The case is captioned Paff v. Borough of Chatham, Docket No. MRS-L-1860-10. I am represented by Richard Gutman, Esq. of Montclair and the case documents are on-line here.
The Daily Record printed an article on the hearing, which is reposted below:
Judge: Public has no right to know suspension Chatham, N.J., cop got for losing gun
By PEGGY WRIGHT • STAFF WRITER • October 2, 2010
A judge ruled Friday that the public is not entitled to know the length of a suspension that Chatham Borough officials gave a police officer who left a backpack containing a loaded gun on a Westfield sidewalk.
Superior Court Assignment Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis ruled against a lawsuit filed by Somerset resident and public records watchdog John Paff to compel the borough to disclose the length of a suspension given to Officer Roy George.
However, the judge, sitting in Morristown, said he would conduct a private, in-camera review of documents relating to the suspension and decide whether his ruling has full merit.
Paff, who was represented by attorney Richard Gutman, said he believes the entire disciplinary process, particularly when police are involved, should be open.
"In order to evaluate the honesty and genuineness of public officials, we have to be able to peek behind the curtain of what the wizard is doing," Paff said.
After a closed-door disciplinary hearing was conducted, the borough did disclose in April that George was demoted from sergeant to patrolman. This portion was revealed because Chatham has an ordinance that requires demotions to be passed by public resolutions.
The police chief said a suspension also was ordered. But the length and loss of pay it would cost Roy was never disclosed and Paff filed suit to find out.
George was off duty on Oct. 12, 2009, when he was found to be intoxicated and wandering a street in Westfield. The next day, Westfield police got a call from a resident who found a backpack with a loaded, .45-caliber handgun and credentials inside that belonged to George.
The judge had to weigh the public's interest in the suspension and the officer's right to privacy and found the privacy interest was more compelling. Bozonelis noted there is "progressive discipline" in New Jersey, meaning punishment increases for police officers based on department infractions, and the public could be made privy to more of Roy's past personnel record than envisioned if the gun-related suspension was released.
"There are other considerations which impact on the length of a suspension. It could be his prior record," the judge said. However, there are no indications that George has a prior disciplinary history in Chatham.
Borough labor counsel James Plosia Jr. argued that George's privacy interest outweighed the right-to-know, and that he signaled a desire for privacy by requesting that his disciplinary hearing be closed.
"George's right is not in any way diminished by what the borough did" in passing the demotion resolution, Plosia said.
Peggy Wright: 973-267-1142; email@example.com.