NJ Can Release Names Of Cops Who Were Disciplined, Court Rules

NEW JERSEY — Police departments across the state will now be required to publish the names of officers who have been disciplined, following a court ruling that was announced Monday morning, the Attorney General's Office announced.

Police departments will be required to annually publish the names of officers who were fired, demoted, or suspended for more than five days, according to a ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

A summary of the misconduct and the sanction imposed must also be disclosed. Previously, the Attorney General fought to shield the identities of law enforcement officers disciplined for serious misconduct.

“Today begins a new chapter for police transparency and accountability in New Jersey,” Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said in a prepared statement. “By lifting the cloak of secrecy over our state’s police disciplinary process, we are not simply ensuring accountability for those who engage in misconduct; we are also demonstrating that the vast majority of law enforcement officers work hard and play by the rules.”

The decision comes a week after the state announced grant money for departments across the state to purchase and implement body-worn cameras for all their officers.

The decision regards two directives that were filed in June 2020, weeks after George Floyd was killed and amid the national protests that followed.

The two directives encompass all law enforcement agencies in the state, including local police departments.

They also encompass all findings of major discipline after Jan. 1, 2020. In addition, for the State Police and other agencies within the Department of Law and Public Safety, officers subjected to major discipline dating back twenty years would be identified publicly.

Five groups representing state and local police officers challenged the directives, saying the attorney general didn’t have the authority to issue such directives.

The police unions that opposed the idea pointed to the fatal shooting of a judge’s son at the judge’s home in North Brunswick last year as a reason the policy could endanger the lives of the officers and their families.

They also argued that an annual State Police report already includes brief, anonymous summaries of officers who are found guilty of serious misconduct, according to nj.com.

However, the court ruled that the Attorney General did have the authority to issue the directives, and that those directives didn’t conflict with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) or any confidential personnel records. The court’s decision was unanimous.

“The directives are designed to enhance public trust and confidence in law enforcement, to deter misconduct, to improve transparency and accountability in the disciplinary process, and to identify repeat offenders who may try to move from one sensitive position to another,” Stuart Rabner, Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, wrote in the court opinion. “In short, the Directives are consistent with legislative policies and rest on a reasonable basis.”

The court did find that there was one challenge that needed further examination.

“Officers subjected to major discipline for the past twenty years say they were promised that their names would not be released, and that they relied on that promise in resolving disciplinary accusations,” Rabner wrote. “In essence, they ask the State to stand by promises they claim were made throughout the prior twenty years.”

He said a judge will need to decide if certain requirements were met in regard to disciplinary matters that were settled before the directives were announced. The judge will hear and evaluate testimony before rendering a decision.

A single trial judge will be designated to hear testimony that could apply to the potentially hundreds of cases. Both sides may present witnesses and documentary evidence; they may also probe the role of counsel from the Department of Law and Public Safety.

“The judge’s ruling might resolve the claim as a whole; if not, the record created at the hearing can be used in individual as-applied challenges that State Troopers and others can pursue afterward,” according to the court opinion.

This would only apply to cases that took place before Jan. 1, 2020.

“The push for transparency does not end with today’s ruling,” Grewal said. “The Court made clear that the Attorney General possesses broad authority to authorize the disclosure of police disciplinary records on a prospective basis, and I am exploring additional steps that we can take to promote public trust. In addition, I welcome the opportunity to work with a broad range of stakeholders to develop legislative solutions that promote accountability and transparency. More can and must be done as we work to make New Jersey a national leader in policing reform.”