Accountability measures need to go further

Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal, in response to the current demand for police accountability, has finally admitted that his office’s earlier directives do “not go far enough [and that] more is required to promote trust, transparency and accountability.” To that end, he decided to take the baby-step of making police departments across the state disclose the names of officers who are found to have committed “serious disciplinary violations.” It is a nice start, but much more is needed if the Attorney General genuinely wants New Jersey’s police internal affairs system to earn the public’s trust.

Presently, only those officers who are fired, busted down in rank or who are suspended for more than five days will be identified by name along with a vaguely worded synopsis of the conduct that caused the discipline to be imposed. But, as important—and even more important—are disciplinary complaints that result in suspension of five or fewer days or that are, due to favoritism or other corrupt motive, swept under the rug. Under the Attorney General’s new directive, there is still no public access to those disciplinary cases. Nor is there any public access to cases where an officer decides to resign in lieu of being disciplined.

How is the public supposed to effectively monitor the disciplinary process when only a fraction of its outcomes is disclosed? In a state where even open processes are corrupt, how can we be expected to trust the decisions of Internal Affairs officers who, in complete secrecy, investigate their own colleagues?

Fortunately, Bergen County Senator Loretta Weinberg has introduced Senate Bill No. 2656 which, if enacted, will open the entire disciplinary process to public inspection. If Weinberg’s bill becomes law, New Jersey will join more than a dozen other states that allow for public access to police disciplinary records.

I have investigated police misconduct for twenty years. And, I have found several cases where an officer was treated preferentially solely due to his or her position.

One case involved an Egg Harbor Township officer who was found to have an odor of alcohol on his breath after having “fell asleep” at a traffic light in the City of Northfield at 2:04 a.m. Once the Northfield officers learned that the driver was a cop, they called his sergeant to drive him home and did their best to cover up the incident.

According to a confidential report that I had to file a lawsuit to obtain, the officer “was drooling and snoring on the ride home, and staggered when he got out of [his sergeant’s} police car.” Ordinary citizens stopped under similar circumstances would have been arrested. And, of course, the Northfield Internal Affairs Unit’s investigation found that the officers who handled the matter did nothing wrong.

Another example involved a Hillsdale officer who was found to have developed an intimate relationship with a 17-year-old student while working as the Pascack Valley High School’s Resource Officer. After she turned 18, the officer had sex with her, while she was intoxicated, in his police cruiser. The Borough of Hillsdale signed a confidential settlement agreement with the officer that designated him as “totally and permanently disabled” and allowed him to resign and pursue a disability pension.

I have also found corrupt chiefs who turn a willful blind eye toward the egregious, wrongful conduct of favored officers while simultaneously using the disciplinary process as a bludgeon to punish disfavored officers. This particular type of corruption causes the good officers to transfer, retire or keep silent while allowing the bad officers to continue to commit wrongful acts with impunity.

The current system allows police misconduct to go undetected by the public.

Thank you, Senator Weinberg, for having the courage to stand up to police unions and introduce S-2656. I urge every New Jerseyan to ask their General Assembly representatives and senators to co-sponsor this important bill.