Newark Police Saw 22 ‘Major Discipline’ Cases In 2022, Report Says

NEWARK, NJ — The Newark Police Department saw 22 "major discipline" cases in 2022, according to a new report.

Earlier this week, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office released its third-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 most severe cases for the Newark Police Department included:

• An officer was terminated for criminal law, conviction of a crime, and conduct in public and in private. The officer utilized his police-issued service weapon in a domestic violence incident to shoot two people, killing one.
• An officer was terminated for criminal law violation, conduct unbecoming of a public
  employee, conduct, and disobedience of orders. While on a calls for service at a residence, the officer committed a theft, specifically by taking items from the location.
• Another officer was terminated for criminal law violation, conduct unbecoming of a public
  employee, conduct, and disobedience of orders. While on a calls for service at a residence, the officer committed a theft, specifically by taking items from the location.

Other cases reported for the Newark Police Department included:

• An officer was suspended for 10 days for violation of department rules and
  regulations; accessibility to department surgeons and superior officers. The officer failed to be accessible to the medical services unit and provide a medical update to the police department. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 10 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  neglect of duty and leaving his assigned post. While working the communications center, the officer abandoned his assigned post for two hours without notifying his immediate supervisor. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 53 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  disobedience of orders. The officer responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident involving an off-duty police officer accused of being intoxicated. The officer violated a direct order from his immediate supervisor when he failed to administer a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer on the off-duty officer. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 180 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  conduct, neglect of duty, criminal law, and alcoholic beverages on-duty. While on-duty, the officer entered and patronized a liquor establishment, and falsified her motor patrol log with locations she never checked. No termination or demotion resulted.
• Another officer was also suspended for 180 days for violation of department rules and regulations; conduct, neglect of duty, criminal law, and alcoholic beverages on-duty. While on-duty, the officer entered and patronized a liquor establishment, and falsified his motor patrol log with locations he never checked. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 6 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  neglect of duty and disobedience to orders. The officer failed to activate his body worn camera during the movement of an arrestee, who tried escaping. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 6 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  neglect of duty, failure to report a crime, official efficiency or incompetency, police image, and bound by duty. The officer released an impaired driver and the vehicle to the driver's relatives without documenting the incident. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 10 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  disobedience of orders. The officer was engaged in a vehicle pursuit, failed to document the incident, and to make notifications to his supervisor. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 30 days for violation of department rules and
  regulations; police image, conduct, and criminal law. The officer interfered with a security officer in the performance of his duties, specifically by pushing the security guard. The officer was cited for simple assault and disorderly conduct; the charges were dismissed. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 10 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  conduct in public and private, and association with the criminal element. The officer engaged in a dating relationship with a female knowing that she was engaged in illegal activity. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 15 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  unauthorized absence. The officer accumulated 50 sick days in an improper manner, specifically by often calling out sick on his first day of his tour and returning on his last day. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 30 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  official inefficiency or incompetence, and disobedience to orders. The officer was given a verbal warning to improve his sick record, he failed by continuing to call out sick and provide the necessary paperwork for his ailments. The same officer was also suspended for 60 days for violation of department rules and regulations; disobedience to orders. He failed to activate his body worn camera during an interaction with a civilian, who accused the officer of using profanity. No termination or demotion resulted in either case.
• An officer was suspended for 10 days for violation of department rules and
  regulations; pre-employment statements, disobedience of orders, and payment of debts regarding a business. The officer reported his own license plate as stolen. An investigation revealed that the license plate was never stolen and that he had an outstanding debt on the plate from EZ Pass. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 30 days for violation of department rules and
  regulations; use of force policy, and disobedience of orders. The officer failed to document that he used force when he struck an arrestee. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 6 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  address of confinement, and disobedience of orders. The officer failed to notify his supervisor of his place of confinement when calling out sick, did not update his recall card, and altered/ falsified his personal information on his recall card. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 10 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  neglect of duty, and disobedience to orders. The officer engaged in a vehicle pursuit and failed to advise dispatch that he was pursuing the vehicle, activate his body worn camera, and in-car camera system. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 20 days for violation of department rules and
  regulations; disobedience to orders. The officer was engaged in a vehicle pursuit involving a vehicle wanted for only motor vehicle violations, in violation of the vehicle pursuit policy. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 10 days for violation of department rules and
  regulations; disobedience of orders. The officer was in a pursuit of a vehicle and failed to terminate the pursuit after being instructed to do so by his supervisor. No termination or demotion resulted.
• An officer was suspended for 15 days for violation of department rules and regulations;
  responsibility of ones own actions, and conduct. During a prep session for trial, the officer admitted to the attorney that the information he provided during their prep session was different than what he wrote in his report. No termination or demotion resulted.

Police departments in Essex County that didn’t see any major discipline cases last year include Caldwell, Cedar Grove, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, the Essex County College Police Department, Essex Fells, Fairfield, Glen Ridge, Livingston, Maplewood, Millburn, the Montclair State University Police Department, North Caldwell, Nutley, Roseland, South Orange, Verona and West Orange.

Statewide, the attorney general’s office said that the most frequently occurring offenses in 2022 were related to attendance, including lateness and call-outs too close to the start of a shift.

Descriptions mentioning a “use of force-related violation” accounted for about four percent of all major disciplinary actions across the state in 2022, prosecutors said.

AG DIRECTIVES: A BRIEF BACKGROUND

The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office provided some background about the annual report and why it was created:

“The release is part of the ongoing effort by the Attorney General’s Office to increase public access to information about police discipline and use of force. It is being provided in accordance with Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2021-6, issued in June 2021 in response to a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that year authorizing the public release of certain police disciplinary information. Under the directive, all New Jersey law enforcement agencies must submit on an annual basis major discipline reporting forms to the Attorney General’s Office containing the names of officers subjected to ‘major discipline’ along with a brief synopsis of the conduct that led to the penalties. The information is also published on the individual agencies’ websites.

Prosecutors noted that AG Directive 2022-14, issued in November 2022, expanded the list of infractions that would be considered major discipline to include among other things: discriminatory conduct, filing a false report, and intentionally performing an improper search.

However, the directive was not in effect for this reporting period, and as such, those violations are not listed in this year’s release. The first year of data under that new directive will be released in 2024, covering the 2023 calendar year, prosecutors said.

Pending cases are not included in the data. Only sustained charges resulting in final sanctions or plea agreements are listed by the submissions, prosecutors said.

“We know that achieving greater public safety in New Jersey requires greater public trust,” Attorney General Matthew Platkin said.

“This enhanced level of transparency builds upon the work of the directive I issued in November of last year, and compliments the police licensing bill supported by my office and law enforcement leadership statewide, passed by the legislature, and signed into law by Gov. Phil Murphy,” Platkin said.

“By embracing greater transparency, the vast majority of New Jersey’s law enforcement officers who serve with honor, professionalism, and courage, are better able to carry out their duties more effectively and safely in service to the people of our state,” Platkin said.

• See Related: Newark Saw Less Homicides And Violent Crime In 2022, Officials Say
• See Related: Newark Cops, Firefighters Earn 'Valor Awards' From 200 Club Of Essex
• See Related: Shoeless In A Rainstorm: Newark Cops Assist Boy With Autism
• See Related: Newark Teen's Car Was Towed. These Cops Made Sure He Got A Break

Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com. Learn more about advertising on Patch here. Find out how to post announcements or events to your local Patch site. Don’t forget to visit the Patch Newark Facebook page.