Fraternal Order Police v. City of Newark
Decision Date | 18 June 2019 |
Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-3298-17T3 |
Citation | 212 A.3d 454,459 N.J.Super. 458 |
Parties | FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, NEWARK LODGE NO. 12, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEWARK, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Avion M. Benjamin argued the cause for appellant (Kenyetta K. Stewart, Newark Corporation Counsel, attorney; Avion M. Benjamin and Alana Miles, of counsel and on the briefs).
Matthew D. Areman argued the cause for respondent (Markowitz & Richman, attorneys; Matthew D. Areman, on the brief).
Avram D. Frey argued the cause for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Newark Communities for Accountable Policing (Gibbons, PC, attorneys; Jeanne LoCicero, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union, attorney; Lawrence S. Lustberg, Avram D. Frey, Newark, and Jeanne LoCicero, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph C. Fanaroff, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief).
Before Judges Messano, Fasciale and Rose.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FASCIALE, J.A.D.
This appeal requires that we determine the validity of an Ordinance (the Ordinance) enacted by defendant City of Newark (the City), which created a civilian complaint review board (the CCRB) in response to an alarming "pattern or practice of constitutional violations" by the Newark Police Department (NPD). The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) uncovered the violations after a lengthy and thorough investigation of the NPD, which led to the entry of a consent decree in a federal lawsuit. The creation of the CCRB is the City's decisive legislative policy response to the DOJ's findings, which tackled the problem head on.
The City appeals from an order granting summary judgment to plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 (FOP). FOP is the exclusive collective negotiations representative for NPD officers. The order permanently enjoined the City from "implementing and/or enforcing" the Ordinance, "except to the extent" that the Ordinance authorized the CCRB to "serve strictly in an oversight capacity ...." The practical effect of the order stopped the CCRB from functioning as intended because it precluded the CCRB from investigating alleged police misconduct, prevented the CCRB from utilizing subpoena power, and thwarted implementation of the City's policy decision, which was intended to definitively promote accountability, transparency, and public confidence in the NPD.
We must address numerous legal questions, especially whether the City validly set policy. We acknowledge that N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118 expressly authorizes the City to create a board – such as the CCRB – to investigate and examine allegations of police misconduct. But the same statute charges the Chief of Police (the Chief) with responsibility for efficient and routine day-to-day operations of the police force. Therefore, one of the primary legal questions on this appeal is whether the Ordinance has infringed upon the Chief's statutory mandate.
Understanding that the Ordinance also cannot alter the NPD's obligation to follow the Attorney General Guidelines (AG Guidelines) when undertaking its own internal affairs (IA) investigations, we hold that the Ordinance is valid on its face with two exceptions. First, the Ordinance infringes upon the Chief's statutory rights by making the CCRB's findings of fact binding, absent clear error, and second, the Ordinance improperly permits disclosure of complainant and police officer identities. Otherwise, we conclude that the CCRB can function as intended under the Ordinance, including providing an oversight role by investigating alleged police misconduct, conducting hearings, participating in the development of a disciplinary matrix, making recommendations, and issuing subpoenas.
We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
In May 2011, the DOJ, in conjunction with the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, opened an investigation of the NPD. It did so after receiving "serious allegations of civil rights violations" by NPD officers. The investigation spanned a period of three years.
In July 2014, upon the conclusion of its investigation, the DOJ released a forty-nine page report that communicated its findings and recommendations to City officials and the NPD (the DOJ report). The DOJ acknowledged the "skills and dedication of the many [NPD] officers who abide by the rule of law and commit themselves daily to the difficult, and too often thankless, job of protecting public safety." Indeed, the DOJ report expressly states that the DOJ's findings "are not meant to detract from these officers' efforts." We also do not intend to undermine the important work that police officers perform.
The DOJ found recurrent problems with the IA function of the NPD,1 such as the failure to collect evidence from complainants, to "probe officers' accounts or assess officer credibility," and to give witness statements "sufficient weight." The DOJ identified instances of needless and unnecessary use of Miranda 2 warnings when interviewing complainants and witnesses with the effect of intimidating and discouraging their participation. And it determined that the disciplinary system lacked "transparent [and] objective criteria," resulting in arbitrary decisions. The DOJ report concluded that the NPD failed to investigate "officers with high numbers of credible complaints," and that these officers "continued to work on the force ... without any discipline or other corrective action[.]" The DOJ concluded that these patterns and practices undercut the community's trust and confidence in the NPD.
Like the DOJ, the New Jersey Attorney General (AG) has similarly recognized that a failure in the IA function leads to a "negative impact on the administration of criminal justice and the delivery of police services," which inevitably erodes "the respect and support of the community" and possibly results in civil lawsuits. AG Guidelines on Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures, at p. 5.
As to its finding that the constitutional violations resulted in a significant lack of accountability, the DOJ report stated:
The DOJ determined that the IA system "tacitly permit[ted] [police] officers to engage in such conduct," and crucially, that the NPD knew about the problems but failed to address them. The DOJ report itself reflects that the City agreed in principle to "establish a civilian oversight entity for the NPD" and to "revise its [IA] practices to ensure effective complaint intake, objective investigations of misconduct, and fair and consistent discipline."3
On March 3, 2016, the United States of America filed a complaint against the City in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the City was liable for the acts or omissions of the NPD. The complaint referenced the DOJ report and its investigative findings and conclusions. By filing the complaint, the United States attempted to remedy the "pattern or practice" of the NPD that "has deprived persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States." The United States sought to enjoin the NPD from further alleged misconduct, and requested that the City "adopt and implement policies and procedures to remedy the pattern or practice of unconstitutional and unlawful conduct described [in the complaint]." This litigation was resolved a few weeks later, on March 30, 2016, with a consent decree, which was subsequently revised on April 29, 2016.
On March 17, 2016, fourteen days after the federal complaint was filed, the City enacted the Ordinance, establishing the CCRB. In creating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc. v. City of Rochester
...prior sustained complaints").63 Local Law No. 2 § 18-2.64 Local Law No. 2 § 18-5(J)(4); see Fraternal Order of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark , 459 N.J. Super. 458, 467, 212 A.3d 454 (N.J. Superior Court, Appellate Division 2019) (striking down a portion of a statute establis......
-
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark
...Appellate Division included a detailed description of the Ordinance at issue. See Fraternal Order of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 459 N.J. Super. 458, 475-81, 212 A.3d 454 (App. Div. 2019). We briefly review several components important to this appeal and provide further d......
-
Rivera v. Union Cnty. Prosecutors Office
...O'Shea, 410 N.J. Super. at 383, and "are binding upon local law enforcement agencies," Fraternal Order of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 459 N.J. Super. 458, 500 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 240 N.J. 7 (2019) (emphasis omitted) (citing O'Shea, 410 N.J. Super. at 383; In re ......
-
Builders League of S. Jersey v. Borough of Haddonfield
...State, capable of exercising only those powers granted by the Legislature.'" Fraternal Order of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 459 N.J. Super. 458, 489 (App. Div. 2019) (internal citations omitted). Thus, "[a] municipality's power to effectuate planning schemes . . . must be......
-
Calling the Shots: Authorizing Child Welfare Departments to Vaccinate Foster Care Children Despite Parental Objections.
...care children is based on the child's best interests and reflects public policy favoring vaccination. See N.J. Div. of Child Prot., 212 A.3d at 454 (concluding vaccination in child's best (157.) See In re Womack, 549 S.W.3d 760, 764 (Tex. App. 2017) (stating trial court allowed parents time......