Gavel Slam

As reported by, the Pennsauken Police Department was right to suspend six officers in 2011 for violating rules and hindering the investigation of a fight that involved two off-duty officers, an appellate court has ruled.

The conduct was not directly related to the fight May 7, 2011, but to officers’ failure to properly report and investigate the incident and notify ranking officers, according to the decision published Thursday.

The officers appealed their suspensions, arguing that Police Chief John Coffey had violated the rules of internal affairs investigations. They appealed first to the Civil Service Commission and then to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which affirmed the earlier decision.

Some of the same officers are currently suing police and township officials. They claim in a federal suit that their suspensions in the 2011 incident were part of Coffey’s alleged systematic retaliation against officers who were active in the union and advocating for 12-hour shifts.

One of the officers, Douglas Foster, was fired in 2015 and this summer filed a separate suit against the chief, the township and other officials alleging retaliation.

The decision Thursday affirming the suspensions, written by Judge William E. Nugent, states that the altercation occurred just before 11 p.m. at Pinsetters, a bar and bowling alley.

A fight broke out between officers Michael Biazzo and Michael Killion and other civilians after a “political discussion,” but those involved gave different accounts about who started the fight.

Killion, Biazzo and at least one civilian suffered facial injuries.

After the fight the three off-duty officers who were there, Killion, Biazzo and Vito Moles, left Pinsetters immediately. The department later ruled that they hindered the investigation by leaving the scene before officers could investigate.

Officer Foster, one of the officers who responded, later told his supervisor that a man pushed a woman at Pinsetters, Nugent wrote.

Responding officer William Hertline also did not report the incident to a superior officer. Brazzio eventually did so, but nearly two hours after the altercation.

Two sergeants, Michael Hutnan and Socrates Kouvatas, were notified and investigated. Neither contacted a higher ranking officer per department policy, Nugent wrote.

The chief, upon learning of the incident, initiated an internal affairs investigation. Disciplinary charges including hindering an investigation, conduct not becoming an officer and neglect of duty were filed against various officers.

Sgt. Hutnan was suspended for 10 days and the other officers were all suspended for 30 days.

The officers’ appeal argued that Chief Coffey violated the state regulations regarding internal investigations because he conducted the investigation himself, sought information through questionnaires instead of interviews, and did not inform the officers that they were subjects or witnesses in an internal investigation.

They also argued that he was not fair, but “politically motivated” in his investigation because he was angry with the involved officers for lobbying for 12-hour shifts.

The court found that the chief’s failure to comply with regulations did not taint the investigation.

Meanwhile, a federal civil rights lawsuit regarding the chief and some of the same officers is still alive in U.S. District Court in Camden.

The suit was initially filed by five of the officers suspended in connection with the 2011 fight, Biazzo, Killion, Foster, Kouvatas and Hertline, as well as officers Erik Morton and Mark Bristow.

They argued that the police chief, then lieutenant Michael Probasco, and other city officials had violated their right to free speech by retaliating against them for their outspoken support for 12-hour shifts.

They argued in the suit that in addition to targeting them for the 2011 suspensions, the chief had issued to them other reprimands and suspensions without good cause, given them undesirable assignments, refused their leave requests, shared the confidential internal affairs investigation with others, and caused them to be ostracized within the department.

A judge dismissed the suit in November, saying the officers failed to specify how they spoke out and to prove that their advocacy was protected speech. Five of them filed a new complaint in January, and the case is ongoing.

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Michael DeRose Michael DeRose

Michael P. DeRose is a shareholder at the firm and primarily focuses his practice in labor/ employment law and other aspects of civil litigation, such as contract disputes. He has litigated and tried hundreds of matters before the Superior Court of New Jersey…

Michael P. DeRose is a shareholder at the firm and primarily focuses his practice in labor/ employment law and other aspects of civil litigation, such as contract disputes. He has litigated and tried hundreds of matters before the Superior Court of New Jersey, the Office of Administrative Law and the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission on behalf of various labor unions and their members. Michael has extensive experience defending and fighting for members of law enforcement and other public employees facing adverse disciplinary action, such as termination or suspension from employment. He also frequently argues before New Jersey’s Appellate Division on behalf of his clients.

A large portion of his practice is also devoted to contract negotiations on behalf of union clients, representing such clients in grievance arbitration/ contract disputes, and otherwise advising union leaders on labor and employment matters.  Michael also has significant experience in the realm of interest arbitration on behalf of the firm’s law enforcement and firefighter unions. As a result of the firm’s robust labor and employment practice, Michael regularly appears before various state agencies, such as the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, the New Jersey Division of Pensions and Benefits, the State Health Benefits Commission, and NJ PERC. In addition to representing labor unions and active employees, Michael also represents retirees before the Division of Pensions in disability retirement applications, both ordinary and accidental disability retirement, in pension forfeiture actions, and in other miscellaneous pension disputes. He also counsels private business and their principals in contract and employment law, in addition to representing their interests in civil litigation. Michael has a track record of obtaining favorable outcomes for his clients and treats each everyone of them on an individual and particularized basis in accordance with their needs.

Before joining the firm in August of 2015, Michael was an associate counsel at a civil litigation firm out in Trenton, New Jersey, where he principally focused his practice around employment law and tort claims litigation. Prior to that, he served as a law clerk in the Superior Court of New Jersey for the Honorable F. Patrick McManimon, Mercer County Vicinage, from September of 2012 to August of 2013, where he attained significant experience in the realm of alternative dispute resolution having mediated well-over one-hundred cases, primarily related to commercial and residential landlord/ tenant disputes and contract/ business litigation. He earned his Juris Doctorate in 2012 after graduating from the Western Michigan University-Thomas M. Cooley School of Law. In 2007, he earned his Bachelor of the Arts in Criminal Justice and Public Administration from Kean University where he was a member of the Kean University baseball team and vice president of the Alpha Phi Sigma chapter of the National Criminal Justice Honor Society.

Michael is admitted to the New Jersey State Bar, the United States Federal Court for the District of New Jersey, and is a member of the Mercer County Bar Association.