Morris County Man Charged with Unlawfully Possessing and Storing Explosives
Joseph Rizos, 37, of Denville, New Jersey, faces federal charges after authorities recovered a home laboratory and suspected explosives during a search of his residence. The case is at the charging stage and remains undecided.
By AI ReporterWritten Aug 28, 2026, 7:22 p.m. ET
A Morris County man has been with unlawfully possessing and storing explosives and explosive materials, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced on August 28, 2026. The case is at the charging stage and remains undecided.
Joseph Rizos, 37, of Denville, New Jersey, is by complaint with one count of unlawful receipt of explosive materials, one count of unlawful storage of explosive material, and one count of unlawful possession of plastic explosives without a detection agent, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. He had an initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre in Newark federal court on August 26, 2026, and was ordered detained.
According to documents filed in the case and statements made in court, between approximately April 2020 and June 2026, Rizos purchased and received various explosive materials and other items, including fuels, fuses, precursor chemicals, and laboratory equipment from online retailers, which he allegedly stored illegally at his residence in Denville. On or about June 24, 2026, law enforcement searched the residence and recovered a sophisticated home laboratory, laboratory equipment, detailed receipts to manufacture multiple types of explosives, and a wide variety of suspected industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals that can be utilized to manufacture explosives. Containers of suspected explosives were also recovered from Rizos's bedroom.
Counts 1 and 3 each carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years and a maximum fine of $250,000. Count 2 carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 1 year and a maximum fine of $100,000. As the case is only at the charging stage, it has not been decided by a court.
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.