Appeals Court Upholds Newark Cop's Firing For Posting Sex Footage On Twitter

NEWARK, NJ — A state appeals court upheld the termination of a Newark police officer who posted photos and videos of a sexual encounter on Twitter, then harassed the other man, court records show.

Czezre Adams was fired by the Newark Police Department in 2019 after the department charged him with violating a state statute and NPD rules and regulations. Adams appealed the decision; an administrative law judge ruled that his punishment should be reduced, but the Civil Services Commission and Superior Court of New Jersey both ruled that the department was right to fire him.

The Superior Court ruling was decided Sept. 19 before judges Geiger and Susswein.

At the center of the case is a series of Twitter posts and messages; judges found that Adams posted explicit videos of the other man multiple times on the site without the other's consent, and then threatened the man when he asked Adams repeatedly to take them down.

According to the decision:

Records show that Adams began talking to another man on Twitter in May 2019, and asked the man to use a second Twitter account to speak with him. They agreed to meet at the other man's home and have sex, which Adams took photographs and videos of. The other man agreed to this, records show, but asked Adams not to post videos on Twitter. Adams did not identify himself as a police officer at the time, records show.

On June 4, 2019, the other man saw those intimate photos and videos on Adams' second Twitter account. The other man messaged Adams to reiterate he did not want the photos shared, documents say. Adams replied that the man had come "knocking at [his] door" and had initiated the contact. The other man told police he broke off communication with Adams soon after that, and kept an eye on the Twitter page.

On September 12, the man reported Adams' page to Twitter when he saw the videos of their sexual encounter again. The next day, he also spoke with a Newark Police Department lieutenant to file a professional standards report against him, and contacted the Essex County Prosecutor's office.

The prosecutor's office told him "his allegations would not be pursued as a criminal matter and that he could file a civil complaint against Adams," records show.

Then, the man went on Twitter and said he "was being harassed by a police officer who had videotaped their sexual encounter and published the videos online." This, records state, spurred Adams to begin posting on his original Twitter account about the other man.

"Adams continued to tag (the other man) publicly in threatening and discouraging messages while tweeting directly or replying to other user's comments about the feud," according to court papers.

"Adams had the final say in the back and forth by posting, 'so you want to keep these lies up after I gave you fair warning? I have nothing but time today," the narrative continues. "'Just because you changed your settings [so that] only those following can see your posts don't mean I don't have what I need. Yes, I'm pulling up.' Finally, Adams stated: 'Now we can keep this going because I have time[,] or you can do what I asked and I'll let you have the little dignity you have left to stay intact.'"

The other man found a third Twitter account showing an image of the sexual encounter between him and Adams, records show. The account "included a link to an OnlyFans account that used the same name as the OnlyFans account that was on Adams's Twitter account before it was deactivated."

The man said he emailed Adams again on October 24, 2019 saying he was hurt by seeing the video and wanted to protect his privacy, which Adams denies ever seeing.

Newark Police officers are supposed to tell the Department any profit they are getting from outside employment. A lieutenant testified "that police are held to a higher standard, and that they are not supposed to profit from sexually explicit videos or similar activities."

The department issued a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (PNDA) to Adams on October 8, 2019, charging him with violating the state Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee statute and several NPD rules and regulations.

Adams pleaded not guilty and the NPD upheld the charges, terminating his employment as of November 13, 2019. Adams appealed his removal to the Civil Service Commission, who transferred it to the Office of Administrative Law.

An administrative law judge found links between Adams and the second Twitter account, but not the third, and noted that the Twitter account did not reference or depict his employment as a police officer. As such, the judge could not determine that Adams had made money from OnlyFans on that third Twitter account.

The administrative judge did find that the other man did not give Adams consent to post the photos online, and noted the misconduct "undeniably" happened off-duty and that Adams "showed a lack of respect for (the other man)'s privacy and welfare."

The judge reduced the penalty to a 180-day suspension, calling the termination "unreasonably harsh" since it was "mostly a private matter between two adults without significant evidence of a crime or direct involvement with Adams's position as a police officer."

Court papers show Adams also had four appeals filed for unrelated discipline the NPD levied against him, which the judge considered in her decision.

"The nature of the offenses does not suggest a specific pattern of misconduct other than perhaps a disrespectful attitude," the administrative judge wrote.

The Civil Service Commission rejected the judge's recommendation and upheld the removal on April 7, 2021. The CSC found Adams' conduct "fell far below the stricter standard of conduct to which police officers are held” and found he made "actual or veiled threats" in his communication with the other man.

The CSC also said Adams had no right under the First Amendment to post those videos, because the other man did not consent to them being posted.

The appeals court concurred.

"The CSC found that standing alone, the present charges were sufficiently egregious to warrant removal, regardless of Adam's prior disciplinary history. We agree."