In a remarkable turnaround for a state that has long protected the records of cops, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal on Monday ordered all law enforcement agencies in New Jersey to begin publicly identifying officers who have committed serious disciplinary violations.
Until now, the identities of officers subject to discipline have generally not been disclosed to the public unless they faced criminal charges.
“Today, we end the practice of protecting the few to the detriment of the many,” said Grewal in a statement. “Today, we recommit ourselves to building a culture of transparency and accountability in law enforcement.”
The issue of greater transparency in cases involving police misconduct has come under public scrutiny, in the wake of the continuing nationwide protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
But while an increasing number of states have opened up records related to disciplinary actions involving cops, with New York most recently repealing a decades-old law that allowed the police to keep the disciplinary and personnel records of officers secret, New Jersey until now had long pushed back.
Police unions have repeatedly lobbied against any efforts to open disciplinary records.
Under the Attorney General’s order, every state, county, and local law enforcement agency in New Jersey will be mandated to annually publish a list of officers who were fired, demoted, or suspended for more than five days due to a disciplinary violation.
That first list is to be published no later than December 31 of this year.
“This is a tremendous step forward for transparency,” said Gov. Phil Murphy, in his daily briefing on Monday. “This is a step forward for law enforcement, as well, to help generate greater faith among the communities in which our officers serve that no one will get away with committing serious disciplinary violations."
CJ Griffin, a noted public records attorney who has fought with the state for the release of police records, called the move “a great first step toward police transparency in New Jersey,” and applauded the the Attorney General for taking action.
“But I really do hope it is only a first step because the public wants and needs so much more,” said Griffin. “We need open access to the actual internal affairs files, not just a neatly worded sentence or two about why major discipline was imposed upon certain officers. We really need to be able to identify when the system hasn’t worked.”
Yet the attorney added that many holes remain in new policy.
“Where complaints are sustained and officers resign, often in good standing, no disclosure is required,” Griffin pointed out.
In Elizabeth, for example, an internal affairs investigation found the city’s longtime police director had abused black and female staff with racist and sexist slurs. But the Union County Prosecutor’s Office refused to release its report.
The director was never disciplined, Griffin said, but rather resigned due to public pressure.
“Nothing about the AG’s directive today would make any of it public because no discipline was imposed,” the attorney said.
The State PBA in a statement said it will review the policy to ensure that officer rights are protected.
“While we too are angered when police officers abuse their power, we also believe that everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law,” said PBA President Patrick Colligan. “Police officers especially. Unfortunately, the Attorney General’s ‘major discipline’ directive does not treat every officer equally.”
He said while the term “major discipline” sounds like an officer has severely violated the public trust, in reality police officer discipline wildly differs from town to town.
“Major discipline in some places could be handed down for a uniform violation. The Attorney General’s Directive is far too broad and it treats all officers unequally,” added Colligan. “While we have pledged to work with the Attorney General on enhancing our profession this new policy does not recognize those arbitrary differences. The policy is going to smear officers unfairly who have not violated the public trust and I would respectfully suggest it needs to go back to the drawing board.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey said no single policy can accomplish the goal of diminishing police power and shrinking its scope.
“But this policy and others like it, large and small, will point us in the direction of justice,” said Amol Sinha, the group’s executive director. “We need to reimagine the role of police, and, as we get there, we need policy changes that will make a meaningful difference now, and greater transparency surrounding police abuses and tactics is among the most critical."
Sinha said the new order “is a big deal,” but added, “It can go further, and should not be limited to officers whose accusations have been sustained, given the inherent conflicts when police investigate themselves."
Meanwhile, the State Police said it will go further than the order requires, announcing it will publish a list of all State Troopers who have committed major disciplinary violations over the past twenty years.
State Police Superintendent Patrick J. Callahan said that list will be released publicly no later than July 15.
"We cannot build trust with the public unless we’re candid about the shortcomings of our own officers,” Callahan said. “By releasing the names of State Troopers who committed serious disciplinary violations, we are continuing the long, hard work of earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve.”
In the wake of the Attorney General’s order, the State Police on Monday released the details of a case of a trooper, who had been “separated” from the force for “racially insensitive” behavior, as well as the name of the trooper, who resigned for her off-duty actions — including “having questionable associations, engaging in racially offensive behavior, and publicly discussing police patrol procedures.”
The State Police, which has been fighting disclosure of the matter before the New Jersey Supreme Court had refused to say what the behavior was, or whether the trooper had resigned or had been terminated.
The lawsuit came after the disciplinary action involving the trooper was disclosed in an annual report of the State Police Office of Professional Standards, which did not offer any specific details, including her name.
Since at least 2000, NJSP’s Office of Professional Standards has published an annual report summarizing disciplinary matters involving State Troopers. Each report includes, among other things, a “synopsis of major discipline,” which briefly summarizes each disciplinary action against a State Trooper resulting in termination, demotion, or suspension of more than five days, but excludes the name of the State Trooper.
Officials said in that time, the State Police has imposed major discipline in approximately 430 cases, including dozens of State Troopers who received suspensions of more than 180 days—as well as a number of State Troopers whose employment was terminated as a result of their misconduct.
The identities of those State Troopers will be published in the list promised for next month.
The other two law enforcement agencies in the Department of Law & Public Safety — the Division of Criminal Justice and the Juvenile Justice Commission — will publish similar lists both identifying any law enforcement officers suspended for serious disciplinary violations as far back as the agencies’ records go and providing a summary of that misconduct, according to the department.
Local journalism needs your support. Subscribe at nj.com/supporter.
Ted Sherman may be reached at tsherman@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @TedShermanSL