Anger and panic can escalate quickly in an encounter with law enforcement. Sometimes, a moment of poor judgment takes over, and someone will cross a major legal line by throwing or otherwise exposing a police officer to bodily fluids.
What some might dismiss as a merely impulsive act of contempt or defiance is actually treated as a type of aggravated assault under New Jersey law, and the potential criminal consequences are severe. They can often outweigh any other charge that may result from the same incident.
Understanding the rules in New Jersey
Under New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2C:12-13, a person can be charged with aggravated assault if they knowingly throw or attempt to expose a law enforcement officer to bodily fluids such as blood, saliva, urine, or feces.
This provision applies when the act is intentional and directed at an officer performing official duties. The law reflects concerns about both physical harm and the risk of disease transmission, even if no actual infection occurs.
Importantly, the prosecution does not need to prove that the officer was injured or became ill. The act itself, when done knowingly, is enough to support a conviction in the fourth-degree, which is a felony. That is punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine.
If the officer is actually injured or the offense involves putting a bodily fluid in an officer’s food, such as spitting in their coffee before serving them, the crime is upgraded to the third degree, which carries a potential of five years in prison and fines up to $15,000. If the officer suffers a serious bodily injury, it is a second-degree crime with mandatory prison time of between five and 10 years and a fine of up to $150,000.
If you find yourself facing charges like these, an experienced defense is essential. Because these incidents tend to take place during arrests or in correctional facilities when the defendant may be highly emotional, intoxicated or confused, defenses may focus on whether the act was really intentional, whether the substance actually made contact and whether the officer was clearly identifiable as such. Sometimes, a defendant’s actions were simply misinterpreted in the chaos of a situation.