage point ordinarily viewable from the street.
Marks contends his client has a right to practice religion in
his own home and is protected by the federal and state constitutions
and a federal land-use act.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
