New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

On March 16, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Siaw v. Valenzuala. In the case, Defendant Diomedes Valenzuala, a police officer, appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying his claims against his former employer, the Township of Irvington, for indemnification pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-155 in connection with his defense of a lawsuit against him arising out of his exercise of police powers in arresting Plaintiff.

TheCourt indicated that the central question in the case was whether, at the time Valenzuala lawfully arrested Plaintiff, Valenzuala was acting “in the furtherance of his official duties.” If he stopped to investigate a suspicious incident on his way to the police station in response to a call for him to report there on police business, as Valenzuala maintained, then Valenzuala would be entitled to reimbursement under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-155. If he was engaged in a side-business of “keeping the peace” for a towing company, as the trial judge found, then he was not acting “in the furtherance of his official duties” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-155, even if he acted lawfully in arresting Plaintiff.

The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the trial court appropriately determined that Valenzuala was engaged in a side-business of “keeping the peace” for a towing company at the time of the arrest and not “acting in the furtherance of his official duties.” As a result, the Court dismissed Valenzuala’s action seeking reimbursement for costs associated with his defense of a civil action filed by Plaintiff. 

This case illustrates the principle that officers who work a side-job may not be reimbursed for defending a legal proceeding brought against them for actions which arose out of their performance of the side-job. Many public safety employees, especially during these economic times, work side-jobs in order to obtain additional compensation. All of these officers, however, should be aware of this case. In the event a lawsuit is brought against you, on account of your exercise of police powers while engaged in the side-job, the potential is great that you will not be reimbursed for defending such a lawsuit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 3, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided the case of LaPosta v. Borough of Roseland. In the case, plaintiff, Joseph LaPosta, a police officer, alleges Defendants, the Borough of Roseland and its Police Chief, retaliated against him after he attempted to join a police organization of which the Police Chief did not approve. Plaintiff’s claims were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state tort law. 

Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with the Borough of Roseland. After completing his police academy training, Plaintiff was forced to join the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) union. When Plaintiff expressed an interest in joining an alternative union, the Policemen’s Benevolent Association (“PBA”), the Police Chief advised Plaintiff that neither he nor any other officers were to have any influence from the PBA. Nevertheless, Plaintiff joined the PBA. Thereafter, the Police Chief allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff, specifically by subjecting Plaintiff to smoke from cigarettes, cigars, and scented candles, charging him with insubordination, denying him an earned stipend, belittling him in front of other officers, filing frivolous internal affairs claims against him, and denying him the opportunity to attend career-advancing classes and seminars.

Plaintiff’s complaint asserted six claims: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Police Chief; (3) hostile work environment; (4) negligence; (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against the Police Chief; and (6) conspiracy. Both the Borough and Police Chief filed motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thereafter, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered an opinion and order granting the motions. This appeal followed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further consideration. Specifically, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all but one of Plaintiff’s claims for failing to file a notice of claim under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. However, the Third Circuit determined the District Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s §1983 claim. The Third Circuit held the retaliation claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and should be remanded to the District Court to be adequately analyzed as a claim based on freedom of association.

This case illustrates the importance of obtaining an experienced, qualified attorney prior to initiating an action similar to the one recounted above. There are many procedural hurdles one must follow, to include filing certain notices, to perfect the filing of such a claim. Consequently, it is imperative one obtains a qualified, experienced attorney to ensure their rights are protected. Moreover, this case shows that viable retaliation claims can be pursued against public employers. With the right set of facts, many courts are willing to explore such a claim and, potentially, hold the employer liable for infringing on one's right to join a certain collective bargaining unit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 On February 9, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decided the case of Martin v. City of East Orange. In the case, plaintiffs, two police officers, alleged that in failing to promote them in 2003, when officers ranked below them were recommended for promotion, although not promoted, the defendants discriminated against them in favor of officers more politically favored in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the federal and state constitutions, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 

The Court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. The Court held the officers had no constitutional right to promotion and they failed to produce any evidence of political favoritism or retaliation for having complained about being improperly bypassed for promotion. Further, the Court declined to assert subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claim, thereby not addressing those issues. 

This case illustrates the importance of producing credible, substantive evidence in support of a claim alleging that one was improperly bypassed for promotion. It is vital that any public safety officer who seeks to assert such a claim should consult with a qualified attorney who is able to produce such competent evidence or determine whether such evidence exists so as to avoid the pitfalls present in this matter. Without the necessary proofs, such a claim will likely fail, as articulated by the Court in this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the matter of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, Civil Action No. 05-3619, the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, addressed the issue of strip searches of non-indictable offenders.

Plaintiffs consisted of a certified class to include all arrestees charged with non-indictable offenses, which were processed at Burlington County Jail and/or the Essex County Correctional Facility and were strip searched without a reasonable belief that they were concealing contraband, drugs, or weapons. Defendants were the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, Burlington County Jail, Warden Juel Cole, Essex County Correctional Facility, Essex County Sheriff’s Department, and several John Does.

Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by their policy of strip searching non-indictable arrestees without reasonable suspicion. Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief on behalf of the class against the correctional facilities’ strip search policies.

In response, Defendants also sought summary judgment as to whether the strip searches were constitutional. In addition, Defendants sought summary judgment on the following issues: (1) 11^th Amendment immunity for the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, Burlington County Jail, and Warden Cole in his official capacity; (2) qualified immunity for Warden Cole in his individual capacity; and (3) the dismissal of count five involving section 1983 municipality custom violations regarding Essex County.

The District Court held that blanket strip searches of non-indictable offenders, performed without reasonable suspicion for drugs, weapons or other contraband are unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court indicated that the search policies at Burlington and Essex County jails do not pass constitutional muster under the balancing test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bell v. Wolfish. The Court also determined the justification for the blanket policy is not compelling, where it is based on general security concerns and health concerns, as nothing prohibits jail officials from searching non-indictable offenders, assuming they have reasonable suspicion to do so.  

Based upon its finding that blanket strip searches of non-indictable offenders, performed without reasonable suspicion for drugs, weapons or other contraband, are unconstitutional, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. As to a remedy, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief on account of a lack of standing, since Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm in that they are unlikely to be subjected to strip searches in the future. 

Lastly, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Court found Defendants’ arguments and factual averments are too scant to support a finding of 11^th Amendment immunity and Plaintiffs’ factual allegations regarding municipal liability under section 1983 sufficiently complied with pleading requirements under Federal rules. Finally, the Court determined Warden Cole was not entitled to qualified immunity since a constitutional violation was present and Warden Cole ought to have been put on notice that the strip search policy was unconstitutional.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 5, 2008, in State v. DeAngelo, Docket No. A-73-07, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a municipality violated free speech rights by banning temporary signs on public streets, including a 10-foot high inflatable rat at a labor protest. This case was the subject of a previous blog entry wherein our office analyzed the oral argument which took place in September 2008.

The Court unanimously called a Lawrence Township ordinance, which prohibited “banners, pennants, streamers…portable signs, balloons or other inflated signs (except grand opening signs,” unduly restrictive of free speech and expression. Specifically, Justice John Wallace, Jr. wrote that the ordinance “is content-based, does not fairly advance any governmental interest, and is not narrowly tailored to prevent no more than the exact source of that evil that is seeks to remedy.” 

By way of background, in 2005, Wayne DeAngelo, a senior official with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 269, was fined $100 and assessed $33 in costs for using the inflatable rat to protest a Gold’s Gym being built in the township without union labor. A trial judge and the Appellate Division panel rejected constitutional challenges by DeAngelo and the union, but a dissenting appeals judge, Jack Sabatino, agreed the ordinance was constitutionally deficient.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, Justice Wallace said DeAngelo’s protest was protected by the state and federal constitutions, as to both content and location. To support same, he cited U.S. Supreme Court precedents holding that public streets, parks, and sidewalks are traditionally public forums that occupy a “special position in terms of First Amendment protection” and that government cannot restrict expressive activity in such venues without a “compelling reason.”

The Court also rejected the rationale advanced by the township that the ordinance was designed to promote aesthetics and maintain public safety. Specifically, the Court stated, “although they are salutary goals, they do not justify a content-based restriction on free speech” and that an ordinance that prohibits a union from displaying a rat balloon, while authorizing a similar display as part of a grand opening, is content-based.

This ruling is expected to have statewide implications since municipalities across New Jersey have similar ordinances. Therefore, many municipalities will have to rework their own ordinances in order to conform to the ruling. Moreover, according to Andrew Watson, DeAngelo’s attorney, the ruling is a landmark victory for labor activists. Specifically, Watson stated, “this vindicates their [labor union’s] rights to an orderly, non-threatening means of protest.” As such, this case represents another important judicial decision regarding labor protesting and its collision with free speech.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link