Politics & Government

Parsippany Cop Suspended 20 Days For 'Improper Use Of Force'

The AG's office listed the officer in NJ's 2021 'Major Discipline' report for police. Details around the incident weren't immediately clear.

Parsippany Police Ptl. Thomas Armenti was suspended for 20 days for improper use of force.
Parsippany Police Ptl. Thomas Armenti was suspended for 20 days for improper use of force. (Renee Schiavone/Patch)

PARSIPPANY, NJ — A Parsippany police officer was suspended for 20 days for improper use of force. Ptl. Thomas Armenti was suspended 20 days, according to state documents.

The public revelation comes from the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General's "Major Discipline" report, which shows police who faced "major" punishment in 2021. The report includes officers who were fired, demoted in rank or suspended for more than five days.

It wasn't immediately clear exactly what occurred that got Armenti suspended, or exactly when the incident occurred. A township spokesperson didn't return comment. The township also denied Patch's records request for internal-affairs investigation findings that led to Armenti's suspension, citing that internal-affairs investigations are exempt under the Open Public Records Act.

Find out what's happening in Parsippanyfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

The Use of Force Dashboard from the AG's office doesn't list any incidents involving Armenti. The dashboard shows reported uses of force — many of which are permissible under state law — from law enforcement around New Jersey, ranging from Oct. 31, 2020 to Jan 31.

The 2021 "Major Discipline" report doesn't list any other Parsippany police officers. The AG's office released a similar report covering punishments in the second half of 2020, and the document lists no Parsippany officers. Read more: Parsippany PD Reported No Major Infractions In 2nd Half Of 2020

Find out what's happening in Parsippanyfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

The statewide report provides transparency on which officers around New Jersey sustained significant discipline — information the state shielded from the public until recently. But it often doesn't get into much detail about the incidents that led to each punishment.

The report only states the following for Armenti:

(NJ Office of the Attorney General)

Within Morris County, the document covering 2021 also includes three Long Hill police officers and one each from Hanover, Lincoln Park and Randolph. Thirty-seven law-enforcement agencies in Morris County reported no major punishments for 2021.

History of 'Major Discipline' Information

In June, then-Attorney General Gurbir S. 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."

Thanks for reading. Have a news tip? Email josh.bakan@patch.com. Subscribe to your local Patch newsletter and follow the Parsippany Patch Facebook page.

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.