Lawsuit objects to camera focused on rabbi's home
Ongoing issue surrounds use of residence as a place for prayer services
BY ELANA ARON Correspondent

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP - A civil rights lawsuit has been filed in federal district court by Rabbi Avraham Bernstein against Freehold Township. The lawsuit accuses the township of setting up a camera in the window of Town Hall and pointing it at Bernstein's home, which is right across the street on Stillwells Corner Road.

The lawsuit is the second filed by Bernstein, who has also sued the township for violating the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey State Constitution, and violation of the Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).

Bernstein, a member of Chabad Lubavitch, a worldwide Jewish organization that is headquartered in Brooklyn, N.Y., and resident of the township since 1998, filed the lawsuit after being issued a notice from the township zoning officer which stated that Bernstein was in violation of municipal land use law by conducting a house of worship in his home.

According to Township Attorney Duane O. Davison, complaints against Bernstein have steadily streamed in from neighbors since 1999 concerning religious activities in his home. Neighbors stated that between 50 and 70 people were attending Friday night and Saturday morning services, complaining of loud noise and an abundance of parked vehicles. The township states that it set up the video camera in order to attain an accurate idea of how many people actually were attending services.

"The rabbi is saying 10 to 20 people, the neighbors are saying 50 to 70," Davison said. "We needed more than casual observation, we wanted to get numbers. We wanted to see consistently what was happening at the worship service."

According to Davison, the surveillance camera was set up to gather this information.

Attorney Gerald A. Marks, who represents Bernstein, claims the township has violated federal law.

"The feelings of neighbors do not trump constitutional rights," Marks said. "They violated federal law by installing this camera."

"It was a finite period of time," said Davison, who said the camera was installed at the end of May until the beginning of August. "We could have put an employee there, but that's a lot more expensive and more obtrusive. You can see bodies coming and going so we can see the intensity. It's nothing you can't see from the street. It's what any person can see from the street. The camera wasn't a secret. We did it to find out the numbers and frequency."

According to Marks, Bernstein was unaware of the presence of the camera until the end of July.

"Mr. Davison told me they were going to depose anyone who went into the rabbi's house on the Sabbath," said Marks. "The township said they were going to make this suit very expensive for the rabbi. The township has violated the Civil Rights Act and the Religious Land Use Act of 2000 just by focusing a prejudicial surveillance camera on the rabbi's house."

Davison said that according to data gathered from the camera, the number of worshippers lies somewhere between 35 and 50 people.

According to Davison, neighbors of Bernstein have filed a motion with the Zoning Board of Adjustment for an interpretation of the township's zoning ordinance. The ordinance will be amended to read "houses of worship" instead of "churches and other places of worship." A definition of the new term was introduced at a recent Township Committee meeting.

"A township cannot use its zoning power to interfere with an individual's rights to pray in their own home," Marks said. "You can't cite someone for violating something that doesn't exist on your books."

Davison said Freehold Township has defended Bernstein's religious rights since the neighbors began complaining eight years ago.

"The township, literally, has bent over backward," said Davison. "I guess he (Bernstein) didn't get the play he wanted. The Human Relations Council attempted to mediate this. We had gotten it so everyone was trying to accommodate everyone. He (Bernstein) is trying to cast the township in a bad light. He sued us. We needed to monitor the numbers. We needed to collect evidence. We (the township) are trying to be up front and totally above board. He (Bernstein) puts a spin on it. The township steadfastly defended his (Bernstein) position from 1999. That he doesn't mention. It's a little frustrating."

Marks strongly disagrees.

"When you focus a camera at somebody's house, you're treating them differently than everybody else. They are accusing a clergyman of something that does not exist. Then they conduct federally prohibited surveillance," said Marks. "The township leaped before it looked. They're operating on a neighbor's hearsay. It's exaggeration by one neighbor who apparently has the ear of the town fathers."

According to Davison, a public hearing on the ordinance concerning houses of worship will take place at the Township Committee's Sept. 25 meeting.

"The neighbors are saying that the Bernsteins are trampling on their rights. Bernstein says they have a right to religious worship," Davison said. "I think they're both right. The township needs the wisdom of Solomon."

According to Marks, Bernstein has received support from other religious groups and organizations. The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization based in Virginia, has joined the federal lawsuit.

"Other religious groups contacted were aghast," said Marks. "You don't aim a prejudicial surveillance camera. That's why they're (township) in the soup. They're wrong."