The Cooleys' decision to settle in Clayton, Gloucester County, despite a Camden County residency requirement for nearly all its employees, cost them their jobs.
Last month, after defying official warnings to move back, they and two other veteran guards were fired for violating the 1981 policy, which they say their superiors assured them was seldom enforced. All four are appealing their dismissals.
The guards' situation has added to the debate over whether residency requirements should apply to public employees in law enforcement and related fields.
The state and local Policemen's Benevolent Associations have rallied behind the Camden County guards and endorsed a state bill to exempt all law enforcement officers, including corrections officers, from domicile restrictions.
"It's ridiculous," said Walter Radlinger, local president of the association. "We have four good officers with exemplary records who are losing their jobs because of where they live, not because of their service."
"The requirement is archaic," said Jacqueline Vigilante, a Mullica Hill lawyer who represents the four officers and who provided the details about the Cooleys' reason for moving.
Police unions and fraternal orders across the country have argued that an address near where they serve may endanger officers.
Unions in Chester and Wilmington have challenged residency conditions in court.
Those who champion the rules say they foster community spirit and ensure a readily accessible workforce in emergencies.
"We believe employees have a bigger stake in doing a good job if they live in our county," said Camden County Freeholder Director Louis Cappelli Jr.
"The [officers'] safety argument is not a legitimate concern," Cappelli said. "If someone wants to track you down, they're going to find you."
In New Jersey, counties and communities may impose residency requirements on any staff except municipal police officers and paid firefighters. Pennsylvania provides no such shield, though bills have been introduced.
