Newark Police Report Several 'Major Discipline' Cases In 2021

NEWARK, NJ — The Newark Police Department saw several major discipline cases in 2021, according to a state report.

The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office recently released its second-ever Major Discipline Report, which lists details for hundreds of police officers in the state. This year’s report covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31.

According to the attorney general’s office, “major discipline” is defined as terminations, reductions in rank, or suspension of more than five days. The attorney general’s office adds:

“Agencies report officers serving major discipline only once the discipline is final. The road to a determination of final discipline may include many appeals. Thus, officers suspended in 2021 for whom the discipline determination is not final will not appear on this form. Similarly, officers with discipline initiated in a prior year, but finalized in 2021, will appear in this report.”

According to the report, only one Newark police officer was terminated for a major discipline violation last year. That officer was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on duty. An investigation revealed that he had allegedly been drinking alcohol while on duty. The officer also falsified his log sheet, stating that he was on assignments and locations that he never responded to, the attorney general's office said.

Other major discipline cases in the Newark Police Department included:

• An officer was suspended for 15 days for allegedly allowing a civilian to operate a police vehicle in an unsafe manner. The officer was also accused of improperly uploaded a video of the incident onto his Instagram social media account.
• An officer was suspended for 10 days for allegedly handling his service weapon in an unsafe manner during a vehicle pursuit.
• An officer was suspended for six days for allegedly being off her assigned post without authorization when a shooting occurred on her post.
• An officer was suspended for six days for allegedly "failing to safeguard a prisoner at a hospital and the prisoner escaped."
• An officer was suspended for 70 days after he was arrested for allegedly driving while intoxicated. The incident occurred when he was off-duty.

Police departments in Essex County that didn’t see any major discipline cases last year include Caldwell, Cedar Grove, Essex County College, Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, Fairfield, Glen Ridge, Livingston, Maplewood, Millburn, New Jersey Institute of Technology, North Caldwell, Nutley, Roseland, Verona and West Orange.

• See related article: Newark Police Officers, Firefighters Honored For Valor
• See related article: Violent Crime Up In Newark For 2021, But Down Over 3-Year Period

History of 'Major Discipline' Information

In June, then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal gave all New Jersey law-enforcement agencies two months to publicly release certain disciplinary info. The directive came after the New Jersey Supreme Court authorized the public release of such info on a going-forward basis.

Before the New Jersey Supreme Court decision, the Garden State shielded the identities of officers disciplined or fired from the public. But days after then-Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in May 2020, Grewal issued several directives involving police reform.

Actions included expansion of Crisis Intervention Team training, development of a statewide "Use of Force Portal" and updates to the state's use-of-force policy. New Jersey law enforcement is now banned from using chokeholds "except in the very limited situations when deadly force is necessary to address an imminent threat to life."

But Grewal's order to release disciplinary records faced pushback, which turned into a year-long legal battle. The Supreme Court's unanimous ruling found state authorities could identify officers subjected to "major" discipline in the past year and going forward. But police disciplined prior can seek a judge to try and block the public disclosure.

In June, State PBA President Pat Colligan called the Supreme Court's decision "frustrating and disappointing." But Colligan praised a provision that allows officers who agreed to discipline under the assumption that it would remain confidential, to seek a judge's approval to keep the records secret.

"We are pleased that the court recognized that many officers only resolved disciplinary actions because they received specific promises of confidentiality which they relied upon, and that they are entitled to a hearing before release of any information regarding events that may have occurred decades ago," Colligan said. "We continue to be disappointed in the Attorney General's (then Grewal) ongoing refusal to meet with us to discuss fairness within police reform as well as his continuing attacks on law enforcement."

This article contains reporting by Josh Bakan, Patch staff

Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com. Sign up for Patch email newsletters. Learn more about posting announcements or events to your local Patch site.