Toms River Fire District 1: New Jersey's Only Fully Encrypted Fire Department
Every other fire department in New Jersey runs open radio. Toms River Fire District 1 is the exception. Since January 2025, the district has operated a fully encrypted 700 MHz system, a move that neighboring fire departments opposed, that its own bureau chief signed a letter against, and that came with a gag order for firefighters and non-disclosure agreements for mutual aid partners.
Key facts at a glance
The smoking gun: fire chiefs opposed this
On February 15, 2024, the Ocean County Fire Chiefs Association sent a formal letter to Township Administrator John Spodofora formally opposing the encryption plan. The letter wasn't from outside activists—it was signed by the fire service's own leadership, including Matthew Janora, Bureau Chief of Toms River Fire District 1.
From the Official Opposition Letter
"Encryption of Fire Department radio channels goes against the standard best practices nationwide."— Ocean County Fire Chiefs Association, February 15, 2024
The letter laid out specific concerns about mutual aid coordination and public safety. It came from Ocean County's own fire leadership—the people who respond to the emergencies this decision affected.
The Bitter Irony
The same Matthew Janora who signed this opposition letter would later complain at a January 2025 meeting that "a letter that was signed by the fire officers months ago opposing the encryption hit the airways," lamenting the "bad press" their own professional objections had caused. The opposition letter they authored became evidence against them.
Timeline: how it happened
District 1 Board Meeting
Administrator Brian Kubiel discusses encryption plans. Commissioners question mutual aid implications.
Fire Chiefs Oppose Encryption
Ocean County Fire Chiefs Association formally opposes the plan in letter to Township Administrator, stating it "goes against standard best practices nationwide."
Planning Continues Despite Opposition
Officials proceed with encryption implementation despite professional objections from fire service leadership.
NDAs Sent to Mutual Aid Partners
Non-disclosure agreements sent to surrounding fire departments—an unusual step that raises questions about what officials want kept secret.
Fire Department Goes Dark
Toms River Fire District 1 encryption goes live. Fire communications now hidden from mutual aid partners, media, and public.
Police & EMS Follow
Police and EMS encryption activated. Township communications now fully encrypted.
Joint Board Meeting: Damage Control
Officials issue social media gag order, complain about "bad press" from their own opposition letter becoming public, and discuss containing the story.
The "TR FD RESPONSE" Transmission
Audio later obtained through an OPRA request allegedly captures a voice on a Toms River fire dispatch channel saying "White Power" and targeting Jewish people before someone warns the mic is live. Surfaces publicly a year later.
Recording Reported; Officials Silent
Shore News Network publishes the recording. Fire officials do not respond to requests for comment; a former commissioner calls the matter closed. No findings announced.
Silencing the opposition
As public criticism mounted following the encryption rollout, officials moved to control the narrative. At the January 15, 2025 Joint Board Meeting, the response wasn't to address concerns—it was to silence discussion.
The Gag Order
"Administrator Carson reminded all firefighters not to post anything on social media re: radio communication."— Joint Board Meeting Minutes, January 15, 2025
But silencing their own members wasn't enough. Officials also required mutual aid partners—neighboring fire departments—to sign non-disclosure agreements:
NDAs for Mutual Aid Partners
"[Brian] Kubiel stated all non-disclosures agreements have been sent out to all our surrounding areas."— Joint Board Meeting Minutes, January 15, 2025
Why NDAs?
What information about fire department radio communications is so sensitive that neighboring fire departments must sign confidentiality agreements? This isn't standard practice for mutual aid arrangements. It suggests officials are more concerned with controlling information than coordinating response.
Key officials involved
The decision to encrypt Toms River's fire communications—against professional recommendations—involved multiple officials who are accountable to the public:
Matthew Janora
Bureau Chief, District 1Signed the Fire Chiefs Association letter opposing encryption in February 2024. Later complained at January 2025 meeting about "bad press" when that letter became public.
Brian Kubiel
Administrator, District 1Led encryption implementation. Announced that NDAs had been sent to mutual aid partners and communicated timeline for go-live dates.
Administrator Carson
District 2Issued the social media gag order instructing firefighters not to post about radio communications.
Charles Weinberger
Communications/DispatchHandled technical aspects of encryption implementation and coordination with township systems.
Fire District Commissioners are elected officials. Toms River residents have the power to hold them accountable at the ballot box for decisions made against professional fire service recommendations.
Why fire encryption is different
Police departments cite officer safety and operational security for encryption. Fire departments have a different job entirely, which is why the same justifications don't translate:
Fire Services
- Responding to known emergencies, not pursuing suspects
- No adversarial relationship with those they serve
- Heavy reliance on mutual aid from neighboring departments
- Public benefit from knowing fire locations and road closures
- No sensitive investigation details to protect
Police Services
- May involve pursuit of fleeing suspects
- Adversarial situations with potential criminals
- More self-contained operations
- Some tactical operations benefit from secrecy
- May transmit sensitive personal information
The Key Question
What legitimate operational security reason does a fire department have for hiding from the public that there's a structure fire at 123 Main Street? Unlike police, fire departments don't have suspects who might listen to evade them.
The interoperability problem
Fire departments depend on mutual aid—neighboring departments responding to assist at large incidents. In Ocean County and throughout New Jersey, that means real-time radio coordination during emergencies.
Where encryption breaks the response
Multi-alarm fires
A major structure fire pulls in multiple districts. Neighboring departments responding to Toms River cannot monitor tactical communications without receiving encryption keys in advance.
Border incidents
Fires near district boundaries require immediate coordination. Departments like Silverton, Pleasant Plains, and others can't hear Toms River's size-up reports while they're responding.
Patch requests
Mutual aid departments must request communications patches to connect—adding steps and delays to time-sensitive operations.
"So much for seamless interoperability."
— Scanner community observer, after mutual aid departments had to request patches during a Toms River residential fireThe 700 MHz digital system
Toms River operates on a 700 MHz Trunked Radio System (TRS). Digital radio systems offer operational advantages, but the decision to encrypt is independent of the technology choice.
Technical Reality
- Many departments use digital radio systems while keeping communications open—digital doesn't require encryption
- National interoperability calling channels must stay in the clear per FCC mandate
- Toms River chose to encrypt; the technology didn't require it
What Other Departments Do
Throughout New Jersey and nationwide, fire departments have found ways to address any legitimate privacy concerns without full encryption:
Open Primary Channels
Keep main dispatch and tactical channels open for coordination and public information.
Encrypted Tactical Only
Reserve encryption for specific sensitive operations, if any exist for fire services.
Cell Phone for Sensitive Info
Use phones for any truly private communications rather than encrypting everything.
Partial Information Policy
Train dispatchers to limit sensitive details over radio—no encryption needed.
Impact on the community
Encryption has had practical effects across the community:
Lost Situational Awareness
Residents can no longer monitor fire activity in their neighborhood. During active fires, they can't determine if roads are closed or if they should evacuate.
Volunteer Firefighter Concerns
Some volunteer members have raised concerns about the decision, creating internal discord within the fire service community.
Media Information Gap
Local news can no longer provide real-time fire information to residents, relying instead on delayed official statements.
Neighboring Jurisdiction Friction
Mutual aid departments have expressed frustration with the coordination challenges encryption creates.
The broader pattern in New Jersey
Toms River Fire District 1 stands alone among New Jersey fire departments. Many NJ police agencies have encrypted, but every other fire department in the state has kept communications open. The question is why this one district moved first—and over the objection of its own fire service leadership.
"Hopefully they won't go the way of Toms River."
— Comment on RadioReference forums when another township discussed radio changesNo other New Jersey fire department has followed Toms River's lead yet. That word "yet" is what the public safety community is watching.
Fire encryption elsewhere: what happened
Other jurisdictions that encrypted fire communications have often reversed the decision after running into real-world problems:
Washington, DC Fire
Encrypted fire communications, then reversed the decision after radio encryption hindered the response to a subway incident. The interoperability problems were simply too dangerous.
Orange County, CA Fire
After encrypting all first responder channels in 2019, the fire chief acknowledged "the switchboards lit up" with complaints. Officials have actively sought to reverse fire channel encryption.
Chicago Area (2025)
13 fire departments in northwest Chicago suburbs quietly encrypted radio communications, drawing immediate criticism from transparency advocates.
What the fire service community says
Professional fire service organizations have been consistent on this issue:
Mutual Aid Concerns
"Interoperability with other fire departments—such as in disasters or large-scale incidents requiring mutual aid—could be hindered if a department does not possess encryption-capable radios."
Public Safety Mission
Unlike police, fire departments exist to protect—not pursue. Public awareness of fire activity helps communities take appropriate action.
Volunteer Firefighter Access
Many volunteer firefighters monitor scanners to respond faster. Encryption creates barriers to volunteer response.
What Ocean County residents can do
Attend Fire Commissioner Meetings
Toms River Fire District 1 is governed by elected commissioners. Attend meetings and voice concerns about encryption and interoperability.
Contact Elected Officials
Township and county officials may not be aware of the interoperability concerns. Educate them about the issue.
Support Mutual Aid Departments
Neighboring fire departments that maintain open communications deserve community support.
Request Public Records
File OPRA requests to understand the decision-making process that led to encryption.
What the primary sources reveal
What makes Toms River unusual isn't the encryption—it's what happened around it. Fire service professionals formally opposed the decision in writing, and officials responded not by reconsidering but by silencing the people who objected.
When the Ocean County Fire Chiefs Association letter became public, officials didn't defend the decision on the merits. They issued a gag order to firefighters, sent NDAs to mutual aid partners, and complained about bad press. The letter that Bureau Chief Matthew Janora had signed became the problem he later lamented.
Officials overruled their own fire service experts, then moved to contain the fallout. That sequence is worth paying attention to.
Every other fire department in New Jersey runs open radio. The question isn't why Toms River is different. The question is what, specifically, they don't want the public to hear.
June 2026: what stays on the tape when officials want it closed
On June 15, 2026, Shore News Network reported on a recording pulled from a Toms River fire dispatch channel. According to that reporting, an Open Public Records Act request asked for transmissions on the "TR FD RESPONSE" channel during a two-hour window on June 17, 2025. The audio that came back allegedly captured a voice saying "White Power," followed by a remark targeting Jewish people, before someone else cut in to warn that the microphone was still live.
Shore News Network says it received the recording from an anonymous source and has not confirmed who is speaking. An anonymous tip pointed to a high-ranking member of the Pleasant Plains Volunteer Fire Company, which serves Toms River's Fire District 2, a separate body from the District 1 system this page documents. The news organization could not verify that claim, and no agency has publicly named anyone.
What the OPRA recording allegedly contains
A voice stating "White Power," followed by a comment targeting Jewish people, before another individual warns that the microphone is still transmitting.— As reported by Shore News Network, June 15, 2026, describing audio obtained through an OPRA request
The people who could answer have not. Shore News Network reported that Toms River Fire District administrator Tim Carson and Pleasant Plains First Lieutenant Kevin B. Britton did not respond to requests for comment. Former Fire Commissioner Brian S. Kubiel replied to the records request with an email that acknowledged it and indicated the matter was considered closed. No investigation findings have been announced. Whether anyone was disciplined is not clear.
The recording exists because someone could still ask for it
The only reason anyone is debating a "White Power" transmission is that the audio could still be pulled and released. District 1 has already shut that path down. It encrypted its dispatch channels in January 2025, told firefighters not to post about radio traffic, and sent non-disclosure agreements to neighboring departments. On a channel built that way, an open mic leaves no scanner recording and no public archive, just a harder fight for a tape the agency controls. The window that surfaced this incident is the one District 1 spent the past year closing.
An anonymous source also told Shore News Network that tension between firefighters, EMS, and Orthodox Jewish members of the EMS squads had boiled over inside the department. The department has not responded to that claim, and we cannot confirm it. We mention it only because it points at the same problem the rest of this page describes: a culture that handles its own conduct in private and treats the radio as something the public is not entitled to hear.
A separate agency, the same instinct
On paper, none of this connects. The Toms River Fire Department is its own government entity, and Shore News Network notes that it is not affiliated with the township, the police department, or police EMS. The fire districts are separate from each other, too. Yet the same reflex runs through all of them. District 1 gagged its firefighters and locked its channels. The police department is fully encrypted and has spent two years keeping the elected mayor off its radio. And handed a recording of a bigoted broadcast, a fire official's answer was that the matter was closed. When a town's emergency services each decide, on their own, that the public has no business hearing them, that is not an org-chart problem. It is a culture, and encryption is the tool that makes it permanent.
2026 update: the dysfunction extends upward
The fire encryption story didn't end when the radios went dark in January 2025. It became one thread in a broader unraveling. Since taking office in January 2024, Mayor Daniel Rodrick's administration has been locked in a sustained conflict with the Toms River Police Department — and with it, with the encrypted communications system the department controls.
In May 2024, Business Administrator Jonathan Salonis formally requested a police dispatch radio for municipal oversight purposes. The request was denied by the acting police chief on advice from the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office. Remarkably, the police department had already provided a dispatch radio to a community organization leader — without any authorization from the mayor — while refusing the mayor's own administration. The mayor himself was also denied access.
The dispute has since expanded to include the police department's Facebook page, multiple police chief transitions, and ultimately a lawsuit filed in Mercer County Superior Court by the Township against the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, seeking basic administrative access to its own police department's communications.
The same opacity that locked the press and public out of Toms River's emergency communications has now locked out the elected officials responsible for overseeing those communications. That's not a coincidence — it's a direct consequence of what encryption culture produces when deployed without clear governance rules.
Read the full story: When the Mayor Can't Hear His Own Police →Take Action for Transparency
Your voice matters. Here are concrete ways to advocate for open police communications in your community.
Contact Your Representatives
Use our templates to email your local officials about police radio encryption policies.
Get StartedRead Case Studies
See how encryption has affected real communities - from Highland Park to Chicago.
View CasesSpread Awareness
Share evidence about police radio encryption with your network and community.
Public Testimony
Learn how to speak effectively at city council and public safety meetings.
Prepare to Speak