Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents allege prosecutorial lapses and press for firearms-ordinance changes during Tinton Falls public comment
Summary
During public comment, a resident accused a town sergeant of falsifying a police report and criticized the municipal prosecutor for not reviewing evidence, and another resident urged the council to amend the firearms-discharge ordinance to use property-line measurements and apply rules equally across the borough.
Get email alerts on the Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During the council’s public-comment period, two residents raised accountability and public-safety concerns.
Jeffrey Walstein, identifying himself as a Tinton Falls resident, said he was wrongfully arrested more than two years earlier and alleged that Sergeant Joseph Schuler falsified the police report in that case. Walstein said body-worn-camera footage contradicts the report and accused municipal prosecutor Sean Keane of routinely accepting police complaints without reviewing available evidence. Walstein said he has filed a federal 1983 lawsuit tied to the arrest and urged the council to appoint a prosecutor who reviews evidence before charging cases. “Officer Joseph Schuler lied on his official police report,” Walstein said in remarks to the council. The transcript records no formal response from the prosecutor or a council directive taken during the meeting.
Later in the public-comment period, Anthony Ciccolese asked the council to reconsider its ordinance on the discharge of firearms. Ciccolese said residents south of Tinton Avenue are treated differently under the current ordinance and asked that permissible discharge distances be measured from a property line rather than a dwelling, saying the current measurement allows high-powered rifle discharge within three feet of a property line. He urged the council to discuss the ordinance further and said he would repeat his request at a future meeting if necessary.
Council members did not take immediate action on either set of concerns during the meeting; the public-comment period concluded and the council proceeded to the consent agenda.

