In State v. Crawley, 90 N.J. 241, 447 A.2d 565 (1982), the Court held that even though the Code does not contain a general prohibition against loitering, a Newark Municipal Ordinance that prohibited loitering was preempted under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-5d. The Court reasoned that because: (1) pre-Code law included a specific prohibition against loitering; (2) the proposed Code contained a prohibition against certain forms of loitering, which was eliminated before the Code's enactment; (3) the Code in its present form deals extensively with street conduct similar to loitering, Crawley, 90 N.J. at 245-46, 447 A.2d 565, "the absence of a loitering proscription from the Code reflects a state policy to decriminalize such activity." Id. at 247, 447 A.2d 565. The Court also commented more generally upon the legislative intent to prohibit local criminal laws dealing with conduct covered by the Code: The Legislature's central purpose in enacting the Penal Code was to create a consistent, comprehensive system of criminal law. If municipalities were permitted to adopt local counterparts to provisions of the Code, the express legislative policy of eliminating "overlapping and redundant provisions" from the criminal law would be defeated. This policy, then, implies a general legislative intent to exclude local legislation from areas covered by the Code of Criminal Justice. Id. at 250-51, 447 A.2d 565.