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

As reported by nj.com, two dozen Middlesex County police departments will share $120,000 in funds confiscated from criminals to develop community policing programs, Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan said. The grants will be used to create programs that enhance public awareness and combat such crimes as bias intimidation, bullying and vandalism.

The prosecutor said 22 municipal police departments, the Rutgers University Police Department, and the Middlesex County Sheriff’s Department will each receive a $5,000 “Law Enforcement Response to Community Concerns Grant.” Kaplan, with approval from the Office of the Attorney General, is allocating $120,000 from funds that were seized from criminal defendants who had obtained proceeds through illegal activities such as selling drugs.

The municipal departments are: Carteret, Dunellen, East Brunswick, Edison, Helmetta, Highland Park, Metuchen, Middlesex Borough, Milltown, Monroe, New Brunswick, North Brunswick, Old Bridge, Perth Amboy, Piscataway, Plainsboro, Sayreville, South Brunswick, South Plainfield, South River, Spotswood, and Woodbridge.

The program is sponsored by the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office and the Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders. “These grants can help protect and improve the quality of life for all the citizens of Middlesex County,” Kaplan said. “This has always been a goal of the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office.”

In order to qualify for a grant, each police department was required to develop a plan that seeks to deal with a quality-of-life issue, such as curbing graffiti, criminal mischief, bullying, or bias-related crime. “Our goal is for our residents to have safe communities to live in, to work in and to play in,” Freeholder Ronald G. Rios, chair of the county’s Law and Public Safety Committee.

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

As reported by nj.com, although he has a full-time, $248,000 per year job as Union City’s police chief, Charles Everett has been raking in thousands of dollars for off-duty work for keeping tabs on the city’s pool and athletic field. According to records obtained by The Jersey Journal through the state’s Open Public Records Act, the Board of Education paid Everett $34,770 in 2009, $36,840 in 2010, and $17,520 this year, for detail security work at the Jose Marti Athletic Field and one of the two city pools. 

Everett began his detail work with the Board of Education in March 2008, and reportedly was paid $12,000 that year, but the Board of Education did not provide documents confirming that amount. His last day of work on the off-duty job was June 25, 2011.

Everett’s off-duty security work for the Board of Education was first disclosed in a report that aired on News 12 on August 3^rd. The TV news report showed Everett working out in the police gym at time that he was also supposedly working for the school district.

In response to the story, Mayor Brian Stack announced the city would hire an attorney to investigate the matter. Stack spokesman Mark Albiez said the mayor will decide whether or not to take action when the investigation is completed.   

The Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office has also made inquiries into the matter. “We are doing our due diligence and have made some inquiries. I wouldn’t characterize it as an investigation because when you do that it confirms there is an allegation of criminality. We are not saying that,” said Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio.

The detail work policy for off-duty officers at the UCPD was changed in 2006 to allow any officer of any rank to do off-duty work. The prior policy gave first preference to officers below the rank of Sergeant. Out of every 10 detail duties handed out, seven go to officers while three go to superior officers, according to the policy that was instituted.

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

As reported by nj.com, with a flood of retirements, the sluggish economy, and a governor intent on shrinking the size of government, the number of public workers in New Jersey has dropped to its lowest level in eight years, a Star-Ledger analysis shows. New Jersey shed about 29,100 state and local government jobs during Governor Chris Christie’s first 19 months in office, trailing only New York and California in the total number of public sector jobs lost, according to federal labor statistics.

The latest figures, released earlier this month, show the state has fewer public employees-from police and teachers to college administrators and state workers-on the payrolls than at any other point since September 2003. In fact, New Jersey’s sizable decline accounts for more than 8 percent of the 357,100 public sector jobs lost in states across the country since January 2010, the month Christie took office.

The loss of public sector jobs comes as New Jersey’s post-recession economy continues to struggle, translating into a 9.5 percent unemployment rate that is 13^th highest in the nation. In recent months, Christie has recast the unemployment rate-a critical yardstick for governors-saying it’s more a measure of his success than his failures. He said the stubbornly high jobless figure is an unavoidable consequence of his mission to shrink the size of government in New Jersey.

But economists and critics argue that Christie’s outlook ignorers how the loss of so many jobs, regardless of their origin, threatens the state’s broader economy. In January 2010, there were 590,200 employees on public payrolls in New Jersey. But that has dropped by more than 5 percent, the fifth highest percentage decline in the nation. In the same time period, the total number of jobs in New Jersey-accounting for gains in the private sector and losses in public jobs-rose by 20,300. That ranks New Jersey behind 38 other states in percentage of job growth. Christie’s critics say he may have been successful at shrinking government, but he has failed to expand the economy and provide new employment opportunities.

“In previous times, the decline in public sector jobs hit administration, but these last two years we are seeing a dramatic dip in police, fire, and EMS employees because the state aid was cut,” said William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities. Police and firefighters across the state have reacted with anger, framing the issue as a matter of public safety. “Our members are being asked to do their job without the manpower necessary to get things done. And at any given time, we can go to work and not come home,” said Dominick Marino, president of the International Association of Firefighters of New Jersey.

The city of Trenton is preparing to layoff 108 officers, which union officials there say would put staffing at 1930s levels.

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

As reported by nj.com, New Jersey’s standards for eyewitness testimony in the courtroom is unreliable and can encourage police misconduct, the New Jersey Supreme Court said in ordering a revision of investigative and court practices. The unanimous ruling follows a recent report recommending tighter restrictions on eyewitness testimony and is likely to have far-reaching effects beyond New Jersey.

The decision tightens standards adopted by New Jersey after the U.S. Supreme Court 34 years ago announced the rules for allowing eyewitness testimony in the courtroom. Since that time, however, “a vast body of scientific research about human memory has emerged,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote. “That body of work casts doubt on some commonly held views relating to memory.”

Noting most wrongful convictions in the United States are the result of misidentification, the court said judges should conduct pretrial hearings when there is a question about whether police suggestion influenced the outcome of an identification. The court also said jurors should be given greater instruction about how eyewitness testimony can be influenced.

Public Defender Joseph Krakora, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, praised the decision and said it would help eliminate wrongful convictions based on misidentifications. “I am deeply gratified that the court recognized the validity of over 30 years of scientific research on memory and eyewitness identification.”

The case was based on appeals filed by Larry Henderson, who was convicted in 2004 of manslaughter. Krakora argued police pressured a witness into naming him as an accomplice in the fatal shooting in Camden. Krakora argued the officer displaying an array of photos started moving them around as if he were “nudging” the witness toward Henderson’s photo.

An appellate panel in 2008 reversed Henderson’s conviction. Before the Supreme Court would take up the case, it sent the matter to a special master, retired state appellate judge Geoffrey Gaulkin, to determine whether New Jersey’s identification procedures are flawed. Gaulkin’s 86-page report issued last June concluded police need to change the way they obtain identifications and courts have to treat the identifications in a more scientific fashion.

The decision only affects future cases and the two on which this decision was based.

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

As reported by nj.com, Ed Brannigan, the leader of the state’s second-largest police union, was elected national vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police last Thursday. Brannigan knocked out the incumbent, David Hiller, of Michigan, by a vote of 1,577 to 1,365 at the union’s national conference in Salt Lake City. He will remain president of the state FOP.

As the number two officer for the largest law enforcement union in the country, he said his duties will include testifying before Congress and traveling from state to state to rally public workers as governments sidestep the collective bargaining process to cut into their pensions and health benefits. More than a dozen states including New Jersey took that route in an effort to close budget holes this year.

“All of a sudden we’re the bad guy. We weren’t the bad guy on 9/11,” Brannigan said. “It’s not our fault, it’s government mismanagement.”

During his two-year term, he said he will focus on bringing state and national unions together to present a united front across the country. New Jersey’s largest unions banded together to fight a bipartisan bill rolling back public workers’ benefits this year, but they were ultimately defeated.

Brannigan said unions face historically challenging times because of the political climate, and he’s preparing for a tough battle. “I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better,” he said.

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

As reported by nj.com, Camden officials are now working on plans to have the Camden County government take over the city’s police force. Camden County’s Board of Freeholders approved the concept last week. City officials had already signed on.

The parties have until September 30 to submit a detailed plan for review by the state’s Division of Local Government Services. If the merger happens, Camden would be the first New Jersey city covered by a county police department.

Union officials object to the merger. However, county officials hope a countywide force would offer better coverage and lower costs for taxpayers. So far, Camden is the only municipality to sign on. None of the suburbs have expressed much interest.

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

As reported by nj.com, strapped by recession and plagued by rising violence, some New Jersey police departments are about to get a little help from Washington. The U.S. Department of Justice announced state municipalities will receive $6 million in federal grant money to bolster departments thinned by deep cuts to city budgets.

“This funding will help New Jersey police departments to fund special task forces to combat the violence that is plaguing our cities,” said U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, who personally petitioned Attorney General Eric Holder for the grant money, citing Newark and Camden as the most in need. “I am so pleased that the Department of Justice has released these urgently needed funds which will help to ensure the safety of our citizens.”

Newark laid off 163 police officers last year in a citywide downsizing not seen since the 1970s. Camden lost half its police force when it laid off 168 officers. It has since hired back 75, but still has one of the highest crime rates in the nation.

How the money will be distributed has not been determined, but the decision will ultimately be up to Governor Chris Christie as well as a formula dictated by the Department of Justice.

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

As reported by nj.com, an appeals court ruled an indictment against a North Brunswick police officer charged with official misconduct in an accident that killed a fellow officer is legal and should stand. It was the second decision by the appellate judges that the indictment charging Lieutenant Keith Buckley with two counts of official misconduct should be upheld.

In the first decision several months ago, the judges overturned Superior Court Judge Frederick DeVesa’s dismissal of the indictment. DeVesa had found the indictment lacked clarity and would make it difficult for Buckley to defend himself. The Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office appealed DeVesa’s ruling last year. Buckley also appealed parts of DeVesa’s ruling. Buckley’s appeal was rejected in yesterday’s decision.

Buckley is charged in two indictments arising from the August 12, 2008 death of Lieutenant Christopher Zerby. The first indictment charges him with vehicular homicide after allegedly causing Zerby’s death. That indictment was upheld by DeVesa, but Buckley has filed an appeal that will be heard sometime this fall by appellate judges.

Authorities said Zerby was killed when Buckley lost control of a Dodge Viper on Route 130 in North Brunswick and struck a utility pole. Police said Buckley, who was commander of the patrol division and on duty, drove his police car to his brother’s house to pick up the Viper during the day. They said he stopped by police headquarters to pick up Zerby. Authorities said the car reached speeds in excess of 94 mph before the crash.

The official misconduct charges in the second indictment arise from the fact that Buckley and Zerby were on duty when Buckley took the Viper and violated state motor vehicle laws, as well as departmental rules and regulations.

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

As reported by nj.com, Camden’s police director has resigned just one month after he was appointed to the $100,000-a-year position. Mayor Dana Redd said she had accepted “with much regret” the resignation of Lanuel J. Ferguson.

Camden’s City Council had refused to confirm Ferguson’s appointment. Council members said Redd hired him without their consent. They argued that his salary could be better used for hiring back patrol officers laid off by the cash-strapped city.

The 59-year-old Ferguson is a former high-ranking officer in the New Jersey State Police. Redd hired Ferguson primarily to represent the city’s interests in an ongoing effort to create a regional police force for Camden County. Police Chief Scott Thomson was to continue running the department’s day-to-day operations while Ferguson focused on finances and strategy.

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

As reported by nj.com, New Jersey must create a new process for selecting sergeants in municipal and county police departments after reaching a settlement to revise a system the U.S. Department of Justice said discriminates against black and Hispanic applicants, federal officials announced Monday.

If the settlement is approved by a federal judge, the state will also be required to pay $1 million in back pay to black and Hispanic officers the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division says were harmed by the promotion process. Those officers may also be given priority for the next openings for sergeants.

“Police officers, whose daily responsibilities include protecting the public and ensuring the safety of others, have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race or national origin on the job,” said Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division. “The Department of Justice will challenge discrimination in employment on the basis of race or national origin, whether that discrimination is intentional or the result of promotional practices that have discriminatory impact.”

A spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, Peter Aseltine, pointed out that the state did not admit any liability in reaching a settlement. “We believe that a settlement was prudent to avoid costly litigation,” he said. 

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in January 2010 in U.S. District Court in Newark saying the written civil service test required for police officers to advance to sergeant was discriminatory. Federal officials argued the exam was not useful in finding the best candidates for the job and resulted in disqualifications for a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic applicants. When the lawsuit was filed last year, a Department of Justice spokesman said at least 120 municipal and county police departments in the state have used the discriminatory system from 2000 through 2008.

During that time period, 89 percent of white candidates who took the test passed, compared with 73 percent of African-American candidates and 77 percent of Hispanic candidates, the lawsuit says. If the settlement is approved, police departments would have to stop administering the current exam.

Aseltine said he did not know how many officers would be able to claim some of the $1 million, saying federal officials would administer the process. According to the settlement, the use of the written exam prevented at least 48 more black candidates and 20 more Hispanics from becoming sergeants.

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

As reported by nj.com, overwhelmed by rising crime and massive police layoffs, the struggling city of Camden pledged Tuesday to be the first municipality to join a new county police force intended to be a model for other cash-strapped New Jersey cities and towns. The city, which has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, signed an agreement with county and state officials to draft plans for the new Camden County Police Department by Sept. 30. County officials are to coordinate the formation of the department, which will then require approval of the state Department of Community Affairs.

The regional force is likely to be the first of its kind in the state. Somerset and Morris counties are considering similar arrangements. Still, it is unclear if other Camden County communities will volunteer to sign on to the force-and how much police union officials will protest the inevitable layoffs to result-making its future uncertain.

Supporters of the regional approach to policing say consolidation will take pressure off local budgets by combining administrative and back-office tasks, and at the same time bolster purchasing power to get better prices on equipment.  

Under the plan, each municipality that joins the county force would dissolve its department. Because of federal labor law, only 49 percent of the officers in each town could be rehired to join the county force. Who would hire the balance of the officers, however, remains undecided.

Edward Brannigan, president of the state Fraternal Order of Police, was quick to denounce the plan, saying he feared officers hired by the county would be paid less and receive fewer benefits. He also said he was concerned that a countywide force would focus more on Camden, where the crime rate is far higher than in the suburbs. “It’s horrible,” Brannigan said. “The whole thing is horrible. This is nothing but union busting.”

The plan was not uniformly embaraced by law enforcement officials, however. The Camden County Prosecutor, Warren Faulk, said any efforts to consolidate the police force should focus on putting more police resources into the city. “The devil is in the details, and we are very interested to learn the details of the county’s plan,” he said. “The priority for the city of Camden needs to be putting more officers on the streets, and we would be receptive to any effort that achieves this end.”

Wayne Fisher, director of the Rutgers Police Institute, said the plan will live or die depending on how many communities participate, and how the cities and towns balance their services. The agreement will not be official until votes are taken by the Camden City Council on Aug. 9 and the county freeholder board on Aug. 16.

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

As reported by Bob Braun on nj.com, within months after more than 160 of its police officers were laid off, Newark erupted into a spasm of violence, including the killing of a policeman and one day when 13 people were shot, one fatally. But did the layoffs lead to the violence? And what does the future hold for a densely urbanized state where police face cuts in local, state, and federal funding?

The answer is: no one really knows. But the future looks scary. And complicated. “There is no data linking crime rates with police layoffs because this has never happened before,” says Dennis Kenney, a professor at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and editor of Police Quarterly. Kenney, with a doctorate at Rutgers, believes police services will be “greatly eroded and degraded” because of cuts in public spending. “Even though no one can now prove a correlation between crime and police layoffs, it’s hard to argue that anything else could occur.”

Richard Weinblatt, a former New Jersey resident and national consultant on police issues, says police escaped cuts in the past. No politician, he says, “wanted to be seen as soft on crime.” But now, even cops are not immune. “No one seems interested in public safety issues-it’s just the economy, an obsession with how people are going to survive.”

The level of public discourse can be incendiary. Consider the warnings from State Senate President Stephen Sweeney who said people would “die” because of cuts to services, including police, in Governor Chris Christie’s budget. Christie has called pay and benefits to police in New Jersey “obscene.” All that erodes support for police-and all agencies that rely on tax dollars.

According to Braun, Kenney and others are right. The historical data does not exist to show laying off police officers leads to increased crime. But, the logic is also inescapable. “It certainly would be beneficial to get the cops we lost back,” says Samuel DeMaio, Newark’s acting police director.

Elizabeth Mayor Chris Bollwage managed to hire three of those laid off cops; he freed up funds by persuading senior officers to retire. But it was a trade-off he said, “You can learn only so much from the academy, learning the streets means working with veterans.”

Moreover, he’s not optimistic. Caps on spending, loss of state aid will catch up to the city. “We need visible police presence-the guns, the drugs, and the gangs are not going away.”

To read Braun's full article, click on the nj.com link above.

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

As reported by nj.com, Atlantic City’s public safety director is stepping down after 17 months amid a dispute over the pension she received from her previous job. Christine Petersen’s last day will be Friday.

According to her resignation letter obtained by The Press of Atlantic City, Petersen said she did not want to re-enroll in the state’s Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, as she was told she must do to keep the job. The police union recently alerted the state that Petersen was wrongfully receiving a pension from her former job as a lieutenant in the Jersey City Police Department.

Petersen took the Atlantic City job one month after retiring instead of waiting six months. The state ruled last month she was not entitled to approximately $105,000 in payment. Petersen is appealing the decision.

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

As reported by nj.com, nearly all of the police officers who were laid off by the Newark Police Department last year have received checks for their unused vacation or compensatory time, nearly seven months after it was due.

The city has paid $142,551.90 in back pay to 133 former officers over the past two months, clearing most of the amount owed to the officers who were dismissed when Newark laid off 162 cops during a massive public works purge last year, according to Anne Torres, a city spokeswoman. The payments came months after James Stewart, Jr., vice president of Newark’s Fraternal Order of Police, and several former officers blasted the city for failing to pay them in an April Star-Ledger article.

Stewart said the officers should have been paid January 1, a month after they were laid off. The FOP also filed a complaint against the city with a state employment commission on June 10, three days before the first checks were issued. “It’s a shame they had to wait so long to be paid,” Stewart said. “But we’re moving forward though, and we hope the next step is they can be getting regular checks again when they’re rehired.” 

Torres said the payments were simply pending approval by police officials, and they were not in response to the union filing a grievance. Eighteen other officers are still owed money, but their checks were delayed because they did not file their paperwork on time, Torres said.

Newark’s Superior Officers Association also filed a labor grievance against the city earlier this year, alleging Newark owes eight retirees a combined $870,000. Torres said the matter will go before a judge in September.

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

As reported by nj.com, Attorney General Paula Dow, flanked by county prosecutors and state officials, formally unveiled a group of reforms designed to eliminate the abuse of anabolic steroids in New Jersey’s law enforcement ranks.

The measures, recommended by a panel Dow formed in December, pave the way for police departments to randomly test officers for steroids, increase safeguards in taxpayer-funded prescription drug plans, and heighten scrutiny of physicans who improperly prescribe steroids and human growth hormone. The reforms follow a series of Star-ledger reports about the use of steroids in law enforcement. The newspaper found at least 248 officers and firefighters obtained the substances from an unscrupulous Jersey City physician, Joseph Colao. In most cases, they used their government benefits to pay for drugs that ran as much as $1,100 a month. Taxpayers picked up the bill, which amounted to millions of dollars. 

“The investigative series done by The Newark Star-Ledger highlighted the damage that can be done when a doctor’s actions go unchecked and individuals become aware of the opportunity to obtain medications they may not be entitled to,” Dow said at a press conference in Hamilton. “The cost is borne not just by taxpayers, but in the erosion of faith people have in those who protect and serve. This is unacceptable.”

Among the initiatives, state guidelines on drug-testing will be rewritten to explicitly authorize departments to randomly test their officers for steroids. The guidelines will also allow chiefs or prosecutors to test officers if they have a “reasonable suspicion” of steroid use or as a condition of fitness-for-duty evaluations.

Other measures include:

·         Any officer who tests positive will be required to provide a note from a physician confirming that the use of steroids or human growth hormone is for a legitimate medical condition and that the officer is fit for duty.

·         Departments are encouraged to require officers to self-report prescriptions for anabolic steroids and human growth hormone based on the authority to determine fitness for duty.

.     Dow will recommend prescriptions for steroids or growth hormone be filled largely by mail order through Medco, the state’s pharmacy benefits manager. The provision is meant to help Medco spot potential abuses.

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

As reported by nj.com, five police officers laid off in January were sworn in at Orange City Hall council chambers. The city rehired the officers using money from a federal grant originally meant for new hires, Mayor Eldridge Hawkins, Jr. said.

The officers raised their right hands, then received their badges in a ceremony attended by dozens of city employees and officials. The five men, rejoining the department of almost 100 officers, will start immediately, the mayor said. “It’s a good feeling to be back to work,” Officer David Fanfan, 26, said.

State-aid cuts and a $3 million budget gap forced the layoffs, Orange Police Director John Rappaport said. Orange cut 11 officers in January as part of its 50 proposed layoffs, which included 12 firefighters and other city workers. The officers were brought back using a federal grant called the Community Oriented Policing Services grant that awarded the city $964,000 to hire five officers for three years.

In March, the city was able to rehire 12 laid-off firefighters and add 12 new hires by using $1.2 million in federal grants and negotiating givebacks.

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

As reported by nj.com, a plan to layoff more than 100 uniformed City of Trenton police officers is back on the table, Mayor Tony Mack said. Mack confirmed the layoff plan at the end of a town hall meeting with the Chambersburg Civic Association.

“Unfortunately, for us, we will have to layoff 111 police officers,” Mack said, responding to a question from a resident about the possibility of terminations. “We’re in a very, very difficult situation.” Last year, Mack shelved a similar plan to axe 111 officers, but officials said this layoff plan is separate from last year’s plan. 

Layoff plans have to be certified by the state’s Civil Service Commission and submitted to the state’s Department of Community Affairs. According to Eric Berry, the city’s business administrator, the new layoff plan will also include personnel cuts in other city departments. However, he said that, until the new plan is approved by the state, he could not disclose how many people might be affected.

As he said when police layoffs were considered last year, Mack told the crowd the cuts would not affect patrol levels. “We have some of our police officers who are in offices. They physically work in an office,” he said. ‘Those police officers will no longer work in offices, they’ll be on the street patrolling. So the plan that we have in place…will not reduce police presence on the street.”

Mack also added that the city was looking into applying for a grant that could save some police jobs. “Camden got a grant to bring some of their police officers back, so we will apply for that same grant,” he said.  

Camden was able to hire back 19 officers after receiving a $4.3 million federal Community Oriented Policing Services grant. The city laid off 163 officers last year. Other officers were able to come back to the department after the city found other sources of revenue.

Trenton is still ironing out problems from layoffs in 2010. The state Civil Service agency issued a corrective action plan to the city earlier this year to address irregularities in how those terminations were carried out. Under Civil Service rules, some workers have “bumping rights” based on such factors as licensing and seniority, and certain employees must be laid off before others. Berry said those problems should be fixed by May 24, at which point the new layoff plan can be certified.

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

As reported by nj.com, officials had considered disbanding or reducing the size of the full-time, Franklin Township Police Department in favor of contracting police service from a neighboring municipality, one of a string of changes being considered to help control taxes. “We’ve reached an agreement to keep our police department for this budget year,” Mayor Scott Bauman said at Franklin Township’s Committee meeting. But, he cautioned that concessions from the police guarantee the department’s survival “for this budget year only.”

The change threw a wrench into the township’s proposed $2.6 million 2011 budget, which officials had originally expected to approve. Because it will have to be substantially modified, it will be re-introduced at another public meeting that has been scheduled for May 12. Township Auditor William Colantano said it will have two or three pages of “major amendments.”

Officials were mum about what the budget changes will be, where money for additional spending will come from or whether the revised spending plan will include a property tax increase. Committeeman Robert McGeary said that the new agreement with police is not complete. “Paperwork and details will follow,” he said, but “an understanding is in place.” Patrolman Craig Santoro, who is representing the police union in its negotiations with officials, said the extent of union concessions “are not yet known.”

“The public has a right to know where the money is coming from,” said Charlie Mathews, a former Township Committeeman. George Burdick, another former committeeman, told officials, “formulating your budget is a very public process…you’re now withdrawing from that process.”

Committeewoman Susan Campbell said money and savings to retain police will come from a combination of places.   Other potential cost-savings measures being considered by the Township Committee include a plan to phase in a requirement that employees pay an increasing share of their health care costs, and reducing the open space tax. Last night, the committee voted to increase fees for construction applications and inspections.

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

As reported by nj.com, the New Jersey Supreme Court prohibited law enforcement officers from destroying the notes they take while interviewing witnesses, victims and suspects, saying defense attorneys should be allowed to view them so they can challenge official police reports.

The decision, by a divided court, addresses the decades-old struggle in New Jersey courtrooms of defense attorneys looking for possible errors, omissions or inconsistencies that could help their clients. When asked for their notes, officers often say it’s their department’s policy to destroy them once the official report is written. The ruling is the latest of a number of decisions critical of cops’ note-taking procedures. But for the first time, the court imposes sanctions and includes notes about officers’ observations at a crime scene as part of the list of documents that cannot be destroyed.

“We need not take much time to state, once more, that law enforcement officers may not destroy contemporaneous notes of interviews and observations at the scene of a crime after producing their final reports,” temporary justice Edwin Stern wrote more the majority. “Logically, because an officer’s notes may be of aid to the defense, the time has come to join other states that require the imposition of ‘an appropriate sanction’ whenever an officer’s written notes are not preserved.”

The ruling said trial court judges will be able to instruct jurors that the destruction of notes by a police officer can be a factor in determining whether he or she is telling the truth.

The Supreme Court gave the state Attorney General’s Office 30 days to inform local law enforcement officers and county prosecutors about the requirement. Cranford Police Chief Eric Mason, president of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, said the requirement could be a state mandate that will cost local departments. “On its face, this type of practice will require additional administrative review internally at a time when police departments are being asked to do more with less with deep cuts in personnel,” Mason said.

Jon Shane, a professor of criminal justice at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, noted that New York City uses special notebooks that create duplicate copies of notes and require a supervisor’s signature as a protection against tampering. Shane also noted that, “What you’re talking about is accountability. That’s what the Supreme Court is imposing on policing.”   

The ruling grew out of an appeal by a man, identified in court papers as W.B., who was convicted of sexually assaulting his cousin, who later recanted her allegation. By a 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court upheld W.B.’s conviction.

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

As reported by app.com, the Freehold Township Police Department has new sign at its front window: “Due to staffing issues, this window may be closed throughout the day. If this is an emergency, use the red telephone.” It’s literally a sign of the times, as police departments throughout New Jersey continue to cope with the ongoing consequences of a deep recession and budget cuts.

The problem is that officers who retire are not being replaced, often because municipalities do not have the money to hire more police. So, for police chiefs or department directors, the challenge is maintaining adequate levels of protection. But, the financial belt-tightening has visibly translated into divisions being merged, administrative bureaus being closed and officers being reassigned from desk jobs back to patrolling the streets. In some instances, specialized police units are being depleted in order to ensure that enough officers are on the streets and available to respond to emergencies.

What is clear is that the ranks of New Jersey police are growing thinner. The State overall has seen a loss of 3,400 officers since January 1, 2010, according to State Policemen’s Benevolent Association representative James Ryan. Much of that is due to attrition, he said. Officers who qualify for retirement choose to leave, rather than deal with the ongoing conflict in Trenton over pensions and benefits for public employees.

Depending on the size of a particular municipality, the impact of the retirements can translate into a sizable chunk of the police force going away. In Freehold Township, for instance, seven officers have retired during the past 14 months. That amounts to 10 percent of the force and none of them will be replaced according to Administrator Peter Valessi. The numbers vary around the state, but they all tell a similar story.

In Woodbridge, 24 officers, or nearly 10 percent of the force, retired in 2010. In Red Bank, three officers retired and three special officers who serve one year terms were not rehired, decreasing uniformed police in that department by 13 percent. In Freehold township, departmental changes have increased the responsibilities of patrol officers, who now respond to motor vehicle accidents, answer all types of calls, and run radar stops on roads, said local PBA president William Gallo.

“Everyone has to do a little more now,” Gallo said, “whether that’s answering more calls, taking care of accidents or radar. We are making do.” Ryan, the state PBA representative, said that trend is becoming more widespread, as officers in special operations, including the anti-drug DARE programs, school resource officers and detective divisions, are moved to patrol duty. “We are worried, and I’m not trying to be a fearmongerer here, about a rise in crime” he said.

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

As reported by nj.com, Camden Mayor Dana Reed says her crime-ridden city will rehire 50 police officers and 15 firefighters two months after deep layoffs to public safety departments. Reed announced that she will use $2.5 million paid to the City by the South Jersey Port Corp, plus federal grants, to bring back the officers through the summer.

The quasi-state agency announced it would make the payment late last year after skipping a larger payment it owed the cash-strapped city government. Reed said she would use it to stave off layoffs. However, she said she would not do so unless unions for public workers made concessions first. She reversed course, rehiring workers without concessions. Crime has been up since January, when nearly half the police force was laid off.

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

As reported by nj.com, thirty-one (31)Irvington Township police officers, nearly twenty (20) percent of the force, are scheduled to be laid off on March 11, 2011 in the township’s latest cost cutting move. The cuts would leave the department with 132 officers, a level of uniformed police last seen in 1965, according to Detective Jerry Ramos, president of the Irvington Policemen’s Benevolent Association.

Mayor Wayne Smith said the officers would likely be rehired within a few weeks if state officials allow Irvington to make installment payments on a $6 million budget obligation rather than demand a lump sum.

Union rank-and-file declined this week to vote on giveback proposals, calling them draconian. Ramos said the proposals included an across-the-board 10 percent pay cut through June 30, additional health benefit contributions, and writing off back pay owed to dozens of officers. Irvington police pay ranked 245^th out of 466 towns, according to 2009 state data. “However, we’re one of the most densely populated municipalities in the entire state and we have the second-highest violent crime rate” after Camden, Ramos said.

The move comes 10 months after a 17 percent municipal tax increase and the layoffs of 20 officers and 10 firefighters. Five firefighters and 19 officers were rehired in July.

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

As reported by app.com, State Senate President Stephen Sweeney said he will push for a law aimed at moving the State’s 566 municipalities into shared-service agreements. Sweeney said he would introduce the legislation this week.

The bill is expected to revive the Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization and Consolidation Commission (“LUARC”), created some four years ago, but which lost its funding in the current state budget. Under the current proposal, municipalities would be encouraged to come up with shared-services plans. If towns fail to make arrangements to share services, the commission could go into those towns and recommend plans that would be put to voters for approval. Voters would have to approve the measure in order for the municipality to avoid a reduction in state aid corresponding to the amount of money that would have been saved through the shared services agreement.  

Although numerous government entities across the state have begun to share services, Sweeney’s plan, if enacted, would represent the first effort by state government to push municipalities to do such things as combine police forces or fire departments, merge garbage pickup, or purchase items in bulk together. 

Sweeney, at a meeting with the Editorial Board of the Asbury Park Press, said he also wants to encourage counties to share services. “If you don’t want more cost-effective government, that’s fine, but (the state) shouldn’t be subsidizing it,” Sweeney said. He also said that local voters are often reluctant to approve or support plans that result in the layoffs or demotions of familiar faces in municipal governments.

Sweeney, a former Gloucester County freeholder, noted that he combined that county’s vocational-technical and special services schools to save $1.3 million a year, and instituted a countywide police dispatch system in order to save money. He acknowledged, though, that the police dispatch initiative took eight years to implement and more work needs to be done. He also said he though it would be too soon for the shared-services proposals to be put to local voters this year.  

Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for Governor Chris Christie, said the Republican would consider Sweeney’s plan and judge it on the details, but also wanted the Democrat-controlled Legislature to pass more of Christie’s so-called tool kit bills also aimed at reducing property taxes.

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

As reported by nj.com, leaders of police and firefighter unions slammed Governor Chris Christie at a rally outside the Statehouse on March 3, 2011. 

Bill Lavin, president of the New Jersey Firefighter’s Mutual Benevolent Association, said Christie loves police and firefighters, but hates the unions because “he hates your voice.” Lavin said the Governor wants to take away hard-earned benefits for police and firefighters, then deliver the eulogies at their funerals. In response to Christie calling the rally a “me-first rally” at a press conference, Lavin said he agrees with the Governor’s assessment of the event. “I agree with him,” he said. “Every time the bell rings, every time shots are fired, you people say, ‘me first, I go in first.’ ”

The rally was expected to draw a crowd of more than 8,000, but Lavin said he was told the crowd was in excess of 15,000.

The president of Lakewood PBA, Gary Przewoznik, said he was on his way to a PBA meeting to tell Lakewood officers that jobs had been saved through a compromise with the township when he got the call that Officer Christopher Matlosz had been shot. “The assassination of Chris Matlosz served as a reminder to all of us that our jobs are vital to our communities,” he said. “We are the good guys.”  

Christie blamed the unions for cuts in public safety, citing examples in Camden and Newark where unions could have made concessions to save jobs. The governor said it is the unions’ civil rights to protest. When asked what effect such rallies have on his decision-making, Christie said, “Zero. Absolutely Zero.”

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

As reported by nj.com on January 27, 2011, the Jersey City Police Union has voted to approve the police contract for its officers. The vote tally for the approval was 341 for and 164 against according to city officials. There are 690 members of the union and, as such, 185 members did not cast a vote.

The Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Association approved a new deal in a vote that took place from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on January 26, 201. The ratification averted the scheduled layoff of 82 officers. Had the layoffs went through, it would have cut the size of the police force by 10 percent from its current 830 members.   

The agreement still needs to be approved by the City Council, which is expected. Mayor Jeremiah Healy said, “We also want to thank the union leadership for their efforts in these long and sometimes difficult negotiations and we also want to thank the men and women of the Jersey City Police Department for not only supporting this agreement, but for the important work they do every day to keep our city safe.”

The terms of the agreement and the vote tally were not immediately available. Sources have told The Jersey Journal that the police union officials agreed to a one-week pay lag for the officers, which will save the city nearly $4 million this year. The officers would receive the one-week pay when they retire. In return for the concession, the officers gained two comp days this year, will receive an extra day’s pay when they retire, and the city agreed not to take away the officers’ $1300 a year uniform allowance.

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

On October 13, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Raymond Joseph Foster, III v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Docket No.: A-5666-07T2. In the case, Raymond Joseph Foster, III, a member of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (“PFRS”), appealed from the final decision of the Board of Trustees (“Board”), upholding the May 5, 2008 initial decision of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jeff Masin, finding that Foster “has failed to meet his burden to prove that the total and permanent disability from which he suffers is the direct result of the injuries received in the traumatic event [Foster suffered on March 5, 2002].”

Foster started working as a Bordentown Township police officer in February 1998. On March 5, 2002 at 9:51 p.m., Foster was injured in a motor vehicle accident, while working as a police officer. The police report indicated that it was a one-vehicle accident. Foster was responding to the ACME supermarket. As he entered the parking lot, he turned right, but missed the entrance and struck a light pole to the left of the entrance. At the time, Foster was thirty-seven years old.

More than four years later, in September 2006, Foster stopped working. According to Foster, he could no longer tolerate the pain, which had become more constant and excruciating. It was undisputed that Foster was totally and permanently disabled and unable to perform his work duties. Thereafter, Foster applied to the Board for accidental disability retirement benefits. The Board denied the application on the grounds that Foster’s disability was not a direct result of the automobile accident, thus he did not qualify for accidental disability benefits.

Foster challenged that decision. The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. After hearings were conducted, ALJ Masin found that Foster’s application should be denied, concluding that Foster’s present disability was not the direct result of the accident. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Foster contended that the decision of ALJ Masin and the Board was not supported by the evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed. Based on its review of the record, the Court found that the Board’s findings were supported by the appropriate proofs and, therefore, its decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. As such, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

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

Illustrating the potential dangers New Jersey Public Safety Officers encounter on a daily basis, gunfire erupted as a police tactical squad executed a no-knock search warrant in Lakewood on September 23, 2009, leaving four officers and a suspect shot. The incident was reported by the Associated Press in an article on September 24, 2009.  

One Lakewood police officer who was shot in the face and another who was shot in the foot were taken to the hospital, Deputy Chief Michael Mohel of the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office said. Two others sustained minor injuries when they were struck in their bulletproof vests. The suspect, Jamie Gonzalez, 39, was taken to this hospital with multiple gunshot wounds. There was no word on their conditions and the names of the officers have not been released.  

Police had planned to search the home for narcotics and weapons. The shooting comes more than two months after Jersey City Police Detective Marc DiNardo was shot in the face storming an apartment where two armed robbery suspects were holed up. Four other officers were wounded in the gun battle and the suspects were killed. DiNardo was taken off life support and pronounced dead one day before his 38^th birthday.   

To view the article in its entirety, please click on the following link.

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

On July 28, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Donald Michelson, Department of Safety, City of Union. In the case, Donald Michelson sought review of the Final Administrative Action of the Merit System Board accepting and adopting the initial decision of the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”). The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that the City of Union had proven its charges of neglect of duty, other sufficient cause, and absence without leave against Michelson and concluded that the penalty of suspension without pay for six (6) work days was reasonable and consistent with progressive discipline.

On October 14, 2005, Michelson, a sergeant in the Union Police Department, was assigned to work in the communication center from 2330 hours to 0730 hours but did not report for duty. The Police Department schedule cycle requires officers to report for duty four days on and three days off per week for three weeks, then report for duty four days on and two days off for one week (called “the short week”). Before 0400 hours, Sergeant Botti, the Desk Officer Supervisor called Michelson to inquire about his absence. Apparently, Michelson mistakenly believed he was on the short week and not scheduled to work that day. He ultimately reported for duty at 0400 hours.

The Police Department charged Michelson with neglect of duty, absence without leave, and other sufficient cause. Due to his absence, which was undisputed, the ALJ determined: (1) the communication center was without supervision for approximately four and one-half hours; and (2) the desk sergeant put aside his regular duties to conduct an inquiry into Michelson’s absence. The ALJ also noted the police department operates as a paramilitary organization and prompt attendance is critical to the efficient operation of the department. The ALJ further found that the six-day suspension comported with the concept of progressive discipline. The ALJ, reasoning that Michelson had no intention to report for duty until Botti called him, rejected Michelson’s contention that he was merely tardy, not absence without leave.   

The ALJ, noting that superior officers such as Michelson must set an example for subordinate officers, also rejected Michelson’s claim that he was subjected to disparate treatment because no other officer had been suspended for arriving late. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that the record was insufficient to support a claim of disparate treatment as it did not contain the prior disciplinary records of the other employees, a factor bearing on the discipline to be imposed. Thus, no reasoned comparison could be made. Consequently, the ALJ affirmed Union’s determination that Michelson be suspended for six (6) days.

On review by the Board, it accepted and adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and found “that the action of the appointing authority in suspending [Michelson] was justified.” Accordingly, it affirmed the action and dismissed Michelson’s appeal. This appeal ensued.

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

On July 7, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided State v. Anthony Bogan, Docket No.: A-7-08. In the case, the Court considered whether, during an investigation into an alleged sexual assault, a police officer’s warrantless entry into an apartment was justified under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.

In 2004, a receptionist at Passaic Mill Work noticed a young girl outside on the sidewalk crying hysterically. The receptionist invited the girl inside. The girl’s name was Kathleen and she was fourteen years old. Kathleen stated that a person who was supposed to drive her to school had molested her. The police were called and Kathleen informed the officers that she had been offered a ride by a male family friend, later identified as Defendant Anthony Bogan. Instead of taking her to school, Bogan drove Kathleen to an apartment in Clifton, where he lured her into a second-floor apartment and molested her. Kathleen gave a description of Bogan that included his race, age, height, and clothing, and told the officers that while she was inside the apartment a young boy named Wally was there.

Accompanied by Kathleen, three officers proceeded to the apartment. On their arrival, they found parked in front a gray Audi, which Kathleen identified as the car driven by Bogan. The officers rang the bell to the second-floor apartment. They heard an adult-sounding male voice yell from inside the apartment, “Who is it?” The officers identified themselves as police. Wally, who was approximately twelve years old, answered the door in his pajamas. The officers followed Wally up the stairs toward the apartment, asking him if he was home alone. Wally’s response that no one was home was inconsistent with the adult male voice that had responded when they rang the doorbell. At the top of the stairs, with Wally inside the apartment and the officers on the landing outside the doorway, the conversation continued. When officers asked the whereabouts of Wally’s mother, he gave conflicting answers and seemed nervous. The officers thought that Wally might be in danger. When the telephone rang in the kitchen, which was located immediately inside the apartment, Wally picked up the receiver and told the officers that his father was on the phone. One of the officers asked Wally if he could speak with his parent, and Wally responded “certainly.” The officer walked a few steps into the apartment and was handed the receiver by Wally. While on the telephone, the officer was able to see into a bedroom where Bogan was lying on the bottom level of a bunk bed. Bogan fit the description given by Kathleen, and the officer motioned for the other officers to enter the apartment.

An officer read Bogan the Miranda warnings. Bogan identified himself as “Anthony Green.” Another officer, who was on the telephone with Wally’s mother, was told that Anthony Bogan was supposed to be caring for Wally. Upon further questioning, Defendant stated that Bogan was his “maiden name.” While communicating with headquarters, the officers learned that there were multiple arrest warrants for Anthony Bogan. 

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

On June 23, 2009, the Appellate Division decided New Jersey Transit Corporation v. P.B.A. Local 304, Docket No.: A-3341-07T3. In the case, PBA Local 304 (“PBA”) appealed from an order of the Chancery Division, General Equity Part, overturning an arbitration award that declared that New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) police officers who are transferred involuntarily by the Chief of Police are entitled to additional pay for travel time. The court held that the arbitrator’s decision violated public policy because it restricted the chief’s authority to reassign officers, thereby limiting his ability to enhance operational awareness and public safety.

This matter concerned the arbitrator’s interpretation of Article XXIII, Section 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The article provides in relevant part:

(a) A temporary position may, at the discretion of the Chief of Police, be assigned to an officer for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days.

(b) After a 30 calendar day period or less, the assigned officer will then be reassigned to his original position, and a second officer may then be assigned, then the third, etc.

On March 1, 2005, the NJT Chief of Police issued orders temporarily assigning two police officers to each other’s regular assignments for a period of twenty-eight calendar days. Specifically, Officer Trumble was transferred from his position in Hoboken, and assigned to Officer Sepe’s position in Newark, while Officer Sepe was assigned to Officer Trumble’s Hoboken position. The assignment orders were effective from March 5, 2005 until April 1, 2005.

On March 22, 2005, the PBA filed a grievance, alleging that the assignments constituted an “involuntary tour swap,” because the affected orders were required to change their bid work location (regular assignment) and to work each other’s bid position. On May 9, 2006, the matter was submitted to arbitration. The parties framed the issue thusly: “Was the effectuation of personnel orders P 05-047 and/or P 05-048 in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement?”

At arbitration, the PBA argued that the assignments are limited under the Article to positions that are open or vacant, and not to those positions that are already filled by officers who had been awarded those positions. NJT argued that, except for certain time limitations, the Article does not limit the Chief’s discretionary authority to assign temporary positions.

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

On June 11, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Michael Kappre v. Borough of Paulsboro, Docket No.: A-3573-07T3. In the case, the Paulsboro Police Chief filed misconduct charges against Michael Kappre, a former patrolman and sniper for the Paulsboro Police Department’s SWAT team. The Borough of Paulsboro sought Kappre’s termination. Kappre pleaded not guilty to the charges filed and a hearing was held before a hearing officer. Following administrative review, the hearing officer upheld the decision to terminate Kappre.

Kappre filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, seeking a de novo review pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-150. Judge Farrell heard additional testimony from Kappre and Chief Thomas Sullivan of the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office and rendered factual findings and conclusions in a written opinion. The trial judge sustained three charges of insubordination and untruthfulness and one charge of incapacity to hold office. Accordingly, Judge Farrell concluded the charges warranted Kappre’s removal. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Kappre argued the charges lodged against him should have been dismissed because the record does not support his conduct demonstrated insubordination. Moreover, Kappre asserted there was a lack of credible evidence in the record to suggest he committed misconduct and the trial judge erred in discounting the testimony of his expert.

After evaluating the record in light of the arguments raised by Kappre in conjunction with the applicable legal standards, the Appellate Division affirmed Judge Farrell’s determinations. The Court was satisfied from its review of the record that Judge Farrell’s findings of fact were supported by substantial credible evidence and the conclusions based thereon should not be disturbed. Specifically, the Court noted that deference to Judge Farrell’s findings, which include determinations of credibility, was particularly appropriate in this case since they were substantially influenced by his opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the “feel” of the case, which the Appellate Division, as a reviewing court, cannot enjoy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 8, 2009, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Tanya Johnson, Docket No.: A-0482-07T2. In the case, Tanya Johnson appealed from a final decision of the Merit System Board (“Board”) terminating her employment as a parole officer recruit.

In her position as a recruit, Johnson was required to complete a Police Training Commission (“PTC”) course. She began the basic course on January 9, 2006. On March 24, 2006, she failed a test for unarmed defensive tactics. She was given remediation training, but on March 29, Johnson failed the test again and was dismissed from the PTC course.

On the same date, March 29, 2006, Johnson was served with a notice of dismissal from her position as a parole officer recruit. On March 31, 2006, she was served with a preliminary notice of disciplinary action for failure to comply with N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(11), which required her to successfully complete all of the instructional areas of the training cycle. She was removed effective April 4, 2006, and a departmental hearing was held on July 19, 2006. The charge was sustained.

Johnson appealed to the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Training Academy on April 20, 2006. The Training Academy, however, was not the proper venue for the appeal and Johnson’s counsel was advised that the appeal had been filed with the wrong party and had to be filed with the PTC. The appeal was not sent to the proper venue until almost a year after her dismissal, however.

Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) and, thereafter, the appointing authority moved to dismiss on the grounds that the appeal was not timely filed with the PTC. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted the motion and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. Johnson appealed to the Board and the Board affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of the appeal. However, the Board dismissed the appeal without prejudice. This appeal ensued.

Since the dismissal of the appeal was without prejudice, the Appellate Division held the matter was not ripe for appeal because it did not know whether Johnson was ultimately successful in having the PTC accept her untimely appeal. Although Johnson argued that the Court should order a preliminary hearing on the merits, the Court determined it could not do so since Johnson has not complied with the procedural requirements for an administrative hearing. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice because is interlocutory.     

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

New York Governor David Patterson dropped a bombshell on two powerful unions yesterday when he unexpectedly vetoed a routine measure that for nearly thirty (30) years had allowed New York city cops and firefighters to retire with generous pensions.

“These are not routine times,” Paterson said in vetoing the “temporary” measure that, since 1981, had been habitually renewed by legislators, giving the Finest and Bravest gold-plated pensions known as “Tier II” even as new, less-generous tiers were created for non-uniformed workers. Paterson added, “Instead of a rubber stamp on a temporary fix, we need to move forward with real reform to the pension system.”

In recent months, the New York Post has detailed the spiraling costs of public-employee pensions and the growing threat they pose to state and local budgets. Paterson’s veto, which caught the lawmakers off guard, was his most aggressive move yet in his push to establish a pared-down pension tier for newly hired employees. Recently, the governor re-introduced his cost-saving pension proposal, which legislators flatly rejected during this year’s budget negotiations. In fact, Paterson estimates that his proposal for a new pension tier would save the state $48 billion over the next thirty (30) years. 

Labor unions and their allies in the Legislature said they were blindsided by the governor’s veto and argued that state and local governments will see no savings from the move because it’s unclear which pension tiers new cops and firefighters would join. According to Civil Service Committee Chairwoman Diane Savino, who sponsored the bill, “There was no cost to extending the current system. We don’t know what the cost would be. We don’t know what the savings will be.” 

The bill passed overwhelmingly, 136-6 in the Assembly and 58-0 in the Senate, leading to talk of a veto override, which requires a two-thirds majority of each house. 

The savings would come from, among other items, raising the minimum retirement age and banning overtime “spiking,” where workers run up OT in their final years to boost pension payouts.

As one can expect, developments such as these do not bode well for public safety officers across the county, to include those of our state. As detailed in previous entries, public pension reform has become an important topic, especially during these tough economic times. This article illustrates the types of responses that are being taken by government in response to the issue and the resulting effect upon public safety officers. Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates in regard to this matter.

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

On May 28, 2009, the Honorable Peter A. Buchsbaum, J.S.C. decided Mark Petersen v. Township of Raritan, Docket No. HNT-L-446-08. The complaint alleged contractual violations of the 1997-1999 collective bargaining agreement between the Township of Raritan and the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was police officer who retired in 1999. The 1997-99 collective bargaining agreement included retiree health benefits at Article XXII. As of July 1, 2008, current employees and retirees would no longer be able to enroll in the Traditional Plan. Those who were already enrolled in that plan, such as Plaintiff, could switch to the POS plan without any cost to them. They could, however, choose to remain in the Traditional Plan, provided they agreed to pay the excess premium between these two plans from that point in time.

Count one of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff is paying a premium differential for the Traditional Plan in which he is enrolled, that is, the difference in premium costs between the Traditional Plan and the POS plan offered by the Township. Count two of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff’s co-pays for certain prescription drugs have increased. In response to the complaint, Defendant moved for summary judgment.

The trial court found the language of the collective bargaining agreement sufficiently complex to warrant further examination. Specifically, the court found ambiguity in the insurance clause as to whether the language “shall continue to receive all health and medical benefits provided by the employer for the remainder of his life” would reasonably lead Plaintiff to believe that he would receive health coverage equivalent to the Traditional Plan for the remainder of his life. Therefore, the court determined Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was premature and, thus, factual exploration of the issues in this matter is necessary.

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

On May 19, 2009, the Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Yusef Gethers, Docket No.: A-5323-06T4. By way of background, on March 24, 2005, a Union County grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant, Yusef Gethers, with second-degree certain persons not to possess a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1). On the same date, a Union County grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (count one), and fourth-degree possession of a prohibited device, hollow point bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f). 

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence, Defendant pled guilty to count one of the indictment, third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain reached with the State, Defendant was sentence to five (5) years probation, conditioned upon 364 days of house arrest. The trial court dismissed the remaining charges under the indictments as well as an outstanding municipal court warrant. The trial court also imposed the appropriate fees and penalties. Thereafter, this appeal ensued when Defendant appealed the suppression ruling.

In this case, the Appellate Division determined the motion to suppress evidence obtained in a vehicular search, specifically, a gun found in a backpack not in plain view, was improperly denied by the trial judge. The Court found the State did not carry its burden of demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement where: (1) both occupants were outside the car and did not have access to the backpack; (2) there was no possibility they would leave the area; (3) the officers’ conduct did not indicate a belief the occupants were armed and dangerous; (4) there was no evidence of accomplices who might have come onto the scene or other persons who had access to the car destroying or disposing of the evidence or moving the car; (5) the car was parked in a residential driveway so there was no issue of traffic obstruction; (6) the ratio of officers to suspects was 4-to-2; and (7) the Defendant was in a wheelchair. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial judge’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court.

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

On May 4, 2009, the Appellate Division decided City of Clifton v. Clifton P.B.A. Local #36, Docket No.: A-4806-07T3. In the case, Defendant, Clifton P.B.A. Local #36, appealed from a trial judge’s decision vacating an arbitrator’s award of thirteen (13) shift differential (SD) days to police detectives. 

The trial judge ruled that, in a case in which the union’s grievance was filed eighteen (18) months after the alleged wrong first occurred, and not within the twenty (20) days provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator exceeded his powers when stated that he had waived the twenty (20) day contractual time limit. In reaching that conclusion, the judge discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Ed. Of Borough of Alpha v. Alpha Ed. Ass’n, a case in which the Court recognized and applied the continuing violation doctrine to preserve a late-filed grievance by the union resulting from the Board’s cessation of payment of health insurance benefits. Because the trial judge found that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in considering the matter, the judge did not render an opinion on any substantive issue raised by the parties.

On appeal, the union claimed that the award was timely pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine as recognized by the Supreme Court. The City of Clifton argued, like the trial judge, that the arbitrator did not find a continuing violation to have occurred, but rather, determined to waive the contractual twenty (20) day requirement.

The Appellate Division determined the arbitrator’s decision is susceptible to both interpretations. According to the Court, the arbitrator’s decision suggests that he nominally declined to decide the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine, instead couching his decision in terms of waiver. However, the result reached was identical to the one reached in Alpha by application of the continuing violation doctrine. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the arbitrator for clarification of the basis for his decision on the timeliness of the action.

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

On April 15, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Cornelius Caruso, Docket No.: A-1612-07T1. In the case, Cornelius Caruso appealed his termination as police officer in the City of Orange Police Department.

Caruso became a police officer in 2000. In 2005, he began to experience serious problems related to his use of alcohol. He voluntarily entered a program at the Carrier Clinic in December 2005. When he did so, he failed to follow the Department’s requirement that he notify the communication supervisor and apply for a leave of absence. No charges were filed with respect to that omission.

Caruso left the Carrier Clinic in March 2006. He was found by the Department to be fit for duty and returned to work on April 1, 2006. Caruso was instructed to make periodic reports concerning his recovery, which instruction was confirmed in a letter from the City’s attorney to Caruso’s attorney. No such periodic reports were ever made.

The Department permits fifteen days of sick leave per year. The Department assessed Caruso for use of 2006 sick leave only during the period from January 1 to January 10, 2006. The period from January 11 to March 31, 2006, was charged as a combination of administrative and compensatory leave. After Caruso’s return to duty in April, he went out on sick leave from April 6 to April 18; May 10 to July 7; October 25 to November 4; and December 12 to the end of 2006. Consequently, by December 2006, Caruso had taken significantly more sick leave than was permitted by the Department.

On December 12, 2006, Caruso left work because of an eye infection. However, according to Caruso, his problem with alcohol use returned in December 2006. On December 22, 2006, Caruso left his home and traveled to Hazelden, a rehabilitation clinic located in Minnesota. He again failed to notify the communications supervisor, although others apparently notified one of his superiors who subsequently contacted Caruso and arranged for him to surrender his service weapon. Caruso also failed to complete the required form for a leave of absence.

As a result, on January 18, 2007, the City filed formal disciplinary charges against Caruso. The disciplinary charges were as follows: (1) performance of duty; (2) insubordination; (3) obedience to laws and rules; and (4) abuse of sick leave. 

Caruso left Hazelden and returned to New Jersey on January 19, 2007. He started intensive outpatient aftercare on January 23, 2007, which required his attendance at a program for four hours a day, four days per week, as well as attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous sessions.

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

On March 31, 2008, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided the case Detective Sergeant Dean Ackermann v. Borough of Glen Rock and Glen Rock Police Department, Docket Number A-2947-07T2. In the case, the parties appealed and cross-appealed from an order entered by the trial court.

Plaintiff has been a member of the Glen Rock Police Department for more than twenty years. He holds the rank of sergeant and the title of detective. Defendants are the Borough of Glen Rock and its police department. On October 3, 2006, Steven D. Cherry, Chief of the Department, served Plaintiff with a disciplinary notice, charging him with acting contrary to good order and discipline and violating Glen Rock’s “No Tolerance Policy” with respect to wrongdoing in the workplace. The notice contained no recommendation with respect to discipline.

Three days later, Chief Cherry served an amended notice of disciplinary action which set forth nine charges. In the amended notice, Chief Cherry recommended that Plaintiff be suspended for three days without pay and be required to attend an approved course in sensitivity training. The charges were based upon complaints by Anna Maria Mattina, the Borough’s first female police officer. She alleged certain conduct by Plaintiff toward her was unwanted and harassing.

Plaintiff denied any wrongdoing, would not accept the proposed discipline, and requested a hearing. The hearing officer sustained the charges, but rejected the recommendation as to discipline. He recommended Plaintiff be suspended without pay for ten days as well as attend an approved course in sensitivity training. The report was submitted to the mayor and council, which accepted his findings but rejected the recommendation for discipline. The council passed a resolution suspending Plaintiff without pay for sixty days, demoting him to police officer and requiring completion of a course in sensitivity training before returning to active duty. 

In response, Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint in lieu of prerogative writ, contending that the evidence presented did not support the findings that were made, the procedure utilized did not conform to the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs policies and procedures that the Borough adopted, and that the increase in penalty was retaliatory.

The trial court, hearing the matter as a trial de novo, concluded that only two of the violations had been proven and that the penalty imposed by the Borough was excessive. The Court directed Plaintiff be suspended for two concurrent periods of thirty days without pay and complete a course in sensitivity training. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, the Appellate Division held that, when hearing a police disciplinary matter de novo, a trial court has the authority to impose a sanction other than that imposed by the municipality. In this case, the Court found no error in directing that Plaintiff not be demoted and instead imposing a suspension and directing attendance at sensitivity training. Moreover, the Court found that although Defendants violated the Attorney General’s guidelines for conducting a disciplinary hearing, the trial court correctly found that the errors did not prejudice the Plaintiff.

• 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

In In the Matter of Thomas F. Fricano, Borough of Freehold, Docket No.: A-2280-07T3, the Appellate Division addressed Appellant Thomas Fricano’s appeal from final decisions of the Merit System Board (“Board”), dated September 27, 2007 and December 7, 2007, upholding his resignation in good standing from the Borough of Freehold Police Department.

By way of background, Fricano received a regular appointment as a police officer in Freehold on April 3, 2006. The appointment was subject to the successful completion of a one-year probationary working test period, commencing after completion of a police training course. On February 2, 2007, Fricano, in a written letter, resigned to pursue other opportunities in law enforcement. The appointing authority accepted the resignation, which was made effective February 22, 2007. 

The circumstances surrounding Fricano’s resignation are in dispute and at the core of the appeal. According to Fricano, on February 2, 2007, after having served ten months of his one-year probationary working term, he was summoned to the office of the Police Chief. Allegedly, the Chief ordered Fricano “to resign or be terminated immediately.” Denied his request for legal representation or to have a PBA representative present, Fricano drafted and submitted a letter of resignation under duress and coercion. Thereafter, on February 16, 2007, Fricano’s counsel wrote to the Chief requesting that he be able to rescind the resignation. The Borough attorney advised Fricano that he would not be reinstated, instead stating that “they could have fired him instead.” Subsequently, on March 13, 2007, Fricano was issued a preliminary notice of disciplinary action, charging him with numerous violations. On March 22, 2007, the appointing authority withdrew the charges and, thereafter, on March 28, 2007, issued Fricano a letter indicating that he did not satisfactorily complete his working test period and that he was being terminated effective April 3, 2007.

The Borough offers a different version. When called to his office, the Chief advised Fricano that his performance during the working test period had not been satisfactory, and, therefore, offered him the option to resign effective February 22 or face termination for failure to satisfactorily complete his working test period. This offer was made so that Fricano could avoid any stigma which might attach to an involuntary termination. Fricano decided to resign and submitted a resignation letter the same day. In the letter, Fricano explain that he resigned to pursue “a different choice in the Law Enforcement Career.” Although he did not work after February 2, he was paid through February 22, and his resignation was recorded effective February 22, 2007. After being subsequently informed of Fricano’s intention to challenge his resignation, the police department issued the preliminary notice of disciplinary action on March 13, 2007. On March 22, 2007, the police department withdrew the charges and, instead, as a cautionary measure, issued a letter to

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

In Division of State Police v. In the Matter of Detective Sergeant First Class Daniel Flaherty, Docket No. A-0257-07T20257-07T2, the Appellate Division addressed the validity and ultimate imposition of disciplinary charges lodged against a Detective Sergeant of the New Jersey State Police. The appeal arose out of disciplinary charges filed by the New Jersey Division of State Police (“Division”) against Detective Sergeant First Class Daniel Flaherty, charging him with: (1) disseminating Division documents without proper authorization; (2) behaving in an official capacity to the personal discredit of a member of the State Police or to the Division; and (3) willfully disobeying a lawful verbal or written order.

The underlying facts of this case were not substantially in dispute. In 2001, Flaherty filed an age discrimination complaint with the New Jersey State Police Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (“EEO/AA”) intake unit. He alleged that since 1995, the State Police had denied him numerous specialist positions because of his age. The EEO/AA assigned Lieutenant Patrick Reilly to investigate his claim. After two years, in which the allegations still had not been resolved, the EEO/AA replaced Reilly with DSFC Kevin Rowe.

On May 5, 2003, Flaherty filed a New Jersey State Police Reportable Incident Form alleging “culpable inefficiency” against Reilly. Pursuant to a Division policy regarding non-disclosure of confidential internal investigations, the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) denied his request to access the file regarding his complaint against Reilly.

The following month, the State Police administratively closed Flaherty’s complaint file against Reilly and transferred the matter to the Attorney General’s EEO/AA section. In a letter dated September 24, 2003, a Senior Deputy Attorney General informed Flaherty that his claim against Reilly could not be substantiated. 

Thereafter, on May 31, 2003, the Division assigned Flaherty to the OPS, which was then called the State Police Internal Affairs Investigation Bureau. Pursuant to Division of Internal Affairs policies and procedures, “[t]he nature and source of internal allegations, the progress of internal affairs investigations, and the resulting materials are confidential information. The contents of internal investigation case files shall be retained in the internal affairs unit and clearly marked as confidential.” Notwithstanding these provisions, internal investigation files can be released in certain enumerated circumstances.  As such, Flaherty executed a confidentiality agreement which provided the dissemination of all confidential information and/or documents.

In a letter dated February 20, 2004, the Department of Law and Public Safety found that Flaherty’s age discrimination claims could not be substantiated. In his appeal to the Department of Personnel, Flaherty questioned the manner in which the State Police and the Attorney General’s office investigated his

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

In Frohner v. City of Wildwood, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey addressed a very unusual and interesting factual scenario. The lawsuit asserted numerous claims arising out of the arrest and handcuffing of plaintiff, an undercover FBI agent, by defendants, local police officers. Defendants suspected plaintiff was a motorcyclist impersonating an FBI agent.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on a variety of plaintiff’s claims. First, the Court denied defendants’ motions as to the false-arrest claims because defendants failed to show as a matter of law that they had probable cause or arguable probable cause to believe plaintiff was impersonating an FBI agent. Next, the Court denied defendants’ motion as to the claim that defendants’ conducted an unlawful search and seizure of plaintiff’s car. The Court indicated that it could not be concluded that the search was incident to a lawful arrest.

The Court also denied defendants’ motion as to plaintiff’s excessive-force and punitive damages claims. The Court held that such a claim will lie for the use of excessively tight handcuffs and that expert testimony is not required. With regard to plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, the Court noted that the issue as to whether any defendant was recklessly indifferent to plaintiff’s rights was a jury question. 

Although the vast majority of plaintiff’s claims were upheld, the Court did grant defendants summary judgment on one of the claims. The Court determined that since plaintiff has not shown a pattern of constitutional violations indicating defendants were deliberately indifferent to the likelihood that constitutional violations such as those alleged in this case would occur, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on that claim.

This case shows that arrests of undercover agents by local police departments, much like arrests of everyday citizens, can give rise to various claims being brought against the departments. Even with the unusual nature of the facts of this case, this case also illustrates that Courts are typically reluctant to dismiss certain claims as long as some evidence in support thereof has been offered.    

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