Latest news with #NewJerseySupremeCourt
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State's top court to decide records dispute in police discipline case
CJ Griffin arguing before the New Jersey Supreme Court on April 29, 2025. (Ed Murray for New Jersey Monitor) Lawmakers like to tout New Jersey as the 'state for second chances,' citing its expungement law as a crucial tool for helping people move on from their mistakes. But should cops who commit serious crimes that they later get expunged get to hide their wrongdoing from the public they police? That was the question before the New Jersey Supreme Court Tuesday, when justices heard arguments in the case of a Jersey City police lieutenant who got his felony charges expunged after authorities say he downed six to eight beers and then shot at his guests during a dispute a party at his Sussex County home. States Newsroom, the parent company of New Jersey Monitor, sued Jersey City in 2022 after officials there refused to release the police department's internal affairs report on the August 2019 incident that led state troopers to charge Lt. Michael Timmins with terroristic threats and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes. County prosecutors allowed Timmins to complete a pretrial diversionary program that cleared the way for expungement, even though his offenses violated the Graves Act, a state law that requires mandatory prison sentences for some gun crimes. City officials defended their refusal to disclose Timmins' disciplinary file as necessary under the state's expungement statute, which threatens violators who knowingly disclose expunged records with a $200 fine and disorderly conduct charge. Internal affairs reports are not public records under New Jersey's Open Public Records Act. But a state Supreme Court ruling from March 2022 requires police to release internal affairs reports under the common law right of access when the public's interest in them outweighs an officer's confidentiality concerns, noted attorney CJ Griffin, who represents the New Jersey Monitor. The city's denial also came before a judge approved Timmins' expungement request, compounding officials' error in their failure to disclose, Griffin added. That wrongly impeded the New Jersey Monitor from alerting the public about a problematic officer whose 'sweetheart deal' to dodge discipline raises questions about police accountability in Jersey City, the state's second-largest city, she said. 'The IA unit concluded that it was merely negligent behavior, and this officer received only a 90-day suspension and is still on this force despite his dangerous behavior that could have resulted in killing someone,' Griffin told justices Tuesday. The city's response to Timmins' misconduct is even more of a matter of public concern because Jersey City's longtime mayor, Steven Fulop, is now running for New Jersey governor, she added. 'Transparency is very important to the public, trusting the police. And the public often feels that police are given special treatment, that they cover up for each other, that the internal affairs unit doesn't hold their fellow officers accountable. And I've personally seen that every time we come to this court and obtain a landmark decision that gives us transparency, then we see agencies finding a way to evade that transparency. So those things are all present in this case,' Griffin said. Attorneys from the state attorney general's and public defenders' offices joined Griffin in arguing that such disclosure is warranted, though for slightly different reasons. Viviana M. Hanley, representing the Attorney General's Office, said such internal affairs records should be made public to protect the public's trust in police accountability — as long as they're redacted to hide things a judge has ordered expunged, such as the cop's arrest, detention, trial, and offense. Michael Noveck, from the Office of the Public Defender, echoed that sentiment but rejected the idea of redactions. Officers' misconduct — including expunged crimes — serve as exculpatory and impeachment evidence that authorities are obligated to share with the juries that are tasked with weighing the credibility of cops who testify against criminal defendants, Noveck said. Details of Timmins' arrest were revealed in just such a case. Attorney Jeremy Jacobsen, representing Jersey City, countered that the state's expungement statute contains no exceptions that allow expunged records to be disclosed to media outlets. 'We need to make sure that we are adhering to the plain language of the statute, because there's a lot at risk here if we get it wrong,' Jacobsen said. 'We're exposing our employees to criminal penalties here.' The New Jersey Monitor's fight is a policy one that should be fought in the Statehouse, he added. 'If they're looking for public policy changes, they're in the wrong building. They should be lobbying the Legislature,' he said. Democrat running for governor wants more transparency in Trenton — what about in his own backyard? The Municipal Clerks' Association of New Jersey backed Jacobsen, with attorney Michael S. Carucci telling the justices that clerks labor under 'this heavy cloud' of risking a disorderly persons offense for wrongly releasing expunged records. Disclosure laws require public officials to reveal reasons for redactions, so clerks weighing whether to release information on expunged cases risk litigation either from requestors who get no answer when they challenge redactions or from officers who feel their expungements were wrongly revealed, he added. 'The cat would be out of the bag. The requester would know that something's up here, that there is expunged information,' Carucci said. Such concerns did give some justices pause. 'Under what authority can this court overrule the Legislature when it passes a law that says 'X' will not be disclosed?' Justice Rachel Wainer Apter asked Griffin. Griffin underscored that New Jersey Monitor's request for Timmins' internal affairs report predated the expungement. 'The facts were all public when we filed the request and when we filed the lawsuit,' she said. In further questioning over nearly three hours of arguments, some justices seemed to side with disclosure, possibly with redactions to protect information excluded under the expungement statute. Internal affairs investigators weigh administrative violations, more so than crimes, and the expungement statute applies to criminal justice matters rather than workplace discipline, Wainer Apter noted. 'I'm just having trouble understanding why if a criminal proceeding — if the person happens to be charged with a crime, the entire existence of the IA investigation all of a sudden becomes expunged,' she said. It's unclear when the court will return a ruling. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrat running for governor wants more transparency in Trenton — what about in his own backyard?
Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop tells voters he wants to bring more transparency to Trenton. So why did he take the New Jersey Monitor to the state Supreme Court over access to police records? (Illustration by Alex Cochran for New Jersey Monitor/Fulop photo by Reena Rose Sibayan) When lawmakers proposed gutting the state's public records access law last year, a surprising advocate for transparency came out against that push: Steve Fulop, the Democratic mayor of Jersey City and a 2025 candidate for governor. I say surprising because when I covered Jersey City, the city and I often tussled over access to public records. Police reports, emails between city officials, architectural records, Fulop's work schedule … name a public record and I probably got a 'your request is denied' email from the Fulop administration about it. But, hey, I welcome any and all transparency advocates, even bandwagon-jumpers. So color me surprised that the Fulop administration and I will be facing off in court yet again, this time at the New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday as Jersey City argues that it simply must withhold records the New Jersey Monitor is seeking. This time, the record is an internal affairs report we requested from the file of police Lt. Michael Timmins, who police say fired a gun at guests during an alcohol-fueled dispute at a party at his Sussex County home in 2019 (no one was injured). Timmins was initially charged with terroristic threats and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, a violation of the New Jersey Graves Act, which requires mandatory prison sentences for some gun crimes. But Timmins went through a pretrial diversionary program and was able to get details of his arrest expunged. Fancy that. Police disciplinary records are not necessarily open for public inspection — but the state Supreme Court ruled three years ago that, under the state's common law right of access, when the public's interest in the records outweighs an officer's confidentiality concerns, the records must be made public. I think when it comes to a cop who has a six-pack or more of beer and then fires a gun at civilians while off duty, the public's interest in the department's investigation of his conduct is more important than the cop's privacy. Another interesting fact about Timmins' case: He was allowed to have his record expunged even though people charged with violating the New Jersey Graves Act are normally not given the option of pleading guilty to any non-Graves Act offenses. So Timmins gets a special deal and a slap on the wrist, and his expungement could give his bosses in Jersey City a chance to hide the details of his departmental discipline (Timmins was suspended for 19 days and lost another 71 days). It's not as if we don't have evidence that Jersey City has already tried to hide the details of Timmins' behavior. When the city published its annual list of officers who face discipline in 2021 but didn't have to provide the officers' names, it wrote about Timmins, 'A member of this agency while off duty retrieved a firearm after consuming 6-8 beers. He negligently discharged a round from the firearm during a dispute.' When it later had to amend that report to include the officers' names per a state directive, it amended it to, 'Lt. Timmins negligently discharged a firearm while off duty and on his personal property.' Suddenly the city decided the public didn't have to know Timmins had been drinking before firing his gun and that he fired it during a fight with someone. The secrecy even extended to the lawsuit we filed about Timmins' IA report — the city asked the trial court judge to seal all the records, so the filings in the case were, and remain, shielded from public view. The city cannot be trusted to be honest about what happened with Timmins, so it's up to us to find out, if the Supreme Court agrees. Fulop campaign spokeswoman Emily Potoma disagreed with my argument that the case represents Fulop whistling a different tune on transparency than he does on the campaign trail. 'Both sides are seeking further clarity from the Supreme Court, as Jersey City prevailed at the trial court level, and that ruling was partially reversed by the Appellate Division. This is not an attempt to avoid accountability, it's about ensuring that everyone is following the law,' Potoma said. Except the city could have released these records back when we requested them in March 2022, before any expungement order had been issued and muddied the waters. Instead, it denied the request, moved to make all the legal briefings in our case secret, and, when it partially lost an appellate court ruling, asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. Hardly the actions of a transparency crusader. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Was state takeover of Paterson police overreach or warranted intervention?
Paterson officials say no state law explicitly empowered Attorney General Matt Platkin to declare control of their 300-officer force in 2023. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) Almost two years after the state took over the troubled Paterson Police Department, attorneys argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court Monday over whether it had the authority to do so. Paterson officials, who sued the state seven months after the March 2023 takeover, have asserted that no state law explicitly empowered Attorney General Matt Platkin to declare control of the 300-officer force. Instead, under home rule, only municipalities have direct operational oversight of local police departments, said attorney Christopher Gramiccioni, who represents Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh and other officials. State officials, though, have cited several laws they say gave Platkin that authority. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Zuckerman insisted the takeover, which came after a controversial and deadly police encounter, lies squarely within Platkin's duties to ensure both public confidence in law enforcement and the uniform, efficient application of criminal laws statewide. While a state appeals panel sided with Paterson in December, the rapid-fire questions the Supreme Court justices showered on Gramiccioni, Zuckerman, and other attorneys over two hours of arguments Monday suggests the appellate ruling might not stand. Dominating the discussion were two state laws both sides cited to make their case — the 1970 Criminal Justice Act, which designated the attorney general as the state's chief law enforcement officer, and a 2023 law known as Chapter 94 that state legislators passed after the Paterson takeover to facilitate it. Gramiccioni argued that state legislators never intended to empower the state attorney general to seize control of municipal police departments because neither law explicitly spells out such authority. The Criminal Justice Act allows county prosecutors to take over local agencies, but only with the agency's consent, he added. Zuckerman countered that the attorney general's takeover power is 'strongly implied, if it's not expressly granted.' 'If the attorney general can supersede a county prosecutor, and the county prosecutor can supersede municipally, it follows that the attorney general can supersede municipal law enforcement directly,' he said. Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis pushed back on any claim that consent is needed. 'Where in the statutes does it tell us that there has to be consent in order for such supersession to occur?' she said. Gramiccioni conceded consent isn't expressly required by law. The justices also zeroed in on Chapter 94, which authorized the attorney general, when superseding a law enforcement agency, to appoint an officer in charge who hasn't completed training through the state Police Training Commission as long as the officer completes the training within one year of appointment. That became an issue when Platkin appointed Isa Abbassi, a New York Police Department veteran, to replace Paterson's chief, Engelbert Ribeiro, after the takeover. The law did not mention Paterson, but it might as well have, Justice Rachel Wainer Apter said. Under the law's verbiage, it specifically applies to 'a city of the first class having a population of less than 200,000 according to the federal 2020 decennial census,' she noted. 'It seems to say everything it could, aside from 'the City of Paterson.' How can you argue that this is actually not referring to this particular supersession, and is instead referring to some other possible supersession where it was consensual?' Wainer Apter said. The justices noted as further proof of a Paterson link that while Gov. Phil Murphy signed the law in July 2023, legislators made it retroactive to March 1, 2023. Platkin announced his office's takeover of Paterson on March 27, 2023. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner also pointed to state funding allocated to effectuate the Paterson takeover. 'So the Legislature authorized $18 million for the attorney general's takeover of the Paterson Police Department, but you view that as — how does one view that if not actual validation and support for what the attorney general has done?' Rabner said. Zuckerman backed up that sentiment, saying: 'If the Legislature had felt our reading was the wrong one, they would have told us to knock it off, and instead, they partnered with us and helped support this particular supersession.' Gramiccioni exhorted justices to weigh only the statutory language rather than inferring legislative intent through 'collective sources of law.' 'I would submit this: It's the law that holds the supreme power, not a monarch who is basically creating this out of thin air, on a whim, on when he can go in and supersede a municipal police department,' Gramiccioni said. But Zuckerman urged justices to regard Chapter 94 and the state funding as proof of legislative intent that the attorney general has the power to take over police departments in rare, warranted cases, such as Paterson, where police have a long history of brutality and civil rights violations that local officials have failed to stop. 'Our Legislature has provided unusually striking evidence, not only that it understood and intended for supersessions like this one to be lawful, but also that it was working with the executive branch to help this very supersession succeed,' Zuckerman said. 'That is fatal to the challengers' position.' Henal Patel, an attorney for the New Jersey Institute of Social Justice who argued Monday in favor of the takeover, told justices that supersession is an important tool legislators gave the attorney general to restore trust when police have broken it. She pointed to the deaths of several residents at the hands of Paterson police, including Najee Seabrooks, a community activist who officers gunned down after he called 911 for help during a mental crisis. 'The legislative intent here was to provide the AG with broad powers to rebuild public trust, including supersession powers, and New Jersey's AG properly exercised that power,' Patel said. 'I want to emphasize the stakes here. If this court were to affirm the appellate division's opinion, the people of Paterson, especially its Black and brown residents, will be left without justice, and public trust would remain broken.' Attorney Vito A. Gagliardi Jr., representing the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, urged justices to set standards for supersession, saying police and municipal leaders deserve clarity on why the state would take over their force and advance notice when that occurs. Zuckerman told the justices that while county prosecutors have taken over municipal police forces at least 17 times in recent decades, state takeovers of local police departments are historically rare in New Jersey. Besides Paterson, the attorney general's office took over the embattled Camden police department in 1998, and that department disbanded altogether in 2013. 'This office has never done it other than those two times,' Zuckerman said. 'So I think that tells you everything you need to know about how we view it as a break-the-glass kind of tool, as opposed to a just-do-it-because-you-feel-like-it kind of tool.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Jersey marks 50 years since key affordable housing court decision
Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way speaking at Jacob's Chapel AME Church in Mount Laurel on March 24, 2025, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a key affordable housing court decision. (Courtesy of Way's office) MOUNT LAUREL — Ethel Robinson Lawrence died more than 30 years ago, but her memory stirred waves of tears and applause here Monday as state dignitaries and civil rights leaders gathered to celebrate an affordable housing case that continues to transform New Jersey. In the 1970s, Lawrence led a group of community activists who challenged restrictive township zoning laws that effectively barred many of her African American neighbors from buying decent homes in this peaceful Burlington County suburb. Back then, the town's then-mayor told the Black community, 'If you people can't afford to live in our town, then you'll just have to leave.' Instead of leaving, Lawrence spearheaded a class action lawsuit that, in 1975, led to the New Jersey Supreme Court's Mount Laurel decision, which outlawed exclusionary zoning and required all New Jersey municipalities to provide their 'fair share' of affordable housing. On Monday, 50 years after the landmark court decision, Lawrence's daughter, Ethel Lawrnece-Halley, wept recounting how the ruling gave her mother and thousands of others a real tool to push back against discrimination and redlining. 'The decision has proven to be a constant driving force … for fair housing in this great state,' she said, standing in the pulpit of Jacob's Chapel AME Church, a historic sanctuary that once doubled as an all-Black schoolhouse and a rest stop for runaway slaves on the Underground Railroad. Affordable housing is a moral imperative. – Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way What's become known as the Mount Laurel doctrine is credited with creating some 400,00 affordable housing units in New Jersey over the past half-century. The doctrine has also engendered continuing political strife and resistance from wealthier communities who have chafed at the idea of mandatory housing set-asides. Developers have pushed back on some towns' affordable housing prescriptions, successfully challenging local efforts to limit the construction of housing units. Over the years, the state Supreme Court has modified the original Mount Laurel ruling to make way for changes such as builder's remedy lawsuits, which give developers a pathway for legal redress against some towns' affordable housing rules. Last year, Gov. Phil Murphy signed new legislation aimed at streamlining the administration of affordable housing rules and reducing court challenges that continue to slow the creation of new housing units for lower-income residents. The new law, which supporters say will create 100,000 new affordable homes in the next decade, is the subject of a lawsuit by a group of towns who say the mandates are unconstitutional and unrealistic. Murphy, who was one of several state officials to speak at Monday's celebration, saluted fair housing advocates who 'have been guided by a sacred mission to save the community one family at a time.' New Jersey faces an overall deficit of 200,000 housing units, Murphy said, part of a nationwide dearth that has been made worse by inflationary pressure and stagnating wages. 'I'm proud of the enormous progress we've made, but very sober about the journey still before us,' he said. 'Our supply of affordable housing has not kept pace with demand. The promise of the American dream remains unfulfilled for too many of our neighborhoods.' Monday's ceremony was hosted by the Fair Share Housing Center, a nonprofit that was founded in 1975 by an attorney for Ethel Lawrence. The center litigates extensively to uphold fair housing standards and has successfully settled more than 340 affordable housing cases across New Jersey. The center says current cases it has settled will lead to the development of 50,000 new affordable homes in the next decade. 'For communities of color, the affordable housing issue carries with it the vestiges of slavery, segregation, and redlining,' said Lt. Governor Tahesha Way, drawing cheers from the audience at Jacob's Chapel. 'Instead of becoming more insular, the Mount Laurel decision offers us an opportunity to enrich our communities. Affordable housing is a moral imperative.' Way's speech was met with loud whoops and a few 'amens.' But the mood of celebration that marked the gathering was checked by the tremors of change coming from Washington, D.C., where the Trump administration is dismantling long-pursued diversity and equity initiatives. 'Be fit for the fight',' said the Rev. Terrell W. Person, the chapel's pastor. 'We got to be real about getting things straight.' Added Gov. Murphy: 'We're not gathering in this historic chapel in a bubble. We're going to have to stick together, folks, because we're in for a very challenging ride, and it's only just begun.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Catholic Church loses key battle to keep state probe of clergy sex abuse secret
The New Jersey Supreme Court unsealed court records in a dispute with the Camden diocese over whether a state grand jury can issue a presentment on sex abuse claims. (Getty Images) After a Pennsylvania grand jury in 2018 found hundreds of Catholic priests had sexually abused at least 1,000 children over seven decades, New Jersey's then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal launched an investigation of allegations of sexual abuse by members of the clergy within Catholic dioceses here. Prosecutors wanted a grand jury empaneled to consider evidence in the case, but Camden's diocesan leaders successfully squashed it, persuading trial and appellate judges that a state grand jury had no authority to issue a presentment against a private religious entity — and that all court records in the matter should be sealed. Wednesday, the state snagged a win in the long-fought battle, when the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the records to be unsealed and agreed to hear arguments in the case next month. The decision clears the path for prosecutors to potentially bring the case to a grand jury — if justices agree with the state's argument that grand juries are constitutionally permitted to issue presentments on matters 'of public affairs or conditions,' and clergy abuse qualifies as such. A presentment is a written accusation of a crime prepared by a grand jury. Arguments are expected to be held during the court's April 28-29 session. First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Ruotolo said the clergy abuse task force Grewal created 'has never wavered' in its mission, and prosecutors remain committed to bringing charges when warranted and proceeding with a grand jury presentment. 'For years, we have been seeking to convene a grand jury to present evidence collected by prosecutors across the state regarding decades of sexual abuse, the conditions that made that abuse possible, and the systematic failures to prevent it — and to allow the grand jury, as the conscience of our community, to make recommendations to ensure widespread abuse by clergy can never happen again,' Ruotolo said in a statement. She said she's grateful the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 'Now that this case has been made public for the first time in this years-long dispute, victims and survivors will have an opportunity to make their voices heard — and to speak to the real harms that we have never lost sight of,' she said. A spokesman for the Camden diocese and attorney Lloyd D. Levenson, who represents the diocese, did not respond to requests for comment. James King, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, declined to comment. In the unsealed briefs, prosecutors argued that trial and appellate judges erred both in entertaining a challenge to a hypothetical grand jury presentment that does not yet exist and in barring a presentment that focuses on the conduct of private individuals. 'Statewide sexual abuse by clergy, and the State's failure to prevent it, have had a tremendous impact on the public,' prosecutors wrote. 'The grand jury's presentment power is a tool to voice the public conscience, to learn from past harms, and to propose reforms.' The lower courts' rulings 'preclude the use of that tool to address one of the most wrenching harms in recent memory,' they added. But the Camden diocese argued that a presentment is unnecessary because abuse victims can get relief through civil lawsuits. Levenson also accused the state of having an 'ulterior motive … to mitigate the public relations debacle it created' by promising in press releases in 2019 that a presentment would be forthcoming. 'A grand jury is not authorized to return a presentment against the Roman Catholic Church relating to decades-old allegations of clergy abuse. A grand jury may only return a presentment that refers to public affairs or conditions which are imminent and pertinent,' Levenson wrote. 'The internal operations of the Catholic Church from long ago are not public affairs or conditions, are not imminent and pertinent, and thus are not an appropriate subject matter of a presentment.' Despite being blocked from presenting the case to a grand jury, the state task force has continued its investigation, fielding more than 550 calls on a 24-hour hotline alleging sexual, physical, and mental abuse by clergy, according to the briefs. At least four clergy have been arrested, according to the briefs. Mark Crawford, the New Jersey director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), said he's thrilled the Supreme Court unsealed the court records and plans to attend the arguments. 'The victims here have a right to know what's been going on after six dark years of silence,' Crawford said. 'Look, the Camden bishop's actions did not just impact the victims of the Camden diocese, but every victim in this state. The other Catholic dioceses all stood by in silence and said nothing — nothing! — when they knew that these items were being litigated in court to prevent the presentment by a grand jury.' He called the Camden diocese's actions to stifle the state investigation 'the same old playbook.' 'It's 'let's suppress what we know, prevent it from getting to the public' while publicly saying 'we're going to cooperate, we're going to be open and transparent,'' Crawford said. 'What does that say about their care or compassion for the victims, who simply want to be validated, who want a voice, who want their stories told, who want to be heard?' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
