U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 1 of 31
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY and
DIVISION OF STATE POLICE of the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 99-5970(MLC)
JOINT APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE
Plaintiff, the United States, and Defendants, the State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, respectfully move this Court for entry of the attached Consent Decree.
The United States has simultaneously filed its Complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §14141 and 42 U.S.C. §3789d(c). The Complaint alleges a pattern or practice of conduct by troopers of the New Jersey State Police that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Defendants deny that the State Police has engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The parties seek to enter into this Decree jointly for the purpose of avoiding the risks and burdens of litigation, and to support vigorous, lawful, and nondiscriminatory traffic enforcement that promotes traffic safety and assists law enforcement to interdict drugs and other contraband, arrest fugitives, and enforce firearms and other criminal statutes.
The United States and the State of New Jersey have agreed upon a proposed Consent Decree that would resolve all claims in the United States' Complaint. The proposed Decree would address the claims in the United States' Complaint by amending certain policies, practices, and procedures relating to the manner in which the State of New Jersey manages and operates the New Jersey State Police.
The proposed Decree addresses the following matters: policy requirements and limitations on the use of race in law enforcement activities and the procedures used for conducting motor vehicle searches; documentation of traffic stops including post-stop procedures and enforcement actions; supervisory measures to promote civil rights integrity; procedures for receiving, investigating, and resolving misconduct allegations; training; responsibilities of the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General concerning the New Jersey State Police; public reporting by the State Police about its law enforcement activities; and the establishment of an independent monitor to review and analyze implementation of the Decree by the State.
Specifically, the proposed Decree includes the following provisions:

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 2 of 31

1) Policy Requirements (¶¶26-28): State troopers may not rely to any degree on the race or national or ethnic origin of motorists in selecting vehicles for traffic stops and in deciding upon the scope and substance of post-stop actions, except where state troopers are on the look-out for a specific suspect who has been identified in part by his or her race or national or ethnic origin. The State Police shall continue to require that troopers make a request for consent to search only when they possess reasonable suspicion that a search will reveal evidence of a crime, and all consent searches must be based on the driver or passenger giving written consent prior to the initiation of the search.
2) Traffic Stop Documentation (¶¶29-34): State troopers engaged in patrol activities will document the race, ethnic origin, and gender of all motor vehicle drivers who are the subject of a traffic stop, and also will record information about the reason for each stop and any post-stop action that is taken (including the issuance of a ticket or warning, asking the vehicle occupants to exit the vehicle and frisking them, consensual and non-consensual vehicle searches, uses of force, and arrests).
3) Supervisory Review of Individual Traffic Stops (¶¶35-39): Supervisors regularly will review trooper reports concerning post-stop enforcement actions and procedures, and patrol car video tapes of traffic stops, to ensure that troopers are employing appropriate practices and procedures. Where concerns arise, supervisors may require that the trooper be counseled, receive additional training, or that some other non-disciplinary action be taken. Supervisors also can refer specific incidents for further investigation, where appropriate.
4) Supervisory Review of Patterns of Conduct (¶¶40-56): The State will develop and implement an early warning system, called the "Management Awareness Program," that uses computerized information on traffic stops, misconduct investigations, and other matters to assist State Police supervisors to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors will conduct reviews and analyses of computerized data and other information, including data on traffic stops and post-stop actions by race and ethnicity. These reviews and analyses, as appropriate, may result in supervisors implementing changes in traffic enforcement criteria, training, and practices, implementing non-disciplinary interventions for particular troopers (such as supervisory counseling or additional training), and/or requiring further assessment or investigation.
5) Misconduct Allegations (¶¶57-92): The State Police will make complaint forms and informational materials available at a variety of locations, will institute a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline, and will publicize the State Police toll-free number at all State-operated rest stops located on limited access highways. The State also will institute procedures for ensuring that the State Police is notified of criminal cases and civil lawsuits alleging trooper misconduct. Allegations of discriminatory traffic stops, improper post-stop actions, and other significant misconduct allegations will be investigated by the Professional Standards Bureau inside the State Police or by the State Attorney General's Office. All investigations will be properly documented. Where a misconduct allegation is substantiated concerning prohibited discrimination or certain other serious misconduct, discipline shall be imposed. Where a misconduct allegation is not substantiated, the State Police will consider whether non-disciplinary supervisory steps are appropriate.
6) Training (¶¶93-109): The State Police will continue to implement measures to improve training for recruits and incumbent troopers. The training will address such matters as supervisory issues, communication skills, cultural diversity, and the nondiscrimination requirements of the Decree. The State Police also will take steps to continue to improve its trooper coach program for new troopers. The Independent Monitor selected by the parties will evaluate all training currently provided by the State Police regarding traffic stops, and will make recommendations for improvements.
7) Auditing by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office (¶¶110-113): The State Attorney General's

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 3 of 31
Office will have special responsibility for ensuring implementation of the Decree. The Office will conduct various audits of State Police performance, which will include contacting samples of persons who were the subject of a State Police traffic stop to evaluate whether the stops were appropriately conducted and documented. The Office also will audit State Police implementation of the Management Awareness Program, and procedures used for receiving, investigating, and resolving misconduct allegations.
8) State Police Public Reports (¶114): The State Police will issue semiannual public reports containing aggregate statistics on certain law enforcement activities, including traffic stop statistics.
9) Independent Monitor (¶¶115-121): An Independent Monitor, who will be an agent of the court, will be selected by the United States and the State of New Jersey to monitor and report on the State's implementation of the Decree. The responsibilities of the Monitor will include evaluating samples of trooper incident reports, supervisory reviews of incidents, and misconduct investigations, supervisors' use of the Management Awareness Program, and the use of non-disciplinary procedures to address atrisk conduct.
10) Decree Term (¶131): The basic term of the Decree will be five years, however, based on the State's record of compliance, the United States and the Independent Monitor may agree to a request by the State to shorten the term of the Decree if the State has been in substantial compliance for at least two years.
Joint entry of this Decree is in the public interest since it provides for expeditious remedial activity and avoids the diversion of federal and State resources to adversarial actions by the parties. Additionally, the proposed Decree does not conflict with the collective bargaining agreements between the State Police and its troopers, as noted in the Decree at ¶128.
For the reasons discussed above, entry of the Decree is lawful and appropriate. Therefore, the United States and the State jointly move for entry of the Consent Decree.
Respectfully submitted:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
ROBERT J. CLEARY United States Attorney District of New Jersey
BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice
SUSAN C. CASSELL Deputy Chief Civil Division United States Attorney District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street, 7th Floor Federal Building Newark, New Jersey 07102

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 4 of 31
973/645-2700
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief MARK A. POSNER KELLI M. EVANS Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 202/307-1388
FOR THE DEFENDANTS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY:
JOHN J. FARMER, JR. Attorney General State of New Jersey Hughes Justice Complex, 8 West 25 Market Street Post Office Box 081 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0085 609/292-4925
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY and
DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 99-5970(MLC)
CONSENT DECREE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 5 of 31
INTRODUCTION 1 Definitions 4
POLICY REQUIREMENTS 7 INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW 9
Documentation 9 Supervisory Review of Individual Reports and Incidents 16 SUPERVISORY MEASURES TO PROMOTE CIVIL RIGHTS INTEGRITY AND REDUCE POLICE MISCONDUCT 18 Management Awareness Program 18 Supervisory and Management Reviews 20 MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, ANALYSES, AND RESOLUTIONS 23 Public Information and Outreach 23 Receipt of Misconduct Allegations 24 Professional Standards Bureau 27 The Investigations Component 27 Misconduct Investigations 28 Evaluating and Resolving Misconduct Allegations 30 Disciplinary Procedures 32 Tracking, Records, and Reporting 33 TRAINING 33 Training Oversight and Coordination 33 Academy Training, Post-Academy Training, and Trooper Coach Field Training 35 Documentation of Training 38 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL 38 PUBLIC INFORMATION 39

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 6 of 31
OVERSIGHT, REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING, AND IMPLEMENTATION 40
Independent Monitor 40
Reports and Records 42
Implementation 46
INTRODUCTION
1. The United States brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §14141 and 42 U.S.C. §3789d(c) to remedy an alleged pattern or practice of racially discriminatory conduct by troopers employed by the Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety (hereinafter "State Police").
2. In its Complaint, the United States alleges that State Police troopers engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Fourteenth Amendment and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended. Further, the United States alleges that this pattern or practice of conduct has been made possible by the failure of the State Police to adopt and implement proper management practices and procedures. The United States alleges that the State has tolerated this conduct. The United States further alleges that State Police policy, training, supervision and complaint procedures allow a high degree of discretion to individual troopers in conducting motor vehiclestops and do little to prevent individual troopers from improperly using race to target minority drivers and passengers. In making these allegations, the United States recognizes that the majority of state troopers perform their difficult jobs in a lawful manner.
3. Defendants in this action are the State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety (hereinafter collectively, "the State").
4. The State denies that the State Police has engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The State maintains that the State Police has never issued or embraced an official policy to engage in racial profiling or any other discriminatory enforcement practices, but rather has undertaken a number of steps to prohibit such forms of discrimination including, but not limited to, issuing standard operating procedures banning such practices; providing in-service training programs and bulletins; requiring state troopers to have a reasonable suspicion before requesting permission to search (thereby imposing a prerequisite to consent searches not required by the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of New Jersey); requiring state troopers to document the race of detained drivers and passengers; issuing stern warnings concerning the falsification of records and data regarding the race of detained drivers or passengers, and explaining that such allegations would be thoroughly investigated and referred to the Division of Criminal Justice for review and prosecution as appropriate; prohibiting the use of "spotlighting" the occupants of motor vehicles at night before deciding whether to initiate a stop; allocating $13.2 million for FY2000 to begin the development of internal management systems and fund additional related technology and support; and retaining independent experts to conduct a review of Academy training.
5. The State further cites its recent issuance of two reports, the Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling, April 20, 1999 (hereinafter, "Interim Report") and the Final Report of the State Police Review Team, July 2, 1999 (hereinafter, "Final Report"). These reports set forth numerous remedial steps to be implemented to manage and supervise the actions of the State

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 7 of 31
Police, to monitor integrity, to protect the public safety by ensuring the uniform and efficient enforcement of all motor vehicle and criminal laws, and to prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
6. As recommended in the Final Report, the State has created a new unit within the Office of the Attorney General, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety to be headed by an assistant attorney general/director-in-charge, reporting directly to the Attorney General. The new unit will be responsible, inter alia, for ensuring the implementation of remedial steps and actions described in the Interim Reportand the Final Report of the State Police Review Team, as well as implementation of the terms of the Consent Decree.
7. In light of these ongoing efforts to address the allegation of disparate treatment of minority drivers or passengers and the State's demonstrated commitment to using the best available practices and procedures for police management, the State also denies any allegation that it has tolerated unlawful conduct by state troopers.
8. The parties enter into this Decree jointly for the purpose of avoiding the risks and burdens of litigation, and to support vigorous, lawful, and nondiscriminatory traffic enforcement that promotes traffic safety and assists law enforcement to interdict drugs and other contraband, arrest fugitives, and enforce firearms and other criminalstatutes. Moreover, joint entry of this Decree is in the public interest since it provides for expeditious remedial activity and avoids the diversion of federal and State resources to adversarial actions by the parties.
9. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1345. The United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §14141 and 42 U.S.C. §3789d(c). Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391.
10. This Decree resolves all claims in the United States' Complaint filed in this case and resolves any claims the United States may have regarding any alleged pattern or practice of racial discrimination in traffic enforcement that could have been raised at this time under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 or 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c). Accordingly, the filing of the United States' Complaint shall not trigger the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(2)(E), which provide that the filing of a lawsuit by the United States alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c) may result in suspension of Department of Justice funding granted to the specific program or activity alleged to be in violation of this statute.
11. The United States and the State agree that in order to promote law enforcement integrity, avoid misconduct, promote community support for the State Police and its troopers, and promote the use of effective, sound policing techniques, the State will continue its efforts, as outlined in the Interim Reportand theFinal Report, to achieve and maintain good practices and procedures for trooper supervision and management.
12. The United States does not allege that there is any State Police policy that explicitly provides for or condones discriminatory law enforcement, and acknowledges that a State Police standard operating procedure issued in 1990 prohibits consideration of a civilian's race except where that "characteristic is directly and specifically related to particular criminal activity." The United States acknowledges that the State has already undertaken a number of steps to begin to address the problem of racial profiling and other forms of disparate treatment of minority drivers or passengers by state troopers, including, but not limited to, issuing the Interim Report and theFinal Report.
Definitions

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 8 of 31
13. "State trooper" means any law enforcement officer employed by the State Police including supervisors.
14. "Supervisor" means a state trooper with oversight responsibility for other State Police troopers.
15. "Civilian" means any person who is not a state trooper.
16. "Complaint" includes an allegation by a civilian or state trooper that a state trooper engaged in any form of misconduct. For purposes of this Decree, the term does not include any allegation of employment discrimination.
17. "Complainant" means any person who files a complaint against a state trooper or the State Police.
18. The term " intervention" refers to a non-disciplinary interaction between a State Police supervisor and a state trooper initiated by the supervisor to enable or encourage the trooper to undertake a modification of his or her conduct. It is intended to be a mechanism to promote best practices for trooper conduct. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to be any form of disciplinary action. It may include oral counseling; written counseling; training; a special MVR review schedule; mandatory professional assistance/evaluation or referral to the State Police's Employee Assistance Program; or a reassignment made to ensure the needs, interests, efficient or effective operation of the State Police, or to ensure the safety of the trooper or the public.
19. A "special MVR review schedule" is an intervention that consists of a temporary schedule established for reviewing a greater number of mobile audio/video equipment (hereinafter "MVR") tapes for a particular state trooper than otherwise would occur pursuant to the incident-specific reviews specified by ¶35 and the random reviews required by ¶36. This term also may include a decision to temporarily assign to an MVR-equipped vehicle a trooper who otherwise is not assigned to such a vehicle, and then reviewing a greater number of that trooper's MVR tapes than would otherwise be required by ¶¶35 and 36.
20. The term "motor vehiclestop" means any instance in which a State Police trooper directs a civilian driver operating a motor vehicle of any type traveling on any highway or road to stopand the driver or passenger(s) is detained for any period of time. The term"motor vehicle stop" also includes any instance in which a state trooper for any reason detains for any period of time a civilian in a motor vehicle located in a rest stop adjacent to a limited access highway, regardless of whether the vehicle was stopped at the direction of a state trooper. As used in this Decree, the term "motor vehiclestop"includes stops based on motor vehicle violations and criminal suspicion stops, but does not include checkpoint stops, roadblock stops, or commercial vehicle inspection stops. The term also does not include routine motor vehicle aids since motor vehicle aids do not involve a trooper directing a driver to stop a motor vehicle.
21. "Enforcement actions in connection with or during the course of amotor vehicle stop" are theissuance of a summons or a written warning, and the making of a custodial arrest and selecting the charges upon which the arrest is based.
22. "Procedures in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop" are the runningofa computerized check of information that may relate to the driver or passengers; ordering or requesting that a driver or passengers exit the vehicle; conducting a protective frisk for weapons of the driver or passengers; asking the driver or passengers for consent to search the vehicle; deploying a drug-detection dog to check for illegal drugs; conducting any other search of the vehicle, the driver, or passengers; and the use of force. For purposes of the nondiscrimination policy set forth in ¶26, but not purposes of the

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 9 of 31
data collection and analysis requirements of this Decree, the term also shall include questioning the driver or passengers about any matters unrelated to motor vehicle violations.
23. All references to collecting, reporting, or analyzing information by "race/ethnicity" (or "race/ethnic") mean collecting, reporting, or analyzing information using the following categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian.
24. The terms "document" and "record" include all "writings and recordings" as defined by Federal Rules of Evidence Rule §1001(I).
25. "Privilege" is defined as in Federal Rule of Evidence §501.
POLICY REQUIREMENTS
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedurein connection with or during the course of amotor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in ¶ 26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with ¶¶ 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of thedriver or other person authorized to give consentwhich precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the state trooper and the motor vehicle occupants, which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 10 of 31
Documentation 29. Motor VehicleStop Data a. The State has adoptedprotocols (captioned F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning allmotor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop; 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended; 5. license number/state of stopped vehicle; 5A. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); 8A. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]); 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted;

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 11 of 31
14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle;
15. whether any contraband or other property was seized;
15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized;
16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges;
17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force;
17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force;
18. the trooper's race and gender; and
19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.
b. The protocols listed in ¶29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in ¶¶ 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and ¶¶ 31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
d. As experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the State Police may revise the protocols adopted pursuant to this paragraph (including the reporting procedures set forth in ¶¶ 30, 31, 32, and 33) by adopting protocols establishing the new reporting procedures and by amending (to the extent necessary) the forms, reports, and logs adopted to implement this paragraph and ¶¶ 31, 32, and 33.
e. Prior to implementation, ofany revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the State shall obtain approval ofthe United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.
30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety.State troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in ¶ 29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in ¶29(a), and as revised pursuant to ¶29(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.
a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the state trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 12 of 31
require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent race/ethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.
b. State troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.
d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure(i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident numberto cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particularmotor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.
31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information which must be presented to the driver or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in Englishand Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information which must be documented for State Police records.
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information :
1. the date and location of the stop;
2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search;
3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search;
4. a statement informing the driveror other person authorized to give consentof the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search;
5. a statement informing thedriver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the state trooper and the motor vehicle

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 13 of 31

occupant(s)which right may be knowingly waived;
6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driveror other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and
7. if the driveror other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driveror other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consentshall not be required to sign the form.
b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied:
1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth;
2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers whoactivelyparticipate in the search;
3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent;
4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent;
5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and,
6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment.
c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.
32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during anymotor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information:
1. the date and location of the stop;
2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who activelyparticipated in the incident;
3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth;
4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search;
5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and
6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 14 of 31
stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information:
1. the date and location of the stop;
2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident;
3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth;
4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed;
5. whether an alert occurred;
6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and
7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used forpatrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden State Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.
c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, allmotor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment activelyparticipates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.
Supervisory Review of Individual Reports and Incidents
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to ¶¶31-33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 15 of 31
a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
37. After conducting a review pursuant to ¶35, ¶36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in ¶29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State.Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.
38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews of referral decisions pursuant to ¶ 37 to ensure appropriate referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.
39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.
SUPERVISORY MEASURES TO PROMOTE CIVIL RIGHTS INTEGRITY
Management Awareness Program
40. The State shall develop and implementcomputerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to ¶29 and the protocols listed in ¶29of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations;reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and offduty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and
c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.
42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basisupon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as grantingthat trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 16 of 31
any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.
43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29(a)(5A, 8A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in ¶41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in ¶41(b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.
44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.
46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP includingthe use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by ¶¶48-53.
Supervisory and Management Reviews
47. Consistent with the requirements of ¶¶48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and subunits are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.
49. To the extent reflected in ¶43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reportsshall include the following information:

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 17 of 31
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedurestaken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehiclestop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in ¶73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.
50. To the extent reflected in ¶43,analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see ¶¶54-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.
51. To the extent reflected in ¶43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.
52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.
53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to ¶ 73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.
54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 18 of 31
55. For purposes of implementing this Decree, the State may in its discretion conduct a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on any other limited access highway in New Jersey to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on that road. In deciding whether to conduct such a survey, the State shall give due consideration to any recommendations made by the United States and the Independent Monitor. The survey shall be conducted pursuant to a protocol developed by the State and approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties.
56. The parties agree that for purposes of developing appropriate benchmark racial/ethnic percentages, it will be sufficient for the surveys described by ¶¶ 54 and 55 to determine the racial/ethnic percentages of persons and vehicles traveling on the subject roadway. The provisions of ¶¶ 54 and 55 shall not apply to any traffic survey conducted by the State for purposes of advocating a position in any criminal case or any civil litigation other than inthe instant case.
MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, ANALYSES, AND RESOLUTIONS
Public Information and Outreach
57. The State Police shall require all state troopers to provide their name and identification number to any civilian who requests it.
58. The State Police shall develop and implement an effective program to inform civilians that they may make complaints or provide other feedback regarding the performance of any state trooper. This program shall, at a minimum, include the development of informational materials (fact sheets and informational posters) describing the complaint process and the development and distribution of civilian complaint forms. The State Police shall make such materials available in Englishand Spanish.
59. The State shall make complaint forms and informational materials available at State Police headquarters, all State Police stations, and such other locations around New Jersey as it may determine from time to time. The State shall publicize the State Police mailing address, internet address, and tollfree telephone number at state-operated rest stops located on limited access highways. The State Police also shall provide information on the internet about the methods by which civilians may file a complaint. The State Police further shall require all state troopers to carry fact sheets and complaint forms in their vehicles at all times while on duty. The State Police shall require all troopers to inform civilians who object to a trooper's conduct that civilians have a right to make a complaint. The State Police shall prohibit state troopers from discouraging any civilian from making a complaint.
60. The State Police shall develop a program of community outreach to inform the public about State Police functions and procedures, including motor vehicle stops, searches and seizures, and the methods for reporting civilian complaints or compliments regarding officers. This outreach program is not intended, and should not be construed, to require the State Police to disclose operational techniques to the public.
Receipt of Misconduct Allegations
61. Civilians may initiate a complaint or otherwise provide feedback regarding State Police performance either in person, by mail, by telephone (or TDD), or by facsimile transmission. The State Police shall accept and investigate anonymous complaints and complaints filed by civilians other than the alleged victim of misconduct. The State shall not require that a complaint be submitted in writing to initiate a misconduct investigation.

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 19 of 31
62. The State Police shall institute a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline for civilians to call to make a complaint or compliment or otherwise provide feedback regarding State Police performance. The hotline shall be operated by the Professional Standards Bureau (hereinafter "PSB"). The State Police shall immediately connect or refer all civilians to this hotline who telephone a State Police station to file a complaint. The State Police shall publicize the hotline telephone number on informational materials, complaint forms, and "consent to search" forms. The State Police shall tape record all conversations on this hotline and shall notify all persons calling the hotline of the tape recording. The State Police shall develop a procedure to assure that callers are being treated with appropriate courtesy and respect, that complainants are not being discouraged from making complaints, and that all necessary information about each complaint is being obtained. This procedure shall include regular reviews of the tape recordings.
63. The PSB shall be responsible for receiving all misconduct complaints. All complaints made at locations other than the PSB shall be forwarded to the PSB within a reasonably prompt period as specified by the State Police. The State Police shall assign and record a case number for each complaint. The OAG shall have access to all misconduct complaints received by PSB.
64. The State Police shall relocate PSB offices to buildings separate from any building occupied by other State Police personnel. The PSB shall publicize the locations of its offices.
65. The State Police shall refer to the OAG and/orPSB for investigation of state trooper performance all incidents in which a civilian is charged by a state trooper with obstruction of official business, resisting arrest, assault on a state trooper, or disorderly conduct, where the prosecutor's office or a judge dismisses the charge before or during trial and the dismissal is not part of the plea agreement.
66. The State shall notify the OAG whenever a person files a civil claim against the State alleging misconduct by a state trooper or other employee of the State Police. The OAG shall notify the PSB of such civil claims.
67. The State shall make reasonable efforts to implement a method by which it will be notified of a finding in criminal proceeding of a constitutional violation or misconduct by a state trooper.
68. The State Police shall require all state troopers promptly to notify the State Police of the following: the trooper is arrested or criminally charged for any conduct; the trooper is named as a party in any civil suit involving his or her conduct while on duty (or otherwise while acting in an official capacity); or the trooper is named as a party in any civil suit regarding off-duty conduct (while not acting in an official capacity) that alleges racial bias, physical violence, orthreats of physical violence by the trooper. State troopers shall report this information either directly to the PSB or to a supervisor who shall report the information to the PSB. The PSB shall notify the OAG of PSB's receipt of this information.
69. The State Police shall require state troopers to report, based on personal knowledge, any conduct by other troopers, involving civilians, that reasonably appears to constitute: (a) prohibited discrimination; (b) an unreasonable use of force or a threat of force; (c) an intentional constitutional violation; (d) an intentional failure to follow any of the documentation requirements of this Decree, or (e)an intentional provision of false information in a misconduct investigation or in any report, log, or transmittal of information to the communications center. State troopers shall report such misconduct by fellow troopers either directly to the PSB or to a supervisor who shall report the allegation to the PSB. The PSB shall notify the OAG of PSB's receipt of this information.
The Professional Standards Bureau

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 20 of 31
The Investigations Component
70. The State Police shall provide for a Professional Standards Bureau, the purpose of which shall be to protect the professional integrity of the Division of State Police and to fully, fairly and expeditiously investigate and resolve complaints and other misconduct investigations. The State shall provide the PSB sufficient staff, funds, and resources to perform the functions required by this Decree. The State shall encourage highly qualified candidates to become PSB investigators.
71. The Superintendent of theState Policeshall establish formal eligibility criteria for the head of the PSB and for staff who supervise or conduct internal investigations. These criteria shall apply to the incumbent PSB head and investigative staff, and all candidates for these positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, prior investigative experience and training, analytic and writing skills, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, commitment to police integrity, and previous performance as a law enforcement officer.
72. The State shall ensure that the PSB head and staff that supervise or conduct internal investigations receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties. The training shall continue to include the following: misconduct investigation techniques; interviewing skills; observation skills; report writing; criminal law and procedure; court procedures; rules of evidence; and disciplinary and administrative procedures.
Misconduct Investigations
73. A misconduct investigation shall be initiated pursuant to any of the following:
a. the making of a complaint (as defined in ¶16);
b. a referral pursuant to ¶37 or ¶65;
c. the filing of a civil suit by a civilian alleging any misconduct by a state trooper while on duty (or acting in an official capacity);
d. the filing of a civil suit against a state trooper for off-duty conduct (while not acting in an official capacity) that alleges racial bias, physical violence, orthreat of physical violence; and
e. a criminal arrest of or filing of a criminal charge against a state trooper.
74. All misconduct investigations shall be conducted by the PSB or the OAG except as delegated to the chain-of-command supervisors. Assignment of misconduct investigations will be made as follows:
a. The PSB or the OAG shall conduct misconduct investigations in the following circumstances:
i. all complaints alleging a discriminatory motor vehicle stop; all complaints alleging an improper enforcement action or procedurein connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop; and all complaints alleging excessive force in connection with any motor vehicle stop;
ii. all complaints relating to any motor vehicle stop where a State Police supervisor either was at the incident scene when the alleged misconduct occurred or was involved in planning the State Police action whose implementation led to the complaint;

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 21 of 31
iii. any misconduct investigation undertaken pursuant to any event identified in subparagraphs (b) through (e) of ¶73; and
iv. any other category of misconduct complaints or any individual misconduct complaint that the OAG and/or State Police determines should be investigated by PSB or OAG.
The State Police may continue to assign misconduct investigations not undertaken by the OAG or PSB to the chain-of-command supervisors.
b. The PSB and the OAGshall review all misconduct complaints as they are received to determine whether they meet the criteria (set forth in subparagraph (a) above) for being investigated bythe PSB, the OAG or being delegated to a chain-of-command supervisor. Nothing in this decree is intended to affect the allocation of misconduct investigations between the PSB and the OAG.
75. The State shall prohibit any state trooper who has a conflict of interest related to a pending misconduct investigation from participating in any way in the conduct or review of that investigation.
76. All written or recorded interviews shall be maintained as part of the investigative file. The State shall not conduct group interviews and shall not accept a written statement from any state trooper in lieu of an interview.
77. The State shall arrange a convenient time and place, including by telephone (or TDD), to interview civilians for misconduct investigations. The State Police shall reasonably accommodate civilians' circumstances to facilitate the progress of an investigation. This may include holding an interview at a location other than a State office or at a time other than regular business hours.
78. In conducting misconduct investigations, the State shall assess the propriety of all state trooper conduct during the incident in which the alleged misconduct occurred. If during the course of an investigation the investigator has reason to believe that misconduct occurred other than that alleged, and that potential misconduct is one of the types identified in ¶69, the investigator also shall investigate the additional potential misconduct to its logical conclusion.
79. Where two or more individual incidents that require a misconduct investigation are related, the State may investigate the incidents in a single misconduct investigation.
80. The State shall update its manual for conducting misconduct investigations to assure that it is consistent with the recommendations contained in the Final Report and the requirements of this Decree.
Evaluating and Resolving Misconduct Allegations
81. The State shall make findings based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
82. If the incident that is the subject of the misconduct investigation was recorded on an MVR tape, that tape shall be reviewed as part of the misconduct investigation.
83. In each misconduct investigation, the State shall consider circumstantial evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There shall be no automatic preference for a state trooper's statement over a civilian's statement. Similarly, there shall be no automatic judgment that there is insufficient information to make a credibility determination where the only or principal information about an incident is the conflicting statements of the involved trooper and civilian.

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 22 of 31
84. The State shall continue to resolve each allegation in a misconduct investigation by making one of the following dispositions:
a. "Substantiated," where a preponderance of the evidence shows that a state trooper violated State Police rules, regulations, protocols, standard operating procedures, directives or training;
b. "Unfounded," where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged misconduct did not occur;
c. "Exonerated," where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate State Police rules, regulations, operating procedures, directives or training; and
d. "Insufficient evidence" (formerly "unsubstantiated"), where there is insufficient evidence to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred.
85. The State shall not close any misconduct investigation without rendering one of the dispositions identified above. Withdrawal of a complaint or unavailability of the complainant or the victim of the alleged misconduct to make a statement shall not be a basis for closing an investigation without further attempt at investigation. The State shall investigate such matters to the extent reasonably possible to determine whether or not the allegations can be corroborated.
86. At the conclusion of each misconduct investigation, the individual responsible for the investigation shall issue a report on the investigation, which shall be made a part of the investigation file. The report shall include a description of the alleged misconduct and any other misconduct issues identified during the course of the investigation; a summary and analysis of all relevant evidence gathered during the investigation; and findings and analysis supporting the findings.
87. The State Police shall continue to attempt to complete misconduct investigations within forty-five (45) days after assignment to an investigator.
Disciplinary Procedures
88. The State Police shall discipline any state trooper who is the subject of a substantiated misconduct adjudication or disposition regarding: (a) prohibited discrimination; (b) an unreasonable use of force or a threat of force; (c) an intentional constitutional violation; (d) an intentional failure to follow any of the documentation requirements of this Decree, (e) an intentional provision of false information in a misconduct investigation or in any report, log, or transmittal of information to the communications center; or (f) a failure to comply with the requirement of ¶69 to report misconduct by another trooper.
89. The State Police shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against any state trooper who is found guilty or who enters a plea in a criminal case regarding on-duty conduct; any state trooper found civilly liable for misconduct of the type identified in ¶88 committed on duty or whose misconduct of the type identified in ¶88 is the basis for the State being found civilly liable; and any state trooper who is found by a judge in a criminal case to have committed an intentional constitutional violation. The State Police shall discipline any state trooper who is determined to have committed the misconduct set forth in this paragraph.
90. In deciding the appropriate discipline or intervention for each state trooper who is the subject of a "substantiated" adjudication or disposition in a misconduct investigation and each trooper who is to be disciplined pursuant to ¶89, the State shall consider the nature and scope of the misconduct and the

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 23 of 31
information in the MAP. In all instances where the State substantiates a misconduct allegation regarding matters identified in ¶88 or disciplines a trooper pursuant to ¶89, it shall also require that intervention be instituted (except where the discipline is termination). Where a misconduct allegation is not substantiated, the State shall consider the information in the investigation file and in the MAP to determine whether intervention should be instituted.
Tracking, Records, and Reporting
91. The PSB shall track all open misconduct investigations to ensure that investigations are completed in a timely fashion. Within one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing a computerized tracking system (including a timetable for implementation).
92. After a misconduct complaint is finally resolved by the State Police, the State Police shall inform the complainant of the resolution in writing, including the investigation's significant dates, general allegations, anddisposition, including whetherdiscipline wasimposed.
TRAINING
Training Oversight and Coordination
93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police Academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-Academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-Academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-Academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).
94. The Independent Monitor shall review and evaluate all training currently provided or sponsored by the State Police regarding motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures in connection with or during the course of motor vehicle stops. This review shall consist of whether the training provided or sponsored by the State Police effectively instructs troopers to comply with the requirements of ¶¶26, 28, 29(a), 30, 31, 32, and 33.
95. Within nine months of the entry of this Decree, the Independent Monitor shall submit a draft report to the parties setting forth the Monitor's findings and recommendations regarding the training issues identified in ¶94. During the 30-day period following submission of the draft report, the parties and the Monitor shall consult regarding the content of the draft report, and the parties may submit written comments on the draft report to the Monitor (with copies provided to each other). Within thirty (30) days after the consultation and comment period has ended, the Independent Monitor shall submit a final report to the Court, and the parties, with appropriate explanations and justifications for any changes made to the draft report.
96. If the State concurs with the Monitor's final report on training, then within ninety (90) days after submission of this report the State shall develop a plan for implementing the report's recommendations and submit the plan to the United States for approval. If the State does not concur in whole or in part with the Monitor's final report on training, then, within thirty (30) days after submission of this report,

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 24 of 31
the State shall submit its objections to the Court which shall review the Monitor's recommendations under an abuse of discretion standard.
Academy Training, Post-Academy Training, and Trooper Coach Field Training
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for Academy, post-Academy, and trooper coach training positions.
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all Academy, post-Academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postAcademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an Academy or post-Academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual in-service training covering these topics.
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the non-discrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all Academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdictionrelated training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police Academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.
103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 25 of 31
the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in ¶¶100 and 101) shall address effective supervisory techniques to promote police integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
106. The State shall design and implement post-Academy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within six monthsof the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.
107. The State shall design and implement post-Academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.
Documentation of Training
108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAP, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAP will maintain current and historical training information.
109. The State Police shall maintain in a central repository copies of all Academy, post-Academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE
NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.
111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and proceduresconnected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 26 of 31
prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.
112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by ¶62; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.
113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that includeaggregate statisticson State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops (byreason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions (including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation.The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police recordkeeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.
OVERSIGHT, REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Independent Monitor
115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint the Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.
116. The Monitor shall be an agent of the Court and may testify in this case regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcement, or dissolution of this Decree. The Monitor shall not testify in any other litigation or issue statements or make findings with regard to any act or omission of the defendants, or their agents or representatives, except as required or expressly authorized by the terms of this Decree or by the Court. The Monitor shall not be retained by any current or future litigant or claimant in a claim or suit against the State or its troopers.
117. The Monitor shall offer the State technical assistance regarding compliance with this Decree.
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 27 of 31

non-privilegeddocuments (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privilegedand the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.
119. The Monitor, inter alia, shall review and evaluate the quality and timeliness of appropriate samples of misconduct investigations, disciplinary actions, and interventions ordered as a result of a misconduct investigation; supervisory steps taken pursuant to ¶37; data contained in the MAP and MAP reports; appropriate samples of "consent to search" forms and reports, "non-consensual search" reports, drugdetection canine reports, motor vehicle stop reports and logs, and MVR tapes prepared in connection with a motor vehicle stop; and supervisory reviews of incidents pursuant to ¶¶48-53, and supervisory steps taken following these reviews.
120. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph, the State Police shall reopen for further investigation any misconduct investigation the Monitor determines to be incomplete. The Monitor shall provide written instructions for completing the investigation. The Monitor shall exercise this authority so that any directive to reopen an investigation is given within a reasonable period following the investigation's conclusion. The Monitor may not exercise this authority concerning any misconduct investigation which has been adjudicated or otherwise disposed, and the disposition has been officially communicated to the trooper who is the subject of the investigation.
121. During the first year after this Consent Decree is entered, the Monitor shall issue quarterly reports detailing the State's compliance with and implementation of this Consent Decree. Thereafter, the Monitor shall issue such reports at least semiannually or more frequently as the Monitor determines is appropriate.
Reports and Records
122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every six months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.
123. During the term of this Consent Decree,the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personallyidentifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 28 of 31

the MAP for statistical purposes.MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.
124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any Statestaff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privilegedand the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.
125. Except to the extent expressly stated in ¶114 or otherwise publicly disclosed, all documents (including databases), records, data, logs, and recordings which are collected or maintained pursuant to this Decree and which are made accessible to the United States and the Independent Monitor, shall be deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person or entity, other than the Court, the United States, and the Independent Monitor, absent written notice to the State and either written consent by the State or a Court order authorizing disclosure pursuant to otherwise applicable law.
126. This Consent Decree, together with the protocols referenced in ¶29(a) shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the parties. No prior drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or any other proceeding.
127. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall constitute or be construed as an acknowledgment, agreement, admission, statement, or evidence of liability of the State under 42 U.S.C. §14141 or 42 U.S.C. §3789d (c), or any other law; nor shall this Consent Decree constitute or be construed as an acknowledgment, agreement, admission, statement, or evidence of any violation of applicable law or of the existence of a pattern or practice of conduct by state troopers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall constitute or be construed as an acknowledgment, agreement, admission, statement, or evidence that the management system and/or systems employed by the State Police prior to the execution of this Consent Decree were in any manner inadequate, unconstitutional, or constituted deliberate indifference of the State within any context and, in particular, within the context of 42 U.S.C. §1983 or 42 U.S.C. §14141.

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 29 of 31
128. This Consent Decree is binding upon the United States and the defendants by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. This Consent Decree is enforceable only by the parties. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to impair the right of any person or organization to seek relief against the State or the State Police for its conduct or the conduct of state troopers. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to alter the collective bargaining agreements between the State and the various unions which represent State Police personnel.
129. The State, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and successors, is enjoined from and shall not engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by the State Police that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This paragraph does not apply to the State's employment policies, practices, or procedures.
Implementation
130. This Consent Decree shall become effective on entry by the Court. Except where otherwise specifically indicated, the State Police shall implement all provisions of this Decree as soon as practicable and no later than 180 days after entry of this Consent Decree.
131. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes during the term of this Consent Decree.
a. At any time after both five years have elapsed since entry of this Consent Decree and substantial compliance with the terms of this Decree has been maintained for no less than two years (which may be calculated as two periods of four successive quarters), the Court may, upon motion by the State, terminate this Consent Decree. Any motion to terminate must detail all aspects of the State's compliance with each provision of this Consent Decree, supported by affidavits and supporting documentation. The United States shall have ninety (90) days from receipt of the State's motion to file any objections. In the event the United States files objections to the State's motion, the Consent Decree shall remain in effect at least until entry of a court order disposing of the motion and thereafter as dictated by the Court's order. In the event the United States objects to termination of the Consent Decree, the Court shall hold a hearing, at which both parties may present evidence, before ruling on the State's motion to terminate. At the hearing, the burden shall be on the State to demonstrate that it has maintained substantial compliance with this Consent Decreefor at least two years.
b. The United States and the State may jointly move to terminate this Decree prior to the expiration of the fiveyear period referenced in subparagraph (a) if the Independent Monitor finds that the State has been in substantial compliance with the terms of this Decree for a period of no less than two years. The United States shall not unreasonably refuse to move jointly with the State for termination of this Decree.
c. For the purposes of this paragraph, "substantial compliance" means there has been performance of the material terms of the Decree. Materiality shall be determined by reference to the overall objectives of the Decree. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance shall not constitute substantial compliance.
132. No changes, modifications, or amendments of this Consent Decree shall be effective unless the Court orders them.
133. The parties agree to defend the provisions of this Consent Decree. The parties shall notify each

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 30 of 31
other of any court or administrative challenge to this Consent Decree. In the event any provision of this Consent Decree is challenged in any local or state court, removal to a federal court shall be sought.
134. In the event any provision of this Consent Decree is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Consent Decree.
We consent and seek entry of this Consent Decree:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
JANET RENO Attorney General
ROBERT J. CLEARY United States Attorney District of New Jersey
BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice
SUSAN C. CASSELL Deputy Chief Civil Division United States Attorney District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street, 7th Floor Federal Building Newark, New Jersey 07102 973/645-2700
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief MARK A. POSNER KELLI M. EVANS Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 202/307-1388
FOR THE DEFENDANTS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY:
JOHN J. FARMER, JR. Attorney General State of New Jersey

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Joint Application for Entry of Consent Decree and Consent Decree Page 31 of 31
Hughes Justice Complex, 8 West 25 Market Street Post Office Box 081 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0085 609/292-4925
COLONEL CARSON DUNBAR Superintendent New Jersey State Police P.O. Box 7068 West Trenton, New Jersey (609) 882-2000
SO ORDERED this 30th day of December 30, 1999.
MARY L. COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

http://www.nj.gov/lps/jointapp.htm

1/10/2007

 
 U.S. v. New Jersey Complaint

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 99-5970 (MLC)
COMPLAINT
The United States brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(3), to remedy a pattern or practice of racially discriminatory conduct by law enforcement officers of the Division of State Police, New Jersey Department of Public Safety, that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, including the Fourteenth Amendment and rights protected by the anti-discrimination provisions and implementing regulations of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c).
The United States of America alleges:
DEFENDANTS
1. Defendant State of New Jersey is legally responsible for the operation of the Division of State Police, New Jersey Department of Public Safety, and for the activities of the troopers, employees, and agents of the Division of State Police.
2. Defendant Division of State Police, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety ("New Jersey State Police"), is responsible for highway enforcement of motor vehicle and criminal laws of the State of New Jersey, for providing police coverage in various areas of the State, and for providing other law enforcement services throughout the State.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
4. The United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(3).
5. Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the claims set forth in this Complaint all arose in this District and defendants reside in this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6. The New Jersey State Police is a program or activity of the State of New Jersey funded, in part, by funds made available under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended ("Safe Streets

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/jerseycomp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Complaint

Page 2 of 4

Act").
7. Defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of performing vehicle stops and post-stop enforcement actions and procedures, including searches, of African American motorists traveling on New Jersey roadways, including the New Jersey Turnpike, that:
a. have the intent of discriminating on the basis of race; and
b. use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of race.
8. Defendants, through their acts or omissions, have tolerated and continue to tolerate racially discriminatory law enforcement by New Jersey State troopers, described in ¶ 7 above. These acts or omissions include, but are not limited to:
a. failing to implement and enforce policies related to vehicle stops that appropriately guide and limit the discretion of individual troopers;
b. failing to train troopers adequately to prevent racially discriminatory conduct related to vehicle stops;
c. failing to supervise troopers adequately to prevent racially discriminatory conduct related to vehicle stops;
d. failing to monitor troopers adequately who engage in or may be likely to engage in racially discriminatory conduct related to vehicle stops;
e. failing to establish a procedure whereby all civilian complaints are documented, and are investigated and adjudicated adequately; and
f. failing to discipline adequately troopers who engage in racially discriminatory conduct related to vehicle stops.
9. The pattern or practice, described in ¶¶ 7-8 above, constitutes intentional racial discrimination by defendants in performing vehicle stops and post-stop enforcement actions and procedures, including searches, of African American motorists traveling on New Jersey highways, including the New Jersey Turnpike.
CAUSES OF ACTION
10. Through the actions described in ¶¶ 7-9 above, defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons traveling in New Jersey of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
11. Through the actions described in ¶¶ 7-9 above, defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that subjects persons traveling in New Jersey to discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions and implementing regulations of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/jerseycomp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Complaint

Page 3 of 4

12. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(3) to seek declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of law enforcement conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, including the Fourteenth Amendment, and rights protected by the anti-discrimination provisions and implementing regulations of the Safe Streets Act.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:
a. declare that defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice by New Jersey State troopers of depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and the anti-discrimination provisions and implementing regulations of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c), as described in ¶¶ 7-9 above;
b. order defendants to refrain from engaging in any of the predicate acts forming the basis of the pattern or practice of conduct as described in ¶¶ 7-9 above;
c. order defendants to adopt and implement policies and procedures to remedy the pattern or practice of conduct described in ¶¶ 7-9 above, and to prevent troopers of the New Jersey State Police from depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, including rights protected by the anti-discrimination provisions and implementing regulations of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c); and
d. order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
JANET RENO Attorney General of the United States
_________________________
ROBERT J. CLEARY United States Attorney District of New Jersey
BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SUSAN C. CASSELL Deputy Chief Civil Division United States Attorney 970 Broad St., 7th Floor Federal Building Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 645-2700
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/jerseycomp.htm

1/10/2007

U.S. v. New Jersey Complaint
Chief MARK A. POSNER KELLI M. EVANS Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 307-1388

Page 4 of 4

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/jerseycomp.htm

1/10/2007

 
 .. ,
•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC Document 55 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 1 of 2

PETER C. HARVEY

Attorney General of New Jersey

J.

Justice

r"" P.O. Box
'I'renton,

000 New

JcrsGY

0 8 6 2 5 . t~"

,~::

~1"'''
Ii ...•

~ P '\ f
::' ,

\" M

~""".

Attornoy for Defendants State of New Jersey and

Dj vii3ion of State Pol of the New Jar DepartmGnt of Law and Public SafGty

n "004 r~',Cl , ...... ~ 1.

,
....,

V

(..

., By: Daniel G. Giaquinto (DGG 9826)
sistant Attorney General 160'l):l41-3228

RECEIVED

UNITCD STATES DISTRICT COURT fOR THE DISTRICT O~ NCW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON

APR 62004

AT 8:30

M

WILLIAM T. WALSH

UNITED STATBS OF AMERICA,

Pl iH,

c 1 Action No. 99-5970 (MLC)

v.

JOINT ORDER OF DISSOLlJ'!'ION

STATE OP NEW JERSEY and
DIVISION OF STATE POLICE
elJ" THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
Of LA~I AND PUBLIC SAFETY,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER HAVING come before the Court by Peter C. Harvey,

Attorney General of New Jorsey, Dani.el C. Giaquinto, Assistant

Attorney General, appearing on behalf of Defendants State of New

Jersey and Division of State Police of the New Jorsey Departmont of

[,aw and Public Safety, on a motion Lo dissolve Paragraphs 57-92

(excluding Paragraphs 87 and 90) of the 1999 Consent Decree, and

the consent having been obtajned of R. Alexander Acosta, Assjstant

IItto

eral, viI Rights

is ion, BracH ,J. Schlozman,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rj. ghts Division,

Shanetta Y. CLtlnr,

f,

ial T.i t.

Section,

1

s

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC Document 55 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 2 of 2

Division, Ji.m Eichner, Special Counsel, Special Litigation Section,

vii Rights Division,

on

If of Pl iIf,

::~tates of America, and the Court h ng considored t moving

papers, and

cause

b1t\ .l'1,' IS on this

ORDERED that

bf.2en ShOvJni
~~\ day of

2004,

~, ,~

motion

to

dissolve

the

1999

Consent

Decree, paragr.aphs 57-92 (Excluding Paragraphs 87 and 90), is

hereby GRANTED, and all portions of the Complaint relative to those

Paragraphs are hereby DISMISSED; and i.t is

FURTHER ORDERED eha t this Joint Di5S01. ut.ion Order will be

accepted and approved by the Court.

For Plaintiff;

For Defendants:

R. Alexander Acosta Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

Peter C. Hi'lrvey Attorney General of New Jersey

Bradley J. Schlozman Deputy Assistant Attorney Generi'll Civil Rights Division

ta Y. Cutiar Chicf, Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
~<
B y:~~---------~ ------- --------•.T. Tn F:J.chner
Special Counsel

Hy: D(La~?n~_:~...J,i.L-..':----;=~..,,--.

P,ss i. sti'lnt

GeneT'i'll.

Di'l t.ed ;

Datud:

SO ORDERED AND ENT~R8D this

day of

I!onorable Uni ted S '2'

2004.
)
.T', lJ.!;.D.J.
Court

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 96 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 2231

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., :

:

Defendants.

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-5970 (MLC) ORDER & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

IT APPEARING that Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, and John Villamil (“Movants”) (1) are current or former New Jersey state troopers, and (2) have brought separate actions — which are pending in New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County — alleging claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against the State of New Jersey, the Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety (“State Police”), and “individual members of the . . . State Police” (“State Actions”) (dkt. entry no. 78, Mov. Br., at 14, & 1st Mov. Cert., at 1-2);1 and the Movants moving (1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) to intervene in this closed federal action brought against two of the same defendants, State of New Jersey and State Police, and (2) for a judgment declaring that certain State Police documents (“Documents”) — which the Movants obtained

1 See Johnson v. New Jersey, No. 1265-01; Molnar v. New Jersey, No. 1479-03; Villamil v. New Jersey, No. 1845-03. (1st Mov. Cert., at 1; dkt. entry no. 84, N.J. & State Police Opp. (“N.J. Opp.”), at 2.)

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 96 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2232
from an anonymous source and produced in discovery in the State Actions — should not be confidential under either New Jersey statutory provisions or any confidentiality agreements (“Federal Motion”) (dkt. entry no. 78; see N.J. Opp., at 2-3 (noting Movants counsel asserted in State Action that Documents provided anonymously)); and the Movants appearing to argue that the issue here is:
whether and in what manner Federal Monitoring of the [State Police] will continue and the role of the [New Jersey Attorney General’s Office (“NJAG”)] in defending [and] disciplining the [State Police] may impair or impede the [Movants’] ability to adequately protect their interests both in the State Court litigation and as members of the [State Police] (Mov. Br., at 14); and the Movants asking the Court to release the Documents (1) from the reach of a confidentiality law, i.e., N.J.S.A. § 45:19-12, and (2) pursuant to New Jersey “common law” (id. at 15-20); but IT APPEARING that the Documents may “remain protected in the [State Actions] under Consent Protective Orders which have been filed in all three of [those actions]” (N.J. Opp., at 18; see dkt. entry no. 84, N.J. Cert., Exs. A & B, 1-30-06 “Consent Protective Order” issued in Molnar and Villamil State Actions, & 4-21-04 “Consent Order for the Protection of Confidential Information” issued in Johnson State Action); and IT FURTHER APPEARING that before filing the Federal Motion, the Movants:
2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 96 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 2233
filed a motion with the Superior Court in May 2007 [(“State Motion”)] seeking the release of the [Documents] from confidentiality in order to use them in that pending litigation and to present them to the [State Advisory Committee on Police Standards (“ACPS”)] for its consideration
(dkt. entry no. 91, Mov. Reply Br., at 4); and the Movants failing to mention this salient fact in their initial Federal Motion papers, and noting it for the first time in the reply; but the State of New Jersey and State Police so noting the State Motion while the State Motion was still pending (N.J. Opp., at 4); and it appearing that the New Jersey Superior Court:
hear[d] arguments on the release of the [Documents] on July 10[, 2007, and] found that the [Documents] are not confidential pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 45:19-12. Upon request of the [NJAG], however, [the Superior Court] held that the [Documents] are subject to a Confidentiality Agreement that limits access to the [Documents] to the parties and others in close relationship to the parties [(“State Court Decision”)]. An Order reflecting the findings of the Court in that matter has not yet issued
(Mov. Reply Br., at 1); and it being unclear whether an order has since been issued and, if so, whether the Movants have appealed from it; and it further appearing that the State Police revealed the Documents to the ACPS (id.); and the Movants, despite the findings of the New Jersey Superior Court, still arguing that “based on applicable law as set forth in their initial [Federal Motion] papers, the [Documents] should not be withheld in any manner from public access” (id.); and the parties to this action — all of which have opposed the Federal Motion (N.J. Opp.; dkt.
3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 96 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 2234
entry no. 85, U.S. Opp.) — failing to address the aforementioned State Court Decision; and
IT APPEARING to the Court that the issues of the Documents’ confidentiality and their release to the public — the issues raised in the Federal Motion — have already been adjudicated by New Jersey Superior Court in the State Court Decision; and the Court further being concerned that the Movants are, in effect, arguing that they have been injured or prejudiced by the State Court Decision itself; and the Court thus intending to order the Movants to show cause why the relief they seek in the Federal Motion is not barred by (1) res judicata, (2) collateral estoppel, (3) the entire controversy doctrine, (4) the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which requires this Court to give the same preclusive effect to a New Jersey state court decision as another New Jersey state court would give, (5) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or (6) — if further motion practice concerning, or an appeal from, the State Court Decision is pending — Younger abstention;2 and the Movants, in responding to this inquiry, should clarify whether they are arguing that they have been injured or prejudiced by the State Court Decision; and the Movants, in responding to the Court’s inquiry, must provide
2 It is the duty of the Movants and the parties to familiarize themselves with, and to review the most recent cases issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concerning, these concepts before responding to this inquiry.
4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 96 Filed 12/06/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 2235 copies of the State Court Decision and the resulting order for this Court’s review; and the Court further intending to deny the Federal Motion without prejudice until the Court’s procedural concerns are addressed; and for good cause appearing;
5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 96 Filed 12/06/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 2236

IT IS THEREFORE on this

6th

day of December, 2007

ORDERED that the motion, inter alia, to intervene (dkt. entry no.

78) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to move again — if

appropriate — when the Court’s order to show cause is resolved;

and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal (dkt. entry

no. 79) is REFERRED TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE for disposition; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar,

and John Villamil shall SHOW CAUSE why the relief they seek in

the motion, inter alia, to intervene is not barred by (1) res

judicata, (2) collateral estoppel, (3) the entire controversy

doctrine, (4) the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738,

(5) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or (6) Younger abstention; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that THE PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES WILL

FILE responses with the Court electronically by 5 P.M. on the following dates:3

January 2, 2008 January 14, 2008 January 22, 2008

Response of Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, and John Villamil
Responses of the current parties to this action
Reply of Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, and John Villamil; and

3 The Court will disregard responses that are not filed electronically.
6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 96 Filed 12/06/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 2237
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties and non-parties will provide the Court with one hard copy of all papers electronically filed; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NO ENLARGEMENTS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED to respond, even with the consent of all parties and nonparties, barring extraordinary circumstances;4 and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, and John Villamil fail to respond to this order to show cause in the first instance — on or before January 2, 2008 — in the manner directed above, then they will be deemed to have withdrawn the request for the relief at issue here; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order to show cause will be decided on WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2008, or soon thereafter, without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, unless the parties and non-parties are notified otherwise by the Court.
s/ Mary L. Cooper MARY L. COOPER United States District Judge
4 Extraordinary circumstances do not include: (1) upcoming legal or religious holidays, (2) the parties, non-parties, or counsel being on vacation when this order to show cause was issued, or upcoming vacation plans, (3) difficulty in registering for electronic filing, (4) difficulty in complying with the electronic filing rules, (5) time to conduct discovery, (6) difficulty with a computer or internet access, or (7) any purported failure to be timely notified of this inquiry. The Court has set the dates to respond accordingly.
7

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 97 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2238

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY and

:

DIVISION OF STATE POLICE of the :

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF :

LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Civil Action No.: 99-5970(MLC) O R D E R

This matter having come before the Court upon Motion by Movants Kenneth Johnson,

John Villamil, and Stanley Molnar (“Movants”) to Release Documents from Confidentiality [dkt.

entry no. 79]; and Defendants the State of New Jersey et al. (“Defendants”) filing opposition to

the Motion on July 7, 2007 [dkt. entry no. 84]; and Plaintiff the United States of America

(“Plaintiff”) filing opposition to this Motion on July 13, 2007 [dkt. entry no. 88]; and this matter

being referred to Judge Hughes on December 6, 2007;

And Movants arguing that “Counsel has filed this motion [to Seal] only because New

Jersey Statute declares the documents at issue to be confidential” (Movants’ Br. at 2); and

Movants further stating that “they did not want to include the documents without seal without

leave of court” Id.; and Movants further stating that the documents do not warrant sealing from

public access” Id.; and Movants further arguing that “[i]t would be inimical to the public interest

to prevent counsel from presenting the documents to the ACPS for its consideration of the issues

of release of the New Jersey State Police from Federal Monitoring and the issue of whether the

Office of the Attorney General is able to objectively, without conflict, fulfill its role as both

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 97 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2239
defender and discipliner of the New Jersey State Police” Id. at 2-3; and Movants further arguing that “[n]o clearly defined, serious injury would result from release of the documents” Id. at 3; and Movants further stating that “[t]he statutory provisions on confidentiality are intended to protect applicants for Private Detectives’ Licenses and sources of information regarding those applicants” Id.; and Movants further arguing that “[t]he documents at issue contain no information regarding either applicants or sources” Id.;
And Defendants in opposition to Movants’ Motion stating that “[n]owhere do Movants proffer their alleged basis for the jurisdiction of this Court over their claims, issues, and relief sought” (Def.s’ Opp. Br. at 13); and Defendants further stating that “no federal jurisdiction is presented by Movants’ request that this Court interpret the New Jersey statute establishing the confidentiality of documents relating to the issuance of private detective licenses by the State of New Jersey” Id. (See N.J.S.A. 45:19-1, et seq.); and Defendants further stating that “[t]he documents that Movants seek to remove from confidentiality are from the investigative files relating to the applications for private detective licenses made by Howard Parker and Kevin Goldberg, two former members of the New Jersey State Police” Id. at 14; and Defendants further stating that “Movants assert that they should have the right to publicly disclose these documents, in part because they have already been released to the public in the form of newspaper articles” Id.; and Defendants further stating that “[i[t must be noted that the articles referenced by Movants deal exclusively with a videotape showing Parker and Goldberg using racial epithets during motor vehicle stops” Id.; and Defendants further stating that “[a]t no point in these articles are the documents, which are part of the investigation file resulting from Parker and Goldberg’s applications for private detective licenses mentioned” Id.; and Defendants also pointing out that
2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 97 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2240
“counsel for Movants have violated the confidentiality provisions of N.J.S.A. 45:19-12 . . . [by] fully describ[ing] these documents in her certification” Id. (See Certification of Movants’ Counsel, ¶ ¶ 15-17 (counsel describes the documents date, author, and full contents)); and Defendants further stating that “N.J.S.A. 45:19-12 specifically provides that documents under its purview ‘shall not be divulged except by an order to do so by a court of record of this State” Id. at 15; and Defendants further stating that “Movants are not entitled to these confidential documents under the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) because they are exempt from access under N.J.S.A. 45:19-12" Id.; and Defendants further stating that Movants do not have a common-law right of access pursuant to Keddie v. Rutgers University, 148 N.J. 36, 49-50 (1997), Id. at 16-17; and Defendants further stating that “even if Movants are granted the right to intervene . . . and further are granted the right to remove these documents from confidentiality under N.J.S.A. 45:19-12, the documents remain protected in the New Jersey state lawsuits under Consent Protective Orders which have been filed in all three of their respective lawsuits” Id. at 18;
And Plaintiff in opposition to Movants’ motion stating that “[a]s the party asserting jurisdiction, Movants bear the burden of showing that their claims are properly before this Court” (Pl.’s Opp. Br. at 10)(citing Development Finance Corp. v. Alpha Housing and Health Care, Inc., 54 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir. 1995)); and Plaintiff further stating that “[t]his Court has ‘supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1367(a)); and Plaintiff further stating that “Movants fail to demonstrate that their claims regarding the confidentiality of a non-party private detective license
3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 97 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2241
application documents are at all related to the claims in this action and the Consent Decree governing racial profiling in law enforcement practices related to traffic stops on New Jersey roadways” Id. at 10-11; and Plaintiff further stating that “Movants acknowledge that the confidentiality of the documents in question is governed by state law, which requires the New Jersey State Police to keep the documents confidential except by an order by a court . . .” Id. at 11; and Plaintiff further stating that “Movants do not allege that the issue of the confidentiality of the documents presents a federal question” Id.;
And the Court noting that the District Judge issued an Order denying Movants’ Motion to Intervene [dkt. entry no. 96] on December 6, 2007; and the Court finding that due to that holding, the issue before us is now moot; and the Court further finding that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 45:19-12, the documents in question must remain confidential and kept under seal until adjudication in the New Jersey Superior Court; and the Court noting that Movants concede that these documents are confidential under the New Jersey statute (see Movants’ Br. at 2); and the Court having reviewed the parties’ submissions and considered this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; and good cause having been shown,
IT IS on this 11th day of December, 2007, ORDERED that Movants’ Motion to Defendant’s Motion to Release Documents from Confidentiality [dkt. entry no. 79] is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the documents at issue will remain CONFIDENTIAL and SEALED for adjudication in the New Jersey Superior Court.
/s/ John J. Hughes JOHN J. HUGHES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 101 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2338

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., :

:

Defendants.

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-5970 (MLC) O R D E R

THE COURT ordering Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, and John Villamil to show cause why the relief they sought in their previous motion, inter alia, to intervene is not barred (dkt. entry no. 96, Order & Order to Show Cause); and the Court advising Johnson, Molnar, and Villamil that if they failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause, then they would be deemed to have withdrawn the request for the relief at issue in their motion (id. at 7); and Johnson, Molnar, and Villamil failing to respond to the Court’s order to show cause; and the defendants advising that they also have not received a response from Johnson, Molnar, and Villamil (dkt. entry no. 99, Defs. Resp.); and thus for good cause appearing;

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 101 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2339

IT IS THEREFORE on this

18th

day of March, 2008

ORDERED that Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, and John Villamil

are deemed to have withdrawn the request for the relief at issue

in their previous motion, inter alia, to intervene; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court designate

Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, and John Villamil, listed as

being movants on the docket, as TERMINATED.

s/ Mary L. Cooper MARY L. COOPER United States District Judge

2

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109 Filed 08/27/09 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2950

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109 Filed 08/27/09 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2951

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109 Filed 08/27/09 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2952

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109 Filed 08/27/09 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2953

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-1 Filed 08/27/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2954

ANNE MILGRAM ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the Department of Law and Public Safety

By: Gregory A. Spellmeyer Deputy Attorney General (609) 984-9504 Gregory.Spellmeyer@dol.lps.state.nj.us

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON ______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:HONORABLE MARY L. COOPER, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff,

: Civil Action No. 99-5970 (MLC)

v.

:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE : DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF : LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY,
: Defendants. ______________________________:

STATEMENT THAT NO BRIEF IS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(4)

I, Gregory A. Spellmeyer, Deputy Attorney General, do hereby certify that no brief is necessary in support of the joint motion by Plaintiff, the United States, and the Defendants, State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the Department of Law and Public Safety, for an Order terminating the Consent Decree entered on December 30, 1999 as the parties shall rely upon the Certification of Anne Milgram, the Certification of Dermot P. O’Grady, the Certification of Alberto Rivas, and the Affidavit of

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-1 Filed 08/27/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2955

James Ginger. DATED: August 27, 2009

ANNE MILGRAM ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
By: s/ Gregory A. Spellmeyer Gregory A. Spellmeyer Deputy Attorney General

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 2956
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNTED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY AN THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AN PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 99-5970 (MC)

CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE

I, Ane Milgram, hereby certifY the following in support of

the paries' joint

motion to terminate the Consent Decree in this matter:

1. I am the Attorney General of

New Jersey. Among my duties and responsibilities

as the Attorney General is to direct and supervise the operation and administration of

the

Deparent of

Law and Public Safety.

2. The Departent of

Law and Public Safety consists of eight divisions among

which is the Division of

State Police. The day-to-day operations of

the Division of

State Police

are administered by the Superintendent, who is responsible to me for the performance of the

division and the activities of individual State troopers.

3. In December of 1999, the paries in this matter entered into a Consent Decree.

The purose of the decree is to reform the practices and procedures of the Division of State

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 2957

Police to ensure that citizens traveling the roadways of

New Jersey are not deprived of

the

privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. The decree

requires the State of

New Jersey and the State Police to undertake the following activities:

a. Adopt and implement policies that mandate the non-discriatory enforcement

of the motor vehicle laws of

the State of New Jersey by individual State troopers.

b. Ensure that individual State troopers properly document and record information
concernng all motor vehicle stops and any law enforcement activities that result from the stops.

c. Ensure that State Police supervisors review information collected durng motor

vehicle stops to ensure that individual State troopers engage in the non-

discriminatory enforcement of

the motor vehicle laws.

d. Conduct supervisory and management reviews of State Police personnel and unts

to ensure compliance with provisions of

the Consent Decree.

e. Develop and implement a computerized risk management database to assist in
conducting the appropriate supervisory and management reviews.

f. Adopt policies and procedures governng the receipt, investigation and resolution
of citizen complaints of trooper misconduct to ensure the imparial investigation and appropriate resolution ofthose complaints.

g. Develop and provide traing programs for all State troopers concerng the
requirements ofthe Consent Decree, cultual diversity, non-discriinatory law
enforcement and the principles governg search and seizue.

2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 2958

4. Inediately following entr of

the Consent Decree, the State of

the Division of

State Police undertook vigorous efforts to implement the requirements of

New Jersey and the

decree. These efforts, as set fort below in paragraphs 5 through 1 i, were aimed at ensurng that

the State Police engaged in non-discriminatory law enforcement practices and the operations of

the division were in full compliance with the decree.

5. The Office of

State Police Affairs was created in the Deparent of

Law and

Public Safety to assist in the implementation ofthe Consent Decree. The office, which serves

under my direct supervision, acts as liaison between the Deparent of Justice, and the State of

New Jersey and the Division of

State Police. In addition, the office is responsible for the duties

outlined by paragraph 110 of the decree. These duties include oversight of the maner in which

allegations of trooper misconduct are investigated and adjudicated by the State Police, the

implementation of

the risk management system by the State Police and the review by State Police

supervisors of

motor vehicle stops conducted by individual State troopers.

6. Following entr of

the Consent Decree, the Division of

State Police revised its

policies and procedures governng motor vehicle stops. In addition, the division amended its

policies and procedures governing search and seizure. The revised policies and procedures

mandate the non-discriminatory enforcement of

the motor vehicle laws of

New Jersey and the

lawful search and seizure of motor vehicles stopped by individual State troopers. All revisions

implemented by the division were approved by the Deparent of Justice.

7. Following entr

of the Consent Decree, the State of

New Jersey

moved to equip

all marked State Police vehicles with mobile video recorders. The recorders document motor

vehicle stops undertaken by individual State troopers. In addition, the Division of State Police

3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 2959

revised its policies and procedures to ensure that paper and electronic records of each motor

vehicle stop were created and maintained by the division.

8. Following entr of

the Consent Decree, the Division of

State Police implemented

policies and procedures that mandate that State Police supervisors collect and review the

information outlined in the preceding paragraph for the purpose of evaluating the activities of

individual State troopers during motor vehicle stops. The revised policies and procedures

emphasize review by State Police supervisors of

motor vehicle results stops in which: a) a driver

is asked to consent to the search of their vehicle; b) a canne is deployed to assist in developing

probable cause; c) a State trooper utilizes force durng the stop; d) a probable cause search of a

vehicle is conducted; or e) a probable cause search ofa person is conducted. All other motor

vehicle stops are subject to supervisory review, but the review ofthose stops is not mandated.

9. Following entr of

the Consent Decree, the Division of

State Police developed

and implemented a computerized risk management system. The system, designated the

Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System (MPS), is designed to promote

appropriate and lawful conduct by individual State troopers through the collection of information

from a varety of sources within the State Police. The information collected by MAPS includes

motor vehicle stop data, information related to trooper conduct including compliments and

complaints, training information and incidents of supervisory intervention and corrections.

Implementation of MAPS by the State Police has permtted supervisory personnel to identifY

and modifY potentially problematic behavior by individual State troopers before such behavior

mandates formal disciplinar action.

4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 2960

10. Following entr ofthe Consent Decree, the Division of State Police revised its

policies and procedures governng the receipt, investigation and adjudication of complaints of

trooper misconduct. In addition, the Office of Professional Standards was created withi the

State Police to adminster the investigation and adjudication of complaints of misconduct. The

offce was provided with the staffing and resources necessar to fully, imparially and

expeditiously investigate and adjudicate all complaints of trooper misconduct.

i 1. Following entr of

the Consent Decree, the Division of

State Police revamped its

training fuctions to ensure that individual State troopers received training of the highest quality

in the topics of non-discriminatory law enforcement, cultural diversity and the legal principles

governng search and seizure. Trainig curcula were revised to reflect state ofthe ar law

enforcement practices. In addition, the criteria for individual State troopers assigned to the

training fuction were revised to ensure that the best possible candidates are selected to act as

training instrctors. Finally, the State Police implemented procedures to evaluate the training

function to ensure that individual training programs were timely, relevant and reflected the

curent state of

the law with respect to the constitutional rights of

the citizens of

New Jersey.

12. All of

the foregoing activities were examined and evaluated on an ongoing basis

by the Independent Monitors appointed by the Cour. The monitors regularly audited and

reviewed the efforts of

the State of

New Jersey and the Division of

State Police to implement the

provisions of the Consent Decree. A total of seventeen reports have been filed with the Cour by

the monitors. Sixteen reports were prepared by the monitors themselves. The seventeenth report

was prepared by the Offce of State Police Affairs under the direction and supervsion of the

monitors. Each report carefully examed efforts of the State of

New Jersey and the State Police

5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 2961

to comply with the provisions of the decree. In addition, each report evaluated the success of

those efforts in great detaiL.

13. Paragraph 131 of the Consent Decree governs dissolution of the decree. . Under

paragraph 131, the paries may move to terminate the decree if the Independent Monitors

determine that the State of

New Jersey and the Division of

State Police have been in "substantial

compliance" with the decree for at least two years. Substantial compliance is defined by

paragraph 131 as the performance of the material terms of the decree.

14. Beginng with their tenth report for the period ending March 31, 2004 though

the seventeenth report that was filed for the period ending December 31, 2007, the Independent

Monitors have found the State of

New Jersey and the Division of

State Police to be in substantial

compliance with the terms ofthe Consent Decree. According to the monitors, compliance with

the terms of

the decree has been continuous and uninterrpted durng that period of

time. The

Offce of State Police Mfairs is presently preparg a report evaluating compliance by the State

Police with the terms ofthe decree for calendar year 2008. Furhermore, it is my understanding

that based on the performance ofthe State of

New Jersey and the State Police, the monitors have

recommended that the decree be dissolved.

15. In addition to meeting the requiements of the Consent Decree, the Cour should

be aware that the State of

New Jersey has taken additional steps to ensure that the goals and

objectives ofthe decree endure beyond the tenure of

the decree. Those steps are outlined below.

16. First, in anticipation of

the dissolution of

the Consent Decree and for the

purose of ensurig that the goals and objectives of and the Independent Monitors agreed to delegate the preparation of

the decree endure, the Deparent of Justice the monitors' most recent

6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 2962

report to the State of

New Jersey and, more specifically, to the Office of

State Police Affais

(OSP A). Under the direction and supervision ofthe monitors, OSP A performed the same

activities previously pedormed by the monitors to measure and evaluate the compliance of the

State Police with the provisions of the decree. The report prepared by OSP A was reviewed and

found acceptable by both the monitors and the Deparment of Justice. It was filed with the Cour

in April of2009.

17. In addition, OSP A has commenced preparation of the eighteenth report for the

period ending December 31, 2008. Preparation of

the report by OSPA was begu with the

approval of the Deparent of Justice and the Independent Monitors. In addition, the monitors

have provided OSP A with their counsel and guidance durng the preparation of the report. It is

anticipated that the report wil be completed within sixty days ofthe date ofthe motion to

termnate the Consent Decree.

18. The purose of

having OSPA prepare the Independent Monitors' most recent

report was to have the State of

New Jersey develop the capability and skills necessar to monitor

and evaluate the activities of the State Police with reference to the principles outlined in the

Consent Decree. I believe that with the oversight and guidance ofthe Independent Monitors,

OSP A has developed the skills necessar to monitor and evaluate the activities of the State

Police. Thus, I believe that the State of

New Jersey can and wil ensure that the goals and

objectives ofthe decree will continue to be served even after the dissolution of

the decree.

19. Second, the New Jersey Legislatue has passed legislation designed to codifY

many of

the goals and objectives of

the Consent Decree. The legislation embodies

recommendations made by Governor Jon S. Corzine's Advisory Committee on Police Standards.

7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 2963

Governor Corzine established the commttee to examine the policies and practices of

the

Division of State Police and its compliance with the decree. The commttee concluded that the

State Police, working in conjunction with OSP A, had restored accountability, integrty and professionalism within the organzation. The committee fuher concluded that the State Police had achieved compliance with the terms ofthe decree. The committee recommended that the

decree be terminated provided the reforms achieved by the State Police under the decree were

institutionalized and, if necessar, codified by statute.

20. The legislation directs the Attorney General, though the newly created Office

of Law Enforcement Professional Standards (the successor to OSPA), to continue to undertake

activities designed to: a) identifY potential disparties in the enforcement of

the law by the State

Police; b) identifY systemic problems as they may exist with respect to patrol activities

undertaken by the State Police; and c) monitor investigations of

trooper misconduct. The

legislation further directs the Office of

Law Enforcement Professional Standards to make

recommendations to the Attorney General of

New Jersey and the Superintendent ofthe State

Police for appropriate remedial actions when problems or disparties are identified. A copy of

the legislation is attached to this certification as Appendix A.
21. As outlined by the Independent Monitors in their reports, the State of

New Jersey

and the Division of State Police are in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Consent

Decree. The State of

New Jersey and the State Police have implemented policies and procedures

that constitute "performance of

the material items" of

the decree, and compliance with the terms

of the decree have been continuous and ongoing for approximately fort-five months. Thus, the
criteria for dissolution of decree established by Paragraph 131 have been satisfied.

8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-2 Filed 08/27/09 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 2964

22. Furhermore, the State of

New Jersey has enacted legislation that codifies many of

the goals and objectives ofthe Consent Decree to ensure that principles set forth by the decree

car forward following the dissolution ofthe decree. This legislation wil be signed into law by

Governor Corzine on August 27, 2009. In addition, the State of

New Jersey has established a

mechansm, namely the Offce of State Police Affairs (and its successor the Offce of Law

Enforcement Professional Standards), that wil enable me and my successors to continue to

review and evaluate the activities of the State Police following dissolution of the decree.

I certifY that the foregoing statements made by me are tre to the best of my information and belief. I am aware that if any statement contaied herein is willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: August 26, 2009

eral of the State of

New Jersey
i

9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-3 Filed 08/27/09 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2965

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-3 Filed 08/27/09 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2966

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-3 Filed 08/27/09 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2967

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-3 Filed 08/27/09 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2968

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-4 Filed 08/27/09 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 2969

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNTED STATES OF AMRICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY AN THE

DIVISION OF ST ATE POLICE OF THE

NEW JERSEY

DEPARTMENT OF

LAW AN PUBLIC SAFETY,

Defendants.

CIVI NO. 99-5970 (MLC)

CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE

I, Alberto Rivas, of

full age, hereby

certify the following in support of

the parties' joint

motion to terminate the Consent Decree in this matter:

I. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of

New Jersey. In addition, I

am admitted to practice before the Court in the District of

New Jersey.

2. In March of 2000, I was selected as one oftwo Independent Monitors under the

Consent Decree implemented in response to the above cited action. Dr. James Ginger, a

principal with the firm of

Public Management Resources, Inc., was selected as the second

Independent Monitor.

3. Under Paragraph lIS, the independent monitor is responsible for overseeing the

implementation of

the Consent Decree by Defendants. Under Paragraph 121, the independent

monitor is responsible for reporting to the Court on Defendants' progress in implementing the

decree.

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-4 Filed 08/27/09 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2970

4. Both Dr. Ginger and I have performed the duties of

the Independent Monitor on a

continuous basis since March of2000. In addition, we have fied with the Court reports

outlining Defendants' efforts to implement the Consent Decree. Our reports have been fied on a

regular and continuous basis since our selection as Independent Monitors.

5. The purpose of the Consent Decree is to reform the practices and procedures of

Defendant Division of State Police to ensure that citizens traveling the roadways of

New Jersey

are not deprived of

the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of

the

United States. The decree imposes the following requirements on Defendants:

a. Adopt and implement policies that mandate the non-discriminatory enforcement

of the motor vehicle laws of

the State of New Jersey by individual State troopers.

b. Ensure that individual State troopers properly document and record information
concerning all motor vehicle stops and any law enforcement activities that result from the stops.

c. Ensure that State Police supervisors review information collected during motor

vehicle stops to ensure that individual State troopers engage in the non-

discriminatory enforcement of

the motor vehicle laws.

d. Conduct supervisory and management reviews of State Police personnel and units

to ensure compliance with provisions of

the Consent Decree.

e. Develop and implement a computerized risk management database to assist in
conducting the appropriate supervisory and management reviews.

f Adopt policies and procedures governing the receipt, investigation and resolution
of citizen complaints of trooper misconduct to ensure the impartial investigation

and appropriate resolution of

those complaints.

2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-4 Filed 08/27/09 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 2971

g. Develop and provide training programs for all State troopers concerning the requirements ofthe Consent Decree, cultural diversity, non-discriminatory law enforcement and the principles governing search and seizure.

6. Since our appointments as Independent Monitors in March of2000, Dr. Ginger

and I have prepared sixteen reports evaluating the efforts of

Defendants to comply with the

provisions of the Consent Decree. A seventeenth report was prepared by the Offce of State

Police Affairs in the Deparment of

Law and Public Safety under our direction and supervision.

7. The purpose of each report was to evaluate the efforts of Defendants in

implementing the Consent Decree and to measure the success of

Defendants' efforts.

8. In preparing each report, Dr. Ginger and I personally reviewed hundreds of police
reports and video tapes documenting law enforcement activities undertaken by individual State troopers in the performance of their duties. We reviewed the reports and the video tapes for two reasons. First, we wished to determine whether individual State troopers properly documented

and recorded information concerning motor vehicle stops and any law enforcement activities that

resulted from the stops. Second, we wished to determine whether Defendants adopted and

implemented policies designed to achieve the non-discriminatory enforcement of

the motor

vehicle laws and criminal laws of

the State of

New Jersey.

9. The Consent Decree required Defendants to develop and implement a
computerized risk management database to assist in conducting the appropriate supervisory and management reviews. Defendants created the Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System (MAPPS). Information concerning motor vehicle stops which resulted in law enforcement activity was entered into MAPPS. In addition, State Police supervisors were required to enter information concerning the reviews they conducted of motor vehicle stops. In

3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-4 Filed 08/27/09 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 2972

preparation for each report, Dr. Ginger and I personally reviewed the information contained in

MAPPS to determine whether MAPS was operational and whether State Police supervisors

conducted supervisory and management reviews of State Police personnel and units to ensure

compliance with provisions of

the Consent Decree.

10. The Consent Decree required Defendants to adopt policies and procedures

governing the receipt, investigation and resolution of citizen complaints of

trooper misconduct to

ensure the impartial investigation and appropriate adjudication of

those complaints. In April of

2004, following thirty months of compliance with the provisions of

the decree relating to the

investigation of

trooper misconduct, the parties in this matter jointly petitioned the Court asking

that the provisions of

the decree relating to trooper misconduct be removed from further review

by the monitors. The Court removed all but two of the provisions relating to trooper misconduct.

Those provisions related to the timeliness of

the misconduct investigations and the procedures to

be followed in cases where an allegation of misconduct was substantiated. In preparation for

each report, Dr. Ginger and I personally reviewed fies prepared during misconduct

investigations to determine whether the investigations were completed in a timely manner and

whether the appropriate procedures were followed in cases where an allegation of misconduct

was substantiated.

II. The Consent Decree required Defendants to develop and provide training

programs for all State troopers concerning the provisions of

the decree, cultural diversity, non-

discriminatory law enforcement and the principles governing search and seizure. In preparation

for each report, Dr. Ginger and I designated Mary Kealoha of

Public Management Resources,

Inc., to assist us with an evaluation ofthe training function. Ms. Kealoha reviewed training

records maintained by the State Police Academy. In addition, Ms. Kealoha evaluated training

4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-4 Filed 08/27/09 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 2973

curricula developed by Defendants. Ms. Kealoha also audited training programs to determine

whether the programs were consistent with the provisions of

the decree. Finally, Ms. Kealoha

implemented an evaluation process specifically designed to measure the value of each training

program undertaken by Defendants.

12. For the first sixteen reports submitted to the Court, Dr. Ginger and I undertook the
activities outlined in Paragraphs 8 through II above and memorialized our findings in writing to
the Court.

13. For the most recent report fied with the Court, the Independent Monitors, in

consultation with the parties and with notice to the Court, delegated the performance ofthe

activities outlined in Paragraphs 8 through II above, and the drafting ofthe report, to the Offce

of State Police Affairs in the New Jersey Department of

Law and Public Safety. All of

the

activities undertaken by the Offce of State Police Affairs were performed under the direction

and supervision of

the Independent Monitors and both the Department of Justice and the

Independent Monitors approved of

the report fied with the Court.

14. Paragraph 131 of

the Consent Decree governs dissolution of

the decree. Under

Paragraph 131, the parties may move to terminate the decree if the Independent Monitors

determine that Defendants have been in substantial compliance with the decree for at least two

years.

15. Subparagraph (c) of

Paragraph 131 of

the Consent Decree defines "substantial

compliance" with the provisions of

the decree as the "performance of

the material terms" of

the

decree. The material terms of

the decree may "be determined by reference to overall objectives"

of the decree.

16. Beginning with the tenth report that we prepared for the period ending March 31,

5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-4 Filed 08/27/09 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 2974

2004, through the most recent report that was prepared by the Offce of State Police Afairs for

the period ending December 31, 2007, the Independent Monitors have concluded that Defendants

are in substantial compliance with the provisions ofthe Consent Decree. Defendants have

implemented policies and procedures that constitute "performance of

the material items" ofthe

decree. In addition, Defendants administer a training function that constitutes "performance of

the material items" of the decree.

17. Defendants' compliance with the provisions of

the Consent Decree from March

31,2004 through December 31,2007 has been uninterrupted. Thus, Defendants have met the

requirements set forth by the decree on a continuous and ongoing basis for a period offorty-five

months thereby satisfying the criteria for dissolution established by Paragraph 131 ofthe decree.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true to the best of my information and belief I am aware that if any statement contained herein is willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: August

25, 2009

6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-5 Filed 08/27/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2975

ANNE MILGRAM ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the Department of Law and Public Safety

By: Gregory A. Spellmeyer Deputy Attorney General (609) 984-9504 Gregory.Spellmeyer@dol.lps.state.nj.us

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON

______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

: HONORABLE MARY L. COOPER, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff,

: Civil Action No. 99-5970 (MLC)

v.

:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE : DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF : LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY,
: Defendants. ______________________________:

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TERMINATING CONSENT DECREE

This matter having come before the Court on a joint motion of Plaintiff, the United States, and Defendants, the State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the Department of Law and Public Safety, counsel appearing on behalf of both parties, and the Court having considered the papers submitted herein, this matter being decided under L.Civ.R. 78.1(b), and for good cause shown;

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-5 Filed 08/27/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2976

IT IS on this

day of

, 2009;

ORDERED that the Consent Decree entered in this matter on

December 30, 1999 is hereby terminated.

________________________________ HONORABLE MARY L. COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

-2-

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-6 Filed 08/27/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2977

ANNE MILGRAM ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the Department of Law and Public Safety

By: Gregory A. Spellmeyer Deputy Attorney General (609) 984-9504 Gregory.Spellmeyer@dol.lps.state.nj.us

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON ______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:HONORABLE MARY L. COOPER, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff,

: Civil Action No. 99-5970 (MLC)

v.

: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE : DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF : LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY,
: Defendants. ______________________________:

I hereby certify that an original and one copy of the Joint Notice of Motion to Terminate Consent Decree, Statement That No Brief Is Necessary, Certification of Anne Milgram, Certification of Dermot P. O’Grady, Certification of Alberto Rivas, Affidavit of James Ginger, and proposed form of Order were filed electronically with the Clerk of the United States District Court and that copies of these documents have been sent by regular mail to:

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 109-6 Filed 08/27/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2978

Kerry Krentler Dean, Esq. Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530
Dr. James Ginger, Ph.D. Public Management Resources, Inc. 101 N. Main Street, Suite 101 PMB 804 San Antonio, Texas 78205
Alberto Rivas, Esq. Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102
ANNE MILGRAM ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

DATED: August 27, 2009

By: s/ Gregory A. Spellmeyer Gregory A. Spellmeyer Deputy Attorney General

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 110 Filed 08/28/09 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 2979

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 99-5970 (MLC)

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE
I, James Ginger, being of full age, hereby depose and say the following in support of the parties' joint motion to terminate the Consent Decree in this matter:
I. I am a principal in the firm Public Management Resources, Inc., which performs management studies and audits of law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. I have participated in more than three dozen studies and audits during my tenure with Public Management Resources, Inc. In addition, I have experience in evaluating the operations and procedures of law enforcement agencies for compliance with and adherence to the Constitution of the United States.

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 110 Filed 08/28/09 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2980
2. In March of2000, I was selected as one of two Independent Monitors under the Consent Decree implemented in response to the above cited action. Alberto Rivas, Esq., a principal with the law firm of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas, L.L.C., was selected as the second Independent Monitor.
3. Under Paragraph 115, the independent monitor is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Consent Decree by Defendants. Under Paragraph 121, the independent monitor is responsible for reporting to the Court on Defendants' progress in implementing the decree.
4. Both Mr. Rivas and I have performed the duties of the Independent Monitor on a continuous basis since March of 2000. In addition, we have filed with the Court reports outlining Defendants' efforts to implement the Consent Decree. Our reports have been filed on a regular and continuous basis since our selection as Independent Monitors.
5. The purpose of the Consent Decree is to reform the practices and procedures of Defendant Division of State Police to ensure that citizens traveling the roadways of New Jersey are not deprived of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The decree imposes the following requirements on Defendants:
a. Adopt and implement policies that mandate the non-discriminatory enforcement of the motor vehicle laws of the State of New Jersey by individual State troopers.
b. Ensure that individual State troopers properly document and record information concerning all motor vehicle stops and any law enforcement activities that result from the stops.
2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 110 Filed 08/28/09 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 2981
c. Ensure that State Police supervisors review information collected during motor vehicle stops to ensure that individual State troopers engage in the nondiscriminatory enforcement of the motor vehicle laws.
d. Conduct supervisory and management reviews of State Police personnel and units to ensure compliance with provisions of the Consent Decree.
e. Develop and implement a computerized risk management database to assist in conducting the appropriate supervisory and management reviews.
f. Adopt policies and procedures governing the receipt, investigation and resolution of citizen complaints of trooper misconduct to ensure the impartial investigation and appropriate resolution of those complaints.
g. Develop and provide training programs for all State troopers concerning the requirements of the Consent Decree, cultural diversity, non-discriminatory law enforcement and the principles governing search and seizure.
6. Since our appointments as Independent Monitors in March of 2000, Mr. Rivas and I have prepared sixteen reports evaluating the efforts of Defendants to comply with the provisions of the Consent Decree. A seventeenth report was prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety under our direction and supervision.
7. The purpose of each report was to evaluate the efforts of Defendants in implementing the Consent Decree and to measure the success of Defendants' efforts.
8. In preparing each report, Mr. Rivas and I personally reviewed hundreds of police reports and video tapes documenting law enforcement activities undertaken hy individual State troopers in the performance of their duties. We reviewed the reports and the video tapes for two reasons. First, we wished to determine whether individual State troopers properly documented
3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 110 Filed 08/28/09 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 2982
and recorded information concerning motor vehicle stops and any law enforcement activities that resulted from the stops. Second, we wished to determine whether Defendants adopted and implemented policies designed to achieve the non-discriminatory enforcement of the motor vehicle laws and criminal laws of the State of New Jersey.
9. The Consent Decree required Defendants to develop and implement a computerized risk management database to assist in conducting the appropriate supervisory and management reviews. Defendants created the Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System (MAPPS). Information concerning motor vehicle stops which resulted in law enforcement activity was entered into MAPPS. In addition, State Police supervisors were required to enter information concerning the reviews they conducted of motor vehicle stops. In preparation for each report, Mr. Rivas and I personally reviewed the information contained in MAPPS to determine whether MAPPS was operational and whether State Police supervisors conducted supervisory and management reviews of State Police personnel and units to ensure compliance with provisions of the Consent Decree.
10. The Consent Decree required Defendants to adopt policies and procedures governing the receipt, investigation and resolution of citizen complaints of trooper misconduct to ensure the impartial investigation and appropriate adjudication of those complaints. In April of 2004, following thirty months of compliance with the provisions of the decree relating to the investigation of trooper misconduct, the parties in this matter jointly petitioned the Court asking that the provisions of the decree relating to trooper misconduct be removed from further review by the monitors. The Court removed all but two of the provisions relating to trooper misconduct. Those provisions related to the timeliness of the misconduct investigations and the procedures to be followed in cases where an allegation of misconduct was substantiated. In preparation for
4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 110 Filed 08/28/09 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 2983
each report, Mr. Rivas and I personally reviewed files prepared during misconduct investigations to determine whether the investigations were completed in a timely manner and whether the appropriate procedures were followed in cases where an allegation of misconduct was substantiated.
II. The Consent Decree required Defendants to develop and provide training programs for all State troopers concerning the provisions of the decree, cultural diversity, nondiscriminatory law enforcement and the principles governing search and sei=e. In preparation for each report, Mr. Rivas and I designated Mary Kealoha of Public Management Resources, Inc., to assist us with an evaluation of the training function. Ms. Kealoha reviewed training records maintained by the State Police Academy. In addition, Ms. Kealoha evaluated training curricula developed by Defendants. Ms. Kealoha also audited training programs to determine whether the programs were consistent with the provisions of the decree. Finally, Ms. Kealoha implemented an evaluation process specifically designed to measure the value of each training program undertaken by Defendants.
12. For the first sixteen reports submitted to the Court, Mr. Rivas and I undertook the activities outlined in Paragraphs 8 through II above and memorialized our findings in writing to the Court.
13. For the most recent report filed with the Court, the Independent Monitors, in consultation with the parties and with notice to the Court, delegated the performance of the activities outlined in Paragraphs 8 through II above, and the drafting of the report, to the Office of State Police Affairs in the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. All of the activities undertaken by the Office of State Police Affairs were performed under the direction
5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 110 Filed 08/28/09 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 2984
and supervision of the Independent Monitors and both the Department of Justice and the Independent Monitors approved of the report filed with the Court.
14. Paragraph 131 of the Consent Decree governs dissolution ofthe decree. Under Paragraph 131, the parties may move to terminate the decree if the Independent Monitors determine that Defendants have been in substantial compliance with the decree for at least two years.
15. Subparagraph (c) of Paragraph 131 of the Consent Decree defines "substantial compliance" with the provisions of the decree as the "performance of the material terms" of the decree. The material terms of the decree may "be determined by reference to overall objectives" of the decree.
16. Beginning with the tenth report that we prepared for the period ending March 31, 2004, through the most recent report that was prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs for the period ending December 31,2007, the Independent Monitors have concluded that Defendants are in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree. Defendants have implemented policies and procedures that constitute "performance of the material items" of the decree. In addition, Defendants administer a training function that constitutes "performance of the material items" of the decree.
6

• Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 110 Filed 08/28/09 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 2985
17. Defendants' compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree from March 31, 2004 through December 31, 2007 has been uninterrupted. Thus, Defendants have met the requirements set forth by the decree on a continuous and ongoing basis for a period of forty-five months thereby satisfying the criteria for dissolution established by Paragraph 131 of the decree.

City/County of~i=l'---'-Q"1._,y,_d,.,·~---

Commonwealth of Virginia

The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn

s+ , ~ay A~ 2& before me this

of

2o{Eby

Notary registration number: _3_.,_,k:..,,~'7'-'L.f"'-C)_,__l{_L__ _ _ _ __

-()g My commission expires:

I0-3\

7

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 111 Filed 09/21/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2986

RECEIVED

ANNE MILGRAM ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex

AUG 2 1 2009
A- A~ (j:trl) M

25 Market Street P.O. Box 112
Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Attorney for Defendants State

JNew

Jersey

and

WilliAM T. WALSH
CLERK the Division

of

State Police of the Department olf Law and Public Safety

'
By: Gregory A. Spellmeyer Deputy Attorney General (609) 984-9504 Gregory.Spellmeyer@dol.lps.state.nj.us

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants.

HONORABLE MARY L. COOPER, U.S.D.J.
Civil Action No. 99-5970 (MLC)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TERMINATING CONSENT DECREE

This matter having come before the Court on a joint motion of Plaintiff, the United States, and Defendants, the State of New Jersey and the Division of State Police of the Department of Law and Public Safety, counsel appearing on behalf of both parties, and the Court having considered the papers submitted herein, this matter being decided under L.Ciy.R. 78.1(b), and for good cause shown;

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 111 Filed 09/21/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2987

IT IS on this ;0/~ day of

' 2009;

ORDERED that the Consent Decree entered in this matter on

December 30, 1999 is hereby terminated.

_ RY L. COO ER T TES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

-2-

 
 •

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1

Monitors' Ninth Report

•

Long-term Compliance Audit

Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)

•

In the

United States District Court,

•

.,,.- ., . "' -

for the District of New Jersey

United States Department of Justice

RECEIVED

Civil Rights Division

•

State of New Jersey

•

Submitted by:

Public Management Resources

•

San Antonio, Texas and

Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas

Newark, New Jersey

•

•

January 23, 2004

•

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 2

•

Topic

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Page No. v

•

1 Introduction 1.1 Overall Status Assessment 1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1 1
1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Progress toward Compliance

4

•

2 Assessment of Compliance

6

2.1 Methodology

6

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

6

!.i
I

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

12

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

15

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

•

Motor Vehicle Stops

17

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

27

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 32

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

32

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

36

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

37

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

•

and Procedures

38

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 40

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

43

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

46

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions 47

•

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 48 2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

51

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

53

•

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

54

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Table of Contents

p. i

•

------··--·

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 3

Jersey Turnpike

55

2.32 Compliance with Task 57: Troopers to Provide Name and

•

Badge Number 2.33 Compliance with Task 58: State to Inform Civilians re

56

Complaints/Compliments

56

2.34 Compliance with Task 59 Availability of Complaint/Compliment

Forms

58

•

2.35 Compliance with Task 60: Community Outreach

59

2.36 Compliance with Task 61: Receipt of Citizens' Complaints

60

2.37 Compliance with Task 62: Institution of a 24-hour Toll-Free

Telephone Hotline

60

2.38 Compliance with Task 63: PSB to Receive All Citizens' Complaints 69

•

2.39 Compliance with Task 64: Relocation of Office of Professional

Standards Offices

63

2.40 Compliance with Task 65: Referral to OAG of Specific

Dismissed Charges

64

2.41 Compliance with Task 66: Notice to Office of State Police Affairs of

•

Pending Civil Actions

65

2.42 Compliance with task 67: Notice of Criminal Involvement of

Members

66

2.43 Compliance with Task 68: Notice of Adverse Involvement

67

2.44 Compliance with Task 69: Duty to Report Misconduct

68

2.45 Compliance with Task 70: Creation of the Office of

•

Professional Standards

69

2.46 Compliance with Task 71: Formal Eligibility Requirements for PSB 70

2.47 Compliance with Task 72: Execution of Training for Office of

Professional Standards Staff

71

2.48 Compliance with Task 73: Initiation of Misconduct Investigations 72

••

2.49 Compliance with Task 74: Responsibility for Conducting Internal

Investigations

73

2.50 Compliance with Task 75: Prohibition of Conflict of Interest in

Investigations

74

2.51 Compliance with Task 76: Prohibition of Group Interviews

75

•

2.52 Compliance with Task 77: Alternative Locations for Interviews

76

2.53 Compliance with Task 78: Investigation of Collateral Misconduct 77

2.54 Compliance with Task 80: Revision of the "Internal

Investigations Manual"

78

2.55 Compliance with Task 81: Preponderance of the Evidence

•

Standard for Internal Investigations

79

2.56 Compliance with Task 82: MVR Tape Review in Internal

Investigations

80

2.57 Compliance with Task 83: State to Consider Circumstantial

Evidence in Internal Investigations

80

2.58 Compliance with Task 84: Required Case Dispositions in Internal

•

Investigations

81

2.59 Compliance with Task 85: No Closure upon Withdrawal

Table of Contents

p. ii

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 4

of Complaint

83

2.60 Compliance with Task 86: Development of a Final Investigative

•

~~rt

M

2.61 Compliance with Task 87: State to Attempt to Complete

Investigations within 45 Days

85

2.62 Compliance with Task 88: Imposition of Appropriate Discipline upon

Sustained Complaint

85

•

2.63 Compliance with Task 89: Imposition of Appropriate Discipline upon

Finding of Guilt or Liability

86

2.64 Compliance with Task 90: Imposition of Appropriate Discipline in

Consultation with MAPPS

87

2.65 Compliance with Task 91: Tracking of Open Office of Professional

•

Standards Cases

89

2.66 Compliance with Task 92: Inform the Complainant upon

Resolution of Investigations

90

2.67 Training Assessment

91

2.68 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

•

Training Programs

96

2.69 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

104

2.70 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

106

2.71 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

107

•

2.72 Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

108

2.73 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

110

2.74 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

111

•

2. 75 Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

113

2.76 Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

115

2. 77 Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 116

•

2.78 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

106

2.79 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

107

2.80 Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion ofTraining Data in MAPPSO

P~rnm

100

•

2.81 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

109

2.82 Compliance with Task 11 O: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

126

2.83 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Motor Vehicle Stops

127

•

2.84 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen
Complaint Processes

128

Table of Contents

p. iii

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 5

2.85 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

•

the Office of State Police Affairs

129

2.86 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

130

2.87 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor 131

2.88 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

132

•

2.89 Compliance with Task 120: State Police to Reopen Internal Investigations Determined to be Incomplete

133

2.90 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 134

2.91 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

136

•

2.92 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

137

3.0 Executive Summary

138

•

•

·•

•

•

•

Table of Contents

p. iv

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 6

Executive Summary

•

Efforts by the State of New Jersey to comply with the 124 tasks to which it

agreed when it signed the consent decree continue to both bear fruit and to

meet with some disappointments. The ninth reporting period identifies the

salient factors related to compliance in six areas:

•

• On-Road performance;

• Training;

• Supervision;

•

• MAPPS development; • Inspections, audit and quality control; and • Citizens' complaints.

Each of these is discussed in some detail below.

•

on-Road Performance

The New Jersey State Police continue to make Improvements in the protocols

used to ensure on-road performance in processes related to the consent decree.

The performance of road troopers continues to be reviewed by five levels of

•

audit and quality control compliance processes: first-line supervision, a field operations supervisory review cadre, review by quality assurance bureau

personnel, review by personnel at OSPA, and review by the monitors. These

performance review and assessment processes have resulted in dramatic

•

reductions of instances in which the State Police make errors that result in
Constitutional infringements, e.g., illegal searches, improper consent requests, improper frisks, etc. During the ninth reporting period, the monitors noted four

motor vehicle stops that involved a Constitutional question (two frisks that were

improperly conducted or documented and two searches improperly conducted or

reported). That number was reduced from ten in the fifth reporting period, 13 in

•

the sixth reporting period and 14 in the seventh reporting period and seven in
the eighth period. During the fifth reporting period, 9.1. percent of all errors

noted by the monitors included potential Constitutional violations. During the

sixth reporting period, 65 percent of all errors involved potential Constitutional

violations. During the seventh reporting period, 42 percent of all errors involved

•

potential Constitutional violations. During the eighth period only 15 percent
involved Constitutional Issues. This period, four of the 46 errors noted involved

Constitutional issues, the lowest percentage of errors (8.7 percent) in five

periods .

•

Ninth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-l

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 7

•

Troubling, however, is the fact that the monitors found four problems with

•

consent search requests this period, although no problems were noted with canine deployments or use of force Incidents this period. While the State has not yet reached full compliance with the consent decree in the area of on-road law

enforcement procedures, the majority of errors being noted by the monitors are

procedural, not Constitutional. Overall error rates for on-road law enforcement

activities this period rose, from 13 in the eighth period to 19 percent this period.

Training
Marked improvement in the staffing levels of the State Police Training Academy were noted this reporting period. In addition, a new commandant of the Academy has been appointed this reporting period, and the technical reporting arrangements for the Academy have been changed. The State has continued to provide required training (Fourth Amendment, ethics and cultural diversity) to pre-service (recruit) and in-service personnel. The Academy has developed and implemented a new staffing analysis process based on defined workload elements. The Academy has begun the process of development for internal (Academy-based) audit procedures for training delivered to the New Jersey State
Police, and the monitors are beginning to observe adherence In most training
development process to the five-step development cycle outlined for the State by the monitors in 2001.
Some problems persist, however. The process of managing external providers of training has created some significant hurdles for the training process this reporting period, with training being developed and delivered that does not meet the requirements stipulated by the parties for training development and delivery, and, further, fails to meet the high standards established by the Academy for its own training development processes. Further, the monitoring process has noted
some problematic issues with the training delivery process in the areas of cultural
awareness, ethics and executive development.

Supervision
Supervisory systems continue to be revised and fine tuned within the Division this reporting period. It is apparent that the State is conceptualizing and testing
various methods of supervision of road-based troopers in an attempt to identify
the method that will best provide quality oversight and mentoring for law enforcement personnel engaged in on-road actiVities governed by the consent
decree. These supervisory processes are also designed to improve compliance
with New Jersey State Police SOPs. To date, however, supervision remains the weak link in the compliance process. Supervisory review of in·field performance
is finally improved to the point that it can be documented and measured, which,

Ninth Independent Monitors' Report

Page·ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 8
(

in and of itself, is a major accomplishment. Unfortunately, these measurements indicate that road-level supervision is only 74 percent effective at this point, allowing reporting, procedural and Constitutional errors to slip through the supervisory review process. Of 120 motor vehicle stop incidents reviewed by supervisory personnel this reporting period, the monitors found supervisory errors (some significant) in 31 of those incidents. Supervisors missed law enforcement personnel failures in areas such as failures to note improperly conducted or documented searches, failing to note improperly reported consent searches, and failing to note procedural failures In on-road activities.

Supervision is the quintessential factor in improving on-the-road performance.

Until the State begins to identify effective supervisory processes, to identify

I I ,•. ,

supervisors who are failing to perform to standards established by the Division,

isolate the reasons for those failures, and take remedial action, compliance In

New Jersey State Police field operations will be difficult to attain.

MAPPS Development
The State has finally implemented the MAPPS performance management system, making the system available to supervisory and management personnel at all levels of the organization. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark integration into the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors. While MAPPS is now truly "operational," it is not yet being used to manage the operations of the New Jersey State Police on a day-to-day basis. These management functions are coming on line incrementally, beginning in January, 2004 through April, 2004. The MAPPS system should allow much more flexible and focused management of compliance issues by the Division.

Inspections, Audit and Quality Control

The State continues an aggressive quality control program for Office of Professional Standards investigations and for Field Operations motor vehicle stop

systems. Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office

of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for

I

conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. Instances of poor
performance at the supervisory level do not always result in remedial action (see

Supervision).

Citizens' Complaints
I Ninth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-iii

I

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50 Filed 01/23/04 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 9

Independent Monitors' Ninth Report

•

Period Ending September 30, 2003

1 Introduction

This document represents the ninth "Independent Monitors' Report" (IMR)

•

assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and

the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document

reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for

•

the period Aprill, 2002 through September 30, 2003. In order to complete the report in a timely fashion, monitoring activities were accomplished during the period October 6, 2003 through October 15, 2003.

The report is organized into three sections, identified below:

•

• Introduction; • Compliance Assessment; and

• Summary.

The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions

•

used by the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of "compliance" are described in Section One of the report. Section

Two of the report, "Compliance Assessment," includes the findings of the

monitoring process Implemented by the monitors and specific examples of

•

compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, "Summary," provides an overall assessment of the State's performance for this reporting period.

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

•

Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date

of appointments of the Independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times

deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.

•

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree.

It reports on the State's compliance using the individual requirements of the

decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the

•

requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-l

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 1 of 26 PageID: 10
•

against using "to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers

•

or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop" (Decree at para 26). The following components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as "Phase I," and "Phase II," with the

definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

•

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on·site and have been

•

provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

• Selection of a random or stratified random sample;

••

• Selection of all available records of that type. Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on

provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police

or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every Instance of selection of random

•

samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring team while on-site.

The performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the

•

consent decree was assessed by the monitoring team during the period ending September 30, 2003. The ninth independent monitors' report was submitted to the court during the month of December, 2003.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and

•

were formed by a review of the following types of documents: • Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course

of business1; and/or

• Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state

•

government during the normal course of business. 1 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as

documentation of compliance "special reports" prepared by state personnel

describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring

•

team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-2

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 2 of 26 PageID: 11

•

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two

components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance

is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of

•

policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required
by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of
a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be

followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail

the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve

•

the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training,

supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

•

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology

used to assess the task, and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to

note, however, that a finding of non-compliance does not mean the State is

•

engaging in inappropriate behavior. It simply means the State has not yet completed Its efforts toward compliance. The graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate status in each

compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below. The

first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first

year and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the

••

time allowed by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time

period is represented by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth

segments represent the time required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase

I or Phase II compliance. A vertically patterned light blue bar 11111111111111111 indicates

•

that compliance was achieved in the time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow

bar

indicates that compliance was achieved at a later date than

originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in the opinion of the

monitors, does not seriously affect the State's eventual compliance with the

decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that compliance

•

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the delay

may seriously affect the State's eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the

decree, and which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the

State's successful compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or COllld not

•

be monitored is represented by a hollow bar 1 1 .

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-3

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 3 of 26 PageID: 12

1.3.3 Standards for "Compliance"

•

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for "compliance" to be used for assessing compliance for all critical tasks stipulated by the decree which can

be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the

number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the requirements

•

of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is

adapted by mutual agreement for this project.

•

1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Tasknn

2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been

assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which

•

Phase II compliance has not been attained (but which does not affect the State's eventual compliance).

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

•

Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of "policy compliance:" the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the

processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early

evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day

•

implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational complianceinstitutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.

1.5 Progress toward Compliance

•

During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; Development

of a MAPPS performance management system; inspections, audit and quality

control; and investigation of internal and citizens' complaints. Each of these

•

areas is discussed briefly below .

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-4

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 4 of 26 PageID: 13

1.5.1 Training

•

Marked Improvement in the staffing levels of the State Police Training Academy were noted this reporting period. In addition, a new commandant of the

Academy has been appointed this reporting period, and the technical reporting

arrangements for the Academy have been changed. The State has continued to

•

provide required training (Fourth Amendment, ethics and cultural diversity) to pre-service (recruit) and in-service personnel. The Academy has developed and
implemented a new staffing analysis process based on defined workload

elements. The Academy has begun the process of development for internal

(Academy-based) audit procedures for training delivered to the New Jersey State

•

Police, and the monitors are beginning to observed adherence in most training
development to the five-step development cycle outlined for the State by the monitors in 2001.

1.5.2 Supervision

•

Supervisory systems continue to be revised and fine tuned within the Division this reporting period. It is apparent that the State is conceptualizing and testing

various methods of supervision of road-based troopers in an attempt to Identify

the method that will best provide quality oversight and mentoring for law

••

enforcement personnel engaged in on-road activities governed by the consent decree. These supervisory processes are also designed to improve compliance

with New Jersey State Police SOPs.

1.5.3 MAPPS Development

•

The State has finally implemented the MAPPS performance management system, making the system available to supervisory and management personnel at all

levels of the organization. The system can be used to review trooper and

supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the

•

trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark integration into the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been

developed and approved by the monitors.

1.5.4 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control

The State continues an aggressive quality control program for Office of

Professional Standards investigations and for Field Operations motor vehicle stop

systems. Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office

•

of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-S

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 5 of 26 PageID: 14

•

1.5.5 Citizens' Complaints The State continues to staff and manage Its Office of Professional Standards with

an eye toward ensuring quality investigations of internal and citizens' complaints.

This includes audits of persons subjected to traffic stops and audits of completed

•

OPS investigations. No new initiatives have been developed in this area; however, performance has been in compliance for several reporting periods.

2 Assessment of Compliance

•

2.1 Methodology The monitors assessed the State's compliance using practices agreed upon

between the parties and the monitors. "Compliance" was assessed as Phase I or

Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above)•

•

The following sections of the Ninth Monitors' Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the 97 tasks to

which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals

with actions of the State to comply with the decree between April 1, 200 and

•

september 30, 2003 . 2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race·Ethnicity

in Decision Making

•

Task 26

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

,.

Phase II

I

Task 26 stipulates that:

26. Except In the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout"

or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers

shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any

•

fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in

deciding upon the scope or substance of any

enforcement action or procedure in connection with or

during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state

•

troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more speclflc suspects who

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-6

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 6 of 26 PageID: 15
•

have been Identified or described In part by race or

national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part

•

on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given

individual Is the person being sought.

Methodology

•

During the ninth site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured

on-site reviews of the operations of twelve New Jersey State Police Road Stations.

These reviews were conducted of operations reported during the dates of April 1,

•

2003 through September 30, 2003, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available). The team conducted these reviews of Troops A and D, including the Troop A stations of Atlantic City, Bellmawr, Bridgeton, Buena Vista,

camden, Port Norris, Tuckerton, Woodbine, and Woodstown. Troop D stations

(Moorestown, Cranbury and Newark) were also reviewed. As part of this review,

•

members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business data on 258 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 244 motor vehicle stop Incidents involving

law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation

was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring

•

team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team's methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the decree, and are

critically important In the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.

•

Data Requests Prior to its site visits in October, 2003, the monitoring team requested of the

State electronic and hard-copy data regarding State Police operations. These

data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other

•

non-electronic data requests: • Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected

relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight

articulated post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree,

•

i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or nonconsensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband;

arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical,

mechanical or chemical force .

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-7

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 7 of 26 PageID: 16
•

• Electronic data for all trooper-Initiated motor vehicle stop "communications

•

center call-ins" for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.

• The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for

all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving

•

use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.

Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor

•

vehicle stop records for Troops A and D (taken from the State's motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop "event" records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested

by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the

active dates of the ninth site visit.

•

Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the ninth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.

Motor Vehicle Stops

•

Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The

methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of

identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree,

•

i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the

occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical

force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the

•

CAD records provided by the State.

Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment.

•

• Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that

were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor

vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses,

•

consent to search reports, etc.), referred to as Type I data;

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-8

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 8 of 26 PageID: 17

•

Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Ninth Site Visit

ofActi~~~--~--~Re~!PG~Irt~R~eri~ew~s~~---T~a~•oe~R~ev~iew~s~~

•

SMeVlSecItnevdoMlvVinSgICncoindesnetn~t,-1-------=2~5-8------1-------

244
-------1

- rS.M:eV:aSr:c:Ihn:v:o:l:vi-n:g::C-a=n-in-e--:-:-:::--c----91-------"-----+-·~----.8:2::~.----

De lo ment

_);:;:::-5_ _~,·-+--- -,----l~l:::._S_ _ ,_~

•

MVS Involving Use of

Force

---:---+------='15 ______-+------~1=:23______

Probable cause Searches

52

48

of Vehicles

- - - - _ _ _ __ ----!--~--"'

Probable Cause Searches

65

54

•

of Persons

_ _ _ _ - - ' - - - - - - • • ' '

--'--------· ----'

• Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing

•

recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and

• Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events

following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure

•

developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.

These records Indicated six events that resulted in a consent search request from

the stations selected for review this reporting period, and three events from

•

other stations resulting In consent search requests, for a total of nine consent search requests. 4 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed
by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and

2 One stop event that involved a consent search was not recorded as such by the State, and was

•

not discovered until the monitoring team reviewed the randomly selected MVSR as part of its Type I event review process. No evidence exists to indicate that the failure to report this consent search to the monitoring team was intentional. The State has taken steps to ensure that no

future incidents of failure to report critical incidents occur.

J One stop discovered

event that involved until the monitoring

a use team

of force was not reported as such by the State, and
reviewed the randomly selected MVSR as part of its

was not Type I

•

event review process. 4 Two consent requests were declined by drivers during the reporting period.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-9

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 9 of 26 PageID: 18
•

execution of the search. The reader should note that one of these nine consent

•

searches was not reported to the monitoring team as a consent search, but was found as part of the monitoring team's Type I review of randomly selected motor vehicle stop incidents. While the monitoring team detected no Indication that

this omission was intentional, the State has taken steps to ensure that future

problems with reporting are avoided .

•

All six consent searches occurring within selected stations were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team. A total of

three consent search request incidents from other Troops were reviewed as well.

Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 15

•

times during the reporting period. Reports from alliS of these events were reviewed by the monitoring team, and videos from all 15 of those events were also reviewed by the monitoring team. Force reportedly was used by New Jersey

State Police personnel in 13 motor vehicle stop Incidents during the reporting

period, and reports from each of these incidents were reviewed by the

•

monitoring team. Video tapes of 12 of the use of force events were reviewed by members of the monitoring team during the ninth site visit. The reader should note that one of these uses of force was not reported to the monitoring team as

a use of force, but was identified by the monitoring team as a report of its Type I

review process. The monitoring team detected no indication that this omission

•

was intentional. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor

Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations,

arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police

•

activities; • All known consent search requests;

• All known uses of force; and

• All known deployments of canine units.

•

In addition, obviously, video tapes of some these events also were reviewed by
members of the monitoring team during their ninth site visit, as noted above.

These incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types

of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the

•

monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table two, below .

Type I Event Reviews

•

A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-10

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 10 of 26 PageID: 19
•

consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records In the

•

patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a

consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks

of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of

•

contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were

noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey

State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which

•

there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. Fourteen Type I reviews were conducted this period.

Type II Event Review

•

A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These

data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data

were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested

•

and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 244 Type II reviews were conducted this period.

Type III Event Review

In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which

should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were

not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a

protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For

•

example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, were selected for review, six events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review In the past,

had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the

monitoring team. A total of 44 Type III reviews were conducted this period.

•

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-11

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 11 of 26 PageID: 20

•
Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

•

Station 1 Atlantic City

Type I
Reviews

TypeD
Reviews

Type III Reviews

Expressway

25

24

9

2 Bei.!ITlawr

2.~.

21

18

3 Bridgeton

33

17

6

•

4 Buena Vis~
~~amden' 6 Port Norris

15
48 ,_.,,.....,_ .... 13

--· 15
45 '"' 9

5
Q__ ---
0

7 Tuckerton... ..

8

8

3

''•""

•

8 Woodbine

14

9 Woq9stown .

10

10 Moorestown

10

12

3

9 -
10

0 0

11 Cranbury

17

17

0

-~-·

•

12 Newark -"o:':t'ch···er

". ---- 14 23 258 ... ..

14

0

43

0

244 - 44

Status

•

The monitoring team's review of New Jersey State Pollee SOPs indicates that the agency remains in Phase I and Phase II compliance with Task 26. The monitors

continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively

minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for

•

consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. The vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted

by members of the State Police are "non-discretionary," e.g., searches incidental

to arrest, with a total of 193 of the 255 searches of persons being conducted

"incidental to arrest." Of the 215 searches of vehicles reviewed this reporting

•

period, 162 were "non-discretionary" searches incidental to arrest. The monitors commend the State for continuing to improve the quality and tenor of the

"average" traffic stop observed by the monitoring team during the past four

reporting periods. As with past reporting periods, this period the monitors found

•

5 Events were reviewed from motor vehicle stops made by personnel assigned to the Camden Initiative during this reporting period

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-12

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 12 of 26 PageID: 21

no indications, in any of the 258 incidents reviewed, of law enforcement activities

reflective of race- or ethnicity-based decision making.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance
2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the

Motor Vehicle stop Criteria

•

If Task 27
Phase I

3

4

s

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase II

•

Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned

"F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops),• dated December 14, 1999,

which establishes criteria to be followed by state

troopers In selecting which vehicles to stop for violation

•

of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the
nondiscrimination requirements set forth In 11 26 and has
been approved by the United states In so far as the

protocol identifies practices and procedures required by

the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as

soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate

•

the Implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with '11'!1 26 and 129.

Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval fi'QITI the United States and

the Independent Monitor•

•

Methodology

Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and

video review outlined in sectiOn 2.2 above. The monitors have noted that a new

•

level of supervision has been added to the New Jersey State Police road stations during this site visit. New Jersey State Police Motor Vehicle Stop Reports are now being reviewed by "dedicated" MVSR review personnel, sergeants assigned

to road stations who are tasked with reviewing selected MVSRs for quality. The

State envisiOns these additional first-line supervisors as a supplement to, not a

•

supplantation of, existing first-line supervisors. In addition, the State continues

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-13

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 13 of 26 PageID: 22
•

to provide audit and quality control services through the Office of State Police

•

Affairs . Problems continue to be noted in this new system of supervision, however.

Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present

In 21.7 percent of all monitored activity this reporting period, up from 10.4

•

percent last period, a substantial increase of 108 percent. While there were some exceptional success stories for supervision this reporting period, supervisory review of video tapes of motor vehicle stops has failed to note some

rather significant errors on the part of troopers in the completion of their motor

vehicle stop reports.

•

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and

analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

•

A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the pending MAPPS process Indicates that the agency is in Phase I compliance with the

requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the

monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel,

•

and continues to note deficiencies in operatlonalization of the training provided . Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. Full compliance with this task cannot be monitored until the MAPPS begins to be used as a routine

process for managing the New Jersey State Police.

•

Of the 258 incidents reviewed by the monitors this reporting period, 120 of these were also reviewed by supervisory personnel from the New Jersey State Police. In its review of those same 120 incidents, the monitoring team noted 78 errors

in procedure, reporting or constitutionality of the events observed and/or

reported. These 78 errors were noted in 31 separate incidents (an average of

•

2.5 errors per event). The monitors' reviews and the supervisors' reviews should be virtually identical, as both are based on established SOPs, trained throughout

the Division.

For example, the following issues were noted with 31 MVSRs (from among the

•

258 reviewed this reporting period), which were, apparently, not noted by supervisory personnel reviewing the motor vehicle stops. From those 31 events, the monitors found 78 reporting problems that should have been noted by

supervisory review. Of those 78 problems, supervisory personnel actually noted

only 14 of these, missing 64 reporting problems. These included:

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-14

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 14 of 26 PageID: 23
•

• Two troopers articulated insufficient reason to suspect drivers or

•

passengers were armed in their MVSRs detailing frisks of drivers or passengers of vehicles. • Nine troopers submitted MVSRs with one or more substantial errors

in the reports, which conflicted with events observed on the in-car

video tapes reviewed by the monitoring team.

•

• 53 separate violations of New Jersey State Pollee reporting or infield practice procedures (ranging from failure to call-in to the communications center prior to conducting a search (10) failure to

activate the in-car MVR as required (8), failure to call-in the motor

vehicle stop information as required (36), failure to follow consent

•

request requirements (3), improper requests to exit a vehicle (1) and improper or poorly documented searches of persons and vehiCles (2) and supervisors reviewing these reports and MVRs

failed to take note of the procedural errors.

•

These errors were located among 31 motor vehicle stops. This constitutes an error rate of 31 of 120 motor vehicle stops, or 25.8 percent, far outside the allowable flve percent error rate for this task. The monitors noted at least one

incident this reporting period in which a consent request slipped through State

Police reporting requirements at the initial point of review. Additionally, two

•

problematic searches (one of a vehicle and one of a person) went unnoticed by State Police review. Remaining errors (State Police procedural violations, and less problematic consent decree violations-activation times for video and audio

recordings, for example) are less troublesome than poor consent search request

practices and improper searches. While a continuing problem exists of failure to

•

notify communications prior to conducting a consent search or a non-consensual search of a vehicle, the monitors have found that, for the most part, the searches are being conducted properly, i.e., based on proper probable cause. It

is the process of notification that is not being followed. 6

•

Not all in-field errors were missed by supervisory personnel, however. In fact, the monitoring team has noted an increase In supervisory review processes, and resulting performance notices-both positive and negative-based on those

reviews. Several of these reviews indicated to the monitoring team that the New

Jersey State Police are beginning to note many procedural errors prior to the

•

monitoring team's noting them. A total of 120 MVS incidents reviewed by the monitoring team were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. Within those 120 events, the monitoring team noted 78 various errors. Supervisory personnel

6 The parties have agreed, effective this reporting period, non-consensual searches of motor

•

vehiCles that result from searches incidental to arrest will not be included in the "notice to ODU" requirement. The monitors have agreed to this process for their error rate calculations.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-15

•

--------------------------------Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 15 of 26 PageID: 24
•

reviewing these same incidents noted 25 of these 78 errors. Supervisors noted

•

five improper frisks, four problematic requests for drivers or passengers to exit their vehicles, three Issues with consent requests, two issues with vehicle searches, one issue with a search of a person, 43 non-decree issues, eight motor

vehicle recorder issues, eight stop call-in errors, and one search call-in error?

•

Further, it appears that the 258 stop reports receiving a Type I or Type II review contained 155 reporting errors. A total of 25 motor vehicle stops, not reviewed by supervisory personnel, contained 58 reporting errors. In all, the monitors

found 46 problematic motor vehicles stops, from among the 258 reviewed, an

overall error rate of 17.8 percent. The reader should note that five of the

•

oversights on the part of supervisory personnel were serious, e.g., failing to note

that a consent search was made but not reported, failing to note improper frisks,

failing to note improper searches. As a result, the compliance with Task 27 for this reporting period.

State is found to be Problems associated

out of with this

task are two-fold: errors continue to be made, and supervisory personnel

•

continue to fail to note substantial numbers of these errors.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: Not In Compliance 2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

•

Task28

Phase I

Phase II

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

•

Task 28 stipulates: 28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their

authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches In a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall

continue to require: that state troopers may request

•

7 The monitors have advised the parties that, in an effort to encourage proactive

supervisory review, if a supervisory review notes and remedies a problematic

procedure, prior to the time the monitors notify the State of the stop incidents

•

they will monitor for the site visit, the event will be noted in the monitors' report, but not counted as a "error."

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-16

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 16 of 26 PageID: 25
•

consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers

can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search

•

would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the

driver or other person authorized to give consent which

precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search

be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by

•

the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent

search at a location consistent with the safety of both

the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants,

which right can only be waived after the driver or other

person authorized to give consent Is advised of such

•

right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally

withdraw that consent at any time during the search

without giving a reason; and that state troopers

immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle If

and when consent Is withdrawn (except that a search

•

may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).

Methodology

•

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

•

The monitoring team reviewed a total of nine law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the ninth report's operational dates. None of

these nine involved a consent search request that was declined. A description of

consent request events, by race of driver, Is presented in Table Three below.

Tables Three through Five depict data from the 258 incidents reviewed this

•

reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 258 incidents. The number in parentheses In

this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus,

for Tables Three through Five, there were 89 white drivers of the total of 258

drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this

•

period, constituting 57.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the

motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Three depicts four consent

requests of white drivers, four requests of black drivers, one request of Hispanic

drivers, and no requests of drivers of "other" race/ethnicity. The last column,

•

"Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, which were,

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-17

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 17 of 26 PageID: 26

subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to

•

100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.

The reader should note that the State has reduced substantially the number of

consent search requests, from a high of 59 the fifth reporting period to only nine

•

this period. As such, the numbers reported in Table Three are not statistically
meaningful when reported viz a viz race and ethnicity.

Seven of the nine consent searches were completed in conformance with the

requirements of the consent decree. Two consent requests were not conducted

•

in conformance with the decree and State Police procedures. One request involved a protracted stop for a cracked windshield. The problems with this consent search were caught and corrected prior to the monitoring team's

selection of the incident for review. A second consent search simply was not

reported by the trooper requesting the consent. Supervisory review noted this

error, but only after the event was selected by the monitors for review.

Supervisors were present in four consent searches this reporting period?

An error rate of one of nine consent searches constitutes 11.1 percent, falling

outside the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the

•

standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree.

Table Three-Consent Request Activity

•

r-::R:--a--c-e-:/--E--t-h:-n--ic,-:-i·t·y

Number-of Drivers

Number of Percent Consent

Requests for

Request by

Search8'9--+___,_,Ra,_ce~t!=tf1nicitv

l-----_!w!:!!h!.!:!ite"l-~8~U~31.8°_~v~'L)--- + - - - 4

4.7

•

;r-------·--

~-~--~B~Ia~ck~_146(S6:6%)

--

-

--

-'

-H-is'=oa=n+ic-

-

--

:28(10. go;J
__:=:==--=

'

-

-

-

-

!

-

-

-

-
-

---4~1-'------1----·----'3"2"..7-'-6- -----------=------J- .. _ _--=--::::______

1--
L__~-

--- _
__ -··----

_[)~th~e~r-~2~(10~_!:.08°(<,,o_)'---+---O:::---··--·---- - 1 -

Total

_~!?,--"8'-----_

.9::___ _ ___l_______

j_

---"--o_ __
__ -~------ ___

_

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

aTwo consent search requests were refused . 9 One white male and one Hispanic male drivers refused consent.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-18

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 18 of 26 PageID: 27

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor

Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

-·

Phase I Phase II

9 10 11 12

Task 29a stipulates that:

•

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data

a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F·55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C·22 (Activity

Reporting System), F·3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio

•

Procedures), F•l9 (MVR equipment), F·31 (COnsent searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop search Report dated 12{21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1{91))

that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both

marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to

accurately record in written reports, Jogs, radio

•

communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all
motor vehide stops:

1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who

initiated the stop;

2. name and Identification number of trooper(s) who

•

actively participated in the stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop ~menced and at which it

ended;

S.llcense number/state of stopped vehicle;

SA. description of stopped vehicle;

•

6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the
driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and racejethnlclty of any passenger who

was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched,

requested to consent to

a vehicle search, or arrested;

•

8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving

violation);

SA. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (I.e., moving violation or non·

•

moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]);

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-19

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 19 of 26 PageID: 28

10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to

exit the vehicle;
11. whether the vehlc;le 12. whether consent to

oc;cupant(s) were search the vehicle

frisked; was requested

and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent

to

search

the

vehicle;
13. whether

a

drug-deted:ion

canine

was

deployed

and

whether an alert occurred;
13A. a description of the circumstances

that

the deployment of a drug-deted:lon canine;

14. whether a non-consensual search of the

prompted vehicle was

conducted; 14A. the circumstances

t

hat

prompted

a

non-consensual

search of the vehlc;le; 15. whether any contraband

or

other

property

was

seized; 1SA. a description

of

the

type

and

quan

tity

of

any

contraband or other property selled; 16. whether the vehide occupant(s) were

arrested,

and

itd1t1fhre77ose.aAoowd.u,plastheyhee,rdesptoehhsafsepynfcorsedrriitcpcchviatfeeeiilco;h,vnaimcecnholheedaficcrotahglhceaedecnsoeuci;cscpi:cracacrlunuiopptmsrtaioscnathntsa(esnaom)cfrweiaecsensaruytlehlftIoasnorutjcufbpetrjrhi;eeoecsmtuetpsodteestdootafte

force;

18. 19.

the the

trooper's trooper's

race and gender; and specific assignment at

the

time

of

the

stop (on duty only) including squad.

Methodology See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State's compliance with this task.

Status

r

TcCrvwDeoheAerqmehiDvtuitScpeerirellleniiopnav,pringseomdctwcocieseepossnowmestrfemeipotShsplfiitnaoaittnanrrhttaedtcseeiei,ncdPriaanewoatnqgleiindctushdefiorsttepihyrhmmosaestplteiueclrmetpniehemetpsessro,evtoNroinfstofietonerfTwamrgdascssJirIIlek,nenitratqs2otttuhre9eaietyarhietn.eShpminratEoSaegtcfttnf,eareetedtsscePvsatoiioevtPoalfewicofteelhipswcnecoaeetrlrriturcetyaertiaesinisnkcsinyiozsihaPinmntanehggpvdamelspemsferot,boeorIecamdteeonsnsddrsu.ring

this reporting period.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 20 of 26 PageID: 29
0

Table Five: Canine Deployments11

•

Race/ Ethnicity

~-···~·
Number of

canine

- Percent by

of Drivers

Drivers

Deployments Race/ Ethnicity

White

82(31.8%1

4

4.9

Black .146(56.6%)

11

7.5

• i

-,.·....·,,_-,,-·······-·HisOpathneicr

_..... 28(10.9%)

...... ,,,.,

2(0.08%L __

0 . 0 .

·-·

258

15

0

n.a

na

·-

•

Non-Consensual searches

Members of the New Jersey State Police conducted 218 non-consensual searches

of vehicles among the 258 reports reviewed by the monitoring team during the

•

reporting period. White drivers' vehicles constituted 30.3 percent of the "searched population," while black drivers' vehicles constituted 58.3 percent, and Hispanics drivers' vehicles constituted 10.6 percent of the searched vehicle

population. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all190 of these nonconsensual searches of vehicles. Only one of these non-consensual searches

•

was problematic . Table Six depicts the results, by race/ethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle

search for the sample of 258 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. Table Six depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by

•

race/ethnicity of the 218 incidents Involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 66 white drivers were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 48 white drivers searched incidental to arrest, 17 subjected

to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage

of type of search, by race. For example, the 48 searches incidental to arrest

•

constitute 72.7 percent of all searches of white drivers. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews .

•

Table Six: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of

Drivers' Vehicles, By Race of Driver

•

11 These numbers are not considered to be statistically significant, due to the small n size.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-23

•

-----···-···---- ..

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 21 of 26 PageID: 30

•

Reason for Search

--

White

Black

#(%)

#(%)

·-·-Hispanic Other
#(%) #(%)

Incidental to Arrest 48(72.7) 96(75.6) 17(73.9) 2(100)

Probable Cause 17(25.8) 30(23.6) 5(21.7)

0

-..

•

Plain View Proof of Ownership
Total

1_(1.5)

0

0 66(100)

·-

1(0.()7) 127(100)_

0 1(4.3)
23(100)

0· · -
2(100)

•

Of the 218 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with one. This search, which
was designated as incidental to arrest, was actually conducted before the arrest

was made. An error rate of one of 218 events equals 0.0045 percent, within the

acceptable level of error.

•

Table Seven depicts probable cause non-consensual search activity by race, for probable cause searches, and Table Eight depicts "incidental to arrest" searches

by race.

•

Table Seven: Probable cause Searches, by Race/Ethniclty

·-R- ace/ Ethnlcity

Number of

Probable Cause

-·-
Percent by

of Drivers

Drivers

searches

Race/ Ethniclty

White

82(31.8%)

17

20.7

•

Black 146(56.6%)

30

'''"""'•

Hispanic

28(!9.9%)

5

20.5 17.9

f---·-·
c _ _ . ,..•.

Other

2(0.08%) 258

0 ..
52

-
-·-

0 na -·

•

•

•

Table Eight: Incidental to Arrest Searches, by Race/Ethniclty

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-24

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 22 of 26 PageID: 31

_, __

Race/ Ethnicity

Number of

·- ..-~
Searches

- --l Percent by

•

of Drivers

---

White --Bla.ck

Drivers
82(31.8%) 146(56.6%)

Incidental to Arrest ---48 96

Race/Ethnicity ,

58.5

---

65.7 .--

His~nic

28(10~9%)

.17

60.7 -·

• i

Other

2(0.08%)

1

50.0

258

9

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 24 separate incidents in which

procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for

•

a complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of two of these 24 errors were noted and corrected by retraining prior to the monitor's noting

the behavior. A total of two errors from among 24 yields an error rate of 8.3

percent, outside the allowable margin of error agreed to by the parties. This is

the third consecutive quarter in which error rates have exceeded the allowable

•

five percent.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation

of Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

•

Task 29b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II

•

Task 29b stipulates that:

b. The prototols listed in '1129(a)lntlude, inter alia, the

protedures set forth In '11'1130, 31, 32, and 33 and have

been approved by the United Stiltes insofar as the

protocols identify practices and protedures required by

•

this Dec:ree. The State shall Implement these prot:otols as soon as practicable.

Methodology

•

See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-25

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 23 of 26 PageID: 32
•

•

Status The review of State Pollee policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry

systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in

Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and

•

forms requiring compliance with the reporting.requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports

and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been

completed.

•

The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all Included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the

decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-

consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle

•

occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the Individual subjected

to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the

records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the

•

stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records Included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the

reason for the motor vehicle stop.

•

The reader should also note that the data collected In the traffic stop reporting process is among the most robust In the nation. The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting

process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within

the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data

•

in the State's database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as "expeditious" implementation. None of
the compliance issues identified above are attributable to a delay in

implementation.

•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks
31, 32and 33

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-26

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 24 of 26 PageID: 33

•

11 1 Task 29c

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I
_g_ Phase II

•

Task 29c stipulates that:

c. The State shall prepare or revise such fonns, reports,

and logs as may be required to Implement this paragraph

and,, 31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports,

•

and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate
duplication and reduce paperwork.

Methodology

•

The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to
provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-

33.

Status

•

Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations.

Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is Improving. The forms have

been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and

•

appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. None of the compliance problems noted above are attributable to forms, reports or logs created in response to this task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.5.3 COmpliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols,

•

Forms, Reports and Logs

Task29e

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
•

,-------------------------------·-·-

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 25 of 26 PageID: 34

•

Task 29e stipulates that:

•

e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and farms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to

subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the state shall

obtain approval of the United states and the

Independent Monitor, The United states and the

•

Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any obje<:tion to a revised protocol within 30 days of

receiving same. The approval requirement of this

subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and

logs only insofar as they Implement practices and

•

procedures required by this Decree•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and

•

forms provided by the State, and have been notified In advance of planned changes to those protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have

also been approved by the United States.

Status

•

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues

were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

•

Task 30

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

f Phase I
Phase II

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-1 Filed 01/23/04 Page 26 of 26 PageID: 35
•

•
Task 30 stipulates that:

30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle

•

Stops. The primary purpose of the communications
center Is to monitor offtcer safety. state troopers

utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for

patrols on roadways shall conth1ue to dOCument all

motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise

•

notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop lnfonnation
enumerated in '9 29(a) that Is tr<Jnsmltted to the

communications center by state troopers pursuant to

protocols listed in ,29(a), and as revised pursuant to

'929(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by me..ns

•

of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate myns•

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and

•

analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet

•

the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part

of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State

Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and

control of these processes, and when fully implemented, should further improve

• ,

agency performance in these areas•

A sample of 45,993 electronic CAD records reflecting motor vehicle stops

conducted by New Jersey State Police personnel, was reviewed by the

monitoring team. These records reflected a > 99 percent conformance to

requirements for call-ins to the communications center established by the

decree. In addition, 244 video recordings and documentation from 258 vehicle

stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD

abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic,

video, and paper clocumentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are

•

recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-29

•

------------------------------------·
Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 1 of 47 PageID: 36
•

Of the 244 video recordings reviewed by the monitors, four failed to activate

•

recording upon signal to stop, 11 had no call-in prior to approach, 13 failed to provide a description of the vehicle, 15 failed to provide a description of occupants, and 10 failed to provide a reason for the stop. The majority of these

errors were registered on motorist aids, motor vehicle accidents and rest-area

"walk throughs" that turned into enforcement procedures requiring call-ins.

•

Once these events turned into law enforcement procedures, the required call-ins were not made. The monitors found no pattern that would indicate these were intentional acts on the part of enforcement personnel. These 49 errors occurred

in 56 motor vehicle stops. Supervisors noted 10 of these incidents from among

the 18 resulting in errors that they reviewed. The remaining 49 incidents of 244

•

events constitute an error rate of 20.1 percent, outside the allowable margin of error. 12 The monitors have determined that once compliance is reached in a given area, two consecutive periods of non-compliance are required to result in a

loss of compliance. The State is placed under warning for this task, and is

encouraged to ensure that troopers know that, once a given event turns to an

enumerated law enforcement procedure requiring call-in of stop data, such call-

•

ins are made as required by procedures .

COmpliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

•

Task 3Qa

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II

•

Task 30a stipulates that:

a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the

stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle,

unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or

•

impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Pollee shall continue to require that, in calling in or

12 These numbers reflect those recording failures not attributable to technical

•

difficulties with audio or video recording devices. Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-30

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 2 of 47 PageID: 37

otherwise notifying the communications center Of a

motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the

•

communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and Its occupants (including the number Of

occupants, their apparent race/ethnlcity, and their

apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the

communications center of the reason for the stop,

namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or

•

other•

Methodology

•

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

•

A sample of 45,993 electronic CAD records was assessed for existence of a "stop
time." All records had the time of stop recorded as part of the CAD record. In

addition, members of the monitoring team also reviewed 244 video tapes of

motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100

percent of all stops in were assigned an incident number; 99.9 percent list the

•

primary trooper's badge number; 99.9 percent list the race and gender of the primary trooper; 99.9 percent list the driver's race and gender; 99.9 percent list

a reason for the stop and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this

task. Of the 244 stop records reviewed by the monitoring team, four indicated

that the MVR began after the trooper approached the vehicle. The majority of

•

these were either motor vehicle accidents or motorist aids. (This constitutes an error rate of 1.6 percent)P

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
•

•

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

~ Task 30b

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

•

se I
se II I I

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-31

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 3 of 47 PageID: 38
•

•

Task 30b stipulates that:

•

b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual

search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances

make prior notice unsafe or impractical.

•

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess

compliance with this task.

•

Status

Of the 218 search events reported (and reviewed by video tape), all but 20

involved a search incidental to arrest.7 Of those 20, 14 were noted by

•

supervisory review, yielding an error rate of 6 of 20, or 30.0 percent. This rate is nearly double that noted last reporting period, although still an improvement

over earlier performance. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stop activity

continue to note these failures in the field (although it continues to be clear that

not all supervisors are aware of the operationalizatlon of the requirement).

•

Substantial work still remains to be done, obviously .

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: Not in Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I

Phase II

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-32

-------------------------·
Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 4 of 47 PageID: 39
•

Task 30c stipulates that:

•

c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shaII notify the

communications center that the stop has been

concluded, notify the center whether any summons or

written warning was Issued or custodial arrest was

•

made, communicate any information that Is required to
be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a)
that was not previously provided, and correct any

information previously provided that was Inaccurate. If

circumstances make It unsafe or Impractical to notify the

communications center of this information Immediately

•

at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be
provided to the communications center as soon as
practicable.

Methodology

•

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

•

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor

vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part

of troopers conducting traffic stops.

•

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of 45,993 CAD

records were reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have

''clearance codes" indicating a call in notifying the communications center of the

•

trooper's actions and time of clearance. Of the 244 stops reviewed by video tape, clearance codes were present in 100 percent of all video tapes reviewed, and in 99 percent of all electronic records. Overall, more than 99 percent of all

records included the required codes.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

•

Task30d

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase II
•

__________________________ ,,_

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 5 of 47 PageID: 40

•

•

Task 30d stipulates that:

d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of

an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop

that Involved a motor vehicle procedure (I.e., occupant

requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for

•

consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that

incident number to cross reference other documents

prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle

stop information recorded by the communication center

about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified

•

by the unique incident number assigned to that motor
vehicle stop.

Methodology

•

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor

vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part

of troopers conducting traffic stops.

•

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of 45,993 CAD

records were reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have "CAD

Incident Numbers" indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 244 stops reviewed

by video tape, clearance codes were present in all video tapes reviewed, and in

•

99 percent of all electronic records. Overall, more than 99 percent of all records included the required codes.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase li
•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 6 of 47 PageID: 41

•

Task 31 stipulates that:

•

31. Consent searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper

wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a

motor vehide in connection with a motor vehicle stop,

the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form

•

and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain
Information, which must be presented to the driver, or
other person authori:Eed to give consent before a consent

search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared

in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report

shall contain additional Information, whic:h must be

•

documented for State Pollee records•

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and

•

analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A MVSR form was completed accurately in five of the nine events that the

•

monitoring team reviewed, that included a consent search request. None of the
incidents involved a consent request that was denied. This constitutes a 88.9

percent compliance rate. In addition, the Information required to be presented

to the driver was so presented in eight of the nine cases. The monitors noted

that State Police supervisory personnel (on administrative review) noted the

•

unreported consent request, and issued a performance notice and referred the trooper to OPS for an investigation of the incident. The State Police apparently

did not counsel, retrain or otherwise correct the trooper's supervisor, who

approved the consent request via telecommunications, then approved the

trooper's MVSR on the next day, failing to note that the MVSR did not include the

•

consent request he had approved the previous day. This failure to correct improper line-level supervision is, in the monitors' opinion, the quintessential

exemplar of the State's problems in achieving and maintaining compliance with

the "call-in" requirements of the decree. Une·level supervisors in some Instances

and in some stations, particularly the Bridgeton Station, are effective in

•

establishing a focused, timely and careful review of troopers' in-field activity; however, in other instances the review can best be characterized as perfunctory.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page·35

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 7 of 47 PageID: 42

•

The four problematic consent search processes include the following: 1. One consent request and search was not reported as such on the

trooper's MVSR (this failure was noted by supervisory review three

months after the event);

•

2. One consent request and search was supported by an MVSR narrative that was materially different from the facts observable on
the tape, and this discrepancy was not noted on supervisory review;

3. One consent request and search was made, but not called in to the

Operational Dispatch Unit prior to the request and search, as

•

required by the decree and State Police procedures (this failure was not noted by supervisory review); and 4. One consent request and search was supported by an MVSR

narrative that was sequentially differentfrom the facts observed on

the supporting video tape, and this discrepancy was not noted on

•

supervisory review .

Compliance for this task fell below compliance levels for the first time in the last

five reports. The monitors have determined that, once compliance is achieved,

•

two consecutive periods of poor performance is required prior to loss of compliance. The State is placed under warning for this task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a~c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

•

Task 3la·c

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase r Phase II
•
Tasks 31a-c stipulate t hat:

•

a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" fonns Include the following information :

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-36

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 8 of 47 PageID: 43

1. the date and location of the stop;

2. the name and Identification number of the trooper

•

making the request for consent to search;
3. the names and identification numbers of any

additional troopers who actively participate in the

discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning

the request for consent to search;

4. a statement informing the driver or other person

•

authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person

authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or

other person authorized to give consent at any time for

any reason may withdraw consent to search;

5. a statement informing the driver or other person

•

authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety

of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle

occupant(s) whk:h right may be knowingly waived;

6. check.off bolles to indicate whether consent has been

granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other

•

person authorized to give consent shall check the
appropriate box and sign and date the form; and

7. if the driver or other person authorized to give

consent refuses consent. the trooper or the driver or

other person authorized to give consent shall so note on

the form and the driver or other person authorized to

•

give consent shall not be required to sign the form• b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a

consent search shall document in a written report the

following information regardless of whether the request

for permission to conduct a search was granted or

denied:

•

1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is

directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnlclty, and, if

known, date of birth;

2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers

who actively participate in the searchl

•

3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent;

4. if consent initially is granted and then Is withdrawn,

the fact that this occurred, and whether the search

continued based on probable ca11se or other non-

consensual ground, or was terminated as a res111t of the

•

withdrawal of consent;
5, a description of the type and quantity of any

contraband or other property seized; and,

6. whether the discussion concerning the request for

consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search

were recorded using MVR equipment.
•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-37

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 9 of 47 PageID: 44

c. The trooper shall sign and date the fonn and the

report after each Is fully completed •

•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for nine consent

•

requests and eight consent searches, and reviewed video tape recordings of seven motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting

documentation for eight of the nine consent search requests was reviewed, and

the events depicted on seven video tapes reviewed were assessed in light of the

reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above,

•

for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

•

Members of the monitoring team noted reporting or process problems with five

of the nine consent searches. These include the following:

•

1. One consent request was not made in accordance with the decree and State Police procedures (this failure was noted by supervisory review);

2. One consent request and search was supported by an MVSR narrative

that was materially different from the facts observable on the tape,

and this discrepancy was not noted on supervisory review;

3. One consent request and search was made, but not called in to the

Operational Dispatch Unit prior to the request and search, as required

by the decree and State Police procedures (this failure was not noted

by supervisory review); and

•

4. One consent request and search was supported by an MVSR narrative that was sequentially differentfrom the facts observed on the supporting video tape, and this discrepancy was not noted on

supervisory review.

•

Items 2-4 reflect problems with requirements b-3 of paragraph 31, and each of these problems is reflective of poor supervisory performance in ensuring compliance of road personnel with these aspects of the decree. Once

compliance has been achieved in a given area, the monitors have determined

that two consecutive periods of non-compliance will result in loss of compliance

status. The State is place under warning for paragraph 31 activities .
•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-38

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 10 of 47 PageID: 45

Compliance

•

Phase I: In COmpliance

Phase II: In COmpliance

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Rec;ording and Reporting of Non-

•

Consensual Searches

Task 32

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II
• 32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles

(Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a consent Search).

A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during

any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-

•

consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall Include the following information:

1. the date and location of the stop;

2. the names and Identification numbers of all troopers

who actively participated in the incident;

•

3. the driller's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, If known, date of birth; 4, a description of the circumstances which provided

probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise

justified the search;

5. a description of the type and quantity of any

•

contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the Incident was recorded using MVR

equipment.

Methodology

•

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and

analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

•

Status New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and

recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel

reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the

•

requirements of this task.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-39

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 11 of 47 PageID: 46

Of the 218 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles,

•

members of the monitoring team found problems with one. This search, which was designated as incidental to arrest, was actually conducted before the arrest

was made. At the time of the search, no probable cause existed, and no arrest

had been made. While the supervisory review of the event did note an

improperly supported frisk during this stop, it did not note the Constitutional

•

violation. An error rate of one of 218 events equals 0.05 percent, within the acceptable level of error. Again, however, the supervisory review process

indicates some weakness.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of

Drug Detection Canines

•

Task 33
Phase I Phase II

-l I1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

•

Task 33 stipulates that:

33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall

complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle

stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report

shall Include the following information:

•

1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and Identification numbers of all troopers

who participated in the incident;

3. the driver's name, gender, racelethnicity, and, if

known, date of birth;

4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the

•

canine to be deployed; 5. whether an alert occurred;

6. a description of the type and quantity of any

contraband or other property seized; and

1. whether the incident was recorded using MVR

equipment•

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-40

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 12 of 47 PageID: 47

Methodology

•

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and

analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

•

Status The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the

deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are

reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33 .

•

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, all15 reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police.

Members of the monitoring team reviewed all 15 canine deployments by

reviewing video tapes of the deployments to ensure that the reports accurately

•

reflected the events depicted on the official reports. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and canines to have been deployed In conformance with the requirements of procedures and

the decree and the constitution.

Compliance

•• Phase I: In Compliance

I

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 34a stipulates that:

•

34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.

a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol

vehicles engaged In law enforcement activities on the

New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway

•

with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment In all vehicles, both

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-41

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 13 of 47 PageID: 48

marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other

limited access highways in New Jersey (including

•

Interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.

Methodology

•

Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 244 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.

Status

•

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this

task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b·c: Training in MVR Operation and

•

Procedures

Task 34b-c

7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:

•

b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that an state troopers operating a vehicle with

MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only If they

first are trained on the manner In which the MVR

equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The

State shall ensure that all MVR equipment Is regularly

•

inspected, maintained, and repaired•

c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not

func:tlon1 all motor vehicle stops conducted by State
Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by

these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR

•

functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-42

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 14 of 47 PageID: 49

scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by

•

another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehlc:le stop Is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's

participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the

recording shall Include requests for consent to search a

vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and

vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with

•

MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not

recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper sh;~ll

notify the communications center of the reason the stop

wu not recorded, which the center shall record in a

computerized information system.

Methodology

•

In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each day of this reporting period (see above), members of the monitoring team pulled for review a sample of 258 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest

to the decree. These included 258 events selected from New Jersey State Police

databases, and 244 procedures selected by reviewing video tapes14•

•

Status

While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all

consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance

•

with the decree. Members of the monitoring team noted that 98.4 percent of all video recordings were initiated "when first signaled to stop." In addition, 99.6 percent of the recordings were noted to "continue until completion" as required

by the decree. Notice of completion and notice of action taken were recorded in

93 percent of the cases, but was captured on CAD information systems in 99.9

•

percent of the cases.15 A review of the 244 video tapes selected by the monitoring team Indicates that

the agency has resolved problems noted In earlier reports concerning "out of

tape" issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units. The agency

has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the
• 14 All 244 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 258 MVSRs

reviewed. 15 Some actions are not recorded on in-car MVR, as they are made via portable

•

radio away from the main recording microphone. These call-ins, however, are captured by CADS operators and entered into the State's CADS system.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-43

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 15 of 47 PageID: 50

decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this

•

period. This problem Involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 244 stops reviewed via video-tape this period, 29

exhibited some form of audio difficulty, and six exhibited some form of video

difficulty. These numbers did however, indicate a significant improvement over

last reporting period (which experienced 44 and 13 respective events). Troopers

•

have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting only six events (of 244 reviewed) in which

activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. Most of

these were the result of motor vehicle accidents, motorist aid, or rest-area walk-

throughs that resulted, eventually, in law enforcement procedures .

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

l I Task 35

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

~

Task 35 stipulates that:

•

35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to '111131·33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in

conjunction with that review, may view any associated

MVRtape.

•

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and

analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

•

Status

A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the

reporting period indicated that 100 percent of these were reviewed by

supervisory personnel. The monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs,

•

and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-44

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 16 of 47 PageID: 51

A review of 258 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates all

•

reports were reviewed. The monitors and supervisory personnel reviewed 120 of the same motor vehicle stops. The monitors noted 78 reporting, procedural or

constitutional issues In 31 of these 120 reports. Supervisors, reviewing the same

120 incidents, missed 64 reporting, procedural or constitutional issues in these

same 31 reports. A total of 32 motor vehicle stops were noted, in which

procedural, reporting or constitutional errors were found by the monitors, but not

found by State Police supervisors. This constitutes 31 of 120 supervisory

reviewed events, or 25.8 percent. The State continues to be out of compliance

with this task, although two significant phenomenon were noted this quarter.

First, supervisory personnel continue to review a much higher number of motor

•

vehicle stop tapes. Secondly, the number of supervisory reviews resulting in performance notices for positive trooper behavior has markedly increased, as
well. In addition, the number of supervisory reviews resulting in performance

notices for trooper behavior that contradicts the consent decree has markedly

increased, with a total of 40 consent decree and 45 non-consent decree errors

•

noted by supervisors this period. Unfortunately, however, in many instances, supervisory review has failed to note obvious errors that occurred in the field ..

The monitors continue to note problems relative to supervisory review of video

tapes. Three problematic frisks noted by the monitoring team this period.

•

Supervisory personnel reviewed MVSRs and MVRs for all three of those events. They missed the problematic nature of the frisks 66 percent of the time, missing

two of three errors committed by their subordinate personnel. Other indications

of poor supervisory review processes include:

•

• Falling to note instances of reported searches of vehicles that do not appear to have been made;

• Failing to note incorrect reported race of drivers/passengers;

• Failing to note materially different fact sequences on MVSR reports

than those observed on the supporting video tapes, often relating to

•

important processes, such as consent searches, vehicle searches and arrests;

• Failing to note lack of supporting probable cause for a vehicle search

at the time the search was conducted;

• Failing to note a request to exit a vehicle not based on heightened

•

suspicion;
• Failing to note a missing consent search report, even though the

reviewing supervisor had approved the consent search the previous

day;

• Failing to note clear disparities between MVSR reports and supporting

•

narratives;

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-45

•

------------------------------·-··--·-····

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 17 of 47 PageID: 52

• Completing review forms that indicate facts different from those visible

•

on the tape, e.g., indicating MVR recording continued to completion, when, in fact the MVR tape ran out prior to completion; and

• Failing to note minor reporting discrepancies on MVSRs, e.g., call-In of

stop data, supervisory presence at scene, etc.

•

In addition, although the State has activated the MAPPS functions, information to track, organize, and use the vast amount of MVSR and MVR documentation to

improve on-the-road performance of troopers and supervisors has not yet been

entered into the MAPPS system. Until these data are up-to-date, no effective

method exists to allow supervisors and managers to look at a given trooper's

•

decree-related performance factors when making decisions concerning remedial measures once behavior is observed contradictory to the requirements of the

decree. This difficulty was highlighted last reporting period when a trooper was

served with performance notices by two separate supervisors for the same

violation, the second supervisor not being able to easily access the fact that

•

another supervisor had already dealt with the incident. Given the large numbers of transfers of personnel (both at the trooper level and supervisory level),

memory does not serve as a good tool to assess past history when determining

how to deal with violations of the decree. This can lead to both under-response

or over-response to a given transgression. Entering remedial Information into

•

MAPPS, for use at the line-supervisory level, is critical to the success of the
supervisory review process; however, a lack of this capacity in no way

contributed to the supervisory review errors noted above.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: Not in Compliance

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

•

Task 36

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 36 stipulates that:

36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Pollee supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-46

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 18 of 47 PageID: 53

conducting the review shall prepare a written report on

each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to

•

implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

•

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

•

Training for supervisory personnel regarding MVR review and a supervisorymanagement system for using MVR reviews as part of the MAPPS process has

been delayed again. Training for supervisory personnel regarding revisions to

the procedures noted above was completed in November, 2001. The State

developed, and implemented in November, 2001, a formal policy requirement

regarding MVR review processes for supervisory personnel, using a structured

review process that, in the opinion of the monitoring team, has drastically

improved the quality of supervisory review. OSPA provides advanced training to

field supervisors regarding MVR/MVSR review protocols.

•

During on-site reviews at New Jersey State Police road stations, members of the monitoring team reviewed more than 1,000 supervisors' MVR review reports.

The quality of these reports has improved substantially. All reviews assessed this

reporting period were completed using the new Form 528, a form requiring a

highly structured review process. This process is a vast improvement over

•

earlier processes. Members of the monitoring team were able to compare 190 supervisors' reviews with actual video tapes (the same tapes reviewed by

supervisors as part of their review process). Members of the monitoring team

noted 31 reporting or procedural issues, in the 120 tapes both the monitoring

team and supervisory personnel reviewed, that were missed by the supervisory

•

cadre at the New Jersey State Pollee. This constitutes an overall error rate for supervisory review of 25.8 percent, down from 26.8 last period, and 36 percent

the prior period, but far beyond the agreed upon five percent margin for error.

Indications of poor supervisory review processes include:

•

• Failing to note instances of reported searches of vehicles that do not

appear to have been made;

• Failing to note incorrect reported race of drivers/passengers;

• Failing to note materially different fact sequences on MVSR reports

•

than those observed on the supporting video tape, often relating to

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-47

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 19 of 47 PageID: 54

important processes, such as consent searches, vehicle searches and

•

arrests; • Failing to note lack of supporting probable cause for a vehicle search

at the time the search was conducted;

• Failing to note a request to exit a vehicle not based on heightened

suspicion;

•

• Failing to note a missing consent search report, even though the reviewing supervisor had approved the consent search the previous

day;

• Failing to note clear disparities between MVSR reports and supporting

narratives;

•

• Completing review forms that indicate facts different from those visible on the tape, e.g., indicating MVR recording continued to completion,

when, in fact the MVR tape ran out prior to completion; and

• Failing to note minor reporting discrepancies on MVSRs, e.g., call-in of

stop data, supervisory presence at scene, etc.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: Not In Compliance

•

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37

2

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase 1

Phase II

•

Task 37 stipulates that:

37. After conducting a review pursuant to '1135, '1136, or a

special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting

the review shall refer for investigation by the

Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident

•

where this review reasonably Indicates a possible violation ofthe provisions of this Decree and the

protocols listed in '1129 concerning search or seizure

procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR

use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree

concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent

•

investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-48

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 20 of 47 PageID: 55

the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all

•

incidents reviewed to detennine the need to implement any intervention for the Involved trooper•

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess

•

compliance for this task .

Status

During the monitors' site visits for the ninth reporting period, the monitors noted

•

one incident that should have been forwarded to OPS in response to the requirements of this task. This incident involved a trooper who failed to report a

consent request and search. This failure was noted by supervisory review three

months after the line supervisor reviewed and approved the trooper's MVSR.

This was the same supervisor who had approved the consent request and

•

search the day before he reviewed the trooper's MVSR of the event. The trooper's actions (failing to report the consent request and search) were referred

to OPS. The sergeant's failure to adequately supervise, apparently, has not been

addressed by the State.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:

•

38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews of referral decisions pursuant to , 37 to ensure

appropriate referrals are being made. State Police

personnel shall be held accountable for their referral

decisions.

•

Methodology

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-49

----------------------------------····

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 21 of 47 PageID: 56

•

Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral

decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Recently completed training

for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to "copy"

to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.

•

Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards, and others are

anticipated based on reviews conducted during the and ninth reporting period.

Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and

have conducted audits of New Jersey State Police activities during the last

•

reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to Identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes,

including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field

supervisory personnel's review of field practice, their associated supervisory

actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement

•

personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.

Status

The incident noted above, in which a supervisor failed to note a subordinate's

•

failure to report a consent search did not result in a referral to OPS. To date, the monitors are unaware of any OSPA or State Police response to this overt failure

of the supervisory process.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not in Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

•

Task 39

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase l

Phase II

•

Task 39 stipulates that:

39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in
•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-50

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 22 of 47 PageID: 57

patrols on limited access highways to conduct

•

supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis•
Methodology

Numerous changes in New Jersey State Pollee policies regarding this task were

made in the fourth reporting period, and were fully implemented in the sixth

•

reporting period. New Jersey State Police policies F-19 (MVR Equipment), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-31 (Consent to Search) and F-55 (Patrol Procedures) were

revised in October, 2001 to reflect changes in operational practices designed to

better assess New Jersey State Police patrol actions relative to prohibiting race- or

ethnicity-based decision making. For example, supervisory personnel now review

•

motor vehicle stop recordings (MVSRs) of all motor vehicle stops involving consent search requests. Supervisors also are required to routinely monitor and

review, using a new, highly structured "checklist" a larger number of "routine"

MVSRs, and now are required to review all consent searches, uses of force, and

canine deployments engaged in by their personnel. In addition, law enforcement

•

personnel who have exhibited problematic on-road behavior in the past are selected for enhanced monitoring through review of a larger number of MVSRs on

a quarterly (and in some cases even daily) basis. The position of "road sergeant"

has been implemented, thus increasing substantially the level of direct supervision

of road activities. Supervisors are now required to approve all consent searches,

•

and, where practicable, to be present when consent searches are conducted . Training in these new procedures and policies has also been provided to all

supervisory personnel and troopers involved in law enforcement activities. During

this reporting period, additional revisions were made to SOPs F-7, F-31 and F-55.

These changes were designed to improve performance on call-ins prior to search

•

and consent search •

In addition, attorneys from the Office of State Police Affairs have been assigned

to each of the State Police's five troops, for the purpose of serving as legal

•

advisors to the troops. These attorneys also perform site visits to State Police road stations to obtain feedback from law enforcement personnel regarding training and remediation of errors in traffic stop procedures. OSPA also initiated

in-field audits of all consent searches, uses of force and canine deployments,

with remedial mentoring of State Police supervisors in instances in which

problematic procedures are noted. OSPA has also modified, during this reporting

•

period, the non-consensual search protocols, requiring enhanced supervisory presence at the scenes of such procedures, and also requiring supervisory

approval of such procedures.

Status
•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-51

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 23 of 47 PageID: 58

The New Jersey State Police have recently appointed and deployed patrol

•

sergeants to serve as "road supervisors;" however, these personnel were noted to be "on scene," in 56 of the 258 events (21.7 percent, up from 12.6 percent last period) reviewed by the members of the monitoring team (through MVR

reviews at the road stations and via review of written documentation of motor

vehicle stop incidents). This represents a substantial increase from 10.8 percent

•

for the seventh period. The sixth reporting period's supervisory presence rate was three percent. Supervisors were present at 44.4 percent of all incidents

involving consent search requests (up from 22.2 percent last period), and 40

percent of events involving a drug detector canine (up from 7.7 percent last

period). The monitors are pleased that the level of supervisory activity on the

•

road has apparently reattained levels established during the sixth and seventh reporting periods. Of the 32 events noted by the monitoring team as

problematic this reporting period, eleven of those had New Jersey State Police

supervisory personnel at the scene of the event.

•

The apparent trend observed by the monitors last reporting period, to not note and take corrective action with suoervisors who fail to deal with performance issues that should have been noted during the on-site supervisory process or

during the after-the-fact MVSR review, continues. During the ninth reporting

period, the monitors observed at least 32 instances in which a supervisor had

•

failed to note performance contradictory to the consent decree or to New Jersey State Police procedures, yet no evidence is available to support any corrective

action on the part of the New Jersey State Police for these oversights. These 32

instances led to a failure to act on multiple violations of procedures or consent

decree requirements on the part of supervisory personnel. The monitors would

•

expect that these supervisors would be counseled, retrained or otherwise have their performance improved through documented means. The reader should

note that six of these 32 separate violations of decree-related procedures

involved Constitutional Issues, e.g., one failure to report a consent request, two

failures to articulate probable cause for searches, and search and three

•

problematic frisks .

Supervision is the critical factor in making change within the New Jersey State

Police. Adequate and, the monitors would argue, excellent training for

supervisory personnel is an essential first step to achieving the goals of the

•

consent decree. In this light, some supervisory personnel have noted violations of the decree, and have issued performance notices for these violations,

representing Improvements over past supervisory practices. However, in the

monitors' assessment, these activities have fallen far short of the required level

of noting greater than 94 percent of decree violations.

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-52

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 24 of 47 PageID: 59

It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have improved substantially the level

•

of supervision on the road. Rates of review are up. Notice of adverse performance is up (as well as notice of superior performance). The monitors

believe that supervisory presence on the road has reached acceptable levels;

however, as with the State's performance on tasks 27, 28, and 29a this reporting

period, it is clear that improvements need to be made in performance in noting

•

and remedying performance that falls outside the requirements of the consent decree.

Compliance:

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

•

Task 40

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
• Task 40 stipulates that:

40. The State shall develop and implement computerled

•

systems for maintaining and retrieving Information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Pollee to promote professionalism and civil rights

Integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic

behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the

"Management Awareness Program" or "MAP")•

•

Methodology

The ninth monitors' report marked a milestone for the MAPPS development

process. During the ninth site visit, the New Jersey State Police demonstrated to

•

the members of the monitoring team an operational version of the MAPPS information system. The monitors viewed the system components, and used live data to ensure that the MAPPS system contained all data elements outlined by

the decree. In addition, members of the monitoring team, using live data,

ensured that each system capability required by the decree was available and

•

functional in the MAPPS information system. In all, the monitors performed 58 separate tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-53

,--------------------------------··

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 25 of 47 PageID: 60

below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems

•

tests, the monitors used MAPPS as it would be expected to be used by supervisory and management personnel in the day-to-day processes of

managing the New Jersey State Police. The results of these process tests are

discussed below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51.

•

MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data

in MAPPS, as of the monitors' ninth site visit, are not the full spectrum of system

data anticipated for MAPPS, i.e., not all data elements envisioned for use by the

system were currently being used as of the monitors' ninth site visit. For

•

example, the State had not yet begun the process of completing annual and periodic performance reviews for New Jersey State Police road personnel. The

management process for performance notices and commendations (a critical

element for improved supervision) was still being completed manually, rather

than using the MAPPS components provided tor these processes .

•

In effect, while the State has made substantialprogress In bringing a functional

MAPPS system on-line, at the time of the monitors' site visit, the system was not

being used to manage the New Jersey State Police. Thus, compliance status for

the MAPPS components has not changed: the State is in Phase I compliance,

•

having designed, programmed, tested and fielded the MAPPS system. It Is not yet in day-to-day use, however, so Phase II compliance is pending. The

monitors are aware of the intense effort exhibited by the State In bringing

MAPPS on-line, and commends those who have so diligently labored in the

"electronic trenches" for so long. Implementation of MAPPS, as a functioning

•

system, has been no small feat.

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

•

Task 41

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 41 requires that:

•

41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-54

•
I I

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 26 of 47 PageID: 61

a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle

•

stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form,
or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to ~29 and the protocols listed in ~29of this Decree, except that

duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to

whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need

not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a

•

patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;

b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of

positive performance; information on misconduct investigations;

reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-

•

duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving

off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or

threats of violence; and

•

c. implementation of interventions; and training Information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training,

Methodology

•

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

•

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being

"narrative elements" which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper,

was found to be functional in the MAPPS system reviewed by the monitors. In

addition, the five non-primary requirements, identified as "narrative elements"

•

were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors found the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways, and

found the system to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required

by subparagraphs "b" and "c" of paragraph 41 were also included in the

operational MAPPS In that the system contained sub-programs designed to

•

handle these requirements. Use of these subsystems, e.g., performance appraisal, performance notices, tracking counselings and retraining, was pending

during the monitors' visit.

Compliance:
•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-55

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - · -..···

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 27 of 47 PageID: 62

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal
MAPPS Data

•

Task42

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
• Task 42 requires that:

42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct

•

investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive
performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall
be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon

written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as

granting that trooper access to confidential documents other

than those identified in this paragraph, or 1D any infonnation

•

which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information .

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

•

requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Policies supporting this requirement were under development at the time of the

•

monitoring team's site visit. Conversations with New Jersey State Police personnel indicate that they are aware of this requirement, and are preparing

written policies to support trooper access to MAPPS information as required.

Implementation of these policies is anticipated In January, 2004.

•

Compliance:

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-56

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 28 of 47 PageID: 63

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts" and

•

Percentages for Stop Data

Task43

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 43 requires that:

43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in

•

~29 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and remrded in accordance with the protocols identified in ~29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search

and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any

combination of the above-referenced information and to run

reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly,

annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations.

•

Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ~29(a)(SA, SA, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in

accordance with the protocols identified In ~29(a), it will be

sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access

(through cross·referenced paper documents or other method)

•

this descriptive information entered on specific Incidents and matters. Regarding the Information identified in ~41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed

to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts

and percentages for any combination of the Information and to

run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers,

squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require

•

textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in ~41(b and c), it will be sufficient

that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive

information.

Methodology

•

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

•

The primary data elements Identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable

by "count" and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as

required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases

through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph

•

29a (Sa, Sa, 12a, 13a, 14a, lSa, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-57

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 29 of 47 PageID: 64

compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and

•

charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management

personnel have not yet begun to access the system on a day-to-day basis.

Compliance:

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers
• Phase I Phase II

•

Task 44 requires that:

44. Where information about a single incident is included within

the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a

common control number or other means to link the information

•

from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.

Methodology

•

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

•

The State has identified the ''CAD incident number" as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree

process.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-58

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 30 of 47 PageID: 65

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

•

Task 45

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II

•

Task 45 requires that:

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the

•

MAP In an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

•

requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

•

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures is pending operational data such as performance notices, etc.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

•

Task46

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 46 requires that:

46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days

following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop

•

a plan for designing and implementing the MAP

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-59

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 31 of 47 PageID: 66

including the use of the MAP, a timetable for

•

implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the

implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be

incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the

implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by

•

the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree,

the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and

management reviews required by ~~48·53.

•

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

•

Status

With implementation of the MAPPS components this reporting period, the State

has effectuated it MAPPS plan. Obviously, the State has not met the 180-day

tlmeline, but the MAPPS as configured conforms to the plans approved by the

•

United States and the Monitors.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

Task 47

•

Phase I

Phase II

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Task 47 requires that:
47. Consistent with the requirements of ~~48-53 infra, the State

shall develop a protocol specifYing the manner in which

supervisory and management reviews of individual state

troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops,

•

stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-60

•

r-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 32 of 47 PageID: 67

such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be

•

approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

•

requirements of this paragraph of the decree. Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management

•

personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures is pending operational data such as performance notices, etc.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task48

•

Phase I

Phase II

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 48 requires that:

•

48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other

appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State

Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord

with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.

•

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

•

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management

personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting

•

documentation. Implementation of these procedures is pending data from

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-61

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 33 of 47 PageID: 68

personnel, OPS, and other supporting subsystems, anticipated by January, 2004.

•

The first use of MAPPS for quarterly reporting is anticipated by April, 2004.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

•

Task49
Phase 1 Phase II

- I 1 2 3

1

I

I

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 49 requires that:

•

49. To the extent reflected in ~43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and

squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall

include the following information:

•

a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of

enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or

during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity,

reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation,

•

other), road, squad and trooper station; b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on oomplaints, misconduct

investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in

~73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with

motor vehicle stops •

•

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

•

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories

stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-

•

11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures is pending applicable of data from personnel and other supporting subsystems,

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-62

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 34 of 47 PageID: 69

anticipated by January, 2004. The first use of MAPPS for reporting processes is

•

anticipatedby February, 2004.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task SO: Comparisons Using Benchmark

Task 50

•

Phase I

Phase II

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Task SO requires that:

•

50. To the extent reflected in 1143, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of

racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for

the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other))

and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and

•

procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available

(see 111154-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for

such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement

actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such

stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent

•

searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for

non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by

rac;e/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches;

evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations

•

of trends and differences between troopers, units, and sub-units.

Methodology

•

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status
•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-63

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 35 of 47 PageID: 70

While the State is making progress on a conceptual outline to support

•

development and integration of benchmark comparisons, no substantive work product has yet been submitted to the monitors.

Compliance

•

Phase I: Not In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

•

Task 51

Phase I

Phase II

10 11 12

•

Task 51 requires that:

51. To the extent reflected in 1!43,analyses of other data

generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and

differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences

between troopers, units, and subunits •

•

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the

requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

•

Status

Existing plans call for the analyses required by this paragraph to be conducted by

the MAPPS "Risk Management Unit/' within the Quality Assurance Bureau of the

•

New Jersey State Police. As of yet, however, specific responsibilities and staffing are not clearly identified by the State.

Compliance

•

Phase I: Not In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-64

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 36 of 47 PageID: 71

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary

•

Changes

Task 52

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her

authority, implement any appropriate changes or

•

remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for

particular units or subunits or Implement any

appropriate Intervention for particular troopers; conduct

any necessary additional assessment or Investigation

regarding particular units or subunits or particular

•

troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

•

During the ninth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted several instances of supervisory personnel issuing "performance notices" or other

interventions for actions of division personnel inconsistent with policy or

established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory

personnel are beginning to carefully review trooper activity and to issue

•

performance notices or other "interventions" when inappropriate behavior occurs. The monitors continue to note substantial difficulties with the

supervisory review process, with numerous instances surfacing which led the

monitoring team to believe that not all supervisory reviews were being diligently

conducted. The "knowable error rate" for supervisory review continues to rise,

•

from 11.2 percent during the seventh period to 13.3 percent for the eighth period, to 26.6 percent for the ninth quarter. See sections 2.13 and 2.16,

above, for additional comments relative to supervisor review.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: Not In Compliance

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-65

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 37 of 47 PageID: 72

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with

•

More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 53 stipulates that:

53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding

any state trooper who within a period of two years, is

•

the subject of three misconduct investl9ations of any kind initiated pursuant to '!173. Where appropriate, the

review may result in intervention being taken. In the

event the supervisory review results in intervention, the

supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and

•

duration of the intervention•
Methodology

The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two

misconduct investigations in a two-year period, and protocols for and assessment

•

of supervisory response to this section have been outlined in appropriate policies . The controlling policies, however, are extant In OPS Inter Office

Communications, rather than SOPs. Training in this process has been designed

and delivered. It is not yet operational.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey

•

Turnpike

Task 54 Phase I

-11 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

•

Phase II Jl!!]gjl

Task 54 stipulates that:

54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP

•

concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the state shall develop (for purposes of

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-66

•

,------.-----------------------------·-··-··

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 38 of 47 PageID: 73

Implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a

survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on

•

the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate,

the survey may identify different benchmark tlgures for

different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to

implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the

Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol

•

shall be developed and implemented using a consultant
jointly selected by the parties. Tbe survey shall be

completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the

entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the

state agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP

described In this Consent Decree will depend to some

•

degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables

and factors.

Methodology

•

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the

document to the public.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

2.32 Compliance with Task 57: Troopers to Provide Name and Badge

•

Number

Task 57

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase 1

•

Phase II

Task 57 stipulates that:

•

57. The State Police shall require allstate troopers to provide their name and identification number to any civilian who requests it.

Methodology
•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-67

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 39 of 47 PageID: 74

During the fourth reporting period, the New Jersey State Police received and

•

appropriately investigated an allegation of failure to provide identification. The case was not sustained; however, the referral and investigation of the complaint indicates conformance to established policies regarding this task. During the

ninth reporting period, no completed Investigations for such allegations were

noted.

•

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task based on previous performance.

•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.33 Compliance with Task 58: State to Inform Civilians re
Complaints/Compliments

11 I Task 58

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

•

Phase I
Phase II Jll!ll!L

Task 58 stipulates that:

•

58. The State Police shall develop and implement an effective program to inform civilians that they may make

complaints or provide other feedback regarding the

performance of any state trooper. This program shall, at

a minimum, Include the development of informational

•

materials (fact sheets and informational posters) describing the complaint process and the development and distribution of civilian complaint forms. The State

Pollee shall make such materials available in english and

Spanish •

•

Methodology

No changes in New Jersey State Police policies regarding this task were made in the last reporting period. During the first quarter, members of the monitoring
•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-68

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 40 of 47 PageID: 75

team reviewed relevant policies and approved implementation of these policies

•

as written .

Status

The compliment/complaint forms developed by the State are reasonably

•

designed to accomplish the purpose of Task 58, are available in English and Spanish, and have, apparently been printed in numbers large enough to have been distributed to road stations, carried in patrol vehicles and to have been

made available at the entry vestibule to road stations. Informational materials

were available at all road stations and headquarters buildings visited by the

•

monitoring team during this visit. A member of the team fluent in Spanish has reviewed the Spanish language forms and informational materials, and found them to be an effective translation, portraying virtually the same concepts as the

English version. In addition, two troopers were counseled during the fifth

reporting period for failure to advise an arrestee of the complaint process after

•

the arrestee complained about the treatment he had received during the arrest. This event was among the use of force incidents reviewed by the monitoring team for the fifth quarter.

During the ninth reporting period, the monitors reviewed one video-taped

•

Incident during which the drivers complained vocally about their treatment at the hands of the New Jersey State Police. This driver was provided complaint forms by New Jersey State Police personnel.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

2.34 Compliance with Task 59: Availability of Complaint/Compliment

•

Forms

Task 59

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase r Phase II

I!DDDll

Task 59 stipulates that:

•

59. The State shall make complaint fonns and
informational materials available at State Police

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-69

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 41 of 47 PageID: 76

headquarters, all State Pollee stations, and such other

locations around New Jersey as It may determine from

•

time to time. The State shall publicize the State Police mailing address, Internet address, and toll-free

telephone number at state-operated rest stops located

on limited access highways. The State Pollee also shall

provide Information on the Internet about the methods

by which civilians may file a complaint. The State Police

•

further shall require all state troopers to carry fact sheets and complaint forms in their vehicles at all times

while on duty. The State Pollee shall require all troopers

to Inform civilians who object to a trooper's conduct that

civilians have a right to make a complaint. The state

PoHce shall prohibit state troopers from discouraging

•

any dvlll;m from making a complaint.

Methodology

•

No changes in New Jersey State Police policies regarding this task were made in the last reporting period. During the first quarter, members of the monitoring

team reviewed relevant policies and approved Implementation of these policies

as written.

•

Status

Compliment and complaint forms and informational materials were available at

all State Police facilities visited by the members of the monitoring team, and both

English and Spanish forms were provided. Members of the monitoring team

•

checked the State's rest areas/service areas, and noted that all checked this period had notice of compliment/complaint procedures posted. The web site

conforms to the requirements of this task. Fact sheets and complaint forms were

in all patrol vehicles inspected during this reporting period. During the ninth

reporting period, complaint investigations continue to be completed that were

•

generated through these forms .

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-70

,----------------------------------------·--

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 42 of 47 PageID: 77

2.35 Compliance with Task 60: Community Outreach

•

Task 60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase 1 Phase II

•

Task 60 stipulates that:

60. The State Police shall develop a program of community outreach to inform

the public about State Police functions and procedures, Including motor

•

vehicle stops, searches and selz"res, and the methods for reporting civilian complaints or compliments regarding officers. This outreach program Is not

intended, and should not be construed, to require the State Pollee to dlscl01e

operational techniques to the public.

•

Methodology
The New Jersey State Police have modified their outreach programs to include

provision of information related to the decree in their public meetings and

organized interactions with various groups within the State. These meetings are

•

often held in conjunction with local law enforcement agencies, and discuss topics of interest to the communities in attendance, as well as topics specifically related to the consent decree. Members of the monitoring team were unable to attend

any of these meetings during their May site visit. The Division has also created

the Community Affairs Bureau, tasked with establishing working relationships with

•

the citizens of New Jersey. Status

The community outreach process employed by the State Pollee continues to

•

include provision of information related to the decree and discuss topics of interest to the communities in attendance. The schedule shows an active

outreach on radio, through professional appearances and through community

meetings. The State has implemented urban-initiatives in the Cities of Camden

and Irvington, and continues to seek avenues for improving Its community

•

outreach process. Among the individual projects undertaken by the NJSP were Christmas and Thanksgiving food drives, the donations by individual troopers of toys, books, games and athletic equipment for the children. For many of the

recipients this was the first time they had ever owned such items. This past

summer the NJSP arranged for a swimming program for neighborhood children .

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-71

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 43 of 47 PageID: 78

Unlike prior initiatives, the NJSP undertook a holistic approach to community

•

policing and based upon the IMT observations they appear to be succeeding. A second initiative was started in September 2003 in the Northern New Jersey community of Irvington.

With respect to Consent Decree issues, the enforcement troopers are subject to

•

the same SOPs and rules as roadway troopers. The nature of the stops in Camden are qualitatively different in that the stopped motorists are more likely

to engage In evasive and eluding action. Notwithstanding these problems, in the

majority of the cases reviewed by the IMT for this report the troopers complied

with all the requirements of the Consent Decree.

•

Compliance

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.36 Compliance with Task 61: Receipt of Citizens' Complaints

Task 61

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 61 stipulates that:
61. Civilians may Initiate a complaint or otherwise

provide feedback regarding State Police perforrrtance

either In person, by mail, by telephone (or TDD), or by

facsimile transmission. The state Police shall accept and

•

investigate anonymous complaints and complaints filed by civilians other than the alleged victim of misconduct. The state shall not require that a complaint be submitted

In writing to Initiate a misconduct investigation.

•

Methodology

Members of the Monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit determined

that SOP B-10 remains the official policy guideline for compliance with this

requirement. Staff personnel of the Office of Professional Standards, in response

•

to the monitoring team's request, produced a printout from the IA Pro System .

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-72

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 44 of 47 PageID: 79

•

Status

In response to the Monitoring team's Inquiry, the State advised that there were a

total of 210 misconduct complaints during this reporting period. Further, during

the relevant reporting period, there were nineteen anonymous complaints. A

•

demonstration of the IA Pro system again produced the source of reportable incidents. Complaint source Information determined the following: Civil Action,

5; Notice of Claim, 5; Mail, 16; Phone, 42; Walk~Ins, 22; Referrals from OSPA, 2;

Self-Reports, 4; Compliment Complaint Forms, 3; External, 6; Fax, 21; Hotline,

29; and Internally-Generated, 55 .

•

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

•

2.37 Compliance with Task 62: Institution of a 24-hour Toll-Free

Telephone Hotline

•

Task 62

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase !I

•

Task 62 stipulates that:
62. The State Police shall institute a 24-hour toll-free

telephone hotllne for civilians to call to make a complaint

or compliment or otherwise provide feedback regarding

State Police performance. The hot1ine shall be operated

•

by the Professional Standards Bureau (hereinafter "PSB"). The State Pollee shall Immediately connect or

refer all civilians to this hotline who telephone a State

Pollee station to file a complaint. The State Police shall

publicize the hotline telephone number on Informational

materials, complaint forms, and "consent to search"

•

forms. The State Pollee shall tape record all
conversations on this hotline and shall notify all persons

calling the hotllne of the tape recording. The State Police

shall develop a procedure to assure that callers are being

treated with appropriate courtesy and respect, that

complainants are not being discouraged from making

•

complaints, and that all necessary information about

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-73

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 45 of 47 PageID: 80
•

each complaint is being obtained. This procedure shall

•

include regular reviews of the tape recordings•
Methodology

Members of the monitoring team during the October 2003 site visit determined

that SOP B-10 continues to govern the requirements of this paragraph, as does

•

the revised Internal Affairs Manual. The monitoring team determined that representatives of the Office of the State Police Affairs continue to monitor the

Division's compliance with this requirement pursuant to paragraph 112 of the

decree. The existence of the "Hotline" continues to appear on the New Jersey

State Police website, as do the Compliment/Complaint forms and the "posters"

•

that are affixed to various sites throughout the State. During the October 2003 site visit, members of the monitoring team listened to calls received on the

RACAL lines. In all Instances, the complaints continued to culminate In

appropriate investigative inquiry and complainant disposition.

•

Status

Members of the monitoring team during the October 2003 site visit inspected an

electronic log that captures relevant information on received RACAL calls. This

was discussed during the previous site visit at which time the State committed to

•

the production of such a log. This instrument replaces the hand-written log that had previously been used to memorialize the receipt, source and type of

complaint. The electronic log shows the aggregated number of RACAL calls

received during the period of April 1, 2003 and September 30, 2003 as 294.

Further, members of the monitoring team reviewed the Office of Professional

•

Standards "Review of Recorded Telephonic Complaints Form" that is used weekly to assess the quality of unit res!XJnse to calls received on the RACAL line.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with Task 63: PSB to Receive All Citizens' Complaints

•

Task 63 Phase I

-1 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase II

•

Task 63 stipulates that:

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-74

•

,---------·--··-------

-·· .. - ···--··-·-

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 46 of 47 PageID: 81

•

63. The PSB shall be responsible for receiving all misconduct complaints. All complaints m11de 11t locations

other than the PSB shall be forwarded to the PSB within a

reasonably prompt period as specified by the state Police.

The State Police shall assign and record a case number for

•

each complaint. The OAG shall have access to all
misconduct complaints received by PSB•

Methodology

•

The monitoring team determined that SOP B-10 continues to govern the Division's compliance with this requirement. The monitoring team requested and received copies of some of the "Reportable Incident Forms," (525) that were

received and completed at State Police facilities other than OPS. A review of a

sample of "Reportable Incident Forms" confirmed that the State is properly

completing these forms and appropriately forwarding them to OPS for further

•

disposition .

Status

•

A review of the relevant material determined that the State continues to meet the requirements of this task. OPS has, in all cases, processed appropriately reported incidents by assigning case numbers to forwarded complaints. OAG,

pursuant to requirement 112 of the decree has unfettered access to OPS files

and regularly reviews all completed Investigations, administrative closings,

performance incidents and RACAL calls .

•

Compliance

Phase I· In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

2.39 Compliance with Task 64: Relocation of Office of Professional Standards Offices

•

Task 64

z 1 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

! Phase I

Phase II

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-75

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-2 Filed 01/23/04 Page 47 of 47 PageID: 82

Task 64 stipulates that:

•

64. The State Pollee shall relocate PSB offices to
buildings separate from any building occupied by other

state Police personnel. ll'le PSB shall publicize the

locations of its offices.

•

Methodology

During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team reviewed the Freehold

Facility Visitor Log and determined that ninety-seven people accessed that office

during this reporting period .

•

Status

The Office of Professional Standards' new facility is properly posted on the New

Jersey State Police website with its address, fax number and telephone number.

•

It was determined again that the Freehold facility continues to be overwhelmingly used by sworn members of the Division. Of the ninety-seven

visitors, as determined by a review of the log, eighty-three were sworn personnel

and fourteen were non-sworn. Most of the fourteen were civilian employees or

union attorneys .

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.40 Compliance with Task 65: Referral to OAG of Specific Dismissed

Charges

Task 65

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 65 stipulates that:

•

65. The State Pollee shall refer to the OAG and/or PSB

for investigation of state trooper perfonnance all

Incidents In which a civilian Is charged by a state trooper

with obstruction of official business, resisting arrest,

assault on a state trooper, or disorderly conduct, where

•

the prosecutor's office or a judge dismisses the charge

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-76

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 1 of 46 PageID: 83

before or during trial and the dismissal is not part of the

•

plea agreement•
Methodology

Members of the monitoring team during the October 2003 site visit determined

that the September 6, 2002 correspondence from the Superintendent to the

•

Director of the Office of State Police Affairs and the previously issued Attorney General's Directive continue to be the primary governing documents that

memorialize the State's compliance with this requirement.

Status

•

The State remains in compliance with this paragraph, as there are no

contemporaneous incidents to determine otherwise. A review of this reporting

period determined that the Office of Professional Standards did not receive any

referrals from the Division of Criminal Justice as defined in this requirement.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance
Phase II: In Compliance
•

•

2.41 Compliance with Task 66: Notice to Office of State Police Affairs of
Pending Civil Actions

Task66

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 66 stipulates that:

•

66, The State shall notify the OAG whenever a person files a civil claim against the state alleging misconduct

by a state trooper or other employee of the State Police.

The OAG shall notify the PSB of such civil claims.

•

Methodology

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-77

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 2 of 46 PageID: 84
•

Methodology

•

During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team requested and received two "Reportable Incident Forms" that conclusively documented the State's

continued compliance with this requirement. A review of the relevant material

determined that the State received nine "Notices of Claim" during this reporting

•

period .

Status

The State continues to remain in compliance with this requirement as evidenced

•

by their production and review of nine "Reportable Incident Forms" and the abstract produced by the Attorney General's Office that oversees the "Department of Law," a major component of the "Department of Law and Public

Safety." Documentation reviewed Indicate that the notice of civil claim process

continues to function within OPS and OAG. A further review determined that

•

eighteen civil suits were filed during this reporting period, a significant number of which were preceded by "Notices of Claim" filed during earlier periods. During
the ninth reporting period, three completed misconduct investigations were

reviewed by the monitors that were generated as a result of these notices.

•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.42 Compliance with task 67: Notice of Criminal Involvement of Members

Task 67

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase 1

•

Phase II

Task 67 stipulates that:

•

67. The State shall make reaSQnable efforts to
implement a method by which it will be notified of a finding in criminal proceeding of a constitutional

violation or misconduct by a state trooper.

Methodology
•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-78

•

, . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · · - · · -..·--·--···

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 3 of 46 PageID: 85

During the October 2003 site visit, the Independent monitoring team examined

•

an OPS form titled, "Intake and Adjudication Section, Adjudicated Charges Against Members of the New Jersey State Police." The form captured five

incidences of misconduct findings that have entered the judicial system. Two

were adjudicated and three are currently pending. All five of these incidences

resulted In OPS investigations .

•

Status

The monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit noted that the Attorney

General's Directive which advises the county prosecutors to notify the State

•

when a violation articulated in this requirement occurs, continues to be in effect

The monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit inquired and was

updated on developments relevant to statements regarding racial profiling made

by a former member of the New Jersey State Police that resulted In an inquiry

•

that is still on-going. Once that investigation is complete, members of the monitoring team will review the results of the investigation to ensure the process

was conducted in compliance with the requirements of the consent decree.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

2.43 Compliance with Task 68: Notice of Adverse Involvement

•

Task68

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 68 stipulates that:

68, The State Police shall require all state troopers

promptly to notify the State Pollee of the following: the

trooper is arrested or criminally charged for any conduct;

•

the trooper Is named as a party in any civil suit Involving his or her conduct while on duty (or otherwise while

acting In an official capacity); or the trooper is named as

a party in any civil suit regarding off.-duty conduct (while

not acting in an official capacity) that alleges radal bias,

•

physical violence, or threats of physical violence by the trooper. State troopers shall report this Information

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-79

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 4 of 46 PageID: 86

either directly to the PSB or to a supervisor who shall
report the information to the PSB. The PSB shall notify the OAG of PSB's receipt of this infonnatlon.

Methodology

During the October 2003 site visit, the independent monitoring team requested

•

documentation supportive of the State's compliance with this requirement. The monitoring team reviewed an abstract produced by IA Pro and noted that the

document captured appropriate entries relevant to the four self-report incidents

of the types required in this paragraph

•

Status

The monitoring team determined that during this reporting period the State

remains in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph •

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
•

2.44 Compliance with Task 69: Duty to Report Misconduct

•

Task 69

2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 69 stipulates that:

69. The state Police shall require state troopers to

report, based on personal knowledge, any conduct by

•

other troopers, involving civilians, that reasonably
appears to constitute: (a) prohibited discrimination; (b) an unreasonable use of force or a threat of force; (c) an

Intentional constitutional violation; (d) an Intentional

failure to follow any of the documentation requirements

of this Decree, or (e) an intentional provision of false

•

information in a misconduct Investigation or in any
report, log, or transmittal of Information to the

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-80

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 5 of 46 PageID: 87

communications center. State troopers shall report such

misconduct by fellow troopers either directly to the PSB

•

or to a supervisor who shall report the allegation to the PSB. The PSB shall notify the OAG of PSB's receipt of this

Information.

Methodology

•

No changes in State Police policy regarding this task were noted by the

monitoring team during the October 2003 site visit.

Status

•

Members of the monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit, determined

that of the misconduct cases completed and reviewed by the monitors during

this reporting period, no complaints, of the type articulated in this task, were

present. The State remains in compliance with this task based on past

•

performance . Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.45 Compliance with Task 70: Creation of the Office of Professional

Standards

Task 70

•

Phase I

Phase II

7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Task 70 stipulates that:

70. The state Pollee shall provide for a Professional

Standards Bureau, the purpose of which shall be to

protect the professional Integrity of the Division of State

Pollee and to fully, fahiy and expeditiously Investigate

•

and resolve complaints and other mlsc:onduct investigations. The State shall provide the PSB sufficient

staff, funds, and resources to perform the functions

required by this Decree. The state shall encourage highly

qualified candidates to become PSB Investigators,

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-81

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 6 of 46 PageID: 88

Methodology

•

During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team determined that OPS

currently has an authorized strength of 72 personnel; 49 sworn and 12 civilians

are currently filled. There are eight vacancies for sworn personnel and three for

civilian. Members of the monitoring team were advised by representatives of the

•

OPS that in June 2003 the "Management Review Unit," formerly a part of the
OPS, was moved, and is now a part of the "Quality Assurance Bureau" in the

Superintendent's Office. This involved three sworn and three civilian personnel.

OPS personnel advised the monitoring team that while the unit suffered the loss

of these personnel, five sworn personnel were added back to OPS, though these

•

five positions constitute five of the eight vacant sworn positions. The monitoring team determined that for the period ending September 30, 2003 there were 79

closed cases more than forty-five days old and only one closed case over 120

days old, other than those cases assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs.

•

Status

Members of the independent monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit

reviewed a teletype dated June 17, 2003 that sufficiently substantiated the

State's representation that they are actively pursuing the filling of these

•

vacancies .

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

2.46 Compliance with Task 71: Formal Eligibility Requirements for PSB

•

~2 Task 71

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II I

Task 71 stipulates that:

•

71. The Superintendent of the State Pollee shall establish formal eligibility criteria for the head of the PSB and for

staff who supervise or conduct Internal investigations.

These criteria shall apply to the incumbent PSB head and

investigative staff, and all candidates for these positions,

•

and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving In these positions. The criteria shall

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-82

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 7 of 46 PageID: 89

address, Inter alia, prior investigative experience and

training, analytic and writing skills, Interpersonal and

•

communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, commitment to pollee Integrity, and previous

performance as a law enforcement officer.

Methodology

•

During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team reviewed the eligibility criteria and determined that no changes or alterations have been made to the

criteria since the last site visit.

•

Status The monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit determined that the OPS

function continues to utilize the standard New Jersey State Police Form 334,

"Performance Evaluation" as its principal instrument to assess its personnel. The

•

unit continues to supplement this form with Its own "OPS Investigator Performance Monitoring," to more speclflcally evaluate those personnel assigned

to the OPS. Additionally, there are quarterly appraisals completed on all OPS

personnel that are captured on a "Performance Notice" as part of that form's

"Appraisal" assessment. The monitoring team determined that these documents

•

continue to accurately identify the requisite skill sets for personnel assigned to OPS. In its examination of the most recent division-wide teletype solicitation, dated June 17, 2003, for personnel interested in OPS assignments, the members

of the Independent monitoring team found the solicitation appropriately

articulates the criteria essential for assignment and selection criteria .

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

2.47 Compliance with Task 72: Execution of Training for Office of

•

Professional Standards Staff

. 2 Task 72

34 5

6

7

8

12 9 10 11

Phase 1

•

Phase II

Task 72 stipulates:

72. The State shall ensure that the PSB head and staff

that supervise or conduct Internal investigations receive

•

adequate training to enable them to carry out their

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-83

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 8 of 46 PageID: 90

duties. The training shall continue to include the

•

following: misconduct Investigation techniques;
interviewing skills; observation skills; report writing; criminal law and procedure; court procedures; rules of

evidence; and disciplinary and administrative

procedures.

•

Methodology During the October 2003 site visit, members of the monitoring team reviewed

the OPS general training plan and individual training sessions attended by OPS

personnel for the months of April, May, June and September 2003. Members of

•

the Office of Professional Standards continue to attend courses that are held locally and regionally that support enhancement of skill sets essential to the

performance of their duties.

Status

•

The monitoring team determined during the October 2003 site visit that the State continues to recognize the importance of assuring that OPS personnel are

property trained in skill areas supportive of unit mission. During the ninth

reporting period, all members of OPS received some form of training generally

•

related to their tasks, but OPS personnel did not necessarily attend training
specifically consistent with all types of training articulated in this requirement. Members of OPS continue to attend training at Sea Girt for specialized

curriculum.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.48 Compliance with Task 73: Initiation of Misconduct Investigations

•

Task 73 Phase I

-1 2

1

I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II I

Task 73 stipulates that:

•

73. A misconduct Investigation shall be Initiated pursuant to any of the following:

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-84

•

------------------------------·-·

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 9 of 46 PageID: 91

a. the making of a complaint (as defined in -,16);

b. a referral pursuant to ~37 or '1165;

•

c;. the filing of a civil suit by a civilian alleging any mlsc;onduct by a state trooper while on duty (or acting In

an official capacity);

d. the filing of a c;lvil suit against a state trooper for off-

duty conduct (while not acting in an offlc;ial capac;ity)

that alleges racial bias, physical vlolenc;e, or threat of

•

physical violence; and e. a criminal arrest of or filing of a criminal charge

against a state trooper.

Methodology

•

During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team determined that the IA

Pro system comprehensively produces reports that capture the number of

"Reportable Incident Forms" and the information contained therein.

•

Status

During this reporting period, there were 210 cases opened as evidenced by the

"Reportable Incident Forms." The sources of these cases were

Compliment/Complaint, 3; External, 6; Fax, 21; Hotline, 29; Internal, 55; Mail,

•

16; Notice of Claim, 5; Civil Actions, 5; Telephone, 42; self-Reported, 4; Walk-In, 22; OSPA referrals, 2. The Independent Monitoring Team reviewed 99 cases of

the 106 completed this period. The State remains In compliance with this task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

• 2.49 Compliance with Task 74: Responsibility for Conducting Internal Investigations

Task 74

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I

Phase II

•

Task 74 stipulates that:

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

•

Page-85

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 10 of 46 PageID: 92

74. All misconduct investigations shall be conducted by

the PSB or the OAG except as deleaated to the chain-of-

•

command supervisors. Assignment of misconduct investigations will be made as follows:

a. The PSB or the OAG shall conduct misconduct

investigations In the following circumstances:

i. all complaints alleging a discriminatory motor vehicle

•

stop; all complaints alleging an improper enforcement action or procedure In connection with or during the

c:our.;e of a motor vehicle stop; <tnd all complaints

<tlleging excessive force In conned:Jon with any motor

vehicle stop;

•

11. all complaints relating to any motor vehicle stop
where a State Police supervisor either was at the
incident scene when the alleged misconduct occurred or

was Involved In planning the State Police action whose

Implementation led to the complaint;

Iii. any misconduct Investigation undertaken pursuant to

any event identified In subparagraphs (b) through (e) of

•

,73;and lv. any other cateaorv of misconduct complaints or any

Individual misconduct complaint that the OAG and/or

State Ponce determines should be Investigated by PSB or

OAG. The State Police may continue to assign

•

misconduct Investigations not undertaken by the OAG or PSB to the chain-of-command supervisors• b. The PSB and the OAG shall review all misconduct

complaints as they <tre rec:11ived to determine whether

they meet the criteria (set forth in subparagraph (a)

above) for being investigated by the PSB, the OAG or

beirlg delegated to a chain.of-command supervisor.

•

Nothing in this decree is intended to affect the <tllocation
of misconduct investigations between the PSB and the

OAG.

Methodology

•

During the May 2003 site visit, the monitoring team determined that SOP B-10
continues to govern requisite procedures fundamental to compliance with the

provisions of this paragraph.

•

Status
During the May 2003 site visit the independent monitoring team examined the

"OPS Incident Classification" form and determined that it is appropriately used to

assure that case assignment and allocation are properly assigned and consistent

•

with the provisions of this requirement. Further, a review of closed cases for this reporting period Indicated that all cases had been appropriately assigned for

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-86

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 11 of 46 PageID: 93

investigation, and that no cases that should have been completed by OPS were

•

assigned to chain-of-command for investigation .

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance
2.50 Compliance with Task 75: Prohibition of Conflict of Interest in

Investigations

•

Task 75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 75 stipulates that:
75. The State shall prohibit ;my state trooper who has a

conflict of Interest related to a pending misconduct

Investigation from participating In any way in the

conduct or review of that Investigation•

•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team during the May 2003 site visit determined that

all previous documents reviewed by the monitoring team remain properly

•

incorporated into SOP B-10, III, E, (b) 8.

Status

The monitoring team determined that no conflicts of interest occurred during this

•

reporting period. The monitoring period "Conflict of Interest" and concluded that

reviewed the OPS internal file titled, the unit has a sufficient and adequate

process to those who

solicit might

and act upon conflict of interest be engaged in the investigatory,

matters as such pertain to management and review

process. The monitors' review of closed investigations for this reporting period

•

determined no conflicts of interest between investigative personnel and principals of the investigations.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-87

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 12 of 46 PageID: 94

Phase II: In Compliance

2.51 Compliance with Task 76: Prohibition of Group Interviews

Task 76

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 76 stipulates that:

•

76. All written or recorded interviews shall be maintained as part of the Investigative file. The State shall not conduct group Interviews and shall not accept a

written statement from any state trooper in lieu of an

Interview.

•

Methodology Members of the monitoring team, during the May 2003 site visit determined that

the State, through regular reviews by the OffiCe of State Police Affairs, continue

to assess OPS compliance with this requirement. Members of the monitoring

•

team reviewed 99 completed complaint investigations (of 106 completed this period) for evidence of group interviews or written statements from troopers in

lieu of an interview.

Status

•

Members of the OPS receive annual training to reinforce the provisions of this

requirement. The Office of State Police Affairs of the Office of the Attomey

General regularly audit the OPS and found no circumstances violative of this

requirement. No group interviews or written statements in lieu of an interview

•

were found in any of the cases reviewed by the monitoring team. The State is
judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-88

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 13 of 46 PageID: 95

2.52 Compliance with Task 77: Alternative Locations for Interviews

•

Task 77

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 77 stipulates that:

71. The state shall arrange a convenient time and place,

including by telephone (or TDD), to interview civilians for

•

misconduct investigations. The state Police shall
reasonably accommodate civilians• circumstances to
facilitate the progres5 of an investigation. This may

include holding an interview at a location other than a

state office or at a time other than regular buslnes5

hours•

•

Methodology

The Office of State Police Affairs continues to closely scrutinize the Division's

compliance with this requirement. Members of the monitoring team reviewed 99

•

of the internal complaint investigations completed during this reporting period for evidence of implementation of this requirement.

Status

•

During the May 2003 site visit, members of the monitoring team reviewed an internal investigative report that clearly memorialized that a witness was interviewed at her residence. There is sufficient evidence In the case files

reviewed this period to indicate that complainants and witnesses are interviewed

at places of their convenience. The State is judged to remain in compliance with

•

this Task. Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance 2.53 Compliance with Task 78: Investigation of Collateral Misconduct

Task 78

2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12.

•

Phase I Phase II

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-89

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 14 of 46 PageID: 96

•

Task 78 stipulates that:

78. In conducting misconduct Investigations, the State

shall assess the propriety of all state trooper conduct

during the incident in which the alleged misconduct

•

occurred. If during the course of an investigation the Investigator has reason to believe that misconduct

occurred other than that alleged, and that potential

misconduct Is one of the types Identified in '1169, the

Investigator also shall investigate the additional

potential misconduct to its logical conclusion•

•

Methodology

No changes in New Jersey State Police policies regarding this task were made

•

since the last site visit. The Office of State Police Affairs continues to closely scrutinize the Division's compliance with this requirement. Members of the monitoring team reviewed 99 of the 106 internal complaint investigations

completed during this reporting period for evidence of Implementation of this

requirement.

•

Status

During the May 2003 site visit, the monitoring team reviewed a "New Principal

Allegation Form" which clearly documented that OPS had identified a collateral

matter during the course of an investigation and had acted appropriately in its

•

follow thru. Of the cases reviewed by the monitors this period, there were 37 Instances that indicated a need to pursue collateral matters. Initiation of

collateral misconduct investigations were undertaken in all of these instances.

This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, well within the allowable margin of

error of five percent. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
•

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-90

-----------------------------------·--

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 15 of 46 PageID: 97

2.54 Compliance with Task 80: Revision of the "Internal Investigations

•

Manual"
Task 80

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
• Task 80 stipulates that:

80. The State shall update Its manual for conducting

•

misconduct investigations to assure that It Is consistent with the recommendations contained In the Final Report
and the requirements of this Decree.

Methodology

•

During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team determined that a new iteration of the Internal Affairs Investigation Manual has been completed and Is

still pending the approval of the Superintendent.

•

Status The current lA Manual and the supporting SOP B-10 remain the governing

documents. During Its next site visit, the monitoring team will review the newest

Iteration of the IA Manual to ensure that it continues to comport with the

requirements of the decree. The State is judged to remain in compliance with

•

this task.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

Compliance with Task 81: Preponderance of the Evidence Standard for

Internal Investigations

•

Task 81

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 81 stipulates that:

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

•

Page-91

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 16 of 46 PageID: 98

•

81. The State shall make findings based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit determined

•

that the Office of State Police Affairs continues to assess the Division's compliance with this requirement through its "case Content Analysis Form."

Established policy requires a preponderance of the evidence standard.

•

Status The monitoring team reviewed 99 of the 106 cases completed by OPS for this

reporting period. All but one were found to have used the preponderance of evidence standard in developing their findings. The State remains in compliance

•

with this task. Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance
Compliance with Task 82: MVR Tape Review in Internal Investigations

•

~ Task82

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II I

Task 82 stipulates that:

•

81. If the incident that Is the subject of the misconduct Investigation was recorded on an MVR tape. that tape

shall be reviewed as part of the misconduct

Investigation.

•

Methodology During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team reviewed "Internal

Investigation Reports" that had clear indications of the need to review the MVR

tape associated with the investigation that was generated by the complaint.

•

Status

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-92

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 17 of 46 PageID: 99
•

•

Members of the monitoring team reviewed 99 cases completed during this reporting period and found all cases that indicated a potential need to review an in-car MVR recording included an appropriate MVR tape review by the assigned

OPS investigator. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II; In Compliance

•

2.57 Compliance with Task 83: State to Consider Circumstantial
Evidence in Internal Investigations

Task 83

2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase 1

•

Phase 11

Task 83 stipulates that:

•

83. In each misconduct investigation, the State shall consider circumstantial evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There shall

be no automatic preference for a state trooper's

statement over a civilian's statement. Similarly, there

shall be no automatic judgment that there is insufficient

•

information to make a credibility determination where the only or principal information about an incident Is the conflicting statements of the Involved trooper and

civilian.

Methodology

•

The monitoring team, during the October 2003 site visit determined that SOP B"

10 continues as the only vehicle that properly addresses this Issue. A review of

the Internal Affairs Investigation Manual determined that no specific reference to

circumstantial evidence is made. While there was no specific lAB training this

•

period, representatives of OPS indicate that issues relevant to "circumstantial evidence" will be conducted in conjunction with the training on the new "Internal

Affairs Investigation Manual.''

Status
•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-93

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 18 of 46 PageID: 100

The monitoring team, during its review of 99 of 106 cases completed during this

•

reporting period, determined that conclusions continue to be in conformance with the requirements of the policies approved by the monitors and the Department of Justice.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.58 Compliance with Task 84: Required Case Dispositions in Internal

•

Investigations

Task84

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 84 stipulates that:

•

84. The State shall continue to resolve each allegation in a misconduct investigation by making one of the following dispositions:

a. "Substantiated," where a preponderance of the

evidence shows that a state trooper violated State Pollee

rules, regulations, protocols, standard operating

procedures, directives or training;

•

b. "Unfounded," where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged misconduct did not occur;

c. "Exonerated," where a preponderance of the evidence

shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not

violate State Pollee rules, regulations, operating

procedures, directives or training; and

•

d. "Insufficient evidence" (formerly "unsubstantiated"),
where there is insufficient evidence to decide whether

the alleged misconduct occurred.

Methodology

•

The monitoring team, during its October 2003 site visit determined that the State continues to use a variety of review processes to ensure compliance with the

provisions of this requirement. Most notable is the "Case Content Analysis

Instrument" which is completed by OSPA concurrent with its review of core

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-94

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 19 of 46 PageID: 101

issues, or other specifically designated case files. Additionally, the State advises

•

that the semi-annual IAB-specific training addresses this requirement.

Status

A review of completed cases for this reporting period indicated two dispositions

•

other than those allowed by this paragraph. These two cases were closed "without further action," a disposition not allowable. An intensive review of

these cases by the monitoring team, and discussion with OSPA personnel

indicated that both were internally generated complaints that should not have

been Initiated as OPS investigations. The monitors are working with the parties

•

to establish a protocol to avoid any similar errors in the future. The State is judged to remain In compliance with this task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.59 Compliance with Task 85: No Closure upon Withdrawal of Complaint

iask85

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 85 stipulates that:

•

85. The State shall not close any misconduct investigation without rendering one ofthe dispositions

identified above. Withdrawal of a complaint or

unavailability of the complainant or the victim of the

alleged misconduct to make a statement shall not be a

basis for dosing an investigation without further

attempt at Investigation. The State shall Investigate such

matters to the extent reasonably possible to determine

whether or not the allegations can be corroborated.

Methodology
•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-95

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 20 of 46 PageID: 102

During its October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team reviewed a case at the

•

OPS facility in which an investigation was continued after withdrawal of the complaint. The review determined that the matter was properly pursued in the aftermath of the complaint withdrawal.

Status

•

The monitoring team, in its review of cases completed during this reporting period found 11 indications of withdrawn complaints or complainant

unavailability. The Office of State Pollee Affairs continues to monitor the

Division's compliance with this requirement through their "case Content Analysis

•

Form." As the monitors did not note any Indications of a tendency to discontinue Investigations upon withdrawal of a complaint or failure to cooperate with an investigative effort, the State is judged to remain In compliance with this

requirement based on past performance.

•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.60 Compliance with Task 86: Development of a Final Investigative
Report

Task 86

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 86 stipulates that:

86. At the conclusion of each misconduct investigation,

•

the individual rl!liponsible for the Investigation shall issue a report on the investigation, which sha II be made

a part of the invl!litigatlon file. The report shall include a

description of the alleged misconduct and any other

misconduct lssu• identified during the course of the

investigation; a summary and analysis of all relevant

•

evidence gathered during the inVI!Iitlgation; and findings and analysis supporting the findings.

Methodology
•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-96

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 21 of 46 PageID: 103

During the October 2003 site visit, the monitoring team determined that the

•

State continues to use the Internal Affairs Investigation Manual as the policy guidance for this requirement. The revised Internal Investigation Manual has been approved by the Superintendent and is currently being printed for Division

distribution. During the site visit period, the monitoring team reviewed 99

completed "Internal Investigation Reports," and determined 98 of them to be

•

complete and in compliance with the provisions of the decree relevant to substance and quality.

Status

•

The monitoring team's review of completed misconduct investigations for this reporting period found all but one to comport with the requirements articulated in this requirement. That Investigation included a final report that the monitors

found virtually impossible to read and understand. The case was returned to

OSPA. An error of one case from among the 99 reviewed cases constitutes 1.1

•

percent, within the allowable margin of error.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.61 Compliance with Task 87: State to Attempt to Complete
Investigations within 45 Days

•

Task87

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 87 stipulates that:

87. The state Pollee shall continue to attempt to

complete misconduct Investigations within forty-five

(45) days after assignment to an investigator•

•

Methodology

The parties, with the concurrence of the monitors, have continued to function

under the agreed upon 120-day timetable for completion of investigation of

• I

complaints made by citizens. The State advised that it is continuing to work

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-97

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 22 of 46 PageID: 104

diligently to improve the completion cycle for investigations of complaints made

•

by citizens and by virtue of a new State statute that has internally required a forty-five day completion cycle.

Status

•

During the eighth reporting period, the State achieved a critical milestone by
clearing the existing backlog of cases to be investigated by OPS. This represented a major step toward establishing firm timelines for investigation of

complaints of misconduct. This reporting period, the State continues to complete

misconduct investigations within the revised 120-day period and has

•

demonstrated notable progress toward completions in less than 120 days. Investigators are still functioning under an expectation that their investigative efforts are to be completed within forty-five days. The monitors determined

through a review of cases completed during this reporting period that all but one

were completed within the 120 day time period. The State remains In compliance

•

with this task . Compliance:

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance 2.62 Compliance with Task 88: Imposition of Appropriate Discipline

upon Sustained Complaint

Task88

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I

Phase II

•

Task 88 stipulates that:
88. The State Police shall discipline any state trooper

who is the subject of a substantiated misconduct

adjudication or disposition regarding: (a) prohibited

discrimination; (b) an unreasonable use of force or a

•

threat of force; (c) an Intentional constitutional
violation; (d) an intentional failure to follow any of the
documentation requirements of this Decree, (e) an

Intentional provision of false Information In a misconduct

investigation or in any report, log, or transmittal of

Information to the communications center; or (f) a

•

failure to comply with the requirement of '1169 to report
misconduct by another trooper.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Rerx>rt

Page-98

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 23 of 46 PageID: 105

•

Methodology The monitoring team, during its October 2003 site visit, reviewed IA Pro

generated abstracts of completed cases for sustained complaints and assessed

the discipline imposed in these matters. Further, the monitoring team reviewed

an internal "Office of Professional Standards Weekly Summary Report" that notes

'e

weekly and aggregated data relevant to disciplinary determinations made by the

State.

Status

•

The monitoring team, during its examination of completed cases, reviewed copies of reprimands issued to troopers for matters completed during this

reporting period. The monitoring team continues to observe a consistent pattern

of imposing discipline consistent with investigative findings. The monitors noted

•

13 substantiated cases in those that they reviewed this reporting period . Discipline was determined and applied in each of these 13 cases.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In compliance

2.63 Compliance with Task 89: Imposition of Appropriate Discipline upon Finding of Guilt or Liability

•

•Task89
Phase I

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II I

•

Task 89 stipulates that:

89. The State Police shall Initiate disciplinary

proceedings against any state trooper who is found

guilty or who enters a plea in a criminal case regarding

•

on-duty conduct; any state trooper found civilly liable for
misconduct of the type ldentffied in ,88 committed on
duty or whose misconduct of the type Identified in '1188 Is

the basis for the State being found civilly liable; and any

state trooper who is found by a judge in a criminal case

to have committed an Intentional constitutional

•

violation. The State Pollee shall discipline any state

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-99

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 24 of 46 PageID: 106

trooper who is determined to have committed the

•

misconduct set forth in this paragraph•
Methodology

The monitoring team, during its October 2003 site visit, reviewed SOP B-10, III,

•

G and determined that it comports with the provisions of this requirement. The monitoring team, as a result of a direct inquiry to the State, determined that no instances of this type occurred in this reporting period.

Status

•

There were no investigations of this nature completed during this reporting period. Accordingly, the monitors remain satisfied that the State continues to

keep in place processes necessary to address such matters should they occur.

Based on past performance, the State remains in compliance

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.64 Compliance with Task 90: Imposition of Appropriate Discipline In Consultation with MAPPS

Task 90

•

Phase 1 Phase II

10 11 12

•

Task 90 stipulates that:
90. In deciding the appropriate discipline or intervention

for eac;h state trooper who is the subject of a

"substantiated" adjudication or disposition in a

misconduct investigation and eac:h trooper who is to be

•

dl5tlpllned pursuant to '1189, the State shall consider the
nature and scope of the misconduct and the information in the MAP. In all instances where the State

substantiates a misconduct allegation regarding matters

Identified in '1188 or dlsc:lpllnes a trooper pursuant to '1189,

it shall also require that intervention be instituted

•

(except where the discipline is termination). Where a misconduct allegation Is not substantiated, the State

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-100

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 25 of 46 PageID: 107

shall consider the information in the investigation flle

•

and In the MAP to determine whether intervention should be instituted•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team during the October 2003 site visit determined

•

that the State continues to address compliance with this requirement in SOP B· 10, III, H as it pertains to Phase I compliance.

Status

The monitors, during the October 2003 site visit, noted that OPS, though

•

meeting a considerable number of its functional MAPPS requirements, has still not operationalized the MAPPS- OPS interface. Until MAPPS is on-line Division-

wide, members of the monitoring team will still be unable to assess the degree

to which the State makes disciplinary decisions based, in part, on the past history

of the troopers in question.

•

Because there is no tangible process that substantially verifies that the State is

accessing historical information relevant to trooper conduct, and in the absence

of a functioning MAPPS system, the State will remain out of Phase II compliance

wit this task•

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: Not in Compliance

•

2.65 Compliance with Task 91: Tracking of Open Office of Professional

Standards Cases

Task 91

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 91 stipulates that:

•

91. Tbe PSB shall track all open misconduct

Investigations to ensure that investigations are

completed in a timely fashion. Within one hundred

twenty {120) days following entry of this Decree, the

•

State shall develop a plan for designing and

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-101

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 26 of 46 PageID: 108

Implementing a computerized tracking system (including

•

a timetable for implementation)•
Methodology

The monitoring team, during the October site visit made several observations of

the IA Pro software. The technology remains an important instrument in the daily

•

operations of the OPS function and in the management of the cases the unit addresses. The monitoring team noted expanded uses and reliance on the IA

Pro system.

Status

•

The monitoring team determined that the IA Pro system Is now accessible at any

facility that is part of the OPS function. It has the ability to identify various

pieces of relevant information and to produce data relevant to the OPS function.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II; In Compliance

•

2.66 Compliance with Task 92: Inform the Complainant upon

Resolution of Investigations

Task92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase !I

= 1

I

I

•

Task 92 stipulates that:
92. After a misconduct complaint is finally resolved by

the State Police, the State Pollee shall Inform the

complainant of the resolution in writing, including the

investigation's significant dates, general allegations, and

•

disposition, including whether discipline was imposed.

Methodology

Methodology
•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-102

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 27 of 46 PageID: 109

The monitoring team reviewed 99 of the 106 cases completed during this

•

reporting period. Representatives of the Office of State Police Affairs, through a "case Content Analysis Process, continue to similarly review all investigative files for compliance with provisions of this paragraph.

Status

•

Each case reviewed by the monitoring team In which a complainant was identified included required copies of disposition letters to the complainant

containing the required, relevant information as outlined in the provisions of this

paragraph. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task .

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.67 Training Assessment

2.68 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

•

Task93

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 93 stipulates that:

93. The New Jersey state Pollee shall continue to:

oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state

troopers; continue to develop and implement the state

•

Police academy curriculum for training state Police recruits, and provide training for academy Instructors; select and train state trooper coaches In coordination

with and assistance from State Pollee supervisors;

approve and supervise all post-academy training for

state troopers, and develop and implement all post-

•

academy training conducted by the state Pollee; provide
training for State Pollee Instructors who provide post-
academy training; and establish procedures for

evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation

of Instructional content, the quality of instruction, and

the implementation by state troopers of the practices

•

and procedures being taught)•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-103

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 28 of 46 PageID: 110

•

Methodology Members of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this

task, and requested and reviewed staffing and manpower allocation data for the

Academy .

•

Status

Task 93 enumerates the areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. This assessment is divided into four segments:

•

• Recruit training;

• Training for academy instructors;

• Evaluation of training; and

• Training issues related to MAPPS .

•

Each of these topics is discussed in some detail below.

Recruit Training

•

The Academy's pre-service unit and the Division's recruiting unit are working together to coordinate the start dates for new recruit classes. Class size is being held to 40-50 which has proven over time to be manageable for the available

academy staff. Two classes will overlap allowing for combined Instruction in

some areas (e.g. physical training instruction) which decreases the staffing

•

requirements. The evaluations conducted on some of the testing materials used with the 130th class reported on In the last site visit report have been submitted to the monitoring team as completion of the recruit training evaluation

requirement. This submission, occurring during the monitoring team's site visit,

has not been assessed by the monitoring team. This component of Task 93 will

•

be assessed in the 10tn monitoring report. Several units of instruction have been revised in the past three years, but no

complete evaluation of the program has occurred. Now that qualified staff are

available to conduct such data~driven analyses, a complete evaluation to provide

•

oversight to insure quality seems timely and Important. Also, the availability of MAPPS data related to the performance of troopers who have graduated since the consent decree began will provide important Information about how well the

training has, or has not been implemented operationally. Plans call for these data

to drive revisions to the recruit curriculum. A new lieutenant was assigned to the

•

recruit training unit while the site visit was in progress .

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-104

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 29 of 46 PageID: 111

The portion of the Academy manpower study related to pre-service (recruit

•

training) has been completed and staffing is beginning to reflect the results of that study. Training for recruits continues to be provided in a timely and
effective manner.

Training for Academy Instructors

•

The Academy Is presently gathering and analyzing data to identify all the instructors who have been providing training in various specialized units and in

Field Operations for many years. This effort Is designed to standardize the

formatting of lesson plans, to ensure the content quality of the training, and to

•

verify the qualificatiOns and training of the trainers. This is another example that
incoming data are going to require a major effort to develop processes to
manage the data, the follow-up that will be required based on that analysis, and

the on-going oversight that is required to insure quality.

•

Training Evaluation For the past three years, the in-service unit has been evaluating the five most

frequently missed questions to determine if learning is occurring. This unit also

identified participants who failed the testing and provided remedial training for

•

them . Recently, a trooper was assigned to the Academy who has extensive statistical

and mathematical expertise. He completed a statistical analysis of testing for

some blocks of recruit training, and discovered that the some students were

•

missing questions because the questions were improperly worded or material
used to teach was outdated. This led to the formation of an evaluation and compliance process to evaluate all testing conducted by the Academy.

Documentation reviewed by the monitoring team does demonstrate that the

Academy is currently evaluating all testing for the recruit curriculum, and is

•

beginning to evaluate testing measures for other academy training . The monitors were provided with documentation reflecting completiOn of the

required training evaluatiOns. These documents were provided during the monitors' site visits, and reflected a vastly improved level of thoroughness. The

•

monitors were unable to complete the assessment of these documents prior to completion of IMR 9, and will revisit these documents for IMR 10.

Performance Implementation Evaluation

MAPPS has been Implemented and performance data will now be available for

•

analysis. Responsibility for these evaluations has been assigned to the Troop

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-105

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 30 of 46 PageID: 112
•

level, with MAPPS envisioned as the tool by which the assessment will be

•

completed. The trooper coach coordinator at the Academy has been assigned coordination duties for this task. Documents reflecting these evaluations were provided during the monitors' site visits, and reflected a vastly improved level of

thoroughness. The monitors were unable to complete the assessment of these

documents prior to completion of IMR 9, and will revisit these documents for IMR

•

10 .

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

2.69 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

•

Task 97

Phase I Phase II

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Task 97 stipulates that:

97. The State shall continue to encourage superior

troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and

trooper coach training positions.

•

Methodology

A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this

task, and reviewed documentation related to this task .

•

Status

Academy Training Staff

•

After the previous site visit the State was judged to be non-compliant with this task due to chronic understaffing and inadequacies in encouraging superior

troopers to apply for academy staff positions. In the two previous academy

recruiting efforts, eight troopers applied to the first request, and nine applied to

the second .

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-106

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 31 of 46 PageID: 113

According to documentation provided to the monitoring team, after the last site

•

visit report, the Division did the following: • Issued a teletype requesting applications for trainers;

• Had academy staff go out to a number of stations to promote the

value of becoming an academy trainer;

•

• Received applications from twenty-nine troopers; • Conducted a selection process was conducted on September 25th and
261h; and

• Chose thirteen full-time permanent academy staff from the pool of

applicants. These included 10 troopers, two sergeants, and one

•

lieutenant.

Post-Academy Staff

Academy staff mounted a specific recruiting effort for Academy Instructors during

•

the ninth reporting period. This consisted of Division-wide teletypes and recruiting visits to road stations and other units within the Division, and specific attention to encouraging "superior troopers" to apply for Academy instructional

positions. The number of applicants for Academy instructional slots rose

substantially .

•

Trooper Coach Staff

The recruiting process demonstrates that adequate numbers of troopers are

applying for coaching positions. Currently, many of them have three or fewer

•

years of experience. The monitors have expressed to OSPA a concern about the average tenure of trooper coach personnel, based on the monitors' observation-
on the part of some younger personnei--Qf uncertainty regarding search and

seizure processes and other actions related to the decree. The monitors have

not drawn a direct link between tenure and this observations, however, and the

•

State remains in compliance with this task. Preference for future assignments is an encouragement offered to troopers to

encourage them to apply to the coaching program. This process is memorialized

in SOP F-12. The monitors have not audited documentation to date to determine

•

if such preference was given to former coaches. The monitors will assess this process for IMR 10.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-107

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 32 of 46 PageID: 114

•

2.70 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

Task98

•

Phase I

Phase II

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish fonnal eligibility and

selection criteria for all atademy, post-atademy, and

trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall

apply to all incumbent troopers in these training

•

PQ5itions and to all tandldate5 for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the
performance of perSOns serving in these positions. The

criteria shall address, Inter alia, knowledge of State

Police polldes and procedures, interpersonal and

communitatlon skills, cultural and community

•

sensitivity, teaching aptitude, perform;mce as a law
enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postatademy training received, specialized knowledge, and

commitment to pollee Integrity.

Methodology

•

A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this

task, and audited trooper coach selection records.

Status

•

Academy Trainers

Selection criteria have been delineated and documentation demonstrates that the

criteria are being met. Academy trainer records were monitored on the last site

•

visit and will be monitored on the next site visit as this auditing function occurs on an annual basis. Documentation that appropriate academy staff are reviewing

these files on at a weekly basis was provided to the monitors during this site

visit.

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

•

- - - - · - · - -.. ----·--

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 33 of 46 PageID: 115

Post-Academy Trainers

•

Documentation for these tasks was provided to the monitoring team during the site visit for IMR 9. These documents were provided during the monitors' site

visit to the Academy, and reflected a vastly improved level of thoroughness. The

monitors were unable to complete the assessment of these documents prior to

•

completion of IMR 9, and will revisit these documents for IMR 10.

Trooper Coaches

Selection criteria have been delineated and documentation demonstrates that the

•

criteria are being met. The monitoring team conducted the annual audit of the newly selected coaches' records during this site visit. Ten records from each of

the three Troops (A, B, C) were chosen at random for a total of 30 selection

records.

•

All records contained the required documentation:

• A curriculum vitae

• Oral board responses and scores

• Supervisory evaluations

•

• A meaningful review • C-20 compliance

Some evaluation data for Troop B had been lost in transit from the troop to the

Academy. Efforts to locate this material by the troop and the Academy were not

•

successful, but documentation of the final evaluation score was available on another form. This Information was placed in each coach folder with an

explanation of why the data were missing.

The documentation of what occurred and the follow-up that transpired is the

•

critical piece of oversight that the monitoring team needed to see to complete
this audit. Though unforeseen events like this cannot be anticipated, the

documentation of the event that occurred and the follow-up effort are critical to

maintain an audit trail and to demonstrate that agency oversight is occurring.

Well done•

•

The meaningful review process has been finalized, and this process has also

been included in SOP F-12. Documentation, which preserves each trooper's

privacy, is available in each folder.

•

Compliance

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-109

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 34 of 46 PageID: 116

Academy Personnel

Post Academy Trooper Coach Personnel

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.71 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

•

Task 99

Phase I

Phase II

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Task 99 stipulates that:

99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving

as an academy or post·academy instructor, or as a

trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them

•

to carry out their duties, Including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All

training Instructors and trooper coaches shall be

required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular

basis, a high level of competence. The Sl:llte shall

document all training Instructors' and trooper coaches'

•

proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.

Methodology

•

A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed the Academy personnel files for coaches.

Status

•

Academy Instructors

An audit of academy trainer files was conducted during the last site visit, and will

be repeated on the next site visit, as this is an annual auditing function. Per

documentation provided to the monitoring team, a new curriculum to qualify

•

academy trainers is being designed. It is anticipated that this will include the following:

• The instructor training course;

• Firearms instructor training course;

•

• Training bureau orders; and • Orientation to adult-based learning techniques.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-110

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 35 of 46 PageID: 117

•

As part of the oversight function to assure quality training, a review of the training provided to the trainers is certainly indicated.

Documentation related to the training cycle was provided to the monitoring team

related to the assessment phase that led to the conclusion that these are the

•

courses that are necessary for training the trainers. The assessment phase consisted of a managerial review of the requirements of this task, and

identification of existing training products within the State Police organization

that Academy command staff felt would fit the requirements.

•

Based on information collected from academy staff, as part of the new career development process at the Academy, some individualized staff development

training will be occurring for staff as part of their personalized career

development plans. The addition of their customized plan and the training they

are receiving to meet the goals of that plan could be included in these records,

•

and academy oversight auditing to demonstrate that this is occurring should happen on an annual basis to maintain compliance with task 97.

Post-Academy Instructors

•

The Academy is concluding a Division-wide survey to Identify all the postacademy instructors who are providing training within the Division, but outside

the Academy, in operational areas.

There are at least three categories to consider here:

•

• Troopers who are requested to come to the Academy to provide

training on specialized topics;

• Troopers who have been providing training in operations and In

specialty units who have previously not fallen under the Academy's

•

oversight; • Outside speakers (e.g. prosecutors) who are asked to provide training.

As assessment of these instructors' qualifications and the need for updated

training relating to training skills and content expertise are yet to be determined.

•

The State Is currently compiling a list of troopers that fall into these three · categories. The monitors will assess this process on the tenth site visit.

Trooper Coach

•

The monitoring team did not review the training documentation for the new trooper coaches, though the monitoring team was told by academy oversight

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-111

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 36 of 46 PageID: 118

staff for this program, that all new coaches attended and passed the three-day

•

training program. The monitors will assess this process on the 10tn site visit. As a result of the monitoring team's audit, four new issues emerged during this

site visit.

•

New coaches received the coach training three months before they actually began coaching; • The meaningful review of coach candidates occurs when they are

selected and this can be 3-6 months before they are assigned a

probationary trooper;

•

• A voluminous amount of paper documentation is accumulating at the in·service unit related to the coaching program .

These events occurred recently enough not to be subject to monitoring this period. The monitors will assess this process on the 10th site visit.

•

Compliance:

Academy Instructors

Post-Academy Trooper CQaches

Phase I: In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.72 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

•

Task 100

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 100 stipulates that:

100, The State Police shall continue to train all recruits

and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include

training on interactions with persons from different

•

racial, ethnic, and religious groul)5, persons of the
opposite sax, persons having a different sexual
orientation, and persons with disabilities;

communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including

the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by

fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct,

•

professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate In misconduct

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-112

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 37 of 46 PageID: 119

investigations. This training shall be reinforced through

mandatory annual in-service training covering these

•

topics•

Methodology

A member of the monitoring team reviewed documentation, spoke with academy

•

staff responsible for implementing this task, and also spoke to staff from the Office of State Police Affairs who are responsible for oversight for all consent

decree tasks.

Status

•

Cultural Awareness

This is a mandatory annual in-service training program that must be completed

by December 31, 2003 in order to maintain compliance. During this site visit, the

•

monitoring team was advised that the in-service staff and staff from the Office of State Police Affairs reviewed previous training on this topic and determined that

awareness in the areas of persons with disabilities and those with differing

sexual orientation had not been adequately addressed. The monitoring team had

mentioned on previous visits that this topic had not been addressed In any

•

depth .

A member of the in-service staff attended training that Included material on

these topics conducted by an outside vendor, which led to consideration of this

vendor for development of the training. According to memoranda and

•

documentation provided to the monitoring team after the site visit, a brief synopsis of the training was submitted to the Office of State Pollee Affairs by the

vendor on September 9, 2003. A narrative section of this synopsis indicates that

the vendor seems to have reviewed critiques from last year's cultural diversity

training. The monitors advised the State of specific shortcomings in the

•

documentation of the training cycle for this task in late October, 2003, prior to
commencement of instruction on this topic. The monitors followed up this notice

with a second site visit in December, 2003 to observe training for this task.

During that site visit, the monitors observed irregularities in the

testing/evaluation component for this task, directly related to the concerns

•

expressed to the State concerning the documentation of the training cycle for this task. Based on concerns raised with the Academy commandant in

December, the State took remedial steps to ensure that no further problems

occurred. Documentation of these steps was provided to the monitoring team in

mid-January, as this report was being finalized. The monitors will re-visit

•

training for this task during the IMR 10 process.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-113

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 38 of 46 PageID: 120

Ethics/Integrity

•

Assessment

Based on information provided by the State, the in-service staff gathered data

•

from the Office of Police Standards (Internal Affairs) information regarding the types of infractions that have been investigated in the past two years. An analysis led to the decision to conduct a class on ethical concerns:

• Ethical trends in time management within the New Jersey State Police;

•

• Domestic violence issues; and • Reporting misconduct.

Documentation related to the needs assessment conducted for this task was

presented to the monitoring team, and consisted of the two-year review of OPS

•

cases to determine the major causes of OPS . These three topics were the most frequently found reasons for initiation of OPS cases.

This course focused on time management and domestic violence Issues as they

relate to ethical decision-making and ethical outcomes. A lesson plan was

•

submitted for each training topic that included objectives, instructional methodology, references, training aids, length of course, and a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. An audit of the lesson plans demonstrates that the

material covered meets the objectives. Group activities and scenarios require

that the participants engage in critical thinking and creative problem-solving to

•

resolve issues that are relevant to the participants because they are based upon actual Incidents which have recently occurred within the Division. The lesson plans were presented in conformity with the Academy's lesson plan format and

were complete and professional in appearance.

•

A four-hour instructional course (86 training sessions) Is being conducted at four locations between October 29th and December 19111• No testing or evaluation
data were provided to the monitoring team as this course is still In progress.

As part of its December site visit, a member of the monitoring team attended

•

one of the Ethics training sessions. The session consisted of a thirty-minute
session on time management-as opposed to the scheduled hour, and a thirty-
minute session on domestic violence-as opposed the scheduled hour, and an

(unobserved) session on reporting misconduct. The instructors were non-

academy staff. The domestic violence training observed by the monitoring team

appeared perfunctory, uninspired, and was replete with disavowing language

•

such as "They want me to ask you these questions." Where specific policy

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-114

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 39 of 46 PageID: 121

requirements related to domestic violence were Identified, the instructor failed to

•

link these requirements to specific New Jersey State Police SOPs. Discussion questions from the lesson plan, designed to illicit class participation, were dismissed by the instructor as "rhetorical questions," and no group participation

occurred.

•

Based on the monitors' observations of the ethics training component, the State
was advised of the specific concerns noted above. The Academy commandant took near-Immediate remedial steps, and outlined those to the monitoring team.

After a month-long review of the commandant's recommendations,

documentation of this process was provided to the monitoring team in mid-

•

January, as this report was being finalized . The monitors will re-visit the State's remedial measures for IMR 10. Judging

from the monitoring team's observation of ethics training, however, the State Is

In non-compliance with this training efforts for this task. This finding is pending

•

a full review for IMR 10 . The monitors have informed the parties that once compliance is attained, two

consecutive periods of non-compliance are required to lose compliance status.

The monitors have expressed strong concerns over the lack of documentation for

•

cultural awareness training, and will be working with the parties to develop protocols to ensure that poor documentation for training is rectified before the training Is offered. The monitors have agreed to re-assess documentation for

cultural awareness as part of Its IMR 10 processes.

•

Serious concerns have been raised by the monitoring team's review of ethics training this period. The highly suspect deliver of the training observed In this
topic this period should give rise to a renewed effort on the part of the Academy

to meet its charge to "oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state

troopers" as per paragraph 93. The State is considered under warning for its

•

ethics components .

Compliance:

Cultural Diversity

•

Phase I: Pending Phase II: Pending

Ethics In compliance In compliance

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-115

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 40 of 46 PageID: 122

2.73 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

•

Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101

10 11 12

Phase 1

•

Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:

101. The state Pollee shall continue to provide recruit

•

and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the non-discrimination requirements of this

Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol·

related and drug-interdiction-related training, including

training on conducting motor vehicle stopS and se;~rches

and seizures. An ;~ttorney designated by the Attorney

•

General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.

Methodology

•

A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this task reviewed documentation, and attended the three-hour training on this topic

which was in progress during this site visit

Status

•

Fourth Amendment In-Service Training

Assessment

•

The following data were used to determine the topics for this training:

• Recommendations from the training committee; • A trend analysis and recommendations from the Office of Police

Standards and the Quality Assurance Bureau;

•

• M.V. R. reviews; • A search and seizure program focus group;

• Recommendations from the superintendent and the commandant.

An analysis of evaluation data, and motor vehicle stop data indicated that there

•

were issues arising concerning when to search vehicles, and when to frisk. It

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-116

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 41 of 46 PageID: 123

should be noted that approximately 500 troopers in patrol have graduated from

•

the Academy since the consent decree began just over three years ago. Development

The curriculum for this course was presented to the monitoring team for review

•

prior to this site visit and it was approved.

Delivery

The course was delivered at the Academy in multiple sessions of approximately

•

40 participants per session. A member of the monitoring team attended the
three-hour course developed for all personnel focusing on establishing reasonable suspicion and probable cause. This course was excellent and utilized

the following training techniques:

•

• Brief lectures with accompanying PowerPoint visuals; • The inclusion of relevant laws that set the standards for decision-
making; and

• Storyline scenarios with excellent accompanying videos developed by

the In-service unit to allow the participants to engage in critical

•

thinking and decision-making related to when reasonable suspicion or probable cause was reached.

No documentation related to the actual number of sessions or the delivery

schedule has been presented to the monitoring team as this course was still in

•

session .

Evaluation

Participants were tested at the conclusion of the training. No testing

•

documentation has been presented to the monitoring team, as the training was still in progress at the time of the site visit. The monitoring team will audit the Academy's audit documentation of the testing and evaluation on the next site

visit.

•

Implementation The State's implementation strategy was described to the monitoring team as

follows: A comparative analysis will be conducted of the number of cases

suppressed because of an improper search in the 12 months before this training

•

with the number of cases suppressed in the 12 months following the completion
of training to determine if a change has occurred. The monitoring team requests

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-117

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 42 of 46 PageID: 124

a copy of this comparative analysis with findings when it becomes available In

•

late 2004 . Fourth Amendment Recruit Training

Documentation was provided to the monitoring team regarding a statistical

•

evaluation of the testing results for several pre-service unit exams. One question related to when to seize a weapon during a domestic violence incident. Based upon very preliminary data on young troopers being unsure when to search and

frisk that was cited elsewhere in this report, the Academy might consider

reviewing and evaluating this unit in the recruit curriculum.

•

On the previous site visit, an analysis of attendance revealed that a large number of personnel had not attended this training. Upon further investigation it was

discovered that many of them were not on active duty, and only a small number

remained unaccounted for. An oversight process was created and is now In

•

operation. Documentation was provided to the monitoring team to demonstrate that the process has been implemented and is providing data necessary to insure oversight. By report, accountability related to this matter is now functional. At

this date, the State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

•

Compliance: In-Service Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Recruit In Compliance In Compliance

2.74 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

•

Coach Process

Task 102

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 102 stipulates that:

102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the

•

Sl:ilte Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The

protocol shall address the criteria and method for

selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to

trooper coaches to perform theIr dutles, the length of

time that probationary troopers spend in the program,

•

the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-us

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 43 of 46 PageID: 125

coaches, the substance of the training provided by

trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary

•

trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to
implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the

Independent Monitor and the United States.

Methodology

•

A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for

implementing this task and audited documentation related to the coaching

program.

•

Status

Two recruit classes, 13151 and 132M, graduated and the probationary troopers

I

completed their coaching program prior to this site visit. No extensions were

required by any of the probationary troopers. Two recruit classes graduated and

•

completed the coaching program since the last site visit, and there were an adequate number of qualified coaches to assist each probationary trooper. Two

more recruit classes will graduate two weeks after this site visit and coaches

have been assigned.

•

The coaches from the 119'1tl -123rd classes have three or fewer years of experience in the agency. As noted in task 101, an analysis of limited data

reveals the possibility that younger troopers may be having more difficulty judging when searches and frisks should be conducted. An analysis of available data to determine if any of the newer coaches are having difficulties with this

•

critical issue may be wise .

A member of the monitoring team audited 16 trooper coach files containing

documentation of probationary troopers from the 131st and 132"d classes. All

folders contained the required documentation. Two recruit classes, 133rO and

•

134th, will be graduating in late October and will complete the coaching program prior to the next site visit in May 2004. The monitoring team will audit the

Academy's oversight audit of the coaching materials on the next site visit.

The State has developed a strong response to all the responsibilities listed in the

•

consent decree for this task. As noted elsewhere in this report, the availability of performance data from the MAPPS system must be analyzed as part of the

Academy's oversight function to determine if any issues or trends impacting this

program are emerging.

•

Compliance:

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-119

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 44 of 46 PageID: 126

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.75 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all

State Troopers

•

Task 103

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase !I

•

Task 103 stipulates that:

103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide

•

copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees In order to ensure that they
understand the requirements or this Decree and the

necessity for strict compliance. After the State has

adopted new policies and procedures In compliance with

this Decree, the State shall provide In-service training to

every state trooper regarding the new policies and

•

procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree• The State shall Incorporate training on these policies and

procedures Into recruit training at the State Police

Academy.

•

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with staff responsible for this task.

Status

•

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent

decree related tasks are handled by notification of specific division personnel at

the quarterly Training Committee meetings and through roes.

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-120

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 45 of 46 PageID: 127

••

Though there has been no need to audit this compliance was achieved, the introduction of

task regularly after initial a new SOP (C-25) and the

revision

of several others could require some type of training for various sectors of the

organization. The monitors will revisit this topic for the tenth site visit.

, .•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.76 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104 j 1 j 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phasei Phasell

! ! ! ~~---+---+---+---+---+---+--~--~--~---+--~
J~

Task 104 stipulates that:

•

104. The State shall establish systems for State Police
1,1nlts, sub-~,Jnlts, and supervisors to provide lnfonnation

and refer particular Incidents to the Training Bureau to

assist the Training Bureau In evaluating the

effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new

•

or further training•

Methodology

A member of the monitoring team reviewed internal memoranda, training

•

committee documentation, and spoke with academy staff responsible for implementing this task.

Status

•

During the last site visit a final draft of SOP C25 was completed and forwarded to trsheteavifeIfnwfdoerrepaqeuundirdieteindngtthtMheeoantdirtadoiirntsioinangnodfuftnlhacentigoSunUaspgeoerfidnthetefeinnfdiineeglndtthofoeprerrreeasvtipoieonwns.spiTbehilrietsyomnonofenAlictwoardhseo' mayre

engaged in training and evaluation services as part of the regional training

•

program, to include a process that would be followed if any deficiencies in performance were noted.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-121

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-3 Filed 01/23/04 Page 46 of 46 PageID: 128

•

In the interim, between site visits the following has occurred: • SOP C-25 was not signed by the Superintendent so phase I compliance

was not achieved during or following the last site visit;

•

• The new Major responsible for training required that additional revisions occur to this very important policy so it still has not been approved; therefore this task did not come into phase I compliance

during this site visit;

•

• A new academy commandant was assigned and chaired his first training committee meeting. This committee meets semi-monthly or at the direction of the Training Bureau Chief.

• A new lieutenant was assigned to supervise the in-service unit, and he

•

was scheduled to come on board the week after the site visit. No overlap with the current in-service director was scheduled;

• The in-service unit is tasked with developing the In-Service Training,

Evaluation and Oversight Program. Details for this program are

•

contained in SOP C-25; and • Regional training staff (operational personnel) who have been

assigned training responsibilities in the bureaus and sections

throughout the Division were tasked with many duties related to

•

assessment, evaluation, documentation, and oversight as part of the Evaluation and Oversight Program.

The Academy's in-service unit has received the majority of the completed

surveys distributed to the agency to complete the comprehensive organizational

•

assessment of the basic training needs throughout the agency. The current level of staffing and the number of training responsibilities had not allowed time for an analysis of this data prior to this site visit. The acquisition and analyses of this

information, and any other that the Academy deems necessary, is essential to

design and develop a comprehensive process that is able"... to provide

•

information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need

for new or further training." The manpower study data are being analyzed, but

no manpower allocations had been made to the In-service unit at the time of this

visit. The MAPPS system has been implemented, and will provide a means for

•

the Academy to evaluate implementation of training in the field .

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-122

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 1 of 37 PageID: 129

Many systems are being developed or accessed to acquire training data, and

•

many operational personnel are being assigned training tasks in an effort to manage the training and oversight responsibilities. Field staff are now involved in consent decree related training tasks and duties.

Most of the data being forwarded to the Academy from the field are being

•

directed to the commandant. It is not clear from the documentation provided to the monitoring team how these data will be managed once it arrives at the Academy. Nor is it clear how the Academy staff will supervise, evaluate, and

provide oversight to field staff who are fulfilling training functions, nor what

accountability measures have been developed If deficiencies occur.

•

The monitoring team will require documentation related to these issues prior to the next site visit. When the Academy is able to demonstrate its ability to audit

and document the degree of operational implementation of training, the

monitoring team will be able to determine phase II compliance•

•

Phase I: Not in compliance Phase II: Not in compliance

2.77 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

•

Task 105

8 9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase II

•

Task 105 stipulates that:

105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with

mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in

•

addition to the subjects addressed In 11'UOO and 101)
shall address effective supervisory techniques to

promote police integrity and prevent misconduct, The

State Police shall provide the initial training required by

this paragraph within one year from entry of the De<:ree

and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an

•

annual basis•

Methodology

A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this

•

task, and reviewed documentation submitted by the State .

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-123

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 2 of 37 PageID: 130

•

Status Sergeant's Basic Course

The basic 40-hour course that had been taught at the Academy prior to the start

•

of the consent decree did not meet compliance standards. Several successive groups of academy staff worked on the revisions for this course, extended it to SO-hours, updated and expanded the topics taught, tried to integrate the topics

taught Into a coherent sequence, incorporated adult-based learning

methodologies, and added a testing component to meet evaluation criteria. One

•

year ago this course was deemed to meet "reasonable" standards of compliance. Academy staff fully understand the value of following the training cycle and of

conducting a comprehensive needs assessment focused specifically on the needs

and responsibilities of the various ranks of supervisors to drive curriculum

•

development. Currently this course addresses the needs of sergeants, staff sergeants, detective sergeants, patrol sergeants. The course reasonably meets the minimum requirements of the decree and the Academy's needs assessment

process findings.

•

When the executive development unit at the Academy was formed in May 2003, oversight responsibility for this course was given to the staff in that unit. One team member was assigned primary responsibility for the oversight quality of this

course. The executive development unit staff has completed the following

activities for this course:

•

Assessment

When the multi-use survey was developed to do the needs assessment for the

lieutenant's course, it was designed to capture data about sergeants, captains,

•

majors, lieutenant colonels, and the colonel as well . Assessment documentation was provided to the monitoring team related to the

analysis of the needs assessment survey that Identifies first line supervisory

needs in three major categories:

•

• Technical skills; • Human skills; and

• Conceptual skills

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-124

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 3 of 37 PageID: 131

Assessment documentation and curriculum from external sources (e.g. the U.S.

•

Drug Enforcement Agency, Philip Morris) contacted about their supervisory training practices were also provided to the monitoring team.

Through this assessment and the review of previous course critiques, and the

inclusion of anecdotal data, four additional blocks of instruction were added to

•

this course. They include: • Mentoring;

• Media relations;

• Hazing;

•

• Focusing on Supervision-a block to impart the technical, human, and conceptual skills identified in the multi-task survey

Development

•

A revised course schedule was provided to the monitoring team that illustrated the revisions made to the course. Curriculum for the new blocks of training has been provided to the monitoring team and meets compliance standards.

Delivery

•

A total of 111 sergeants and acting sergeants were identified as needing to complete the basic supervisory training course. sergeants' First Class (SFC) who

were part of the training backlog also attended this course. The classes will be

conducted between June and December 2003. A member of the monitoring team

•

will be on-site in early December and will have the opportunity to audit some of this training. No documentation on delivery has been presented to the monitoring team as the course is still being conducted.

Evaluation

•

One session of this course was conducted from June 2-13, 2003 for 31 sergeants, detective sergeants, and personnel in acting sergeant's positions from

various sections throughout the Division. A daily critique was completed by each

participant in order to gather immediate feedback about the relevance of each

•

block of instruction presented to them. This is a very important strategy since this course is ten days long, and critical feedback would be lost by waiting until the end of the course to obtain evaluative data. The critiques were provided to

the monitoring team, along with an analysis (audit) of the findings. Twenty-four

blocks of training were evaluated. On a scale of one to four, with four being the

•

best, the lowest score on one block of training was 2.78. The highest score was 3.64. The remaining twenty-two blocks of training received scores ranging

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-125

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 4 of 37 PageID: 132

between 3.0 and 3.64. No documentation relating to strategies for measuring

•

implementation has been presented to the monitoring team . With the implementation of MAPPS, which has just come on-line, the State will

be receiving data that they will be able to analyze to determine to what degree

training is being implemented in many supervisory areas. For IMR 10, the

•

monitoring team requests documentation of the State's audit of these data and any necessary follow-up as a result of the analysis.

Sergeant First Class Course

•

Though the Basic Sergeants Course was judged to be in compliance for all
sergeants, the executive development unit at the Academy, using assessment data from the multi-use survey on supervisory, management and leadership

Issues, is beginning to develop a course to more fully meet the needs of this

group. This course is tentatively scheduled to be three days long and to be

•

conducted from March-August 2004. The assessment is currently in progress and March 2004 is the anticipated launch date for this course.

Annual Supervisory/Leadership Training

•

Additionally the Academy provides annual leadership training to all ranks from
trooper II to the colonel. This training is not due again until spring 2004. Based upon data identified in the multi-use assessment survey developed to conduct a

needs assessment for the lieutenants' course, a number of needs in the areas of

technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills were identified for all ranks .

•

The analysis of MAPPS data will allow the Academy to determine to what degree implementation of training is occurring in the field. This will be a new task that

Academy staff will be learning to conduct, so the time involved could not have

been captured in the manpower study data. This could have a dramatic impact

•

on two fronts:
• The staff time required to gather and analyze the data; and

• The follow-up required when the results of the analysis are known.

•

Also, academy staff may need staff development training to know how to work
with the MAPPS system to obtain the specific data they need.

Compliance:

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-126

•

-------------------------~~~--------

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 5 of 37 PageID: 133

•

2.78 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

Task 106

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I
Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:

•

106. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are

advancing In rank. The State shall require troopers to

successfully complete this training, to the extent

practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's

service In his or her new rank, and in no event later than

within six months of the promoted trooper's service In

his or her new rank.

Methodology

•

A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this task, and audited extensive documentation related to the assessment and

development of training materials for the lieutenant's course. Though some

promotions have occurred and others are pending they still fall within the six-

•

month limit to receive training . Status

The New Jersey State Police took a major step in addressing this task by forming

•

an Executive Development Training Unit (EDTU) at the Academy just prior to the last site visit. Five personnel were assigned to this unit dedicated to developing training for sergeants and lieutenants, and for providing oversight for training

provided by outside consultants or agencies for all the ranks above lieutenant.

Staff Development

•

It was apparent during the last site visit that this group needed some staff

development training, especially in the areas of strategic planning, curriculum

development, creative problem solving/critical thinking skills, and survey/test

construction to launch them towards success with their effort. The agency

•

responded by hiring an external consultant to provide some training and

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-127

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 6 of 37 PageID: 134

mentoring to the group as they conducted the initial needs assessment related to

•

the lieutenants training. Some members of the group also attended outside training.

Lieutenants' Course

•

Following is a description of the most professional and thorough assessment that the monitoring team has audited since the consent decree began. It certainly
sets a standard for future efforts at the Academy.

A review of the current leadership and management literature was conducted by

•

EDTU staff. Two members of the team, with help from the consultant and extensive research and self-education on their own, were able to design a multiuse assessment survey. This was a blind, stratified random sample needs

assessment composed of 34 questions using a Likert-type response format, and

a 35th question which was open-ended. Each question was designed to elicit

•

information on various skill sets needed by a manager. The foresight used to design this instrument allows the data from this one survey to be used to develop training for several different classes.

The team worked with the field training officers and the field training liaisons to

•

distribute the surveys, and described this collaboration as very cooperative. A total of 350 surveys were distributed to 100 civilians and 250 enlisted personnel of various ranks to capture data from a cross-section of the organization. The

EDTU staff noted that the civilians were surprised and very appreciative of being

recognized and included in the population surveyed .

•

A total of 328 completed surveys were returned demonstrating a 95% return rate, which is very high. In addition, a number of field interviews were conducted

with station commanders and with troopers of various ranks to obtain anecdotal

information, and shotgun e-mails and surveys were sent to specific personnel to

•

gather needed information . In addition, the team found organizations inside and outside the law

enforcement community to identify benchmarks on best practices pertaining to

mid-level management In some cases a member of the team attended training;

•

in others, phone calls and a review of curricula were conducted to obtain
Information. These organizations include:

• Johnson and Johnson;

• Merck;

•

• U.S. Marine Corps;
• Northwestern University School of Police Staff and Command;

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-128

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 7 of 37 PageID: 135

• Northwestern University Executive Development Program;

•

• New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police; • Penn State University POLEX Course; • FBI Leadership and Management Seminar; and

• DEA Group Supervisors Course .

•

Based upon documentation provided to the monitoring team, this phase is judged to be in compliance.

With the data obtained, the EDTU staff developed a four-day, forty-hour course

for lieutenants titled, "New Jersey State Police Mid-level Management and

•

Leadership Course." The course is comprised of nine specific lesson plans, utilizes many self-assessment instruments, group activities, scenarios, and accompanying power point presentations. Based upon documentation provided

to the monitoring team, this phase is judged to be in compliance.

•

The course is being delivered to 180 lieutenants in 6 class sessions and will be completed the second week in December. A member of the monitoring team attended one of the December training sessions to audit the quality of the

delivery. The training was found to be first rate, and evolving at each iteration

based on critiques and evaluations.

•

Each participant completes a 34 question test to measure the learning that has occurred. The questions are linked to the various instructional units and the

learning objectives. The participants also complete a course critique at the end of

each day of instruction that includes questions on the content and an evaluation

of the instructor. Narrative commentary is also solicited. The audit of this phase

•

of the course will occur after the completion of all six sessions. No strategies for measuring implementation have been presented to the monitoring team.

captains' Course

•

The training for captains has been contracted to an outside vendor. Issues with the development and documentation phase for this training were noted in the

last report. Currently, two major concerns still exist:

• The accurate utilization of the training cycle by the vendor;

•

• The development of an effective oversight process by the New Jersey State Police to insure the quality and the relevance of the course

provided.

Academy staff has been assigned oversight responsibilities for this course. This

•

means that they must ensure the quality of the course, and determine if the

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-129

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 8 of 37 PageID: 136

vendor is following the training cycle required to meet compliance standards for

•

consent decree tasks .

The monitoring team is Auditing the Academy in how it conducts oversight with

the chosen vendor to assure that compliance standards are met. In the following

narrative, when it is noted that the monitoring team has not received

•

documentation, the reader should be aware that the monitoring team requests this documentation from the Academy. Academy staff state that they are

providing the monitoring team with all the documentation they are receiving

from the vendor. This would mean that the Academy cannot conduct its

oversight and the monitors cannot determine compliance because

•

documentation, to date, has been inadequate or non-existent. In order to
achieve compliance for this task, the documentation noted under each

phase of the training cycle that follows must be provided to the

Academy for review1 and in turn to the monitors.

•

Assessment

The initial assessment data to develop this program was minimal and a good

deal of it was outdated. According to memoranda three focus groups were

conducted by the vendor. The focus group questions appear to have been

•

directed toward a five-part framework that was part of the findings of a previous vendor, rather than a new methodology to assess the current level of need.

According to memoranda, assessment data compiled in 1999 by another vendor,

was utilized by the current vendor as part of the needs assessment tor this

course. Since these data were gathered, more than 500 new troopers have

•

joined the Division; New Jersey State Police staffing at all levels of supervision and command has changed considerably due to attrition and promotion, and the

impact of three years of training have had an impact in areas such as ethics,

supervision, leadership, cultural diversity, and Fourth Amendment rights.

•

Key weaknesses of the assessment process include:

• No assessment methodology documentation is presented;

• No data are given regarding the representation of the tocus groups;

• No analysis of findings is presented;

•

• No data are presented to establish how the assessment was linked to the instructional design of this course;

• The documentation provided does not meet compliance standards for

assessment.

•

Development

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-130

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 9 of 37 PageID: 137

A course overview identifies, "The principal objective of the program is to

•

prepare participants to address the complex issues and challenges they will

confront as executives of police organizations in the 21st century." Two sessions

of this course have been delivered. The agenda narrative description of each instructional block

for for

the first gives each day. The

a brief agenda

for

the

second session also provides a brief narrative description of each instructional

••

block for each day. The second agenda includes some of the same topics though they are not presented in the same order, and also includes new instructional

blocks.

Curricula vitae were provided for nine course instructors. The agenda for the first

•

session of this course lists 13 instructors and the agenda for the second session lists 12 instructors. Of the nine curricula vitas:

• Two instructors never taught in either session;

• Two instructors taught in the first session only;

•

• Three of the instructors taught in the first and second sessions; • One instructor taught only in the second session; • Five instructors who taught in the second session have no c.v. on file.

The documentation provided to the monitoring team on this site visit is revised

•

material used to train the second group of New Jersey State Police captains who attended this course. Extensive changes were made to the program (see the evaluation section below) based upon course critiques completed by participants

who attended the first session, and based upon deficiencies noted in the

presentation of the capstone Projects by some participants in the first session.

•

An analysis of the documentation provided to the monitoring team on this site
visit follows. Ten instructors are conducting this ten-day residential training. An

analysis of the curriculum materials submitted by each instructor follows.

•

o Instructor One-this instructor introduces the course but does not
conduct training • An article authored by the instructor;

o Instructor Two • Four broad (not measurable as stated) objectives;

•

• Six training modules; • Case studies;

• Articles;

o Instructor Three

• Two case studies

•

o Instructor Four • No materials

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-131

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 10 of 37 PageID: 138

o Instructor Five

•

• One article • A bibliography

o Instructor Six

• OVerhead presentation

• Four learning objectives (possibly measurable as stated)

•

o Instructor Seven • Two articles-one authored by the speaker

o Instructor Eight

• An agenda

• Two case studies

•

o Instructor Nine • Learning overview

• An agenda

• Recommended readings

• A Xeroxed copy of an anthology of articles by many authors

•

• Graphs and charts o Instructor Ten

• No materials

There is no uniformity evident in the materials provided. Two speakers provided

•

general learning objectives, but no measurable learning objectives. Two speakers provided no documentation at all, so the monitoring team have no idea

what their role in this course is or how those roles would be executed. One

speaker included training module data that illustrate topics being taught. No

training methodologies are included in the documentation, so the monitors have

•

no idea if the training methods constitute lecture, group discussion, scenarios, videos, or other instructional methodologies. The documentation provided Is not

a curriculum and does not meet compliance standards.

Delivery

•

The program has been delivered twice. Members of the New Jersey State Police

and other police agencies attended both sessions. The first training was

conducted from April 27·May 9, 2003 and included some New Jersey State Police

captains and lieutenants (the Academy course for lieutenants had not been

•

developed at that time). Thirteen instructors are listed on the agenda for this training. The second training was conducted from September 28-0ctober 10,

2003. Only captains attended the second training session. Both of the trainings

occurred before the monitoring team reviewed the documentation noted above.

Twelve instructors are listed on the agenda for this training and only six of these

•

were instructors listed on the agenda for the first course. Six new instructors taught in the second session. The second course was a residential course

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-132

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 11 of 37 PageID: 139

providing time in the evening for the participants to work on their projects

•

together and to use the library. Compliance for this phase cannot be determined because the oversight staff

have not provided documentation to the monitoring team indicating that they

conducted a course audit to evaluate how the course content fulfills the learning

•

objectives (which have not been provided), instructor performance or delivery methodologies.

Evaluation

•

No testing data to measure the degree of learning that is occurring for any of the training modules have been presented to the monitoring team. A summary of findings and a numerical analysis of the course critiques were provided to the

monitoring team. Eleven questions requiring a forced choice answer (Likert-type

scale) and five open-ended questions were asked in the critique:

•

1. Overall, how satisfied were you with the course?

2. Would you suggest the course to others?

3. How satisfied were you with the subject matter?

4. How would you rate the quality of the instructors?

•

5. How satisfied were you with the way the days were organized? 6. Overall, how appropriate was the length of time spent on each

topic?

7. Will the topics, materials, and ideas from this program help you in

your position?

•

8. Do you think you will be able to use or Implement concepts or ideas that you have learned from this program?
9. Considering the physical set-up of the classroom, how satisfied

were you with the way the classroom was organized?

10. How useful was the following instructional methods

•

11. Was it helpful to have other agencies participate in the course? The critiques were probably completed at the conclusion of the course since they

are general in nature, and not specific to individual blockS of Instruction. They

are not useful from an Instructional technology standpoint, and do not fill the

•

need for a careful course evaluation . An evaluation of each instructor was conducted using a sixteen-question survey

Instrument titled Instructor Evaluation. An analysis of the findings was conducted

and presented in the aggregate and individually in a graph that compared the

•

findings for all instructors. There is no indication if the critique was completed at

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-133

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 12 of 37 PageID: 140

the end of the instruction provided by the instructor or at the end of the ten-day

•

course . A list of revisions made to the program based upon course critiques and

instructor evaluations completed by the participants attending the first session of

this course was provided to the monitoring team. These included:

•

• The program is now a residential program; • Mentors have been assigned to assist the captains in residence;

• A block of training on budgeting and politics as it relates to initiating

new projects has been added to the curriculum based upon the

•

evaluations of the Capstone Projects presented by the first groups completing the training; • Instruction on how to use the university library and resource materials

has been added to the curriculum;

• The superintendent is choosing the topics for the Capstone Projects so

•

that they are relevant and can been implemented if the projects are well designed;

• Captains must work in teams to develop the projects;

• Mandatory work nights have been instituted.

•

New Jersey State Police staff who have already received this training will obviously not benefit from the improvements made to the program.

At the completion of the two-week program, the captains return to work and

have one-month to complete their Capstone Projects. This requires that the

•

various team members working on each project, who have now returned to their duties, must develop a process for completing their assignment within the
working environment while they also attend to their usual duties. One month

after finishing the residential program, the captains return to Rutgers to present

and defend their projects before a panel composed of New Jersey State Police

•

command staff, including the superintendent, and staff from the Police Institute at Rutgers.

The monitoring team has been informed that the Capstone Projects are

considered the means of evaluating learning in lieu of testing. If this is the case,

•

then objective criteria to assess that learning has occurred based upon the
inclusion of specific knowledge, skills, etc. in the projects is missing or has not been presented to the monitoring team. The monitoring team has not been

provided any documentation related to the Capstone Projects. The evaluation

phase for this task does not meet compliance standards .

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-134

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 13 of 37 PageID: 141

The monitoring team has been informed by OSPA that the Attorney General and

•

State Police leadership have reviewed the capstone projects and are exceptionally satisfied with the content of same. The monitors have not been provided with these projects, and thus are unable to make any independent

determination of their value viz a viZ the requirements of the consent decree.

•

Implementation No data documenting Implementation, or a plan of how to measure

implementation have been submitted to the monitoring team for review. The

implementation phase does not meet compliance standards. The monitoring

•

team has not received a description of the oversight process that has been developed.

Based upon the analysis of documentation provided to the monitoring team, this

course does not meet compliance standards and is judged to be out of

•

compliance. To gain compliance, the Academy must provide proper documentation related to each phase of the training cycle to the monitoring

team. Academy staff are aware of the type and the quality of documentation that

must be obtained from the vendor to demonstrate compliance.

•

Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, Colonel

Assessment

Since the Division will not be contracting with a vendor to provide this training

•

for a group of personnel, but will be sending individuals to already existing training, the assessment phase of the training cycle will be conducted in a slightly different manner. Obviously, such training institutions will not be

undertaking a complete needs assessment for individual New Jersey State Police

personnel who will be attending already established leadership courses.

•

The Academy commandant Is about to begin a needs assessment to identify the training needs for the majors, lieutenant colonels and the colonel. Part of this

assessment will be to identify the needs of each of the commanders, and the

needs of the organization, and part of the assessment will be to Identify

•

outstanding leadership training venues throughout tile country, both in the policing profession and in the academic and business communities, that have programs that will meet the individual and organizational needs related to the

responsibilities of staff at these ranks.

•

The monitoring team requests a brief description of the final strategy for addressing training for the command staff prior to the next site visit. Promotion

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-135

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 14 of 37 PageID: 142

lists and documentation related to the training received will be required for the next site visit.

Compliance:

Phase I: Not In Compliance

•

Phase II: Not In Compliance 1.79 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I

Phase II

Task 107 stipulates that:

•

107. The state shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly

assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment

where specialized training is necessary in order to

perform the assigned duties•

•

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for developing and

delivering this training .

•

Status

Previously, the parties agreed that Task 107 applied to law enforcement

personnel who were returning to patrol from specialized assignments. The 40-

•

hour course titled "Transitional Training" was used to address this task, and it addresses patrol-related and consent decree related topics.

This agreement was reached at a time when the State had no processes in place

to assess, document, evaluate, or provide oversight for the universe of

•

specialized assignments, related training needs, qualifications of instructors providing specialized training, testing to determine the degree of comprehension

of the training, or tracking the implementation of the training operationally. That

infrastructure in now being put into place and the availability of such information

may reveal inadequacies in training for specialized assignments that impact, at a

•

minimum, on job performance, officer safety or liability exposure.

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-136

•

,-----------------------------------------------------------

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 15 of 37 PageID: 143

At least four factors may impact on the need to revisit this agreement:

•

• The analysis of the basic training needs assessment completed by the

in-service unit may identify new or additional specialized training

needs;

• The identification and review of all training previously being presented

•

outside the oversight function of the Academy may reveal a need for revisions to current training, the development of new trainings, or the

consolidation of existing courses;

• The identification and assessment of the qualifications of those

providing specialized training may generate needs for training

•

certification; • The performance data that will become available as MAPPS is

implemented may reveal training concerns in specialty areas.

The considerations cited above for this task, which has been in compliance for

•

quite some time, point out the importance for the agency and the Academy in considering how the availability of new information may impact on the various

tasks that have been previously placed in compliance. The monitoring team

requests oversight documentation related to these issues and the follow-up the

required as data analyses become available .

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.80 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS

Program

Task 108

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I

Phase II

•

Task 108 stipulates that:

108. The State Pollee shall continue to maintain records

documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the

MAP, the State Police will track all training infonnatlon,

including name of the course, date started, date

•

completed, and training location for each member

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-137

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 16 of 37 PageID: 144

receiving training. The MAP will maintain current and

historical training information .

•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for

implementing this task, and with staff utilizing the information now generated by

•

ACTS •

Status

•

Previous Concerns On the previous site visit, the monitoring team found that the data management

unit was Inadequately staffed, and unable to remain current with data entry.

Based upon the fact that the data entry for training classes was not current and

was falling behind (due to lack of qualified staff), the State was placed under

•

warning for phase I compliance .

Follow up

A new commandant was assigned to the Academy just prior to this site visit. Job

•

task information and manpower data have been gathered from the supervisor of this unit and are being analyzed. As with other units at the Academy, the clerical

support for this unit was inadequate and is hopefully being addressed in the

manpower study. These data will be used to restructure this unit and to explore

the possibility of incorporating it into the research, planning, and evaluation unit

•

that will is being formed .

The staff for this unit will require some very specialized skills in the areas of

assessment instruments, test construction, statistical analysis and evaluation,

strategic planning etc. Staff development may be a major need, especially if staff

•

with these skills are not currently available within the organization or the Academy.

The monitoring team also noted, as it has in all previous reports, that it would

not be able to assess phase II compliance with this task until the MAPPS

•

program was fully functional. The MAPPS program has just been Implemented, and per New Jersey State Police personnel, it is scheduled to be fully functional

by January 1, 2004. The monitoring team will audit the interface with MAPPS on

the next site visit in order to determine phase II compliance for this task.

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-138

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 17 of 37 PageID: 145

The State is in the assessment (assessing manpower data) and development

•

(restructuring) phases for addressing the deficiencies cited in the last report.
These are critical and necessary steps to resolving the issues. The State must be able to demonstrate that the strategies being implemented are in fact solving the

deficiencies noted.

•

The State is beginning to address the issues cited In the last report, but has not yet demonstrated that the staffing issues and related data management issues

have been resolved. Therefore, the State remains under warning for the next six

months for phase I compliance, and continues to be non-compliant for phase II.

•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: Not In Compliance

•

2.81 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository
for Training Records

Task.l09

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 109 stipulates that:

•

109. The State Police shall maintain In a central repository copies, of all academy, past-academy and

trooper coach trainin11 materials, curricula, and lesson

plans.

Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy personnel responsible for this task.

•

Status

All curricula and lesson plans developed by the Academy are maintained in a

central repository at the Academy. All trooper coach training materials, curricula,

and lesson plans are maintained in a central repository at the Academy. All post

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-139

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 18 of 37 PageID: 146

academy training materials, curricula, and lesson plans developed by academy

•

staff are maintained in a central repository at the Academy. A major concern in the last report was that post-academy training materials,

curricula, and lesson plans developed by units within the New Jersey State

Police, but outside the Academy, were not maintained in a central repository at

the Academy. Several steps have been taken to address this issue:

• An annual training calendar has been established and computerized

and all New Jersey State Police training is being added to it;

• The In-service Bureau at the Academy is developing a review process

•

for the lesson plans that are beginning to be submitted. This will include a review for quality content, documentation to illustrate compliance with the training cycle, and a review for bias in the content

among other factors. The review process will include tracking on

revisions that are requested prior to training to insure that only a

•

quality product is delivered. A schedule for auditing training will be established after all training is identified and prioritized; • A request form for training provided within the organization, but

outside the Academy, must be submitted to the Academy for approval.

No training can occur until academy approval is received and the

•

training is included in the training calendar; • All training materials used for training within the organization, but
provided outside the Academy must be submitted for review and

approval prior to scheduling training, and henceforth a copy will be

kept at the central repository at the Academy;

•

• The training materials, curricula, and lesson plans being identified and reviewed will be maintained in the central repository and included in the ACTS program.

• These processes have been memorialized in SOP C-25.

•

A second issue in the last site visit report was that post-academy training materials, curricula, and lesson plans that troopers receive at external training attended by New Jersey State Police personnel have not been maintained in a

central repository at the Academy. From documentation reviewed by the

monitoring team, it appears that the Academy plans to request copies of the

•

training materials received by the troopers attending such training in order to include them in the central repository. Certainly, any materials related to consent decree mandated training issues should be on file. If the Academy identifies such

courses, a master list should be provided to the monitoring team for auditing

purposes .

•

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-140

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 19 of 37 PageID: 147

A third issue is the inability of the State to obtain curriculum materials from

•

outside vendors who have a contract with the State to provide training to the New Jersey State Police (see tasks 100 and 106. The State has not resolved this issue. The monitoring team has submitted to the State a pro[Xlsed training

taxonomy to clarify any confusion regarding what Is expected of outSide vendors

in following the training cycle when producing training materials and delivering

•

training on consent decree related issues . In the last site visit report it was noted that the In-Service Unit's requests for

training information occurring inside the agency but previously outside the

oversight scope of the Academy were not met with a comprehensive, or timely

•

response from the organization. This was beginning to have an impact on the Academy's ability to obtain, review, and archive curricula in the central repository. The subsequent appointment and training of approximately forty

administrative lieutenants in each section and bureau as field training liaisons,

tasked with coordinating and completing this and other training requirements,

•

should provide a more expeditious response to this problem . The monitoring team's review of documentation from some units within the

Division indicates that the process is working when it is used. One new issue, not

noted in the last site visit re[Xlrt, is that members of the Division are providing

•

training to outside law enforcement agencies, and it appears that this has not historically been coordinated through the Academy. If any of this training relates to consent decree issues, the Academy should certainly be providing an oversight

function and archiving curricula in the central re[Xlsitory. Though the quality and

the content of such trainings on other topics may be of concern to the Academy,

•

they would fall outside the scope of the consent decree. The State remains In compliance and is no longer under warning regarding this

task. The monitoring team will audit the Academy's documentation of its

oversight audit of this process at the next site visit to determine how well the

•

process is working, and how the concerns cited above are resolved .

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-141

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 20 of 37 PageID: 148

2.82 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police

•

Affairs
TaskllO •

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

I

Task 110 stipulates that:

•

110. The Attorney General of New lersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the

terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination

with the Independent Monitor and the United States

concerning the State Police and matters related to the

•

Implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant
Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner In

which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates

misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of

MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the

•

motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the
Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding

these matters. The office shall have such additional

responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney

General •

•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel

assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their

•

assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State's responses to the requirements of the decree, and have
queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the

State's response to the decree.

•

Status Based on the monitoring team's review of work product, and information

obtained during the process of implementing the ninth site visit, it is clear to the

members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task.

•

Not all duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the ninth site visit. For example, members of the Office of State Police

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-142

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 21 of 37 PageID: 149

Affairs cannot audit the use of the MAPPS program until the program is actually

•

being used by supervisors and managers as part of their day-to-day routines . The office does, however, provide coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice, and the office is headed by an Assistant AG. The office

routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations, and

routinely audits performance on MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site

•

reviews, basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team, with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and

training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The

mechanism and duty assignments, however, exist to complete the duties of the

•

office as soon as practicable, given the implementation schedule of the State's compliance efforts. During the ninth site visit, the monitors noted a first-time problem with the OSPA oversight process. Two OPS cases were closed this

reporting period with final dispositions not allowed by the decree. These two

cases have been returned to OSPA for further action; however, the office is

•

encouraged to assess its OPS review function to ensure that, with the recent turnover of personnel at that unit, the decree requirements related to case dispositions is understood and followed by management personnel In that unit.

The seventh monitors' report stated "OSPA's audit process began in August, the

•

last month for which electronic data were available to the monitoring team, thus, many of the problems noted by the monitoring team this period had not been "pre-audited" by OSPA. The monitors anticipate that a strong comparison

between monitoring team assessments and OSPA assessments will be available

next reporting period." For this reporting period, that has proven to be true,

•

although to a lesser degree than in past periods. This reporting period, the monitors returned three OPS cases for failure to comply with the requirements of the consent decree. Three cases from among the 99 reviewed by the monitors

constitutes an error rate of three percent, within the allowable margin of error of

five percent.

•

Phase II compliance with this task is dependent upon implementation of the MAPPS.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Unable to Monitor

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-143

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 22 of 37 PageID: 150

2.83 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor

•

Vehicle Stops

Task 111 11 1 2

3 4

5

6 7

8

9 10 11 12

•

~ Phase I
Phase II

Task 111 stipulates that:

•

111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and

procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to

evaluate whether state troopers conducted and

documented the Incidents in the manner prescribed by

•

State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the Office of State Police Affairs

•

procedure entitled "Procedure for Contacting Motorist Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops" and have discussed the office's role In compliance with this task with

office personnel.

Status

•

The office has developed and disseminated a procedure for compliance with this

task, and has implemented its first audit of this process. Members of the

monitoring team have reviewed the State's report in response to this task. A 100

percent sample of 749 motorists stopped by New Jersey State Police troopers In

•

two target stations were identified, and letters were mailed to a sample of these individuals requesting that they contact the New Jersey State Police regarding

their stops. The State continues to receive survey responses from these

motorists. The audit process has resulted in multiple referrals to OPS during the

last three reporting periods, based on information obtained through the internal

•

audits. For the ninth reJX)rting period, 217 responses to the contact letters have been received, with all but six of the respondents reporting that they were

treated "courteously and professionally" by State Police personnel. Follow-up

contacts with four of the six individuals who indicated that they were not treated

"courteously and professionally" have been made. Three respondents

•

complained about "demeanor," and one respondent complained about an

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-144

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 23 of 37 PageID: 151

improper traffic stop. Complaint/Compliment forms were mailed to all four

•

respondents . Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance 2.84 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint

Processes

•

Task 112 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ptlase I

Phase II

•

Task 112 stipulates that:

112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and

adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include

audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free

•

telephone hotline established by 1162; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint Intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape

Interviews produced during the course of misconduct

investigations; and Interviews of a sample of persons

who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints

•

are finally adjudicated•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed audit reports for Office of State

•

Police Affairs personnel who have conducted internal audits of the compliment/complaint hotline and audits of the telephone hotline.

Status

•

Documentation reviewed by members of the monitoring team reflect a proactive and effective internal audit of the misconduct investigation process. No issues

were noted by OSPA audits requiring policy, training or operational changes in

the internal investigations process. Enhancement of oversight, however, appears

warranted. The monitors found two troubling investigations this reporting period

•

that were not noted by OSPA. The ninth reporting period's OPSP audit was not

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-145

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 24 of 37 PageID: 152

consistent with the findings of the monitoring team's review of completed

•

internal investigations. OSPA's audit process includes post adjudication interviews of complainants, asking questions regarding the complainant's perception of the internal affairs investigation process. For the third time, the

monitors have returned completed OPS cases, reviewed by OSPA, for failure to

comply with specific requirements of the decree. These three cases were

•

returned for:

• Failure to investigate collateral misconduct issues; and

• Failure to aggressively investigate allegations of misconduct.

•

An error rate of three of 99 cases constitute three percent, within the allowable margin of error for this task. Two cases were also Identified that were closed

with a finding other than one of the four allowed by the decree. Upon

investigation by the monitors, these were found to be internally generated

allegations that should not have been forwarded to OPS for investigation. The

•

monitors are working with the State and Justice to identify protocols to ensure that future similar incidents to not occur. Nonetheless, these two cases made it

past OSPA review without comment to the monitors.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

2.85 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the

•

Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 113 stipulates that:

•

113. The office shl\lll have fulll\lnd unrestricted l\lccess to
all State Pollee staff, facilities, and documents (Including databases) that the office deems necessary to c:arry out

Its functions.

Methodology
•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-146

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 25 of 37 PageID: 153

Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State

•

Police Affairs during the course of the site visit during the week of May 19th, 2003.

Status

•

Based on the team's observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs
have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and

documents.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.86 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

•

Aggregate Traffic Stop statistics

Task 114

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II
Task 114 stipulates that:

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public

•

reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of

the civilians Involved. These aggregate statistics shall

include the number of motor vehicle stops (by reason for

motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions (lm;luding

summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures

•

(including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force)

taken In tonnection with or during the course of such

stops. The information regarding misconduct

investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the

number of external, internal, and total complaints

•

received and sustained by category of violation. The

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-147

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 26 of 37 PageID: 154

information contained in the reports shall be consistent

with the status of State Police record keeping systems,

•

including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not

intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any

additional rights to information collected pursuant to

this Decree.

•

Methodology

The State has produced its latest "Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data," in response to this provision of the decree.

•

Status

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report entitled "Semi-

Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data," prepared by the Office of State Police

•

Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree. Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

•

Phase II: In Compliance 2.87 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I

Phase II

•

Task 115 stipulates that:
115. Within ninety {90) days after the entry of this

Decree, the State and the United states shall together

select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and

report on the state's Implementation of this Decree. The

•

Monitor shall be ac;ceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each
party shall submit two names of persons who have

experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law

enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal,

state, or county prosecutor or Judge along with resumes

•

or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court. and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-148

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 27 of 37 PageID: 155

names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall

bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the

•

Court.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District

•

Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000.

Status

•

The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task .

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

••

Phase II: In Compliance

2.88 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for

Monitors

•

Task 118

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

•

Task 118 stipulates that:

118. The State shall provide the Monitor with f11ll and

unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and non·

•

privileged documents (lncl11dlng databases) necessary to carry out the d11ties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall

make the final determination regarding access. In any

instance in which the State objects to access, it must

establish that the access sought Is not relevant to

•

monitoring the implementation of the consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the Interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately

addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any

instance in which the State a$5Srl:5 that a document Is

privileged, it must provide the United States and the

•

Monitor a log describing the doc11ment and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-149

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 28 of 37 PageID: 156

documents to which the Monitor shall be provided acc;ess

•

include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and

(2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the

Office of the Attorney General which contain factual

records, factual compilations, or factual analysis

•

concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is

not Intended, and should not be Interpreted to reflect a

waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at

common law or created by State statute, rule or

•

regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access

•

while on-site with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. Some data requested during the fifth site visit regarding

training and evaluation of training processes was either not provided in a timely

manner or was provided in a manner that made access and comprehension

difficult, causing the monitoring team to find the State not in compliance with

•

some of the consent decree's training requirements. No similar problems have been noted since the sixth monitors' report.

Status

•

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided In a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in

a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

•

Compliance Phase I:

In Compliance

Phase II: . In Compliance

•

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-150

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 29 of 37 PageID: 157

2.89 Compliance with Task 120: State Police to Reopen Internal

•

Investigations Determined to be Incomplete

Task 120

8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase Il

Task 120 stipulates that:

•

120. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph, the State Pollee shall reopen for further Investigation any mi5COnduct investigation the Monitor

determines to be incomplete. The Monitor shall provide

written instructions for completing the Investigation.

The Monitor shall exercise this authority S"O that any

•

directive to reopen an investigation is given within a reamnable period following the investigation's conclusion. The Monitor may not exercise this authority

concerning any misconduct investigation which has been

adjudicated or otherwise disposed, and the dispoSition

has been officially communicated to the trooper who is

•

the subject of the investigation•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed a memorandum from the

•

commander, Office Professional Standards to personnel within the office, requiring conformance with this task by members of the Office Professional

Standards.

Status

•

The office is In Phase I compliance with this task. A total of 99 of 106 completed cases were reviewed this reporting period. Three cases were selected by the

monitoring team for return. Five cases were returned during the seventh period,

and two cases were returned during the eighth reporting period. The State

•

agreed to "reopen" those cases that have not been communicated to the troopers or which have "collateral misconduct" allegations noted by the monitors that require investigation and that were not investigated in the original case.

The monitors also expect the State to use these cases returned as learning tools,

to avoid similar problems in the future. The monitors have provided the State

•

with detailed analyses of these cases, and a discussion of the observed deficiencies. Phase II compliance was achieved by return to the monitors of the

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-151

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 30 of 37 PageID: 158

five cases from the seventh period and the two cases from the eighth period,

•

once the additional investigative processes had been completed. The monitors were satisfied with the additional actions taken on those cases. A similar process

will be followed this reporting period for "returned" cases, and the results of

these returns will be reported In the ninth monitors' report.

•

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.90 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I

•

Phase II

Task 122 stipulates that:

122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120)

•

days following entry of this Consent Decree and every
six months thereafter until this Consent Decree Is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the

Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report

delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to

comply with each provision of this Consent Dec;ree•

• Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State's submission

•

"Progress/Status Summary of the Consent Decree," filed by the State In response to this task.

Status

•

The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitor, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-152

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 31 of 37 PageID: 159

•

2.91 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:

•

123. During the term of this consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records doc11menting its compliance

with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents

required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The

State shall maintain all misconduct investigation flies for

•

at least ten years from the date of the Incident. The State Pollee shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-Identifiable Information about a

trooper included In the MAP, during the trooper's

employment with the State Police. Information

necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be

•

maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the Incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows:

any MVR tape that records an Incident that is the subject

of an pending miscondllct Investigation or a civil or

criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the

•

misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated

misconduct investigation, or an Incident that gave rise to

any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be

maintained during the employment of the troopers

•

whose conduct Is recorded on the tape•

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents,

•

records, recordings and other information during the course of the team's site visit during October, 2003.

Status

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-153

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 32 of 37 PageID: 160

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely

•

and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in
a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

•

2.92 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

Task 124

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

•

Phase I Phase II

Task 124 stipulates that:

•

124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have

access to any State staff, facilities and non-privileged

documents (Including databases)the United states

deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this

•

Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access

and receive copies of documents and databases

requested by the United States. In the event of an

objection, the COurt shall make a final determination

•

regarding access. In any instance in which the state objects to access, it must establish that the access sought Is not relevant to monltoling the implementation

of the COnsent Decree, or that the information requested

is priVIleged and the interest underlying the privilege

cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a

•

protective order. In any Instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the
United States and the Monitor a log describing the

document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding

any claim of privilege, the documents to which the

United states shall be provided acceiS include: (1) all

•

State Pollee documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than

:NJpth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-154

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 33 of 37 PageID: 161

a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or

portions thereof) prepared by the OffiCe of the Attorney

•

General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance

with the provisions of this Decree. other than as

expressly provided herein with respect to the United

States, this paragraph is not intended, ;md should not be

interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, Including

•

those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert

against any person or entity other than the United

States.

•

Methodology Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the

State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.

•

Status

The State is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

•

Phase I: In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

•

•

•

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-155

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 34 of 37 PageID: 162

•

3.0 Executive Summary

Efforts by the State of New Jersey to comply with the 124 tasks to which it

agreed when it signed the consent decree continue to both bear fruit and to

•

meet with some disappointments. The ninth reporting period identifies the salient factors related to compliance in six areas:

• On-Road performance;

• Training;

•

• Supervision; • MAPPS development;

• Inspections, audit and quality control; and

• Citizens' complaints.

•

Each of these is discussed in some detail below .

On-Road Performance

The New Jersey State Police continue to make improvements in the protocols

•

used to ensure on-road performance in processes related to the consent decree. The performance of road troopers continues to be reviewed by five levels of

audit and quality control compliance processes: first-line supervision, a field

operations supervisory review cadre, review by quality assurance bureau

personnel, review by personnel at OSPA, and review by the monitors. These

•

performance review and assessment processes have resulted in dramatic reductions of instances in which the State Police make errors that result in

Constitutional infringements, e.g., illegal searches, improper consent requests,

improper frisks, etc. During the ninth reporting period, the monitors noted four

motor vehicle stops that involved a Constitutional question (two frisks that were

•

improperly conducted or documented and two searches improperly conducted or reported). That number was reduced from ten in the fifth reporting period, 13 in

the sixth reporting period and 14 in the seventh reporting period and seven in

the eighth period. During the fifth reporting period, 9:1 percentof all errors

noted by the monitors included potential Constitutional violations. During the

•

sixth reporting period, 65 percent of all errors involved potential Constitutional violations. During the seventh reporting period, 42 percentof all errors involved

potential Constitutional violations. During the eighth period only 15 percent

involved Constitutional issues. This period, four of the 46 errors noted involved

Constitutional issues, the lowest percentage of errors (8.7 percent) in five

•

periods .

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-156

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 35 of 37 PageID: 163

Troubling, however, is the fact that the monitors found four problems with

•

consent search requests this period, although no problems were noted with canine deployments or use of force incidents this period. While the State has not

yet reached full compliance with the consent decree in the area of on-road law

enforcement procedures, the majority of errors being noted by the monitors are

procedural, not Constitutional. Overall error rates for on-road law enforcement

•

activities this period rose, from 13 in the eighth period to 19 percent this period .

Training

Marked improvement in the staffing levels of the State Police Training Academy

•

were noted this reporting period. In addition, a new commandant of the Academy has been appointed this reporting period, and the technical reporting

arrangements for the Academy have been changed. The State has continued to

provide required training (Fourth Amendment, ethics and cultural diversity) to

pre-service (recruit) and in-service personnel. The Academy has developed and

•

Implemented a new staffing analysis process based on defined workload elements. The Academy has begun the process of development for internal

(Academy-based) audit procedures for training delivered to the New Jersey State

Police, and the monitors are beginning to observe adherence in most training

development process to the five-step development cycle outlined for the State by

•

the monitors in 2001.

Some problems persist, however. The process of managing external providers of

training has created some significant hurdles for the training process this

reporting period, with training being developed and delivered that does not meet

•

the requirements stipulated by the parties for training development and delivery, and, further, fails to meet the high standards established by the Academy for its own training development processes. Further, the monitoring process has noted

some problematic issues with the training delivery process in the areas of cultural

awareness, ethics and executive development.

•

Supervision

Supervisory systems continue to be revised and fine tuned within the Division

this reporting period. It is apparent that the State is conceptualizing and testing

•

various methods of supervision of road-based troopers in an attempt to identify the method that will best provide quality oversight and mentoring for law enforcement personnel engaged In on-road activities governed by the consent

decree. These supervisory processes are also designed to improve compliance

with New Jersey State Police SOPs. To date, however, supervision remains the

•

weak link in the compliance process. Supervisory review of in-field performance is finally improved to the point that it can be documented and measured, which,

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-157

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 36 of 37 PageID: 164

in and of itself, is a major accomplishment. Unfortunately, these measurements

•

indicate that road-level supervision is only 74 percent effective at this point, allowing reporting, procedural and Constitutional errors to slip through the

supervisory review process. Of 120 motor vehicle stop incidents reviewed by

supervisory personnel this reporting period, the monitors found supervisory

errors (some significant) in 31 of those incidents. Supervisors missed law

•

enforcement personnel failures in areas such as failures to note improperly conducted or documented searches, failing to note improperly reported consent

searches, and failing to note procedural failures in on-road activities.

Supervision is the quintessential factor in improving on-the-road performance.

•

Until the State begins to identify effective supervisory processes, to identify supervisors who are failing to perform to standards established by the Division,

isolate the reasons for those failures, and take remedial action, compliance in

New Jersey State Police field operations will be difficult to attain.

•

MAPPS Development

The State has finally implemented the MAPPS performance management system,

making the system available to supervisory and management personnel at all

levels of the organization. The system can be used to review trooper and

•

supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work

continues on establishing appropriate benchmark integration into the MAPPS

system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been

developed and approved by the monitors. While MAPPS is now truly

•

"operational," it is not yet being used to manage the operations of the New Jersey State Police on a day-to-day basis. These management functions are

coming on line incrementally, beginning in January, 2004 through April, 2004.

The MAPPS sy5tem should allow much more tlexible and focused management of

compliance issues by the Division .

•

Inspections, Audit and Quality Control

The State continues an aggressive quality control program for Office of

Professional Standards investigations and for Field Operations motor vehicle stop

•

systems. Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for

conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. Instances of poor

performance at the supervisory level do not always result In remedial action (see

Supervision) .

•

Citizens' Complaints

Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report

Page-158

•

•

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 50-4 Filed 01/23/04 Page 37 of 37 PageID: 165

•

The Office of Professional Standards (OPS) continues to be a shining star in the State's efforts to attain compliance. This component of the State's change

management strategy continues to be proven to be effective. The quality of OPS

.investigations remains strong, with the monitors approving more than 95 percent

of OPS investigations reviewed this reporting period. Staffing, training, and

•

oversight of the OPS function remains strong. With the advent of removal of the backlog of OPS investigations, achieved during the eighth reporting period, OPS

has moved toward holding a 120-day timeline for all completed OPS

investigations. The State continues to staff and manage its Office of Professional

Standards with an eye toward ensuring quality investigations of internal and

•

citizens' complaints. This includes audits of persons subjected to traffic stops and audits of completed OPS investigations.

•

•

•

•

•

•
Ninth Draft Independent Monitors' Report
•

Page-159

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59 Filed 07/20/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 390
Monitors’ Tenth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
July 16, 2004

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-1 Filed 07/20/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 391

1 Executive Summary

During the last reporting period, the State has made remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; Development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been improved substantially in training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels appear to be directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.

1.1

Training

A dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation has been noted during this reporting period. Following on the substantial increases in staffing levels noted last period, the Academy has tasked those staff with specific planning, organization and development functions. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted this period. In fact, the Academy has attained compliance in all but two specific areas this period. Executive training and evaluation of the impact of training are the only two remaining areas resulting in non-compliance at the Academy. This period, the monitors noted continuing improvement in staffing, training for instructional personnel, training curriculum development, trooper coach training, decree mandated training, systems improvement processes for training, supervisory training, promotional training, leadership training, and training documentation. The monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Only two processes stand between the Academy and full compliance—finalization, implementation and evaluation of training for captains and above; and, finally, implementation and use of methodologies for evaluating the impact of training in the field.

1.2

Supervision and Field Operations

As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police has been even more remarkable. For the first time in four years, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 161 of the 207 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 78 percent

Executive Summary

p. v

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-1 Filed 07/20/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 392

supervisory review rate yielded 125 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 125 instances were consent-decree related; however, it is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations have committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. While that goal has not been attained, the agency is well along its way to the goal.

The New Jersey State Police now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) review motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team. Minor fine tuning of supervisory processes could bring the State into full compliance in the Field Operations tasks outlined by the decree. As of this reporting period, the State remains out of compliance with only two of twenty Field Operations-related tasks, both related to supervision, and thus of substantial importance.

For the first time, the State has been found in compliance with one of the more critical tasks of the consent decree, Task 27, which relates to field operations activities. The monitors have found, for the first time, that all consent requests, uses of force, and canine deployments were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and all but one of the 177 non-consensual searches met constitutional requirements. Once again, the IMT has found no evidence that the New Jersey State Police have engaged in racial profiling during this review period This marked changed in performance is, in the opinions of the monitors, directly attributed to the current leadership within the Division of State Police and the Department of Law and Public Safety as well as the improved performance of New Jersey State Police supervisors.

1.3

MAPPS Development

Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark integration into the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the

Executive Summary

p. vi

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-1 Filed 07/20/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 393

monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is beginning to be used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. Only three factors stand between the State and full compliance in MAPPS: implementation of a benchmarking standard and implementation of long-term trend analysis.

1.4

Inspections, Audit and Quality Control

Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements this period.

Executive Summary

p. vii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-2 Filed 07/20/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 394

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

v

1 Introduction

1

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

1

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Progress toward Compliance

4

2 Assessment of Compliance

6

2.1 Methodology

6

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

6

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

12

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

15

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

17

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

25

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 31

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

34

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

35

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

36

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

37

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 39

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

41

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

42

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions 43

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 44

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

46

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System 47

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal

MAPPS Data

48

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts”

49

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

50

Table of Contents

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-2 Filed 07/20/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 395

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

51

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

52

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 53

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data 53

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

54

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

55

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

56

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

57

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

58

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Jersey Turnpike

58

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

59

2.33 Training Assessment

60

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

Training Programs

60

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

65

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

67

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

69

2.38 Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

73

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

77

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

80

2.41 Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

82

2.42 Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

83

2.43 Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 84

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

90

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

94

2.46 Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS0

Program

95

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

97

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

100

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Motor Vehicle Stops

102

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen

Complaint Processes

102

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

Table of Contents

p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-2 Filed 07/20/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 396

the Office of State Police Affairs

103

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

104

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor 105

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

106

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 107

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

108

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

109

3.0 Executive Summary

111

Table of Contents

p. iii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 1 of 114 PageID: 397

Independent Monitors’ Tenth Report Period Ending March 31, 2004
1 Introduction
This document represents the tenth “Independent Monitors’ Report” (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for the period October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004. In order to complete the report in a timely fashion, monitoring activities were accomplished during the period May 17, 2004 through May 22, 2004.
The report is organized into three sections, identified below:
• Introduction; • Compliance Assessment; and • Summary.
The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions used by the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of “compliance” are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, “Compliance Assessment,” includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the monitors and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, “Summary,” provides an overall assessment of the State’s performance for this reporting period.
1.1 Overall Status Assessment
Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.
1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment
The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree. It reports on the State’s compliance using the individual requirements of the decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using “to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop” (Decree at para 26). The following

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-1

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 2 of 114 PageID: 398

components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as “Phase I,” and “Phase II,” with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

• Selection of a random or stratified random sample; • Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every instance of selection of random samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring team while on-site.

The performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the consent decree was assessed by the monitoring team during the period ending March 31, 2004. The tenth independent monitors’ report was submitted to the court during the month of July, 2004.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

• Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course of business1; and/or
• Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state government
during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

1 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance “special reports” prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 3 of 114 PageID: 399

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative

description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task

requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology used to assess the task,

and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to note, however, that a finding of

non-compliance does not mean the State is engaging in inappropriate behavior. It

simply means the State has not yet completed its efforts toward compliance. The

graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate

status in each compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below.

The first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first year

and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the time allowed

by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time period is represented

by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth segments represent the time

required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase I or Phase II compliance. A

vertically patterned light blue bar

indicates that compliance was achieved in the

time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow bar

indicates that compliance

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in

the opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance

with the decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the

delay may seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the decree, and

which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the State’s successful

compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or could not be monitored is

represented by a hollow bar

.

1.3.3 Standards for “Compliance”

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for “compliance” to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 4 of 114 PageID: 400

requirements of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard. This change to compliance standards is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, below.
1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Task nn 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance has not been attained (but which does not affect the State’s eventual compliance).
1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process
Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of “policy compliance:” the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational compliance—institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.
1.5 Progress toward Compliance
During the last reporting period, the State has made remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; Development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been improved substantially in training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels appear to be directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 5 of 114 PageID: 401

1.5.1

Training

A dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation has been noted during this reporting period. Following on the substantial increases in staffing levels noted last period, the Academy has tasked those staff with specific planning, organization and development functions. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted this period. In fact, the Academy has attained compliance in all but two specific areas this period. Executive training and evaluation of the impact of training are the only two remaining areas resulting in non-compliance at the Academy. This period, the monitors noted continuing improvement in staffing, training for instructional personnel, training curriculum development, trooper coach training, decree mandated training, systems improvement processes for training, supervisory training, promotional training, leadership training, and training documentation. The monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Only two processes stand between the Academy and full compliance—finalization, implementation and evaluation of training for captains and above; and, finally, implementation and use of methodologies for evaluating the impact of training in the field.

1.5.2

Supervision and Field Operations

As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police has been even more remarkable. For the first time in four years, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 161 of the 207 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 78 percent supervisory review rate yielded 125 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 125 instances were consent-decree related; however, it is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations have committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. While that goal has not been attained, the agency is well along its way to the goal.

The New Jersey State Police now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) review motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 6 of 114 PageID: 402

subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team. Minor fine tuning of supervisory processes could bring the State into full compliance in the Field Operations tasks outlined by the decree. As of this reporting period, the State remains out of compliance with only two of twenty Field Operations-related tasks, both related to supervision, and thus of substantial importance.

For the first time, the State has been found in compliance with one of the more critical tasks of the consent decree, Task 27, which relates to field operations activities. The monitors have found, for the first time, that all consent requests, uses of force, and canine deployments were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and all but one of the 177 non-consensual searches met constitutional requirements. Once again, the IMT has found no evidence that the New Jersey State Police have engaged in racial profiling during this review period This marked changed in performance is, in the opinions of the monitors, directly attributed to the current leadership within the Division of State Police and the Department of Law and Public Safety as well as the improved performance of New Jersey State Police supervisors.

1.5.3

MAPPS Development

Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark integration into the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is beginning to be used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. Only three factors stand between the State and full compliance in MAPPS: implementation of a benchmarking standard and implementation of long-term trend analysis.

1.5.4

Inspections, Audit and Quality Control

Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements this period.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 7 of 114 PageID: 403

2 Assessment of Compliance
2.1 Methodology
The monitors assessed the State’s compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. “Compliance” was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).
The following sections of the Tenth Monitors’ Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the decree between November 1, 2003 and April 30, 2004.
2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

Task 26
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology

During the tenth site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured on-site reviews of the operations of 10 New Jersey State Police Road Stations. These reviews were conducted of operations reported during the dates of April 1, 2003 through

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 8 of 114 PageID: 404

September 30, 2003, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available). The team conducted these reviews of Troops B and E, including the Troop B stations of Hope, Sussex, Totowa, Netcong, Perryville, Somerville and Washington. Troop E stations (Bloomfield, Bass River and Holmdel) were also reviewed. As part of this review, members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business data on 207 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 192 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team’s methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.
Data Requests
Prior to its site visits in May, 2004, the monitoring team requested of the State electronic and hard-copy data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other non-electronic data requests:
 Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated poststop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drugdetection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.
 Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop “communications center call-ins” for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.
 The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.
Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop records for Troops B and E (taken from the State’s motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop “event” records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the active dates of the tenth site visit.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 9 of 114 PageID: 405

Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the tenth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.
Motor Vehicle Stops
Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the State.

Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment.
 Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports, etc.), referred to as Type I data;
Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Tenth Site Visit

Type of Activity Selected MVS Incidents MVS Involving Consent Search MVS Involving Canine Deployment MVS Involving Use of Force Probable Cause Searches of Vehicles Probable Cause Searches of Persons

Report Reviews 207
7
10
6 12
12

Tape Reviews 192
7
5
4 8
10

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 10 of 114 PageID: 406

 Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and
 Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.
These records indicated only one event that resulted in a consent search request from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and six events from other stations resulting in consent search requests, for a total of seven consent search requests.2 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search.
All consent searches occurring were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team. Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 10 times during the reporting period. Reports from all 10 of these events were reviewed by the monitoring team, and videos from one of those events were also reviewed by the monitoring team. Force reportedly was used by New Jersey State Police personnel in six motor vehicle stop incidents during the reporting period, and reports from all of these incidents were reviewed by the monitoring team. Video tapes of four of the use of force events were reviewed by members of the monitoring team during the tenth site visit. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
In addition, obviously, video tapes of some these events also were reviewed by members of the monitoring team during their tenth site visit, as noted above. These incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table two, below.

2 Two consent requests were declined by drivers during the reporting period.
Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 11 of 114 PageID: 407
Type I Event Reviews
A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 207 Type I reviews were conducted this period.
Type II Event Review
A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 192 Type II reviews were conducted this period.
Type III Event Review
In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, were selected for review, six events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the monitoring team. A total of 55 Type III reviews were conducted this period. None were found that were problematic.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 12 of 114 PageID: 408

Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

Station
1 Hope 2 Sussex 3 Totowa 4 Netcong 5 Perryville 6 Somerville 7 Washington 8 Bass River 9 Bloomfield 10 Holmdel 11 Other Stations

Type I Reviews
9 8 38 23 12 17 14 28 18 20 20 207

Type II Reviews
11 7 38 23 11 16 14 32 14 20 6 192

Type III Reviews
0 6 0 43 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 55

Status

The monitoring team’s review of New Jersey State Police SOPs indicates that the agency remains in Phase I and Phase II compliance with Task 26. The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. The vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police are “non-discretionary,” e.g., searches incidental to arrest, with a total of 168 of the 177 searches of vehicles being conducted “incidental to arrest.” Of the 178 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 172 were “non-discretionary” searches incidental to arrest. The monitors commend the State for improving the quality and tenor of the “average” traffic stop observed by the monitoring team during the past four reporting periods. The monitors have noted no indications of racial profiling in the data reviewed this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 13 of 114 PageID: 409

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 27

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in ¶ 26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with ¶¶ 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. The monitors have noted a remarkable change in the quality, frequency, and tone of supervisory review during the tenth monitoring period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in a law enforcement procedures were effected in 161 of 207 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 77.8 percent. For comparison purposes, the supervisory review rate for the ninth reporting period was 53 percent. More importantly, the New Jersey State Police have implemented a much different type of supervisory review process, attempting to meet the goal of having first-line (stationlevel) supervisors review all motor vehicle stops which result in a law enforcement procedure (vehicle exit, frisk, arrest, search, canine deployment, consent request, or use of force). The majority of the supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources—quality assurance reviews, OSPA reviews or other non-station sources. The vast majority of reviews conducted during the tenth reporting period were conducted by station-level supervisors.
Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present in 13.5 percent of all monitored activity this reporting period, down from 21.7 percent last

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 14 of 114 PageID: 410

period. Given the new focus on supervisory review, via video tape, of trooper activity, this reduction is understandable. Video tapes were reviewed by supervisors in 78 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors. This 78 percent supervisory review rate yielded 125 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 125 instances were consent-decree related; however, it is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. As a result of this newly implemented supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 68 decree-related errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With this new system, these 68 decree-related errors were noted and corrected in “real time,” before the monitors called them to the attention of the State.

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the pending MAPPS process indicates that the agency is in Phase I compliance with the requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. Training in use of the MAPPS has been delayed pending full development of the MAPPS system. Full compliance with this task cannot be monitored until the MAPPS is brought on-line. For example, the following issues were noted with 30 MVSRs (from among the 207 reviewed this reporting period), which were, apparently, not noted by supervisory personnel reviewing the motor vehicle stops. From those 207 events, the monitors found 44 reporting problems that should have been noted by supervisory review, but were not. These included:

• Six troopers articulated insufficient reason to suspect drivers or passengers were armed in their MVSRs detailing frisks of drivers or passengers of vehicles.
• One trooper who removed passengers from a vehicle, frisked same, and failed to report these actions on the MVSR.
• One trooper who classified a vehicle search as a vehicle “frisk,” and reported it as such in the Motor Vehicle Stop Report.
• One trooper who searched a driver, apparently absent probable cause to do so.

This constitutes and error rate of nine of 207 motor vehicle stop incidents, or 4.3 percent. Compliance for this task is defined as “greater than 94 percent.” The State’s

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 15 of 114 PageID: 411

compliance rate for these processes stands at 95.7 percent, which is within the compliance area stipulated by the monitors.

The reader should note both a quantitative and a qualitative difference in the supervisory review processs. Since late in the sixth reporting period, supervisory personnel have been required to review all consent search, uses of force, and canine deployment reports. Errors in those activities continue to drop this period. In fact, the monitoring team has noted a continuation of last reporting period’s remarkable and laudible increase in supervisory review processes, and resulting performance notices— both positive and negative—based on those reviews. Several of these reviews indicated to the monitoring team that the New Jersey State Police are identifying procedural errors prior to the monitoring team’s noting them. A total of 161 MVS incidents reviewed by the monitoring team were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. Within those 161 events, the monitoring team noted 71 various errors by law enforcement personnel . New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted 62 of those errors prior to the monitors’ review process, and corrected all of these 62 procedural errors prior to the monitors’ site visit.

Many of these errors missed this period were very minor errors, e.g., failure to call in the number of occupants in a motor vehicle being stopped, failure to fully describe the reason for the stop during a stop call in, etc.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

Task 28

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 28 stipulates:
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-15

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 16 of 114 PageID: 412

of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants, which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of seven law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the tenth report’s operational dates. Two of these seven involved a consent search request that was declined. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Three below. Tables Three through Five depict data from the 207 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 207 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 72 white drivers of the total of 207 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 34.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Three depicts no consent requests of white drivers, four requests of black drivers, three requests of Hispanic drivers, and no requests of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, which were, subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The reader should note that the State has reduced substantially the number of consent search requests, from a high of 59 the fifth reporting period to only seven this period. As such, the numbers reported in Table Three are not statistically meaningful when reported viz a viz race and ethnicity.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 17 of 114 PageID: 413

All of the seven consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of the consent decree. Obviously, this represents an improvement in performance over last period’s consent request actions.

An error rate of none of seven consent searches constitutes zero percent, falling well within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree.

Table Three—Consent Request Activity

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers
72(34.8) 74(3507) 56(27.1)
5 207

Number of Requests for
Search3 0 4 3 0 7

Percent Consent Request by
Race/Ethnicity 0.0 5.4 3.6 0 --

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 29a stipulates that:

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data
a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor
3 Two consent search requests were refused.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 18 of 114 PageID: 414

Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop; 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended; 5. license number/state of stopped vehicle; 5A. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); 8A. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]); 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted; 14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges; 17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force; 18. the trooper's race and gender; and

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 19 of 114 PageID: 415

19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.
Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State’s compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.

Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports, and systems to facilitate that review were completed during this reporting period.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 207 incidents involving a poststop law enforcement activity of interest to the decree. Use of force, non-consensual searches and deployment of canines received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Four, Five and Six, below.

Use of Force
New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force six times during the reporting period. The use of force rate for white drivers in the sample was zero percent. For black drivers in the sample, the use of force rate was 5.4 percent, and for Hispanic drivers in the sample, 3.6 percent. Members of the monitoring team reviewed reports of all use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. All of the reports were included as part of the MVSR reporting process. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process.4 None of the use of force practices were found to be problematic.

Table Four depict data from the 207 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 207 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers

4 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 20 of 114 PageID: 416

in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 72 white drivers of the total of 207 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 34.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Four depicts zero incidents of use of force against white drivers (or occupants), four incidents of use of force against black drivers (or occupants), four incident of use of force against Hispanic drivers, and no uses against force of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Table Four: Use of Force Activity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers 72(34.8) 74(35.7) 56(27.1) 5 207

Incidents of Use of Force 0 4 2 0 6

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
__ 5.4 3.6 -na

Canine Deployments
The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 10 times during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment, and reviewed video tapes of all canine deployments. No reporting problems were noted in any of the 10 deployments, and the video taped incidents reviewed indicated that the written reports accurately reflected actual events. All canine deployments were professionally executed and were executed for legitimate cause.
Table Five depicts data from the 207 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 207 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 72 white drivers of the total of 207 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 34.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Five depicts one canine deployment for white drivers, five canine deployments for black drivers, four canine

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 21 of 114 PageID: 417

deployments for Hispanic drivers, and no canine deployments for drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Table Five: Canine Deployments

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 72(34.8) 74(3507) 56(27.1) 5 207

Canine Deployments
1 5 4 -10

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
1.3 6.8 7.1 na na

Non-Consensual Searches
Members of the New Jersey State Police conducted 177 non-consensual searches of vehicles among the 207 reports reviewed by the monitoring team during the reporting period. White drivers’ vehicles constituted 29.0 percent of the “searched population,” while black drivers’ vehicles constituted 29.5 percent, and Hispanics drivers’ vehicles constituted 23.7 percent of the searched vehicle population. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all 177 of these non-consensual searches of vehicles. Only one of these non-consensual searches was problematic
Table Six depicts the results, by race/ethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 207 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. Table Six depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by race/ethnicity of the 177 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 61 white drivers were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 56 white drivers searched incidental to arrest, three subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 56 searches incidental to arrest constitute 91.8 percent of all searches of white drivers. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 22 of 114 PageID: 418

Table Six: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of Drivers’ Vehicles, By Race of Driver

Reason for Search
Incidental to Arrest Probable Cause

White #(%) 56(91.8) 3(4.9)

Plain View Proof of Ownership
Total

1(0.02) 1(0.02)
61

Black #(%) 58(90.3) 4(6.5)

Hispanic #(%) 43(87.8) 5(10.2)

Other #(%) 5(100)

0

1(0.02)

1(0.02) 1(0.02)

63

50

5

Of the 177 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with one. This search, which was designated as a vehicle frisk, was actually a vehicle search. An error rate of one of 177 events equals 0.006 percent, within the acceptable level of error.

Table Seven depicts probable cause non-consensual search activity by race, for probable cause searches, and Table Eight depicts “incidental to arrest” searches by race.
Table Seven: Probable Cause Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 72(34.8) 74(35.7) 56(27.1) 5 207

Probable Cause Searches 3 4 5 0 12

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
4.2 5.4 8.9 ---

Table Eight: Incidental to Arrest Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers
72(34.8) 74(35.7) 56(27.1)
5 207

Searches Incidental to
Arrest 56 56 43 5 9

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
77.8 75.6 76.7 50.0

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 23 of 114 PageID: 419

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 57 separate incidents in which procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 49 of these problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining prior to the monitor’s noting the behavior. A total of eight errors D010-37557, B110-16342, B150-10865, B060-36453, E050-56974, B080-32251, B150-11243, B050-14985] from among 192 yields an error rate of 4.1 percent, within the allowable margin of error agreed to by the parties. The State’s performance this period represents a drastic improvement in this task over last reporting period, which showed an error rate for this task in excess of 65 percent. Undoubtedly, this improvement, of 1600 percent, is attributable to the State’s newly implemented supervisory processes.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of

Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 29b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29b stipulates that:

b. The protocols listed in ¶29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in ¶¶ 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 24 of 114 PageID: 420

and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.

The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.

The reader should also note that the data collected in the traffic stop reporting process is among the most robust in the nation. The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the State’s database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as “expeditious” implementation. None of the compliance issues identified above are attributable to a delay in implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase Il:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31, 32 and 33

Task 29c

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29c stipulates that:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 25 of 114 PageID: 421

c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and ¶¶ 31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology

The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.

Status

Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. None of the compliance problems noted above are attributable to forms, reports or logs created in response to this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

Task 29e

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29e stipulates that:
e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 26 of 114 PageID: 422

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the State, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

Task 30

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30 stipulates that:
30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in ¶ 29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in ¶29(a), and as revised pursuant to ¶29(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 27 of 114 PageID: 423

tasks is measured under a new standard this reporting period, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and control of these processes, and when fully implemented, should further improve agency performance in these areas.

For the past nine reporting periods, the State has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors’ review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 192 video recordings and documentation from 207 vehicle stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Of the 192 video recordings reviewed by the monitors, seven included an event in which the trooper failed to activate recording upon signal to stop, four had no call-in prior to approach, 10 failed to provide a description of the vehicle, 15 failed to provide a description of occupants, two failed to provide a reason for the stop. Supervisory personnel noted and corrected five of seven failures to activate recording equipment, eight of 10 failures to provide a vehicle description, nine of 15 failures to call in descriptions of occupants, one of two failures to provide a reason for the stop, four of six failures to continue recordings to completion. The majority of these errors were registered on motorist aids, motor vehicle accidents and rest-area “walk throughs” that turned into enforcement procedures requiring call-ins. Once these events turned into law enforcement procedures, the required call-ins were not made. The monitors found no pattern that would indicate these were intentional acts on the part of enforcement personnel. Many of the incidents with one type of error, also had a second or third type of error. A total of 10 incidents contained one or more recording/reporting errors. An error rate of 10 incidents of 192 constitutes 5.2 percent, within the newly established parameter of >90 percent.5 The monitors are aware of the difficulty in distinguishing a “bright line” demarcating a non-law enforcement event such as a motorist aid from a

5 These numbers reflect those recording failures not attributable to technical difficulties with audio or video recording devices.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 28 of 114 PageID: 424

law enforcement event, involving one of the seven law enforcement procedures articulate in the decree. The State is working to refine its processes related to reporting these transitional incidents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30a stipulates that:
a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent race/ethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 192 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number; 99.9 percent list the primary trooper’s badge number; 99.9 percent list the race and gender of the primary trooper; 99.9 percent list the

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 29 of 114 PageID: 425

driver’s race and gender; 99.9 percent list a reason for the stop and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this task. Of the 192 stop records reviewed by the monitoring team, seven indicated that the MVR began after the trooper approached the vehicle. The majority of these were either motor vehicle accidents or motorist aids. (This constitutes an error rate of 3.9 percent).6 The monitors are aware of the difficulty in distinguishing a “bright line” demarcating a non-law enforcement event such as a motorist aid from a law enforcement event, involving one of the seven law enforcement procedures articulate in the decree. The State is working to refine its processes related to reporting these transitional incidents.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

Task 30b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30b stipulates that:
b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.
Status

Of the 177 search events reported (and reviewed by video tape), 175 were called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. This constitutes an error rate of 0.01 percent, within the >94 percent established as the criterion for this task. This rate is a substantial reduction from the 20 percent noted

6 More than seven events were noted, but all others were the result of technical (audio or video) difficulties inherent in in-car monitoring systems.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 30 of 114 PageID: 426

last reporting period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stop activity continue to note these failures in the field. The dramatic reduction in problems with these call-ins, undoubtedly, is due to the revised supervisory review process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30c stipulates that:
c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 31 of 114 PageID: 427

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. More than 99 percent of electronic CAD records reviewed by the monitors this reporting period were found to have “clearance codes” indicating a call in notifying the communications center of the trooper’s actions and time of clearance. Of the 192 stops reviewed by video tape, only one was found not to have clearance codes. Supervisory personnel noted this problem and corrected it prior to the monitors’ data pulls for the reporting period. Clearance codes were present in 99 percent of all electronic records. Overall, more than 99 percent of all records included the required codes.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30d stipulates that:
d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure (i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.
Methodology
New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 32 of 114 PageID: 428

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have “CAD Incident Numbers” indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 192 stops reviewed by video tape, CAD numbers were present in all video tapes reviewed, and in 99 percent of all electronic records. Overall, more than 99 percent of all records included the required CAD incident numbers.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 31 stipulates that:

31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A MVSR form was completed accurately in all of the seven events that the monitoring team reviewed, that included a consent search request. Two of the incidents involved a consent request that was denied. This constitutes a 100 percent compliance rate. In addition, the information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all seven cases.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 33 of 114 PageID: 429

During the ninth reporting period, compliance for this task fell below required levels for the first time in the last five reports. The monitors have determined that, once compliance is achieved, two consecutive periods of poor performance is required prior to loss of compliance. The State was placed under warning for this task during the ninth reporting period. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task for the tenth reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

Task 31a-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information : 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search; 5. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived; 6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 34 of 114 PageID: 430

authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied: 1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search; 3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and, 6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.
Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for seven consent requests and five consent searches, and reviewed video tape recordings of seven motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events depicted on seven video tapes reviewed were assessed in light of the reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status

Members of the monitoring team noted no reporting or process problems with the seven consent searches. The State was placed under warning for paragraph 31 activities for the ninth reporting period. No problems were noted with paragraph 31 activities this period. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 35 of 114 PageID: 431

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of Non-Consensual Searches

Task 32

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
TPahsakse3I2I stipulates that:

32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 36 of 114 PageID: 432

Of the 177 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with one. This search, which was designated as a vehicle frisk, was actually a search of the vehicle. The problems were not noted and corrected by supervisory review. An error rate of one of 177 events equals 0.06 percent, within the acceptable level of error.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

Task 33

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 33 stipulates that:
33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed; 5. whether an alert occurred; 6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 37 of 114 PageID: 433

The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, all 10 reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and canines to have been deployed in conformance with the requirements of procedures and the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34a stipulates that:
34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 192 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.
Status

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 38 of 114 PageID: 434

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.
c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.
Methodology

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 39 of 114 PageID: 435

In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each day of this reporting period (see above), members of the monitoring team pulled for review
a sample of 207 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the decree. These included 207 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 192 procedures selected by reviewing video tapes7.

Status

While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the decree. Members of the monitoring team noted that 96.1 percent of all video recordings were initiated “when first signaled to stop.” In addition, 96.1 percent of the recordings were noted to “continue until completion” as required by the decree. Notice of completion and notice of action taken were recorded in 99.5 percent of the cases, but was captured on CAD information systems in 99.9 percent of the cases.8

A review of the 192 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning “out of tape” issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units. The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 192 stops reviewed via video-tape this period, 37 exhibited some form of audio difficulty, and seven exhibited some form of video difficulty. Troopers have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting only seven events (of 192 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. Most of these were the result of motor vehicle accidents, motorist aid, or rest-area walk-throughs that resulted, eventually, in law enforcement procedures. The monitors are aware of the difficulty in distinguishing a “bright line” demarcating a non-law enforcement event such as a motorist aid from a law enforcement event, involving one of the seven law enforcement procedures articulate in the decree. The State is working to refine its processes related to reporting these transitional incidents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

7 All 192 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 207 MVSRs reviewed. 8 Some actions are not recorded on in-car MVR, as they are made via portable radio
away from the main recording microphone. These call-ins, however, are captured by
CADS operators and entered into the State’s CADS system.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 40 of 114 PageID: 436

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to ¶¶31-33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status

A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting
period indicated that 100 percent of these were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The
monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.
A review of 207 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates all reports were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 207 selected stops reviewed this quarter for evidence of reporting or procedural errors that should have been noted by supervisory personnel. The monitors also reviewed 161 MVS tapes that were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. From those 161 events, the monitors found 19 that exhibited some form of reporting problem that should have been noted by supervisory review, but was not. These included:
• Six incidents were not supported by articulated facts sufficient to support reason to suspect drivers or passengers were armed in their MVSRs detailing frisks of drivers or passengers of vehicle].
• One incident involved a trooper who removed passengers from a vehicle, frisked same, and failed to report these actions on the.
• One incident involved a trooper who classified a vehicle search as a vehicle “frisk,” and reported it as such in the Motor Vehicle Stop Report.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 41 of 114 PageID: 437

• One incident involved a trooper who searched a driver, apparently absent
probable cause to do so. • Two failures to activate recording equipment, two failures to provide a
vehicle description, six failures to call in descriptions of occupants, one failure to provide a reason for the stop, and two failures to continue recordings to completion. Three of these incidents resulted in multiple recording errors, resulting in 10 incidents of failed supervisory oversight for call-in data. (The majority of these errors were registered on motorist aids, motor vehicle accidents and rest-area “walk throughs” that turned into enforcement procedures requiring call-ins. Once these events turned into law enforcement procedures, the required call-ins were not made. The monitors found no pattern that would indicate these were intentional acts on the part of enforcement personnel. Many of the incidents with one type of error, also had a second or third type of error).

This constitutes and error rate of 19 of 162 events reviewed by supervisory personnel, or 11.7 percent, outside the allowable five percent error rate for this task. The reader should note, however, a qualitative difference in these omissions. Since late in the sixth reporting period, supervisory personnel have been required to review all consent search, uses of force, and canine deployment reports. Remaining errors (State Police procedural violations, and less problematic consent decree violations—activation times for video and audio recordings, for example) are less troublesome than poor consent search request practices, arbitrary deployment of canines, and problematic uses of force.

The monitors have noted a strong improvement in the process of supervisory review of video tapes. The quality of supervisory reviews, has improved markedly. For example, supervisory review noted and corrected one problem with use of force reporting, and caught and corrected 25 errors in MVR recording and reporting. They caught and corrected 17 stop call in errors and 11 search call in errors. It is clear that supervisory personnel, possibly for the first time, are fully engaged in the compliance efforts of the New Jersey State Police. The monitors commend the new focus on supervision generated by the New Jersey State Police this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not in Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 42 of 114 PageID: 438

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:
36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

Training for supervisory personnel regarding MVR review and a supervisorymanagement system for using MVR reviews as part of the MAPPS process has been delayed again. Training for supervisory personnel regarding revisions to the procedures noted above was completed in November, 2001. The State developed, and implemented in November, 2001, a formal policy requirement regarding MVR review processes for supervisory personnel, using a structured review process that, in the opinion of the monitoring team, has drastically improved the quality of supervisory review. OSPA provides advanced training to field supervisors regarding MVR/MVSR review protocols.

During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed more than 300 supervisors’ MVR review reports. The quality of these reports has improved substantially. All reviews assessed this reporting period were completed using the new Form 528, a form requiring a highly structured review process. This process is a vast improvement over earlier processes. Members of the monitoring team were able to compare 161 supervisors’ reviews with actual video tapes (the same tapes reviewed by supervisors as part of their review process). Members of the monitoring team noted 19 reporting or procedural issues in the 161 tapes they reviewed that were missed by the supervisory cadre at the New

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 43 of 114 PageID: 439

Jersey State Police. This constitutes an overall error rate for supervisory review of 11.7 percent, down from previous reporting periods, but beyond the agreed upon five percent margin for error.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not In Compliance

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 37 stipulates that:
37. After conducting a review pursuant to ¶35, ¶36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in ¶29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.
Status
During the monitors’ site visits for the tenth reporting period, the monitors noted one incident that should have been forwarded to OPS in response to the requirements of this task. This was appropriately forwarded to OPS for investigation and response. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 44 of 114 PageID: 440

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:
38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews of referral decisions pursuant to ¶ 37 to ensure appropriate referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.
Methodology
Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Recently completed training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to “copy” to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.
Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards, and others are anticipated based on reviews conducted during the ninth reporting period. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel’s review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.
Status

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 45 of 114 PageID: 441

During the tenth monitoring site visit, the monitors noted one event that should have been referred to OPS for investigation and response. This event was appropriately forwarded. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

Task 39
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 39 stipulates that:
39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.
Methodology
Numerous changes in New Jersey State Police policies regarding this task were made in the fourth reporting period, and were fully implemented in the sixth reporting period. New Jersey State Police policies F-19 (MVR Equipment), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-31 (Consent to Search) and F-55 (Patrol Procedures) were revised in October, 2001 to reflect changes in operational practices designed to better assess New Jersey State Police patrol actions relative to prohibiting race- or ethnicity-based decision making. For example, supervisory personnel now review motor vehicle stop recordings (MVSRs) of all motor vehicle stops involving consent search requests. Supervisors also are required to routinely monitor and review, using a new, highly structured “checklist” a larger number of “routine” MVSRs, and now are required to review all consent searches, uses of force, and canine deployments engaged in by their personnel. In addition, law enforcement personnel who have exhibited problematic on-road behavior in the past are selected for enhanced monitoring through review of a larger number of MVSRs on a quarterly (and in some cases even daily) basis. The position of “road sergeant” has been implemented, thus increasing substantially the level of direct supervision of road activities. Supervisors are now required to approve all consent searches, and, where practicable, to be present when consent searches are conducted. Training in these new procedures and policies

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 46 of 114 PageID: 442

has also been provided to all supervisory personnel and troopers involved in law enforcement activities. During this reporting period, additional revisions were made to SOPs F-7, F-31 and F-55. These changes were designed to improve performance on call-ins prior to search and consent search.

In addition, attorneys from the Office of State Police Affairs have been assigned to each of the State Police’s five troops, for the purpose of serving as legal advisors to the troops. These attorneys also perform site visits to State Police road stations to obtain feedback from law enforcement personnel regarding training and remediation of errors in traffic stop procedures. OSPA also initiated in-field audits of all consent searches, uses of force and canine deployments, with remedial mentoring of State Police supervisors in instances in which problematic procedures are noted. OSPA has also modified, during this reporting period, the non-consensual search protocols, requiring enhanced supervisory presence at the scenes of such procedures, and also requiring supervisory approval of such procedures.

Status

The New Jersey State Police have recently appointed and deployed patrol sergeants to serve as “road supervisors;” however, these personnel were noted to be “on scene,” in 28 of the 207 events (13.5 percent, down from 21.7 percent last period) reviewed by the members of the monitoring team (through MVR reviews at the road stations and via review of written documentation of motor vehicle stop incidents). This represents an increase from 10.8 percent for the seventh period and 12.6 percent during the eighth period. The sixth reporting period’s supervisory presence rate was three percent. Supervisors were present at 42.8 percent of all incidents involving consent search requests (similar to last period’s 44 percent), and 50 percent of events involving a drug detector canine (up from 40 percent last period). The monitors are pleased that the level of supervisory activity on the road has apparently reattained levels established during the sixth and seventh reporting periods

During the tenth reporting period, the State raised objection to the manner in which this task is being evaluated. The monitors agreed to remove the monitoring processes for this reporting period until this objection is resolved.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Unable to Monitor

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 47 of 114 PageID: 443

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

Task 40
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 40 stipulates that:
40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
Methodology
The ninth monitors’ report marked a milestone for the MAPPS development process. During the ninth site visit, the New Jersey State Police demonstrated to the members of the monitoring team an operational version of the MAPPS information system. The monitors viewed the system components, and used live data to ensure that the MAPPS system contained all data elements outlined by the decree. In addition, members of the monitoring team, using live data, ensured that each system capability required by the decree was available and functional in the MAPPS information system.
This reporting period, the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all, the monitors performed 2,208 separate tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems tests, the monitors used MAPPS as it would be expected to be used by supervisory and management personnel in the day-to-day processes of managing the New Jersey State Police. The results of these process tests are discussed below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51.
MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data in MAPPS, as of the monitors’ tenth site visit, are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS with the exception of application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities for conducting long-term analyses.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 48 of 114 PageID: 444

In effect, the State has made substantial progress in bringing a functional MAPPS system on-line, and, at the time of the monitors’ site visit, the system was being used to manage the New Jersey State Police. The only “missing” decree-required elements are the benchmarking and long-term analysis functions. Thus, compliance status for the MAPPS components has not changed: the State is in Phase I compliance, having designed, programmed, tested and fielded the MAPPS system. It is now in day-to-day use; however, benchmarking and long-term analysis function remain pending, so Phase II compliance is pending. The monitors are aware of the intense effort exhibited by the State in bringing MAPPS on-line, and commends those who have so diligently labored in the “electronic trenches” for so long. Implementation of MAPPS, as a functioning system, has been no small feat, and the State has done an excellent job with this task to date.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System

Task 41

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 41 requires that:
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to ¶29 and the protocols listed in ¶29of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 49 of 114 PageID: 445

c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being “narrative elements” which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, was found to be functional in the MAPPS system reviewed by the monitors. In addition, the five nonprimary requirements, identified as “narrative elements” were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors found the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways, and found the system to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required by subparagraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers are able to use these systems on a daily basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal MAPPS Data

Task 42

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 42 requires that:
42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 50 of 114 PageID: 446

be construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts” and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43Phase 1I: 2In Co3mplia4nce 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II: Not In Compliance

Phase I Phase II

Task 43 requires that:

43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29(a)(5A, 8A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in ¶41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 51 of 114 PageID: 447

that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in ¶41(b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by “count” and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (5a, 8a, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel have begun to access the system on a day-to-day basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:
44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Methodology

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 52 of 114 PageID: 448

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The State has identified the “CAD incident number” as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

Task 45

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 45 requires that:

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 53 of 114 PageID: 449

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

Task 46
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 46 requires that:

46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by ¶¶48-53.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

With implementation of the MAPPS components this reporting period, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan. Obviously, the State has not met the 180-day timeline, but the MAPPS as configured conforms to the plans approved by the United States and the Monitors.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 54 of 114 PageID: 450

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

Task 47
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 47 requires that:

47. Consistent with the requirements of ¶¶48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January, 2004. The monitors executed 2,208 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task 48

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 48 requires that:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 55 of 114 PageID: 451

48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures have been executed. The monitors executed 2,208 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

Task 49

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 49 requires that:
49. To the extent reflected in ¶43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 56 of 114 PageID: 452

b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in ¶73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these have been executed. The monitors executed 2,208 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 50 requires that:
50. To the extent reflected in ¶43, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see ¶¶54-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 57 of 114 PageID: 453

searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The State has completed a conceptual outline and proposal to support development and integration of benchmark comparisons. The monitors have reviewed the “benchmarking plan” and have approved it. Benchmarking processes have not yet been implemented.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 51

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 51 requires that:
51. To the extent reflected in ¶43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and
subunits.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
As of yet, specific responsibilities and staffing to allow long-term trend analysis are not clearly identified by the State.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 58 of 114 PageID: 454

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

Not In Compliance Not In Compliance

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

During the tenth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted several instances of supervisory personnel issuing “performance notices” or other interventions for actions of division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are beginning to carefully review trooper activity and to issue performance notices or other “interventions” when inappropriate behavior occurs. The monitors continue to note substantial difficulties with the supervisory review process, with numerous instances surfacing which led the monitoring team to believe that not all supervisory reviews were being diligently conducted. The “knowable error rate” for supervisory review has begun to decline after a period of rising rates, from 11.2 percent during the seventh period to 13.3 percent for the eighth period, to 26.4 percent for the ninth quarter. The tenth quarter’s “knowable error rate” was 19.8. See sections 2.13 and 2.16, above, for additional comments relative to supervisor review.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not In Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 59 of 114 PageID: 455

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 53 stipulates that:

53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to ¶ 73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.

Status

The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two misconduct investigations in a two-year period, but additional work is pending regarding protocols for and assessment of supervisory response to this section. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During this reporting period, the State has assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards. Specific activities related to the required review have been assessed by the monitoring team this quarter. Based on this review, the State is judged to be, for the first time, in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 54 stipulates that:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 60 of 114 PageID: 456

54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

Methodology

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition with the Court for release from most of the requirements of the consent decree related to OPS. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the monitors will discontinue monitoring activities for OPS requirements as of this reporting period, with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90).

Task 87, which requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens’ complaints within 120 days, was evaluated by reviewing the “120-day Report,” an OPS-generated, “normal course of business” report developed to monitor overdue cases and prevent an additional case backlog. Based on the 120-day Report, the State remains in compliance with this task.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-60

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 61 of 114 PageID: 457

Task 90, which requires imposition of appropriate discipline in Consultation with MAPPS, was evaluated by reviewing “course of business” documents related to the OPS review of sustained OPS investigations, executive-level decisions regarding discipline, and the existence in MAPPS of records reflecting discipline. The State is judged to be in Phase I and Phase II compliance with the requirements of Task 90.

2.33 Training Assessment
A dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation has been noted during this reporting period. Following on the substantial increases in staffing levels noted last period, the Academy has tasked those staff with specific planning, organization and development functions. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted this period. In fact, the Academy has attained compliance in all but two specific areas this period. Executive training and evaluation of the impact of training are the only two remaining areas resulting in non-compliance at the Academy. This period, the monitors noted continuing improvement in staffing, training for instructional personnel, training curriculum development, trooper coach training, decree mandated training, systems improvement processes for training, supervisory training, promotional training, leadership training, and training documentation. The monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the New Jersey State Police.
Actions noted during the monitors’ tenth site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.
2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

Task 93 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 93 stipulates that:

93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 62 of 114 PageID: 458

troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
Task 93 enumerates the eight areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. Each area will be reviewed with further details referenced in subsequent tasks that address each area of responsibility more specifically.
Ensure Quality Training for all State Troopers
Based upon an analysis of manpower staffing data collected from each unit at the Academy staffing has been increased. According to the table of organization provided to the monitoring team staffing includes the following:
51 sworn personnel 10 civilians 7 temporary civilians (not all are fulltime) 7 attached sworn personnel 1 detached sworn personnel 6 vacant sworn positions
The Academy has been restructured to better address this unit’s responsibilities. Academy staff is required to have four-year college degrees. According to documents provided, 60% of the Academy staff has a minimum of a master’s degree, and all have a bachelor’s degree. All training materials are being developed utilizing the training cycle. The measurement of implementation of training in the field still remains problematic, but it is beginning to be addressed. This part of the training cycle is the final important phase that must be attained for all training to achieve and/or remain in compliance for tasks 93, 100, 101, 105, 106.
In an effort to address this issue, members of the Academy received training provided by an outside vendor that educates and certifies them in how to plan for and conduct

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 63 of 114 PageID: 459

evaluations of the implementation phase of the training cycle. The training includes five levels of evaluation and is as follows:
• Reaction to the training— evaluation of the worth of content/delivery; • Learning—testing to determine level of learning; • Field Application—measuring individual operational implementation; • Organizational Results—measuring organizational impact as a result of
individual implementation of learning; • Return on Investment—determining if the monetary results of the
achieved outcomes exceed the cost of the training.
The Academy has been performing levels one and two for each class for three years and has just revised the data gathering instrument, reorganized the process for retrieving larger numbers of the evaluations, and organized a unit at the Academy that will analyze the data in greater detail.
Levels three and four address implementation measurement and are just beginning to be used by Academy staff to evaluate the effectiveness of the training. Data are expected to be available at the next site visit.
Documentation provided to the monitoring team indicates that the Academy’s Research and Innovation Unit has outlined a procedure for conducting the assessment and evaluation phases of the training cycle. A new evaluation instrument has been designed and a new procedure instituted that insures the return of a greater number of completed evaluation forms. Timelines for analyzing data and initiating revisions to training based upon the evaluations have been established, and the Research and Innovation Unit is tasked with oversight to ensure that the process is followed by all the Academy units. Non-Academy-based training personnel are required to use the new evaluation forms and procedures, and to return information to the Academy for analysis. Other actions noted this period include:
• Needed equipment and software are being purchased to upgrade the very dated resources currently available at the Academy.
• A core curriculum for trainers has been identified. • A master trainers’ list has been compiled. • A refresher course for all trainers will be conducted to update their training to
include adult-based learning and return-on- investment modules. • A plan for on-going training for instructors to maintain their training
certification is under development. • All programs at the Academy are being automated to better manage the large
volume of data generated at various stages in the training cycle. • Oversight systems for ensuring that all troopers attend training and
successfully pass the test have been established.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 64 of 114 PageID: 460

• Accountability measures are in place for any personnel who do not attend scheduled make-up sessions.
Curriculum for Training State Police recruits;
Just after the last site visit a lieutenant with previous experience as an Academy unit supervisor was assigned to manage the Pre-service (recruit) training unit. Since the recruit training had previously been completely revised in 2000, and on-going revisions had occurred in the intervening years, he conducted a complete assessment of the program including trend analyses on the performance of recent graduates of the program who are working in the division. Areas of weakness that were identified based upon an analysis of the data are being addressed.
To date, twenty-seven modifications/changes to the Pre-Service Unit have been implemented. These changes are designed to improve recruit training, and include improved staffing, integrated unit-level responsibility for evaluation and assessment, establishment of minimum learning standards, revision to applicant processing functions, revisions to lesson plans, and other salient changes.
Provide Training for Academy Instructors
The Academy has been providing an Instructor Training Course (ITC) to qualify troopers as instructors.New minimum training standards have been established for Academy trainers. Academy trainer records are kept at the Academy and audited on an annual basis. A meaningful review is conducted annually, and a refresher course for all trainers is being developed, as is an on-going certification program is being considered.
Select and Train State Trooper Coaches
An acceptable selection and training process for trooper coaches has been established and ongoing for a number of years. On-going evaluations of the program and its processes are in place. Refinements to the program occur based upon analysis of the evaluation data. The program is being automated to better manage the data that are generated.
Approve and Supervise all post-Academy Training
Presently, according to SOP A1, training orders are issued as temporary detachment from his/her assigned duty station whenever a trooper attends training. The training order indicates travel arrangements as well. The Academy is working with administration to put the following process into place.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 65 of 114 PageID: 461

• Notification of the Academy when a trooper goes to training provided outside the Division;
• Each trooper attending outside training would complete and return a master training registration card which is currently completed for all in-house training;
• Forward all ancillary materials received at the Academy for review and maintenance;
• The course attended will be added to the ACTS database in the master advanced course list.
Post-Academy Training
Post-Academy training provided directly through the Academy is coordinated through the In-Service Unit and the Advanced Training Unit. Regional training staff are in place in each troop to provide oversight for training conducted by instructors outside the Academy. Oversight systems are in place to assure that all personnel attend mandated training.
Post-Academy Training Instructors
The Academy has identified all troopers providing training outside the Academy but within the division and developed a Master Trainers’ List. All instructors are required to have completed the MOI/ITC training, and any instructional personnel teaching in a consent decree-related courses must have a four-year college degree. In addition, all instructors will eventually complete a refresher course to update their training in the areas of adult-based learning and return-on- investment strategies.
Procedures for Evaluating Training
This requirement includes an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught. The Academy has been successfully evaluating the content and the quality of instruction. Based upon poor returns of the evaluation surveys completed by troopers at the conclusion of the last mandated training cycle, a new form is being developed and a new process implemented to increase the return rates. Staff are being trained and certified in a copyrighted program that includes planning for and measuring performance implementation. This phase of the training cycle continues to be problematic in achieving compliance with the consent decree. The new Research and Innovation Unit is now responsible for conducting analyses of evaluation data, and assisting Academy staff in evaluation efforts.
The Academy to has recently developed and activated a method to evaluate and measure in-field implementation of training topics; however, very little useful

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 66 of 114 PageID: 462

information has been developed and utilized as of this site visit. This lack of evaluative data regarding the training cycle continues to threaten the State’s ability to determine the effectiveness of training in this area, thus threatening compliance.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not in compliance

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

Task 97 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 97 stipulates that:
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
Academy Training Staff
At the present time the overall number of staff at the Academy has more than doubled from the all-time low noted in the 8th IMR. The current table of organization lists 56 sworn personnel and 10 civilian personnel, however five positions are vacant.
Qualified staff have been assigned to key positions related to technology and evaluation units thus many of the processes that were hindering or delaying compliance issues within the training cycle are now being resolved.
Academy staff are working within a well-organized and professional working environment. Support staff have been integrated into the various units as important team members and are assuming more responsibility for their respective programs. The

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 67 of 114 PageID: 463

Technology Unit is working rapidly to obtain updated equipment and software, and to automate each unit’s processes.
The Academy environment appears more professional; a stronger sense of teamwork is evident, and a greater degree of accountability for professional products is rapidly emerging. The staff have resources and manpower to successfully achieve their goals. All this cannot help but encourage other troopers to apply to work in such a challenging, and simultaneously supportive organizational climate.
Post-Academy Staff
Post-Academy trooper training staff falls into one of two categories:
• Trainers who are Academy staff and who provide instruction in courses that are not part of the recruit training. They would be included in the data provided above under the heading “Academy Staff.”
• Trainers who work in specialized units in the division who are providing training. They are training because they are subject matter experts so they do not require special motivation to apply as trainers.
Trooper Coach Staff
The recruiting process demonstrates that adequate numbers of troopers are applying for coaching positions. Based upon their performance the Trooper Coaches receive extra points on their resumes, thus helping them when they apply for future positions within the division.
In the last IMR, it was noted that many of the coaches had three or fewer years of experience. The monitors had expressed to OSPA a concern about the average tenure of trooper coach personnel, based on the monitors’ observation—on the part of some younger personnel—of uncertainty regarding search and seizure processes and other actions related to the decree. The Academy staff person responsible for this program conducted a review of motor vehicle stop complaints and noted that no trooper coaches were involved.
In response to a question from the monitoring team on the last monitoring visit regarding whether those who have served as trooper coaches are receiving the promised consideration for specialist positions, the Academy staff person providing oversight for this task made inquiries. Based upon inquiry findings, a proposed change in language to SOP F12, section IX, Letter B, #4 has been submitted that provides for consideration to be added to the weight of the trooper’s resume for having completed a

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 68 of 114 PageID: 464

tour as a trooper coach. A specific instance where this process was followed was cited to illustrate that this preference is occurring.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

Task 98 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provide by Academy staff.
Status
Academy Trainers
The selection criteria for Academy trainers are:
• Five years experience as a trooper • Bachelor’s degree

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 69 of 114 PageID: 465

• Resume • ITC or MOI • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction • Continuous meaningful review

Documentation in the trainers’ files demonstrates that the criteria are being met. Annual audits by Academy staff are in place to be sure that trainers’ records are current and that annual meaningful reviews are conducted.

Post-Academy Trainers

All Post-Academy trooper trainers who are not full-time Academy staff have been identified since the ninth reporting period. Selection criteria for trooper trainers in operational or specialized units are as follows:

• Resume; • ITC or MOI training; • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; • Bi-annual meaningful review; and • Bachelor’s degree if teaching any consent decree mandated subjects.

Four of the 497 instructors identified in the list have not had MOI or ITC training. The list of criteria noted in the last sentence of this consent task requires that documentation for each trainer addressing the criteria be collected and that oversight management of the same be identified. These data are available as follows:

• The ACTS database lists all training that the trooper has received since joining the NJSP. This covers points 2 and 3.
• A meaningful review is conducted prior to the trooper doing training. The results of this review are kept on file in the commandant’s office. This covers point four.
• The Academy has compiled a Master Trainers’ List that indicates whether the trooper has a degree or not.
• The Academy staff chooses trainers for the consent decree courses and reviews the list to be sure that the trainer has a four-year college degree.

Trooper Coaches

Selection criteria for trooper coach are as follows:
• Two years of service as a trooper; • Resume; • Supervisory evaluations;

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 70 of 114 PageID: 466

• Passing score on the oral boards; • Meaningful review; • C20 compliance.

These criteria are being met and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy. The files are audited at appropriate intervals by Academy staff.

Compliance

Academy Personnel Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Post Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coach Personnel In Compliance In Compliance

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

Task 99 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 99 stipulates that:
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
Academy Instructors
Since the last site visit, the following tasks have been accomplished:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 71 of 114 PageID: 467

• Core competencies have been identified for Academy trainers; • A core curriculum has been developed, which in addition to the topics noted
in the last report also includes a new component (ROI) which encompasses a strategic planning process to capture various types of implementation information after the training; • Plans are being developed to require re-certification for trainers that will include a specific number of hours of training within a specific time frame in courses identified by the Academy as acceptable for this purpose; • An assessment of content specific training required by the staff in various units at the Academy is underway. • Academy trainers’ files were reviewed by the Commandant, who has taken personal responsibility for this portion of this task, and all records were found to be in good order. The meaningful review noted an issue with one trainer and it was handled by the Commandant in an appropriate manner. • These files will be audited on an annual basis.
Post-Academy Instructors
The Academy completed a division-wide survey to identify all the post-academy instructors who are providing training within the division, but outside the Academy. A Master Trainers’ List was provided to the monitoring team that included the following information:
• Troop/unit; • Trooper name; • Rank; • Badge number; • Indication of completion of the Instructor Training Course (ITC) or the
Methods of Instruction Course (MOI);9 • College degree.
Data from the In-service Unit regarding the Master Trainers’ List includes:
• A total of 497 names are included on the master trainers’ list; • A total of 72 trainers have completed only the MOI training and not the ITC
training; • Three troopers have not completed either the MOI/ITC course necessary to
qualify as trainers;

9 The state requires that trainers in any state organization complete the MOI. The Academy’s ITC includes all the material in the
MOI course and much more. Anyone completing the ITC is exempt from completing the MOI.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-71

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 72 of 114 PageID: 468

• A majority of the trainers on the list attended the ITC training before the

adult-based learning unit of instruction was added, and only a few of the

trainers currently based at the Academy attended the recent ROI (Return-on-

Investment) training which has just been added to the ITC curriculum;

• Degrees--331 trooper trainers in the post-academy training pool have the

following degrees.

•

JD

9

PhD

1

Ed.D

1

MA

120

MS

10

MBA

3

BA

131

BS

56

AA

4

AS

7

No degree

159

The majority (172) of those providing training have strong educational credentials. NJSP policy provides that instructors assigned to the Academy or teaching a consent decreemandated course must have a four-year college degree.

Based upon the data listed above the following strategies will be implemented by the Academy to ensure that all instructors have received the mandated training to allow them to perform their training functions.

• The list of instructors is being reviewed to determine who desires to continue training and who will be retiring within the next year.
• Each section will identify the most active trainers and the list will be prioritized based upon the level of activity of the trainer.
• A one-day refresher course will be developed to include adult-based learning and ROI.
• The course will be taught to all instructors, with those most actively involved in training being participants in the first courses.
• These courses will be scheduled over a number of months as the training schedule allows.

Training Documentation for Post-Academy Instructors

Documentation maintained for troopers who have been providing training in operations and in specialty units, and who had previously not fallen under the Academy’s oversight includes the following:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 73 of 114 PageID: 469

• A master training list is maintained by the In-Service Unit; • The ACTS database contains a list of all training each trooper/instructor has
received while a member of the NJSP. This includes the ITC. • Participant evaluations completed on each instructor teaching a course are
analyzed by the In-Service Unit following the completion of each course and that data are maintained in that unit. • A meaningful review is completed for each instructor just prior to him/her providing training. That review is maintained in a locked file in the Commandant’s office. • A copy of each lesson plan/curriculum is maintained within the ACTS system.
Trooper Coach
Status
During the last site visit four issues were noted. Each is discussed below.
The first issue involved new coaches who received the coach training three months before they actually began coaching. The State responded to this issue by scheduling the coaching program to occur as close to the graduation date of the recruit class as possible, considering the other processes that must also be completed prior to the graduation (e.g. selecting coaches, meaningful reviews, assigning coaches, and attending specific sessions of the recruit class to meet with their assigned recruit).
The second issue involved the meaningful review of coach candidates occurs when they are selected and this can be 3-6 months before they are assigned a probationary trooper. The State responded to this issue by creating a second review, which will be conducted for the list of assigned coaches just prior to the recruits’ graduation.
The third issue involved a voluminous amount of paper documentation is accumulating at the in-service unit related to the coaching program. The State responded to this issue by tasking the technology unit to the process of automating the data that are being generated by this program.
The fourth issue involved experienced coaches who were not attending a review prior to resuming coaching duties with a new recruit. The State responded to this issue by creating a refresher course to be offered to experienced coaches prior to their resuming coaching duties.
Compliance:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 74 of 114 PageID: 470

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
Cultural Awareness
2003 Annual In-Service Oversight data from the annual in-service training on this topic for 2003 are as follows:
• A three-hour training block was provided on this topic by an outside vendor. • Several teams composed of two instructors each provided the training at
regional locations. • A total of 2598 personnel attended the training. • A total of 78 personnel did not attend the training.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 75 of 114 PageID: 471

• A make-up date for attending this training is scheduled for June 24, 2004. Those who do not attend this training will be referred to the Office of Professional Standards for review and/or investigation.
• Responses from the 797 accepted course critiques indicate a 61% approval rating for this course.
• A review of the Scantron Analysis Report indicates that the median test score was 19.39 out of a maximum score of 20 on a test that combined questions of cultural awareness and ethics.
• One trooper failed the test and received remedial training from In-service staff and successfully passed a remedial examination.
• No plan to measure implementation was provided to the monitoring team related to this training.
2004 Annual In-Service
The Academy staff decided to integrate the cultural awareness, ethics, and annual leadership training into one course. The intent is to demonstrate how integral these topics are to one another in any given situation, and to provide a new perspective on how these issues are viewed with the division in the normal course of daily activities. In addition, consolidating these topics into one course will result in the least amount of impact on manpower levels in all units.
Data provided to the monitoring team on the development of this course are as follows:
Assessment
• Data from the evaluation forms completed after the 2003 course; • Data from the needs assessment survey previously completed by a random
sample of 350 personnel representing a cross sample of the organization; • Shot-gun e-mails and surveys to specific personnel such as OPS, OSPA; • Anecdotal information gained in conversations with personnel throughout the
organization; • An information gathering exercise completed in each of the Supervisory
Courses conducted this year; • Anecdotal information gathered from the ten lieutenants’ courses conducted
in the past year. • A focus group with representatives from within the organization and from the
OSPAs.
Development
The monitoring team was provided with a copy of the draft curriculum during the site visit, and a member of the monitoring team spent one hour with the staff person

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 76 of 114 PageID: 472
responsible for developing the curriculum going through every unit of the training. The concept was sound and the curriculum appears to address cultural awareness, ethical issues, and leadership adequately. The curriculum was approved by the monitoring team.
Delivery Plan
• The program will be delivered at regional training locations at each troop between from July through August 2004.
• A member of the monitoring team will attend at least one session of the training.
Evaluation
• New evaluation forms are being developed to capture more specific and relevant data for evaluating the classes delivered and for planning future sessions.
• Each participant will be required to complete an evaluation before receiving the testing materials.
Implementation
A matrix listing the types of data that will be used to measure implementation was provided to the monitoring team. These measures include:
• Increased number of supervisory feedback sessions/meetings, and issued performance notices;
• Survey analysis; • Performance measures set forth in the participants’ action plans; (Each
participant will be required to develop an action plan citing at least one change he/she will make related to the topic taught. One copy will remain on file with the Academy and each participant will be required to submit a follow-up document relating if the planned change was implemented and if not, what impediments or barriers prevented implementation). • Improved perception of communication.
Documentation
The Academy has maintained training and testing materials in an acceptable manner.
Ethics/Integrity

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 77 of 114 PageID: 473

2003 Annual In-service

This course was conducted on the same day as the cultural awareness training. Oversight data from the annual in-service training on this topic for 2003 is as follows:

• The course sessions were conducted from October 19-December 19, 2003. • 2,599 troopers participated. • One person failed the test. • The median test score was 19.39, of a possible 20. • The course received a 72% approval rating based upon critique analysis. • No plan to measure implementation was provided to the monitoring team
related to this training.

Based upon the Academy commandant’s administrative review of the processes and oversight related to the ethics training provided for 2003, the following changes have been instituted:

• Coordinators assigned to facilitate sessions were advised to adhere to the lesson plan delivery and testing procedures.
• Instructors were advised to adhere to adult-based interaction techniques. • Responsibility for test administration for each session was assigned to the
Academy instructor.

2004 Annual In-Service

This topic has been combined with the cultural awareness and annual leadership topics as part of an integrated curriculum. See the previous section for details.

The Academy to has recently developed and activated a method to evaluate and measure in-field implementation of training topics; however, very little useful information has been developed and utilized as of this site visit. This lack of evaluative data regarding the training cycle continues to threaten the State’s ability to determine the effectiveness of training in this area, thus threatening compliance.

Compliance:

Cultural Diversity Phase I: In compliance Phase II: In compliance

Ethics In compliance In compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 78 of 114 PageID: 474

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the nondiscrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdictionrelated training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff, and viewed a videotape scenario that will be used in the training.
Status

Fourth Amendment In-Service Training

The 2003 training was the first phase of a four-phase training that will extend through 2006. The 2003 training is summarized below:
• Training was conducted from August 8-October 10, 2003. • 2601 participants attended training. • 42 troopers did not attend the mandated training. • A make-up training is scheduled for June 23, 2004. Anyone who does not
attend this training without good cause will be referred to the Office of Professional Standards for review and/or investigation. • The median test score was 18.96, of a possible 20. • There were no failures. • An evaluation of the testing conducted following this training indicated that the participants did understand the concepts of reasonable suspicion and probable cause that were the focus of the training.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 79 of 114 PageID: 475

• The program received a 7.75 approval rating (out of a possible 10) which is one of the highest ratings for an in-service program in recent years.
• A portion of the day was used to provide training on the MAPPS (Management Awareness Personnel Performance System) that is an automated performance management system that was coming on-line. Though this program will be utilized primarily by supervisory staff, the line staff had a need to know how their performance was going to be evaluated.
• MAPPS received a overall rating of 6.21.

Proposed Plan for Measuring the Implementation of Learning for the 2003 Course.

According to a memorandum provided to the monitoring team, the proposed plan for measurement of field implementation (application of learning in the field) focused on measuring the number of cases that were not brought to trial because the evidence gathered was suppressed as a result of an illegal search. It was discovered, after the training was delivered, that the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and individual county prosecutors’ offices do not capture or record this data.

The memorandum offers an alternative plan that includes the following components:

The Office of State Police Affairs (OPS), and the MAPPS Unit were contacted regarding the availability of data. OPS provided the following data:

• OPS complaints involving illegal/improper searches

9

• Unsubstantiated or dismissed complaints

7

• Substantiated complaints

1

• Pending complaints

1

The MAPPS Unit is in the process of developing query methods to analyze MAPPS data on the field impact of Fourth Amendment issues. The monitoring team notes that no timeframe for completion of this possible means of measuring implementation has been provided.

A proposal to survey troopers regarding their perceived understanding of Fourth Amendment issues, a short test of retained knowledge on the subject, and an interview to determine if troopers have retained a working applicable knowledge of reasonable suspicion and probable cause benchmarks has been proposed. The monitoring team notes that this strategy does not address implementation, but is an evaluation of what was learned/retained. Prior to implementation of the ROI training evaluation program, the Academy conducted a study relating to OPS complaints based on perceived illegal searches. It appears that the 2003 training has translated to a reduction in OPS complaints related to search processes.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 80 of 114 PageID: 476

Update on the 2004 Training
The 2004 training will be the second phase of a four-phase training that will extend through 2006. The mandated training for this task was being developed during this site visit, and a draft copy of the curriculum was provided to the monitoring team.
Assessment
According to a memorandum provided to the monitoring team, a focus group was convened on March 31, 2004 with the intent of identifying the following:
• Method of delivery; • Instructor requirements; • Topics; • Block Duration/Length of training day.
Data used to determine the content of this training included the following:
• 2003 In-Service critique analysis; • Field Operations requests submitted through the training officers and focus
group members; • Mobile Video Recorder reviews; • Field Ops concerns • OPS concerns • Investigative concerns • Office of Professional Standards findings, requests, and recommendations; • New case law.
Development
The curriculum for this course was provided to the monitoring team for review and the content appears to be substantive. A short, videotaped scenario produced by Academy staff was provided to the monitoring team and it appears to be of good quality and relevant to the training.
Delivery
According to the memorandum, the focus group decided that the training will be provided regionally over a six-week period. It will be provided on the same day as the cultural awareness/ethics/leadership course and it will be 4 hours long. The presentation will include lecture, power-point presentations, group discussion and scenarios. The entire training day will last about 10 hours.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 81 of 114 PageID: 477

Evaluation

No evaluation data are available as the course does not begin until May 2004.

Implementation

The following data will be measured to determine implementation of learning: Reduced number of problematic searches; Demonstrated increased confidence levels regarding search and seizure; Decreased number of problematic searches identified on MVR; Decrease in the number of OPS complaints.

Fourth Amendment Recruit Training

The entire recruit curriculum was reviewed, as was the test validity for each unit test taken by the recruits. Revisions and adjustments have been made based upon the findings.

See task 93 for a description of the guard duty scenarios that have been implemented to provide increased experiential scenarios to recruits. A number of them relate to search and seizure incidents.

The Academy to has recently developed and activated a method to evaluate and

measure in-field implementation of training topics; however, very little useful

information has been developed and utilized as of this site visit. This lack of evaluative

data regarding the training cycle continues to threaten the State’s ability to determine

the effectiveness of training in this area, thus threatening compliance.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: In Compliance

In Compliance

Phase II: In Compliance

In Compliance

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

Task 102 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 102 stipulates that:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 82 of 114 PageID: 478

102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be
approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
The State has developed a strong response to all the responsibilities listed in the consent decree for this task, and the Academy personnel tasked with coordinating this program continue to revise and refine their oversight capabilities as new issues arise and new means of gaining oversight information are developed.
It was anticipated that the availability of performance data from the MAPPS system could be analyzed as part of the Academy’s oversight function to ensure that coaches are meeting performance standards, and to identify any emerging issues or trends that might impact this program. Currently, Academy staff responsible for oversight for this task have no direct access to MAPPS data that could help with this responsibility.
In its oversight function, Academy staff conducted a needs assessment of the training and evaluation program provided to the probationary troopers. The objective of the assessment was to identify any areas of performance that might be marginal relative to the scale of acceptable performance. The assessment data reported are as follows:
• Thirty trooper coach folders were reviewed--ten from each of the Troops A, B, and C.
• Daily Observation Sheets from week 9 were analyzed to determine if any of the 27 performance objectives were scored below a 4.5 rating.
• Performance objectives #8—“Knowledge and Enforcement of Criminal Law” (rated 4.26), and #22—“CJIS” (rated 4.16) received the lowest ratings, though they did not fall below the unacceptable score of 4.
• As a result of these findings, revisions to the training provided to the coaches in these areas will be completed prior to the next scheduled coach class.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 83 of 114 PageID: 479

• In addition, the Pre-Service Unit responsible for training recruits requested a copy of the findings and has addressed both topics in the recruit curriculum
• Recruits will receive practical experience in both areas utilizing the night duty scenarios.

This review and the follow-up indicates a grasp of the oversight function and demonstrates how a regular audit of a program’s functions can result in the identification of important issues impacting the quality of performance. There is a growing awareness by Academy staff regarding the interrelatedness of all training programs as demonstrated by the joint use of data from the this assessment of the coach program by both In-Service and Pre-Service to improve the quality of performance of both the coaches and the recruits.

The Academy is developing an automated system to manage the voluminous data that this program is generating, and oversight systems are being evaluated to insure that any problems that arise with probationary troopers are immediately reported to the Academy.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 103 stipulates that:
103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 84 of 114 PageID: 480

and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with the Academy staff responsible for this task.

Status

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent decree-related tasks are handled by notification of specific division personnel at the quarterly Training Committee meetings and through IOCs. This is a comprehensive oversight process. To be certain that the process is functioning as intended requires a regularly scheduled audit of the documentation at the section level to be sure that all “read and sign documentation” is complete.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 104 stipulates that:
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed the documentation provided by Academy staff.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 85 of 114 PageID: 481

Status

Since the last site visit, the following tasks have been accomplished:

• SOP C-25 was approved by the Superintendent. • The Training Committee, which is a key conduit in obtaining the data required
by this task, has become much more organized and its members much more active in fulfilling the responsibilities identified in task 104. Oversight for much of the activity conducted by regional training staff is possible because of this committee. • Four mandatory Training Committee meetings have been scheduled for calendar year 2004 • Regional training staff are in place at each troop to help identify training needs as they arise, and to relay this information to the Academy. • The Academy’s in-service unit conducted a division-wide survey to identify training needs throughout the agency. The results will be available at the next (11th) site visit. • The NJSP intranet provides a means for any member of the organization to send suggestions for training to the Academy.

Summary

The Academy has developed a comprehensive process with many access points for identifying the training needs in the organization.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 105 stipulates that:

105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in ¶¶100 and 101) shall address effective supervisory techniques to promote police integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 86 of 114 PageID: 482

the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
In May 2003, when the Academy’s Executive Staff Development Unit (EDTU) was formed, oversight responsibility for this task was assigned to this unit, and one team member was assigned primary oversight responsibility. This task now encompasses one basic course for sergeants, one course for sergeants first class, one for lieutenants, and an annual leadership course for all personnel.
Sergeant’s Basic Course
The basic sergeant’s course is currently 80-hours in length and addresses the needs of sergeants, staff sergeants, detective sergeants, and patrol sergeants.
Assessment
Among the sources of data used to refine and improve this course are the following:
• Participant evaluations from each session generate data on how to improve the curriculum and the delivery for subsequent sessions;
• Evaluation data gathered from participants in the lieutenants course; • Data from the leadership survey conducted by EDTU; • Anecdotal data gathered through conversations with division personnel; • Training committee recommendations; • MAPPS data related to supervisory issues.
Development
Based upon assessment data that is gathered, changes to this curriculum are made on a continuous basis. Recently, two self-assessment instruments used in management courses were introduced into this course.
The following blocks of instruction were updated to remain current with trends affecting the division.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 87 of 114 PageID: 483

• Critical Standards of Procedure. • Progressive discipline. • Ethics.
Delivery
One session of this course was conducted from December 1-12, 2003 for 31 sergeants, detective sergeants, and personnel currently in an acting sergeant position. The lieutenants, attending a concurrent class, were brought into the sergeants’ training to complete an exercise on leadership while the sergeants observed. This was followed by a discussion between the sergeants and lieutenants. Participants shared feelings and personal information as human beings without concern for rank, and the honesty and depth of the sharing generated a new and elevated level of understanding and appreciation for all who participated or observed. (A member of the monitoring team was an observer.)
The course evaluations indicated that the new and revised blocks of instruction were relevant and well presented. Members of the EDTU also do spot interviews with participants during breaks to obtain anecdotal feedback which was also positive.
A second session of this course was conducted from January 5-16, 2004 for 33 sergeants, detective sergeants and personnel in acting supervisory positions. A videotape of the lieutenant/supervisor interaction exercise noted above was played during this session, as there was not a lieutenants’ course in progress at that time. The evaluation showed that it was moderately successful.
The Command Operations Center block of instruction was removed from the curriculum, as no instructors were available from that center to teach the course. This block was originally inserted in June 2002 to advise personnel of the formation and function of the Center, and division staff are now aware of the its existence and its responsibilities.
About 50 percent of this class expressed concerns that training on search and seizure supervisory issues are not included in this course (63% of this class were from the Operations Unit). The EDTU staff immediately facilitated a 30-minute search and seizure segment to meet the needs of this class. The format was question and answer and was conducted by a content expert. Subsequently, a 1-hour block on the supervisory search and seizure issues was added to the curriculum.
In addition, members of this class questioned why the Search and Seizure Guide had been removed from the NJSP Intranet website. Members of the Academy’s Technology/Administrative Support Unit were contacted to follow-up, and the Guide was reinstated on February 6, 2004. Field Operations was then contacted, and this information was placed on their Operations Information Center on the Intranet website.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 88 of 114 PageID: 484

This type of immediate response to identified needs, and the cooperative effort of units within the Academy and units within the Division demonstrates that the organization as a whole is moving toward a greater degree of integration in responding to the needs of its personnel.
A third session of this course was conducted from January 19-30, 2004 for 41 sergeants, detective sergeants, and personnel in acting supervisory positions. This course was moved to an off-site location at the Troop C Hamilton Headquarters, and the response from troopers was overwhelming positive as it shortened their commute and the training facility at this location is new and provides a very professional environment.
On January 28th, a snowstorm impacting the entire state resulted in the cancellation of day 8 of this course. Scheduling issues did not allow for a make-up session for this day, so EDTU staff prioritized the remaining blocks of instruction to cause the least amount of impact on critical issues and completed the remaining two days of the course. These types of events will occur and the monitoring team honors the strategic decisions made in these circumstances. The staff demonstrated good critical decision-making skills in their role as oversight monitors for the program.
Evaluation
Based upon evaluations from these classes, the following blocks of instruction were amended/improved and were part of the curriculum for the March 22-April 2, 2004 class.
• Media relations. • Community policing. • Progressive discipline .
Implementation
No implementation measurement plan has been provided to the monitoring team.
Summary
The course meets the requirements of the decree and demonstrates the understanding of the training cycle through the evaluation stage; implementation measurement remains to be resolved.
Sergeant First Class Course

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 89 of 114 PageID: 485

Assessment
The course that was developed and conducted for lieutenants (task 106) has, upon evaluation by the lieutenants and the Academy staff, been deemed more useful and appropriate, with some modifications, for those troopers newly promoted to the SFC position.
Development
Modifications to the course are on-going based upon assessment and evaluation data.
Delivery
Two sessions of this course were conducted. One from March 8-11, 2004 for 30 SFCs, and one from March 15-March 18, 2004 for 12 SFCs.
Evaluation
No evaluation data was provided to the monitoring team for this course.
Implementation
No plan to evaluate implementation has been provided to the monitoring team.
Summary
This course was previously reviewed by a member of the monitoring team, and it meets the requirements of the decree and demonstrates the understanding of the training cycle through the evaluation stage.
Assistant Patrol Supervisor’s Course
Assessment
In an effort to maintain compliance with Task 39 of the Consent Decree, a newly designated position of assistant patrol supervisor (APS) has been instituted. A total of 150 troopers, identified by station commanders based upon their skills and experience, will be chosen to fill these positions. These troopers will continue to fulfill their regular patrol responsibilities, and in addition, will assume,”…patrol-related supervisory functions…,” in the absence of the staff sergeant or the patrol sergeant. The ASP troopers would act strictly as field supervisors and would not assume any administrative duties or responsibilities.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 90 of 114 PageID: 486

Development
Appropriate personnel, during the last six months, attended the 80-hour first-line supervisors’ course, a training course curriculum already approved by the monitors.

Delivery

Delivery was appropriately documented.

Evaluation

The Academy has a standardized form for evaluating course content and instructor delivery.

Implementation

No implementation measurement plan was provided to the monitoring team.

Annual Supervisory/Leadership Training

Data related to the annual leadership training are as follows:

• 2,561 personnel attended the training. • 110 troopers did not attend. • 75 troopers on the did not attend list have completed a make-up course. 35
troopers have not attended this training and their branch commanders have been notified. A final make-up is scheduled for June 22, 2004. • 1 trooper failed the test.

Four topics were addressed and achieved the following evaluation scores:

• Personality Type Indicators

6.6

• Performance Management

7.0

• Civil Liability and Decision Making 7.3

• Pursuits for Supervisors

8.1

2004 Annual Leadership Training

The 2004 annual leadership training is being integrated into the cultural awareness and ethics training (task 100). Please see task 100 for details related to this responsibility.

Summary

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 91 of 114 PageID: 487

The course meets the requirements of the decree and demonstrates the understanding of the training cycle through the evaluation stage. The Academy to has recently developed and activated a method to evaluate and measure in-field implementation of training topics; however, very little useful information has been developed and utilized as of this site visit. This lack of evaluative data regarding the training cycle continues to threaten the State’s ability to determine the effectiveness of training in this area, thus threatening compliance.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

Task 106 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:
106. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within six months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
The Executive Development Training Unit (EDTU) completed training for all lieutenants. Data related to this training include the following:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-91

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 92 of 114 PageID: 488

• 180 lieutenants successfully completed the 40-hour course; • No implementation measurement strategies were provided to the • monitoring team related to the 180 lieutenants who completed this • course. • Based upon participant evaluations this course has been designated as more
appropriate for the SFC rank and with some minor modifications will be used for training this rank in the future; • A new lieutenant’s course, “Station Commander Candidate Course,” is in the planning stages.
Station Commander Candidate Course
Assessment Phase
The Training Bureau and the Operations Section identified areas of instruction. Data were gathered from Station Commanders at their bi-annual meeting held on November 10, 2003. On November 14, 2003, a focus group composed of Academy and operational staff (6 lieutenants who are station commanders) and a member of the MAPPS unit met to discuss relevant topics. On January 26, 2004, the EDTU staff conducted an information gathering exercise with the 25 lieutenants, and 2 acting captains attending the Mid-Level Management Course. On January 29, 2004, a preliminary course description including methodology and course objectives was given to the seven lieutenants in station commander positions attending the course mentioned in number 4 above so that they could review and critique it. Each participant was then interviewed by EDTU staff to obtain their feedback. They offered two topics that were included in the curriculum. Three SFC who have recently been assigned as station commanders reviewed the working course description and offered feedback.
Development Phase
Course objectives and a course description were provided to the monitoring team.
Delivery Phase
The first course was scheduled for May 18-20, 2004. The training days will be 8 hours, for a total course length of 24 hours. Methodologies include team teaching using Academy trainers and operational station commanders, exercises replicating actual duties that station commanders perform on a daily/weekly basis, a participative critical incident scenario, use of computers to access various databases (CADS, RMS), and strategic planning related to current organizational issues. Each class participant will receive a pre-arrival package related to the course objectives and noting that they will need to have an issue that requires strategic planning in mind when they come to the course.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-92

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 93 of 114 PageID: 489

Evaluation Phase
Testing related to course content is planned, and Evaluations of the course content and delivery will be gathered and analyzed. An after-action report will be developed and routed to division and to operations in order to strengthen the exchange of relevant data between these units.
Implementation Phase
A questionnaire, follow-up interviews, and a follow-up focus group are the identified data collection methods the Academy plans to utilize to assess level 3 implementation efforts. A review of performance records and a questionnaire are the identified data collection methods the Academy plans to utilize to assess level 4 implementation efforts. This will occur after course completion. The monitoring team was not provided with any details related to the content of the instruments or the actual performance benchmarks that will be measured.
Documentation Phase
The EDTU staff provides thorough documentation presented in a very professional format. The monitoring team will be focusing on the documentation for the implementation phase at the next site visit since this will be the first time such data will be available.
Summary
The EDTU, following the training cycle and using data generated at various phases in that cycle, determined that the first course developed for lieutenants, though of high quality, did not completely meet the needs for that rank. Therefore, the new Station Commander Candidate course is being developed. The EDTU staff demonstrated a strong grasp of the training cycle and used the process to generate a cooperative effort with the operations section who are, in this case, the clients the Academy are focused upon serving. The EDTU again sets a benchmark for demonstrating how inclusion, joint planning and delivery across divisional units can build understanding, cooperation, and inclusion.
Captains’ Course
The current training provide to captains through an outside vendor will continue to be a course that captains will attend, but it will not be designated as the course utilized to

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-93

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 94 of 114 PageID: 490

gain compliance with this task. Instead, the EDTU will develop a course utilizing the training cycle that will meet compliance standards.
Assessment
The EDTU has completed a needs assessment and has the data necessary to begin developing the course.
Summary
EDTU staff have demonstrated that they have the skills and ability to complete the assessment, development, delivery, and evaluation phases of the training cycle. The new ROI training certification completed by members of this unit is supposed to allow them to successfully manage the implementation phase that has not been addressed to date.
Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, Colonel
The EDTU has been assigned the task of developing a course for these ranks that will meet compliance standards for the consent decree.
Assessment
Assessment consisted of both internal and external processes. Presently, assessment data have been obtained from the majors, and surveys have been distributed to the lieutenant colonels. Based upon an analysis of the surveys, the plan is to develop a 5day course covering the following topics:
• Interpersonal skills; • Budget administration; • Strategic planning; • Change management; • Change implementation.
Documentation was provided to the monitoring team indicating that the following external agencies responded to an IACP/ SPPPO survey requested by the NJSP Academy EDTU to assess what type of executive development training is being provided to state police personnel throughout the United States.
• Maryland State Police • Colorado State Patrol • Louisiana State Police • North Carolina State Police

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-94

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 95 of 114 PageID: 491

• Virginia State Police • Arizona Department of Public Safety

Members of the EDTU spent a day with Johnson & Johnson training personnel researching their executive development leadership and management training. From documents provided to the monitoring team, the Johnson & Johnson staff also shared information about their leadership and management development programs and processes. Formal planning and execution of training is related to this task are pending.

Captains and Above Phase I: Not In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 107 stipulates that:
107. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.
Methodology
The monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for developing and delivering this training, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
An agreement to apply this task to personnel returning to operations from other areas of the division was reached at a time when the State had no processes in place to assess, document, evaluate, or provide oversight for the universe of specialized assignments, related training needs, qualifications of instructors providing specialized training, testing to determine the degree of comprehension of the training, or tracking the implementation of the training operationally. That infrastructure in now being put

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-95

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 96 of 114 PageID: 492

into place and the availability of such information may reveal inadequacies in training for specialized assignments that impact, at a minimum, on job performance, officer safety or liability exposure.

At least four factors may impact on the need to revisit this agreement:

• The analysis of the basic training needs assessment just completed by the inservice unit may identify new or additional specialized training needs;
• The identification and review of all training previously being presented outside the oversight function of the Academy may reveal a need for revisions to current training, the development of new training, or the consolidation of existing courses;
• The identification and assessment of the qualifications of those providing specialized training may generate needs for training certification. The trainers have been identified. Needs assessment data and strategies for upgrading the current level of training provided to these trainers have been provided to the monitoring team. See task 99 for details.
• The performance data that will become available as MAPPS is implemented may reveal training concerns in specialty areas.

The Academy has made progress in this area by completing an Organizational Training Needs Assessment (data are being analyzed), and by completing a Master Trainers’ List. This has generated the need for a refresher course for trainers that is under development. Access to MAPPS data has been established so that any trends requiring training can be identified. Processes are in place to identify and track on training that troopers receive outside of the Academy and the division.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

Task 108 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 108 stipulates that:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-96

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 97 of 114 PageID: 493

108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and with staff from the newly formed Technology and Administrative Support Unit who are automating all data collection systems at the Academy. The monitoring team also reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
Previous Concerns
On the eighth site visit, the monitoring team found that the data management unit was inadequately staffed, and unable to remain current with data entry. On the ninth site visit, a new commandant had been assigned to the Academy just prior to that site visit. Job task information and manpower data had been gathered and were being analyzed.
Follow-up
During this site visit, the monitoring team noted that the data analyses findings were used to restructure this unit. The unit is now designated as the Technology and Administrative Support Unit. It is managed by a lieutenant and assisted by a sergeant, both of whom demonstrate a thorough understanding of computer technology and information systems. Records retention and management, and the ACTS data system, audio-visual/e-learning, D/I EEO/AA, and administrative support offices fall under this unit now and each area has staff assigned.
Civilian support staff is limited to one full-time civilian, and to one temporary person who works two days a week.
The State has addressed the issues cited in the last report. The unit is now an integral part of the Academy, and the work accomplished by the staff in this unit over the past four months has been pivotal in the reorganization of the entire Academy. They have completed the following tasks:
• A complete inventory of the space available to the Academy and how it was being utilized;

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-97

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 98 of 114 PageID: 494

• An inventory of all equipment currently in use at the Academy; • An assessment of the capability and usefulness of current equipment; • An inventory of all software in use and a determination of the status of the
licensing and currency of the software; • An assessment of the functionality of each workspace; • An analysis of the technology needs for each program conducted by the
Academy; • An assessment of the current data management systems utilized by the
Academy to gather and analyze data generated by its various programs; • An assessment of staff capabilities and expertise; • An assessment of current computer software programs utilized in the field of
academia to manage data; • A marketplace assessment of the most current software and hardware
available.

As a result of the many assessments conducted, the following changes have occurred:

• Available Academy space was reallocated based upon the needs and staffing of each program;
• Equipment was assigned a current inventory tracking number and an oversight and maintenance program was instituted;
• New equipment has been ordered and will be phased in over the next 12-18 months;
• Operating software licenses have been updated and current software purchased;
• Workspaces have been re-designed based upon functions performed; • Equipment is being assigned to programs based upon functions and
responsibilities; and • Three new systems management software programs have been identified and
ordered to meet the technology needs administratively and programmatically.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-98

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 99 of 114 PageID: 495

Task 109 stipulates that:
109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy personnel responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
As noted in the last IMR, all Academy, trooper coach, and post-academy training materials, curricula, and lesson plans developed by academy staff are also maintained in a central repository at the Academy. Security oversight for all training materials, both in paper and digital formats, has been addressed since the last site visit. Master paper copies of lesson plans and curricula materials have been consolidated in one location. They are kept in locked filing cabinets in a locked room with access limited to specified personnel, and a logging system to track on who receives documents.
The volume of paper generated by the Academy in fulfilling its training tasks has necessitated that a data management system be developed to provide quality oversight of the data. Each time a course is provided, the evaluation data gathered from participants is utilized to improve the course leading to the development of a new or modified lesson plan for subsequent sessions.
The new Tech/Admin Support Unit has identified software to automate this process, and an identification system for tracking consecutive iterations of lesson plans for any given topic is in place.
Digital signatures are being introduced so that lesson plans can be developed by designated staff, signed and uploaded to the unit managing the central repository without a paper product ever needing to be generated. Individual databases are being developed for in-service, pre-service, etc. A storage area network has been established in the ACTS database and digital IDs are required for entry.
The Tech/Admin Support Unit is also digitally integrating the functions of all the units at the Academy through automation providing a new avenue for collaboration among Academy staff, and a global system for administration to ensure quality oversight. Documentation in the areas of personnel and equipment management, as well as

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-99

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 100 of 114 PageID: 496

assessment, development, testing, evaluation, and implementation functions for preservice and in-service will all be captured within the new systems that are under development.
A Technology Renewal Plan has been implemented to insure that equipment/software will be replaced at appropriate intervals to prevent any degradation of quality in the technology structure so critical in supporting the training services provided by the Academy to the NJSP and to outside law enforcement agencies in the state.
To insure a successful outcome in the move to regionalize training delivery, the ability to conduct on-line registration, offer computerized learning portals, provide streaming media scenarios, and conduct on-line testing and evaluations are critical. The division and the state have demonstrated support for this major and very critical effort by allocating funding for equipment and software and by creating a line item in the budget to ensure that technology renewal is assured.
A concern in the last report was that post-academy training materials, curricula, and lesson plans developed by units within the New Jersey State Police, but outside the Academy, were not maintained in a central repository at the Academy. The State has completed the following initiatives.
• A Section Field Training Liaison (SFLT--lieutenant) has been assigned to each section.
• The SFLT shall submit a list of in-service training being developed at the section level at the beginning of each calendar year. Prior to the inception of any training, Training Request Form SP6 must be submitted along with the training materials to be used.
• The SFLT must forward all lesson plans containing consent decree-related training material to the Academy 60 days prior to the inception of training to allow for review and approval.
• The SFLT must catalog and file lesson plans for all in-service training conducted on a section/bureau level, and forward copies of all training material utilized to the Academy for retention.
• The SFLT is also responsible for identifying training needs, scheduling all personnel for in-service training, and coordinating training needs assessments and evaluations as required.
• The SFLT shall maintain a current list of instructors within their section who have met the formal eligibility criteria set forth by the Academy.
• The In-service Bureau at the Academy has developed a review process to insure that lesson plans comply with the training cycle, and other criteria established by the Academy. A description of this cycle is included in SOP C25; regional training personnel are schooled in its use and can provide

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-100

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 101 of 114 PageID: 497

technical assistance to field trainers in specialty units while they learn to use this process. • A standardized lesson plan format has also been developed and must be utilized by anyone developing training. • The Academy Commandant is now included in command staff meetings providing direct contact with the Majors and Lt. Colonels responsible for all sections within the division. This provides a very necessary means of exchanging information and voicing concerns about all training needs throughout the organization.

A third issue in the last IMR concerned the inability of the State to obtain curriculum materials from outside vendors who have a contract with the State to provide training to the New Jersey State Police for tasks 100 and 106. The Academy will now be developing training for these tasks that obviates the need to work with outside consultants for these tasks.

In addition, a contracting process has been enacted that specifies what the Academy requires from outside vendors, what they must provide when developing/conducting training for NJSP personnel. Two contracts were submitted to the monitoring team demonstrating that this process is in place.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 110 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-101

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 102 of 114 PageID: 498

State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State’s responses to the requirements of the decree, and have queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the State’s response to the decree.

Status

Based on the monitoring team’s review of work product, and information obtained during the process of implementing the tenth site visit, it is clear to the members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task. Not all duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the tenth site visit. The office provides coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice, and the office is headed by an Assistant AG. The office routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations, and routinely audits performance on MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site reviews, basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team, with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The mechanism and duty assignments, however, exist to complete the duties of the office as soon as practicable, given the implementation schedule of the State’s compliance efforts.

Phase II compliance with this task is dependent upon full and final implementation of the MAPPS.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Unable to Monitor

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-102

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 103 of 114 PageID: 499

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 111 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 111 stipulates that:

111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.

Methodology

This task was not monitored during this period.

Status

The State remains in compliance based on past performance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

Task 112 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 112 stipulates that:

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-103

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 104 of 114 PageID: 500

112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by ¶62; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.

Methodology

This task was not monitored during this period.

Status

The State remains in compliance based on past performance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 113 stipulates that:
113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State Police Affairs during the course of the site visit during the week of May 19th, 2003.
Status

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-104

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 105 of 114 PageID: 501

Based on the team’s observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task 114 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 114 stipulates that:

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops (by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions (including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.

Methodology

The State has produced its latest “Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data,” in response to this provision of the decree.

Status

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-105

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 106 of 114 PageID: 502

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report entitled “Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data,” prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 115 stipulates that:
115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000.
Status
The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-106

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 107 of 114 PageID: 503

Phase II: In Compliance 2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

Task 118 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and nonprivileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access while onsite with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-107

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 108 of 114 PageID: 504

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 122 stipulates that:

122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every six months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State’s submission “Progress/Status Summary of the Consent Decree,” filed by the State in response to this task.

Status

The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitor, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-108

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 109 of 114 PageID: 505

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:
123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents, records, recordings and other information during the course of the team’s site visit during October, 2003.
Status
All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.
Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-109

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 110 of 114 PageID: 506

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

Task 124 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 124 stipulates that:
124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State staff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-110

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 111 of 114 PageID: 507

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-111

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 112 of 114 PageID: 508

3.0 Executive Summary

During the last reporting period, the State has made remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; Development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been improved substantially in training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels appear to be directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.

3.1

Training

A dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation has been noted during this reporting period. Following on the substantial increases in staffing levels noted last period, the Academy has tasked those staff with specific planning, organization and development functions. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted this period. In fact, the Academy has attained compliance in all but two specific areas this period. Executive training and evaluation of the impact of training are the only two remaining areas resulting in non-compliance at the Academy. This period, the monitors noted continuing improvement in staffing, training for instructional personnel, training curriculum development, trooper coach training, decree mandated training, systems improvement processes for training, supervisory training, promotional training, leadership training, and training documentation. The monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Only two processes stand between the Academy and full compliance—finalization, implementation and evaluation of training for captains and above; and, finally, implementation and use of methodologies for evaluating the impact of training in the field.

3.2

Supervision and Field Operations

As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police has been even more remarkable. For the first time in four years, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 161 of the 207 motor vehicle stop events

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-112

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 113 of 114 PageID: 509

reviewed by the monitors. This 78 percent supervisory review rate yielded 125 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 125 instances were consent-decree related; however, it is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations have committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. While that goal has not been attained, the agency is well along its way to the goal.

The New Jersey State Police now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) review motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team. Minor fine tuning of supervisory processes could bring the State into full compliance in the Field Operations tasks outlined by the decree. As of this reporting period, the State remains out of compliance with only two of twenty Field Operations-related tasks, both related to supervision, and thus of substantial importance.

For the first time, the State has been found in compliance with one of the more critical tasks of the consent decree, Task 27, which relates to field operations activities. The monitors have found, for the first time, that all consent requests, uses of force, and canine deployments were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and all but one of the 177 non-consensual searches met constitutional requirements. Once again, the IMT has found no evidence that the New Jersey State Police have engaged in racial profiling during this review period This marked changed in performance is, in the opinions of the monitors, directly attributed to the current leadership within the Division of State Police and the Department of Law and Public Safety as well as the improved performance of New Jersey State Police supervisors.

3.3

MAPPS Development

Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark integration into the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is beginning to be used in

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-113

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 59-3 Filed 07/20/04 Page 114 of 114 PageID: 510

performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. Only three factors stand between the State and full compliance in MAPPS: implementation of a benchmarking standard and implementation of long-term trend analysis.

3.4

Inspections, Audit and Quality Control

Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improv

Tenth Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-114

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61-2 Filed 12/20/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 522
Monitors’ Eleventh Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
December 20, 2004

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61-1 Filed 12/20/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 519

Executive Summary

During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been improved substantially in training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.

Field Operations

Rapid, meaningful and focused improvements are now being witnessed in the Field Operations component of the New Jersey State Police. Error rates for all aspects related to the consent decree have dropped precipitously over the last two reporting periods. Of the 50 consent decree-related errors noted from among the stop incidents selected by the monitors this period, all but one were considered technical errors, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not errors related directly to Constitutional protections. The data yield a clear picture to the monitors: field operations activities have begun to be internally monitored by a cadre of newly trained (or retrained) supervisors who exhibit a commitment to fair and impartial review of activity in the field. These reviews accounted for 90 individual “interventions” by field operations supervisors—steps taken to call to the attention of road personnel errors or violations of New Jersey State Police procedures and to prevent further similar errors or violations.1

For the second consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 186 of the 218 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 85 percent supervisory review rate yielded 97 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 97 instances were consent-decree related; however, it is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency is well along its way to that goal. The New Jersey State Police now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the

1 Forty of the 90 “interventions” were related to non-decree issues, such as trooper safety, etc.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-iv

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61-1 Filed 12/20/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 520

real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 85 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 50 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of 2,128. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 49 of errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 98 percent for the supervisory review process. All but one of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., technical errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional. The one exception was a Constitutionally conducted search that was not reported to the motor vehicle stop reporting system. As in past reports, the monitoring processes this reporting period noted no indications of racial profiling in the activities reviewed for this report. All consent requests, canine deployments, uses of force and search activities reviewed this period were professionally conducted, and were executed for cause. Field operations activities are in full compliance this reporting period—for the first time.
Training
Last reporting period, the monitors noted a dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the eleventh reporting period, the Academy has reaped the benefit of specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted again this period. In fact, the Academy has improved its compliance levels in all areas this period, also addressing the two areas in which it was found non-compliant in the tenth report. Executive training and evaluation of the impact of training were addressed during the eleventh reporting period, and substantial improvement has been noted in these areas as well, although full compliance with these two areas was not attained this reporting period. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.
MAPPS Development

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-v

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61-1 Filed 12/20/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 521
Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted.
The monitors did note, however, one potentially troublesome characteristic of the State’s use of the MAPPS system. In 37 instances in which supervisors had noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, the MAPPS carried the action taken regarding the problems as “No Action.” The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State contends—and the monitors are willing to accept—that this is an issue of supervisory discretion and leadership, e.g., the ability to treat minor or first-time infractions via truly verbal counseling, rather than creating an “searchable record” of first-time or minor events.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for two consecutive periods.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-vi

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61-3 Filed 12/20/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 630

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

iv

1 Introduction

1

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

1

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Progress toward Compliance

4

2 Assessment of Compliance

6

2.1 Methodology

6

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

6

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

12

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

15

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

17

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

26

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 32

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

35

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

36

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

37

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

38

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 39

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

40

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

42

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions 43

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 44

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

46

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System 47

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal

MAPPS Data

48

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts”

49

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

50

Table of Contents

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61-3 Filed 12/20/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 631

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

51

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

51

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 52

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data 54

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

54

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

55

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

56

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

57

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

58

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Jersey Turnpike

59

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

60

2.33 Training Assessment

60

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

Training Programs

61

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

65

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

67

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

71

2.38 Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

73

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

76

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

79

2.41 Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

81

2.42 Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

82

2.43 Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 83

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

86

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

91

2.46 Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS0

Program

92

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

93

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

95

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Motor Vehicle Stops

96

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen

Complaint Processes

97

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

Table of Contents

p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61-3 Filed 12/20/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 632

the Office of State Police Affairs

97

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

98

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor 98

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

100

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 101

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

102

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

103

3.0 Executive Summary

105

Table of Contents

p. iii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 1 of 107 PageID: 523

Independent Monitors’ Eleventh Report Period Ending September 30, 2004
1 Introduction
This document represents the eleventh “Independent Monitors’ Report” (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for the period April 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004. In order to complete the report in a timely fashion, monitoring activities were accomplished during the period October 1 through 8, 2004.
The report is organized into three sections, identified below:
• Introduction; • Compliance Assessment; and • Summary.
The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions used by the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of “compliance” are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, “Compliance Assessment,” includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the monitors and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, “Summary,” provides an overall assessment of the State’s performance for this reporting period.
1.1 Overall Status Assessment
Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.
1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment
The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree. It reports on the State’s compliance using the individual requirements of the decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using “to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop” (Decree at para 26). The following

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-1

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 2 of 107 PageID: 524

components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as “Phase I,” and “Phase II,” with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

• Selection of a random or stratified random sample; • Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every instance of selection of random samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring team while on-site.

The performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the consent decree was assessed by the monitoring team during the period ending March 31, 2004. The eleventh independent monitors’ report was submitted to the court during the month of December, 2004.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

• Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course of business1; and/or
• Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state government
during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

1 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance “special reports” prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 3 of 107 PageID: 525

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative

description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task

requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology used to assess the task,

and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to note, however, that a finding of

non-compliance does not mean the State is engaging in inappropriate behavior. It

simply means the State has not yet completed its efforts toward compliance. The

graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate

status in each compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below.

The first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first year

and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the time allowed

by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time period is represented

by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth segments represent the time

required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase I or Phase II compliance. A

vertically patterned light blue bar

indicates that compliance was achieved in the

time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow bar

indicates that compliance

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in

the opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance

with the decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the

delay may seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the decree, and

which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the State’s successful

compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or could not be monitored is

represented by a hollow bar

.

1.3.3 Standards for “Compliance”

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for “compliance” to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 4 of 107 PageID: 526

requirements of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard. This change to compliance standards is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, below.
1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Task nn 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance has not been attained (but which does not affect the State’s eventual compliance).
1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process
Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of “policy compliance:” the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational compliance—institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.
1.5 Progress toward Compliance
During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been improved substantially in training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 5 of 107 PageID: 527

1.5.1 Training
Last reporting period, the monitors noted a dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the eleventh reporting period, the Academy has reaped the benefit of specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted again this period. In fact, the Academy has improved its compliance levels in all areas this period, also addressing the two areas in which it was found non-compliant in the tenth report. Executive training and evaluation of the impact of training were addressed during the eleventh reporting period, and substantial improvement has been noted in these areas as well, although full compliance with these two areas was not attained this reporting period. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.
1.5.2 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the second consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 186 of the 218 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 85 percent supervisory review rate yielded 97 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 97 instances were consent-decree related; however, it is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency is well along its way to that goal. The New Jersey State Police now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 85 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 6 of 107 PageID: 528

New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 50 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of 2,128. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 49 of errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 98 percent for the supervisory review process. All but one of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional.
1.5.3 MAPPS Development
Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted.
The monitors did note, however, one potentially troublesome characteristic of the State’s use of the MAPPS system. In 37 instances in which supervisors had noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, the MAPPS carried the action taken regarding the problems as “No Action.”2 The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State contends— and the monitors are willing to accept—that this is an issue of supervisory discretion and leadership, e.g., the ability to treat minor or first-time infractions via truly verbal counseling, rather than creating an “official record” of first-time or minor events.
1.5.4 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the

2 Records of these errors exist within MAPPS; however, they exist mainly in a narrative form, as opposed to a “searchable” database, requiring supervisors to deliberately check each trooper’s MAPPS record for similar problems each time an error in a motor vehicle stop is noted.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 7 of 107 PageID: 529

requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for two consecutive periods.
2 Assessment of Compliance
2.1 Methodology
The monitors assessed the State’s compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. “Compliance” was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).
The following sections of the eleventh Monitors’ Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the decree between May 1, 2004 and September 30, 2004.
2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

Task 26
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 8 of 107 PageID: 530

During the eleventh site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured onsite reviews of the operations of eight New Jersey State Police Road Stations. These reviews were conducted of operations reported during the dates of April 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available). The team conducted these reviews of Troops C and D,, including the Troop C stations of Bordentown, Allenwood, Kingwood, Hamilton, and Red Lion. Troop D stations (Cranbury, Moorestown and Newark) were also reviewed. As part of this review, members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business data on 218 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 194 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team’s methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.
Data Requests
Prior to its site visits in October, 2004, the monitoring team requested of the State electronic and hard-copy data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other non-electronic data requests:
 Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated poststop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drugdetection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.
 Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop “communications center call-ins” for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.
 The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.
Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop records for Troops C and D (taken from the State’s motor vehicle stop report entry

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 9 of 107 PageID: 531

system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop “event” records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the active dates of the eleventh site visit.

Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the eleventh site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.

Motor Vehicle Stops

Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical,

Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For eleventh Site Visit

Type of Activity Selected MVS Incidents MVS Involving Consent Search Requests MVS Involving Canine Deployment MVS Involving Use of Force Probable Cause Searches of Vehicles Probable Cause Searches of Persons

Report Reviews 218
12
5
8 14
10

Tape Reviews 194
12
5
8 12
10

mechanical or chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the State.

Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 10 of 107 PageID: 532

 Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports, etc.), referred to as Type I data;
 Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and
 Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.
These records indicated eight events that resulted in consent search requests from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and four events from other stations resulting in consent search requests, for a total of twelve consent search requests.3 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search.
All consent searches occurring were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team. Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units five times during the reporting period. Reports from all five of these events were reviewed by the monitoring team, and videos from all five of those events were also reviewed by the monitoring team. Force reportedly was used by New Jersey State Police personnel in eight motor vehicle stop incidents during the reporting period, and reports from all of these incidents were reviewed by the monitoring team. Video tapes of all eight of the use of force events were reviewed by members of the monitoring team during the eleventh site visit. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
Selected motor vehicle stop incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table Two, below.

3 One consent requests was declined by the driver during the reporting period.
Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 11 of 107 PageID: 533

Type I Event Reviews

A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for
Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

Station
1 Allenwood 2 Bordentown 3 Hamilton 4 Kingwood 5 Red Lion 6 Cranbury 7 Moorestown 8 Newark 9 Other Stations

Type I Reviews
14 44 15 6 12 35 19 27 46 218

Type II Reviews
14 44 15 6 12 34 19 26 24 194

Type III Reviews
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 218 Type I reviews were conducted this period.

Type II Event Review

A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 194 Type II reviews were conducted this period.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 12 of 107 PageID: 534

Type III Event Review

In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, were selected for review, six events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the monitoring team. Based on the State’s past performance, ten consecutive quarters in which no unreported events were discovered, no Type III reviews were conducted this reporting period.

Status

The monitoring team’s review of New Jersey State Police SOPs indicates that the agency remains in Phase I and Phase II compliance with Task 26. The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. The vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police are “non-discretionary,” e.g., searches incidental to arrest, with a total of 167 of the 189 searches of vehicles being conducted “incidental to arrest.” Of the 191 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 166 were “non-discretionary” searches incidental to arrest. The monitors commend the State for improving the quality and tenor of the “average” traffic stop observed by the monitoring team during the past four reporting periods. The monitors have noted no indications of racial profiling in the data reviewed this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 27

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 27 stipulates that:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 13 of 107 PageID: 535

27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in ¶ 26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with ¶¶ 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. The monitors have noted a remarkable change in the quality, frequency, and tone of supervisory review during the eleventh monitoring period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in a law enforcement procedures were effected in 186 of 218 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 85.3 percent. For comparison purposes, the supervisory review rate for the ninth reporting period was 53 percent. More importantly, the New Jersey State Police have implemented a much different type of supervisory review process, attempting to meet the goal of having first-line (stationlevel) supervisors review all motor vehicle stops which result in a law enforcement procedure (vehicle exit, frisk, arrest, search, canine deployment, consent request, or use of force). The majority of the supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources—quality assurance reviews, OSPA reviews or other non-station sources. The vast majority of reviews conducted during the tenth and eleventh reporting period were conducted by station-level supervisors.
Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present in all monitored activity this reporting period. This was due to a deliberate decision on the part of the monitoring team to review motor vehicle stops that included a supervisory presence, in order to assess the quality of supervision provided by on-scene supervisors. Video tapes were reviewed by first- and second-line supervisors in 85.3 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors this period. This 85 percent supervisory review rate yielded only 49 instances in which New Jersey State Police personnel committed errors related to the consent decree. In all but three of these 49 instances, New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted these violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 14 of 107 PageID: 536

violations4. It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. As a result of this newly implemented supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 45 decree-related errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With this new system, these 45 decree-related errors were noted and corrected in “real time,” before the monitors called them to the attention of the State. The “corrected error rate” was 32.8 percent last period, and fell to 21.1 percent this period.5

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the implemented MAPPS process indicates that the agency is in Phase I compliance with the requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. Only one incident from among 218 reviewed, included an operational error not caught and remedied by field supervisors prior to the monitoring team selecting cases for review this reporting period:
 One trooper conducted a search of a person and failed to note it in his motor vehicle stop report. The search was constitutionally conducted, but improperly reported.

This constitutes and error rate of one of 218 motor vehicle stop incidents, or 0.005 percent, well within the allowable margin of error of five percent. Compliance for this task is defined as “greater than 94 percent.” The State’s compliance rate for these processes stands at 99.5 percent.
The reader should note a continued quantitative and a qualitative difference in the supervisory review process. Since late in the sixth reporting period, supervisory personnel have been required to review all consent search, uses of force, and canine
4 Two of these errors were considered too minor to affect compliance rates. 5 While an error rate of 21 percent, with supervisors on-scene may seem high, the reader is advised that fully 57 percent of these errors were not of the type that a supervisor, called to the scene after the stop, would have noted, e.g., stop call-in errors and MVR activation errors. Actual tactical errors, ones which would be reasonably noted by an on-scene supervisor, e.g., poor frisks, vehicle searches, searches of persons, etc., accounted for only nine of the 49 errors committed during motor vehicle stops sampled by the monitors, or 4.1 percent of all stops monitored.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 15 of 107 PageID: 537

deployment reports. Errors in those activities continue to drop this period. In fact, the monitoring team has noted a continuation of last reporting period’s remarkable and laudable increase in supervisory review processes, and resulting performance notices— both positive and negative—based on those reviews. Several of these reviews indicated to the monitoring team that the New Jersey State Police are identifying procedural errors prior to the monitoring team’s noting them. A total of 186 MVS incidents reviewed by the monitoring team were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. Within those 186 events, the monitoring team noted 49 various errors by law enforcement personnel . New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted 46 of those errors prior to the monitors’ review process, and corrected all but one of these procedural errors prior to the monitors’ site visit.

All of these errors missed this period were very minor errors, i.e., failure to call in the number of occupants in a motor vehicle being stopped, failure to fully describe the reason for the stop during a stop call in, and failure to document a frisk.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

Task 28

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 28 stipulates:
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants,

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-15

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 16 of 107 PageID: 538

which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of eleven law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the eleventh report’s operational dates. One of these involved a consent search request that was declined. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Three below. Tables Three through Five depict data from the 218 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 218 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 100 white drivers of the total of 218 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 45.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Three depicts four consent requests of white drivers, five requests of black drivers, three requests of Hispanic drivers, and no requests of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, which were, subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The reader should note that the State has reduced substantially the number of consent search requests, from a high of 59 the fifth reporting period to only twelve this period. As such, the numbers reported in Table Three are not statistically meaningful when reported viz a viz race and ethnicity.
All of the eleven consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of the consent decree6. Obviously, this represents an improvement in performance over last period’s consent request actions.

6 One driver refused a consent request. Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 17 of 107 PageID: 539

An error rate of none of eleven consent searches constitutes zero percent, falling well within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree. These numbers are so small that they are not statistically significant.

Table Three—Consent Request Activity

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers
100(45.8) 69(31.7) 43(19.7)
6(2.7) 218

Number of Requests for
Search7 4 5 3 0 12

Percent Consent Request by
Race/Ethnicity 4.0 7.2 7.0 0 --

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 29a stipulates that:

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data
a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on

7 One consent search request was refused. Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 18 of 107 PageID: 540

roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop; 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended; 5. license number/state of stopped vehicle; 5A. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); 8A. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]); 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted; 14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges; 17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force; 18. the trooper's race and gender; and 19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 19 of 107 PageID: 541

Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State’s compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 218 incidents involving a poststop law enforcement activity of interest to the decree. Use of force, non-consensual searches and deployment of canines received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Four, Five and Six, below.
Use of Force
New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force eight times during the reporting period. The use of force rate for white drivers in the sample was 5.0 percent. For black drivers in the sample, the use of force rate was 4.3 percent, and for Hispanic drivers in the sample, zero percent. Members of the monitoring team reviewed reports of all use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. All of the reports were included as part of the MVSR reporting process. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process.8 None of the use of force practices were found to be problematic.
Table Four depicts data from the 218 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 207 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 100 white drivers of the total of 218 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 45.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Four depicts five incidents of use of force against white drivers (or occupants), three incidents of use of force against

8 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 20 of 107 PageID: 542

black drivers (or occupants), no incident of use of force against Hispanic drivers, and no uses against force of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Table Four: Use of Force Activity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers 100(45.8) 69(31.7) 43(19.7) 6(2.7) 218

Incidents of Use of Force 5 3 0 0 8

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
5.0 4.3 0 -na

Canine Deployments
The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units five times during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment, and reviewed video tapes of all canine deployments. No reporting problems were noted in any of the five deployments, and the video taped incidents reviewed indicated that the written reports accurately reflected actual events. All canine deployments were professionally executed and were executed for legitimate cause. The numbers of canine deployments were so small as to be statistically insignificant regarding the race of the drivers.
Table Five depicts data from the 218 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 218 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 100 white drivers of the total of 218 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 45.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Five depicts one canine deployment for white drivers, three canine deployments for black drivers, one canine deployment for Hispanic drivers, and no canine deployments for drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 21 of 107 PageID: 543

Table Five: Canine Deployments

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 100(45.8) 69(31.7) 43(19.7) 6(2.7) 218

Canine Deployments
1 3 1 -5

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
1.0 4.3 2.3 -na

Non-Consensual Searches
Members of the New Jersey State Police conducted 185 non-consensual searches of vehicles among the 218 reports reviewed by the monitoring team during the reporting period. White drivers’ vehicles constituted 44.3 percent of the “searched population,” while black drivers’ vehicles constituted 35.1 percent, and Hispanics drivers’ vehicles constituted 19.5 percent of the searched vehicle population. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all 185 of these non-consensual searches of vehicles. None of these non-consensual searches were problematic.

Table Six depicts the results, by race/ethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 218 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. Table Six depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by race/ethnicity of the 183 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 84 white drivers were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 63 white drivers searched incidental to arrest, four subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 63 searches incidental to arrest constitute 76.8 percent of all searches of white drivers. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Of the 185 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with none that were not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 22 of 107 PageID: 544

Table Six: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of Drivers’ Vehicles, By Race of Driver

Reason for Search
Incidental to Arrest Probable Cause

White #(%) 76(90.5) 4(4.8)

Plain View Proof of Ownership
Total

4(4.8) 0(0) 84

Black #(%) 55(88.7) 7(11.3)

Hispanic #(%) 30(87.8) 3(10.2)

Other #(%) 4(100)
0(0)

0

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

62

33

4

Table Seven depicts probable cause non-consensual search-of-person activity by race, for probable cause searches, and Table Eight depicts “incidental to arrest” searches by race.
Table Seven: Probable Cause Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 100(45.8) 69(31.7) 43(19.7) 6(2.7) 218

Probable Cause Searches 4 7 0 0 11

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
4.0 10.1
----

Table Eight: Incidental to Arrest Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers
100(45.8) 69(31.7) 43(19.7)
6(2.7) 218

Searches Incidental to
Arrest 63 55 30 4 152

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
63.0 79.7 69.7 66.6

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 49 separate incidents in which procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 46 of these problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining prior to the monitor’s

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 23 of 107 PageID: 545

noting the behavior. Two of the three remaining errors were considered too minor to report, e.g., failing to check an appropriate box in a motor vehicle stop report. The other error involved reporting a search of a person. An error of one from among 218 yields an error rate of 0.05 percent, within the allowable margin of error agreed to by the parties. The State’s performance this period represents a drastic improvement in this task over the ninth reporting period, which showed an error rate for this task in excess of 65 percent. Undoubtedly, this improvement, is attributable to the State’s newly implemented supervisory processes.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of

Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 29b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29b stipulates that:

b. The protocols listed in ¶29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in ¶¶ 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 24 of 107 PageID: 546

The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.

The reader should also note that the data collected in the traffic stop reporting process is among the most robust in the nation. The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the State’s database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as “expeditious” implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase Il:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31, 32 and 33

Task 29c

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29c stipulates that:
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and ¶¶ 31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 25 of 107 PageID: 547

The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.

Status

Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. None of the compliance problems noted above are attributable to forms, reports or logs created in response to this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

Task 29e

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29e stipulates that:
e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the State, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 26 of 107 PageID: 548

protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

Task 30

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30 stipulates that:
30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in ¶ 29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in ¶29(a), and as revised pursuant to ¶29(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these tasks is measured under a new standard this reporting period, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 27 of 107 PageID: 549

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and control of these processes, and when fully implemented, should further improve agency performance in these areas.

For the past ten reporting periods, the State has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors’ review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 194 video recordings and documentation from 218 vehicle stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Of the 194 video recordings reviewed by the monitors, 18 included an error in call-in or documentation of a motor vehicle stop. Supervisory personnel noted and corrected all but two of these failures. The monitors found no pattern that would indicate these were intentional acts on the part of enforcement personnel. An error rate of two incidents of 194 constitutes 1.0 percent, within the newly established parameter of >90 percent, and interestingly, within the original requirement of 95 percent.9

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30a stipulates that:

9 These numbers reflect those recording failures not attributable to technical difficulties with audio or video recording devices.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 28 of 107 PageID: 550

a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent race/ethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 194 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number; 99.9 percent list the primary trooper’s badge number; 99.9 percent list the race and gender of the primary trooper; 99.9 percent list the driver’s race and gender; 99.9 percent list a reason for the stop and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this task. Of the 194 stop records reviewed by the monitoring team, none indicated that the MVR began after the trooper approached the vehicle. The State is in compliance with this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

Task 30b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30b stipulates that: Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 29 of 107 PageID: 551

b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.
Status

Of the 185 search events reported (and reviewed by video tape), 175 were called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. Supervisory personnel caught and corrected, as part of the routine monitoring process, all of these errors prior to the monitoring team’s notice of data pulls. This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, within the >94 percent established as the criterion for this task. This rate is a substantial reduction from the 20 percent noted for the ninth reporting period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stop activity continue to note these failures in the field. The dramatic reduction in problems with these call-ins, undoubtedly, is due to the revised supervisory review process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30c stipulates that:
c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 30 of 107 PageID: 552

made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. More than 99 percent of electronic CAD records reviewed by the monitors this reporting period were found to have “clearance codes” indicating a call in notifying the communications center of the trooper’s actions and time of clearance. Of the 194 stops reviewed by video tape, all were found to have clearance codes. The State is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30d stipulates that:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 31 of 107 PageID: 553

d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure (i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.

Methodology

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have “CAD Incident Numbers” indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 194 stops reviewed by video tape, CAD numbers were present in documentation for all video tapes reviewed, and in 99 percent of all electronic records. Overall, more than 99 percent of all records included the required CAD incident numbers.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 31 stipulates that:
31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 32 of 107 PageID: 554

complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A MVSR form was completed accurately in all motor vehicle stop reports that included a consent search request. One of the incidents involved a consent request that was denied. This constitutes a 100 percent compliance rate. In addition, the information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all cases.

During the ninth reporting period, compliance for this task fell below required levels for the first time in the previous five reports. The monitors have determined that, once compliance is achieved, two consecutive periods of poor performance is required prior to loss of compliance. The State was placed under warning for this task during the ninth reporting period. Based on performance for the tenth and eleventh reporting periods, The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

Task 31a-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 33 of 107 PageID: 555

a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information : 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search; 5. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived; 6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied: 1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search; 3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and, 6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 34 of 107 PageID: 556

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for 12 consent requests and 11 consent searches10, and reviewed video tape recordings of all motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events depicted on eight video tapes reviewed (three were not taped; one was declined) were assessed in light of the reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status

Members of the monitoring team noted no reporting or process problems with the 11 consent searches. The State was placed under warning for paragraph 31 activities for the ninth reporting period, but regained compliance in the tenth. No problems were noted with paragraph 31 activities this period or in the tenth period. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of Non-Consensual Searches

Task 32

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
TPahsakse3I2I stipulates that:

32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop;

10 One consent search was refused. Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 35 of 107 PageID: 557

2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.

Of the 185 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with none. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

Task 33

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 33 stipulates that:

33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 36 of 107 PageID: 558

canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed; 5. whether an alert occurred; 6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, all five reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and canines to have been deployed in conformance with the requirements of procedures and the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 37 of 107 PageID: 559

Task 34a stipulates that:

34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 194 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.

Status

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 38 of 107 PageID: 560

c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.

Methodology

In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each day of this reporting period (see above), members of the monitoring team pulled for review
a sample of 218 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the decree. These included 218 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 194 procedures assessed by reviewing video tapes11.

Status

While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the decree.

Once stops that are not “pure” motor vehicle stops, e.g., motorist’s aids and motor vehicle accidents, are removed from the sample, compliance rates for this aspect of task 34c are all within the originally established 95 percent minimum.

A review of the 194 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning “out of tape” issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units. The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 194 stops reviewed

11 All 194 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 218 MVSRs reviewed.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 39 of 107 PageID: 561

via video-tape this period, 23 exhibited some form of audio difficulty, and nine exhibited some form of video difficulty. Troopers have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting only eight events (of 194 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. This constitutes and error rate of 4.1 percent, within the newly established 90 percent requirement for this task, and interestingly, within the original 95 percent requirement. The State in compliance with this task.
Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to ¶¶31-33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting
period indicated that 100 percent of these were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The
monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.
A review of 218 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates all reports were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 218 selected stops reviewed this quarter for evidence of reporting or

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 40 of 107 PageID: 562

procedural errors that should have been noted by supervisory personnel. The monitors also reviewed 186 MVS tapes that were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. From those 186 events, the monitors found one that exhibited some form of reporting problem that should have been noted by supervisory review, but was not. This incident, included an operational error not caught and remedied by field supervisors prior to the monitoring team selecting cases for review this reporting period. This event involved a trooper who conducted a search of a person and failed to note it in his motor vehicle stop report. The search was constitutionally conducted, but improperly reported.

This constitutes and error rate of one of 186 events reviewed by supervisory personnel, or less than one percent, well within the allowable five percent error rate for this task. The monitors have noted a strong improvement in the process of supervisory review of video tapes. The quality of supervisory reviews, continues to improve markedly. The monitors commend the new focus on supervision generated by the New Jersey State Police during the last two reporting periods.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:
36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 41 of 107 PageID: 563

Status

Training for supervisory personnel regarding revisions to the procedures noted above was completed in November, 2001. The State developed, and implemented in November, 2001, a formal policy requirement regarding MVR review processes for supervisory personnel, using a structured review process that, in the opinion of the monitoring team, has drastically improved the quality of supervisory review. OSPA provides advanced training to field supervisors regarding MVR/MVSR review protocols.

During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed 186 supervisors’ MVR review reports. The quality of these reports has improved substantially. Nearly all reviews assessed this reporting period were completed using the new MAPPS performance management system. This process is a vast improvement over earlier processes. Members of the monitoring team were able to compare 186 supervisors’ reviews with actual video tapes (the same tapes reviewed by supervisors as part of their review process). Members of the monitoring team noted only one reporting or procedural issues in the 186 tapes they reviewed that were missed by the supervisory cadre at the New Jersey State Police. This constitutes a change in compliance rates from 88.3 percent in the tenth quarter, to 99.5 percent for the eleventh quarter. This constitutes an overall error rate for supervisory review of less than percent, down markedly from previous reporting periods, and within the agreed upon five percent margin for error.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 37 stipulates that:

37. After conducting a review pursuant to ¶35, ¶36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 42 of 107 PageID: 564

protocols listed in ¶29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

During the monitors’ site visits for the tenth reporting period, the monitors noted one incident that should have been forwarded to OPS in response to the requirements of this task. This was appropriately forwarded to OPS for investigation and response. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task. No incidents were noted, during the eleventh monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. The State remains in compliance with this task based on past performance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:
38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews of referral decisions pursuant to ¶ 37 to ensure appropriate referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.
Methodology

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 43 of 107 PageID: 565

Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Recently completed training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to “copy” to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.

Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel’s review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.

Status

During the tenth monitoring site visit, the monitors noted one event that should have been referred to OPS for investigation and response. This event was appropriately forwarded. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task. No incidents were noted, during the eleventh monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. The State remains in compliance with this task based on past performance

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

Task 39
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 39 stipulates that:
39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 44 of 107 PageID: 566

Methodology
Numerous changes in New Jersey State Police policies regarding this task were made in the fourth reporting period, and were fully implemented in the sixth reporting period. New Jersey State Police policies F-19 (MVR Equipment), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-31 (Consent to Search) and F-55 (Patrol Procedures) were revised in October, 2001 to reflect changes in operational practices designed to better assess New Jersey State Police patrol actions relative to prohibiting race- or ethnicity-based decision making. For example, supervisory personnel now review motor vehicle stop recordings (MVSRs) of all motor vehicle stops involving consent search requests. Supervisors also are required to routinely monitor and review, using a new, highly structured “checklist” a larger number of “routine” MVSRs, and now are required to review all consent searches, uses of force, and canine deployments engaged in by their personnel. In addition, law enforcement personnel who have exhibited problematic on-road behavior in the past are selected for enhanced monitoring through review of a larger number of MVSRs on a quarterly (and in some cases even daily) basis. The position of “road sergeant” has been implemented, thus increasing substantially the level of direct supervision of road activities. Supervisors are now required to approve all consent searches, and, where practicable, to be present when consent searches are conducted. Training in these new procedures and policies has also been provided to all supervisory personnel and troopers involved in law enforcement activities. During this reporting period, additional revisions were made to SOPs F-7, F-31 and F-55. These changes were designed to improve performance on call-ins prior to search and consent search.
In addition, attorneys from the Office of State Police Affairs have been assigned to each of the State Police’s five troops, for the purpose of serving as legal advisors to the troops. These attorneys also perform site visits to State Police road stations to obtain feedback from law enforcement personnel regarding training and remediation of errors in traffic stop procedures. OSPA also initiated in-field audits of all consent searches, uses of force and canine deployments, with remedial mentoring of State Police supervisors in instances in which problematic procedures are noted. OSPA has also modified, during this reporting period, the non-consensual search protocols, requiring enhanced supervisory presence at the scenes of such procedures, and also requiring supervisory approval of such procedures.
Status
Based on the State’s objection to the manner in which this task was evaluated last reporting period, the Monitors selected a sample of motor vehicle stop cases all of which indicated that a supervisor was present. That sample was assessed for errors in supervisor-preventable areas of interest to the consent decree. From that sample, only 49 decree-related errors were observed by the monitors’ video tape reviews, from a potential universe of 1,940 possible errors (ten possible errors on each of 194 stops).

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 45 of 107 PageID: 567

All but one of these 49 errors was caught and corrected upon supervisory review of the video tapes from the selected stops.

The overall number of errors noted by the monitors is down drastically this reporting period—from over 100 in past periods, to only 49 this period. This tends to indicate that error rates for stops that have a supervisor present are generally more trouble free than error rates for past quarters.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

Task 40
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 40 stipulates that:
40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
Methodology
The ninth monitors’ report marked a milestone for the MAPPS development process. During the ninth site visit, the New Jersey State Police demonstrated to the members of the monitoring team an operational version of the MAPPS information system. For the eleventh report, the monitors viewed the system components, and used live data to ensure that the MAPPS system contained all data elements outlined by the decree. In addition, members of the monitoring team, using live data, ensured that each system capability required by the decree was available and functional in the MAPPS information system.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 46 of 107 PageID: 568

This reporting period, the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all, the monitors performed 1,188 separate tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems tests, the monitors used MAPPS as it would be expected to be used by supervisory and management personnel in the day-to-day processes of managing the New Jersey State Police. The results of these process tests are discussed below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51.

MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data in MAPPS, as of the monitors’ eleventh site visit, are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS. The application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities for conducting long-term analyses have not yet been achieved.

In effect, the State has made substantial progress in bringing a functional MAPPS system on-line, and, at the time of the monitors’ site visit, the system was being used to manage the New Jersey State Police. The only “missing” decree-required elements are the benchmarking and long-term analysis functions. The monitors received, during the eleventh site visit, a briefing from MAPPS personnel regarding both of these functions and approved the plans for implementing these two functions. These two functions have not yet been implemented, thus, compliance status for the MAPPS components has not changed: the State is in Phase I compliance, having designed, programmed, tested and fielded the MAPPS system. It is now in day-to-day use; however, benchmarking and long-term analysis function remain pending, so Phase II compliance is pending. The monitors are aware of the intense effort exhibited by the State in bringing MAPPS on-line, and commends those who have so diligently labored in the “electronic trenches” for so long. Implementation of MAPPS, as a functioning system, has been no small feat, and the State has done an excellent job with this task to date.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System

Task 41

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 41 requires that:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 47 of 107 PageID: 569

41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to ¶29 and the protocols listed in ¶29of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and
c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being “narrative elements” which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, was found to be functional in the MAPPS system reviewed by the monitors. In addition, the five nonprimary requirements, identified as “narrative elements” were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors found the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways, and found the system to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required by subparagraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers are able to use these systems on a daily basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 48 of 107 PageID: 570

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal MAPPS Data

Task 42

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 42 requires that:

42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts” and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43Phase 1I: 2In Co3mplia4nce 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II: Not In Compliance

Phase I Phase II

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 49 of 107 PageID: 571

Task 43 requires that:
43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29(a)(5A, 8A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in ¶41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in ¶41(b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by “count” and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (5a, 8a, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel are accessing the system on a day-today basis.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 50 of 107 PageID: 572

Phase II: In Compliance

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:

44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The State has identified the “CAD incident number” as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

Task 45

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 45 requires that:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 51 of 107 PageID: 573

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

Task 46
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 46 requires that:
46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by ¶¶48-53.
Methodology

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 52 of 107 PageID: 574

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

With implementation of the MAPPS components In January, 2004, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

Task 47
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 47 requires that:
47. Consistent with the requirements of ¶¶48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January, 2004. The monitors executed 1,188 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 53 of 107 PageID: 575

The monitors did note, however, one potentially troublesome characteristic of the State’s use of the MAPPS system. In 37 instances in which supervisors had noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, the MAPPS carried the action taken regarding the problems as “No Action.” The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State contends—and the monitors are willing to accept—that this is an issue of supervisory discretion and leadership, e.g., the ability to treat minor or first-time infractions via truly verbal counseling, rather than creating a searchable “official record” in the intervention module of MAPPS of first-time or minor events.12

The process articulated above limits an important ability of the MAPPS system—the ability to generate quantitative reports regarding actions taken upon supervisory review, and requires supervisors to search and “take note” of MAPPS narratives to piece together a subordinate’s MAPPS record. The monitors agree with the State’s position regarding the importance of supervisory discretion in the leadership processes, and are willing to accept this diminution of MAPPS flexibility to support these processes; however, the monitors will continue to assess MAPPS records of “Action Taken” to ensure that the necessary steps are taken by supervisors to “piece together” interventions actually labeled as “no action” in MAPPS. Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task 48

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 48 requires that:
48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.
12 Records of these errors exist within MAPPS; however, they exist mainly in a narrative form, as opposed to a “searchable” database, requiring supervisors to deliberately check each trooper’s MAPPS record for similar problems each time an error in a motor vehicle stop is noted.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 54 of 107 PageID: 576

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures have been executed. The monitors executed 1,188 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

Task 49

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 49 requires that:
49. To the extent reflected in ¶43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in ¶73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 55 of 107 PageID: 577

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these have been executed. The monitors executed 1,188 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 50 requires that:

50. To the extent reflected in ¶43, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see ¶¶54-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 56 of 107 PageID: 578

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

During the eleventh site visit, MAPPS personnel presented to the monitors a detailed plan regarding benchmarking and trend analysis. The monitors approved this plan as presented. Benchmarking processes have not yet been implemented.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 51

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 51 requires that:
51. To the extent reflected in ¶43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and
subunits.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
During the eleventh site visit, MAPPS personnel presented to the monitors a detailed plan regarding benchmarking and trend analysis. The monitors approved this plan as presented. Trend analysis processes have not yet been implemented.
Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 57 of 107 PageID: 579

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Not In Compliance

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

During the eleventh reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted several instances of supervisory personnel issuing “performance notices” or other interventions for actions by taken by division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are beginning to carefully review trooper activity and to issue performance notices or other “interventions” when inappropriate behavior occurs. In addition, the “knowable error rate” for supervisory review has begun to decline after a period of rising rates, from 11.2 percent during the seventh period to 13.3 percent for the eighth period, to 26.4 percent for the ninth quarter. The tenth quarter’s “knowable error rate” was 19.8. The “knowable error rate” for the eleventh quarter was less than one percent. The monitors commend the State and the supervisory and management personnel at the New Jersey State Police for a marked and impressive improvement in the level and quality of supervisory review evidenced during this reporting period. See sections 2.13 and 2.16, above, for additional comments relative to supervisor review.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 58 of 107 PageID: 580

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 53 stipulates that:

53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to ¶ 73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.

Status

The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two misconduct investigations in a two-year period, but additional work is pending regarding protocols for and assessment of supervisory response to this section. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During the tenth reporting period, the State had assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards. Data indicate that these reviews are being conducted as required by the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 54 stipulates that:
54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 59 of 107 PageID: 581

Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

Methodology

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition with the Court for release from most of the requirements of the consent decree related to OPS. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the monitors will discontinue monitoring activities for OPS requirements as of this reporting period, with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90).

Task 87, which requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens’ complaints within 120 days, was evaluated by reviewing the “120-day Report,” an OPS-generated, “normal course of business” report developed to monitor overdue cases and prevent an additional case backlog. Based on the 120-day Report, the State remains in compliance with this task.

Task 90, which requires imposition of appropriate discipline in Consultation with MAPPS, was evaluated by reviewing “course of business” documents related to the OPS review

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 60 of 107 PageID: 582

of sustained OPS investigations, executive-level decisions regarding discipline, and the existence in MAPPS of records reflecting discipline. The State is judged to be in Phase I and Phase II compliance with the requirements of Task 90.
2.33 Training Assessment
The Academy had attained compliance in all but two specific areas (executive trainingtask 106 and implementation measurement for training—task 93) at the end of the tenth monitoring team site visit. Those two areas have been addressed and are in the process of being executed (see the specific tasks for details). Based upon the analysis of the data related to these areas, which should be available for the twelfth site visit in the spring, it is possible that all training tasks will reach full compliance at that time.
The return on the Division’s investment in increased manpower, equipment, and automation at the Academy over the past twelve months is remarkable and is reflected in the findings in this report. The Superintendent and the command staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to, and interest in the training function provided by the New Jersey State Police Academy.
Actions noted during the monitors’ eleventh site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

Task 93 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 93 stipulates that:

93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-60

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 61 of 107 PageID: 583

instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided.

Status

Task 93 enumerates the eight areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. Each area will be reviewed with further details referenced in subsequent tasks that address each area of responsibility more specifically.

Ensure Quality Training for all State Troopers

To ensure quality oversight for training requires sufficient staff who are competent to perform the functions assigned to them and who have the resources necessary to perform those functions. At the present time, the Academy does have competent staff in its various units and their performance is exemplary. They are focused on producing a continuously improving product and are doing so in increasingly creative and innovative ways.

The implementation phase of the training cycle has finally been addressed through a joint effort of various program coordinators and the two members of the Research and Innovation Unit at the Academy. Plans for measuring implementation of learning in the field were presented to the monitoring team during this site visit and received approval.

The impact of implementing these plans will be that the Research and Innovation Unit will be inundated with a large amount of data over the next several months. These data will require input, collation, and analysis with subsequent planning and revision to Academy training and possibly the methods utilized for measuring implementation.

At the present time two sworn personnel are assigned to the Research and Innovation Unit. The results of their efforts are directly related to achieving and maintaining compliance for tasks 93, 100, 101, 105, 106. Cooperation with the section commander is seen by the monitoring team to be important to maintaining adequate support staff to ensure a timely outcome with this important effort.

It is evident that the Academy staff understand, and are able to utilize the training cycle successfully. It is also evident that they are committed to ensuring the highest quality

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 62 of 107 PageID: 584

for the products they develop and deliver. The present Commandant is also focused on building cooperative alliances and oversight processes for ensuring the quality of all training provided to New Jersey State Police personnel.
Curriculum for Training State Police recruits;
Since the previous monitoring team site visit, the Academy’s night-duty scenarios have been implemented. Two recruit classes who completed this training graduated just three weeks before this site visit. The data coming in from the coaches indicate that the probationary troopers from these graduating classes are much more skilled in many operational areas from how to use equipment properly to how to conduct searches. The reader should note this example of data-based evaluation of the impact of academy training on troopers’ actions in the field
This improvement in performance may now require a revision of the trooper coach program because the probationary troopers require less time to accomplish performance goals that are allocated to the first weeks of that program.
In addition, this improvement in performance has resulted from the evaluation of data from the coaches program coordinated by In-Service Unit staff, the results of which were acted upon by the Pre-service unit, and the outcome is now evident as improved performance among the probationary troopers in the Operations Unit. This is another outstanding example of cooperation and planning across sections in the Division and units within the Academy.
The Research/Innovation Unit has developed a recruit test reporting procedure, and will conduct a program evaluation of the recruit program to determine costs and benefits and make recommendations.
Provide Training for Academy Instructors
The Academy provides a comprehensive Instructor Training Course (ITC) to qualify troopers as instructors, and has quality oversight processes in place to insure that trainer records are audited annually. The ITC course was recently revised to include the new concepts that are integral to measuring field implementation of training. As new competencies are required of instructors, the ITC course will be revised to ensure that instructors remain current.
Select and Train State Trooper Coaches
An acceptable selection and training process for trooper coaches has been established and ongoing for a number of years. As part of the quality oversight required, on-going evaluations of the program and its processes are conducted by the program

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 63 of 107 PageID: 585

coordinator. Based upon recent changes made to the recruit curriculum resulting in higher levels of performance by probationary troopers in the first weeks of the coaches program, the program may require a meaningful review in the coming months to ensure that the trooper coach program continues to train meaningful and necessary tasks.
The proposal to automate the program in order to better manage the voluminous amount of data that are generated has received priority for completion. This is an important step to ensure quality oversight for a very important category of troopers— those new to the road after graduation from the recruit course.
Approve and Supervise all post-Academy Training
• The Academy Commandant has begun a process to identify all training that troopers receive in workshops, conferences, and other venues external to the New Jersey State Police. This will be a long-term project and the final area that must be addressed to provide quality oversight for all training provided to New Jersey State Police personnel. This initiative requires coordination and cooperation between various sections in the Division. The impact of the effort could include large amounts of data requiring analysis, and the findings might necessitate further planning efforts. Every new initiative will result in an impact that must be considered and addressed to ensure a positive, high quality outcome that improves the Division.
Post-Academy Training
• Post-Academy training provided directly through the Academy is coordinated through the In-Service Unit and the Advanced Training Unit. Regional training staff is in place in each troop to provide quality oversight for training conducted by instructors outside the Academy. Oversight systems are in place to assure that all personnel attend mandated training or are held accountable if they have no legitimate excuse for not attending.
Post-Academy Training Instructors
• The Academy has identified all troopers providing training outside the Academy but within the Division and developed a Master Trainers’ List. All instructors are required to complete the MOI/ITC training, and any instructional personnel teaching a consent decree-related course must have a four-year college degree. Meaningful reviews are completed on trainers on a regular basis and documentation is maintained.
Procedures for Evaluating Training

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 64 of 107 PageID: 586

This requirement includes an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught. The Academy successfully evaluates the content and the quality of instruction. A review process is conducted on any new lesson plans to insure that the content and delivery techniques meet the standards. A new process implemented since the previous site visit to increase the return rates for evaluation forms at the completion of each training session resulted in a 95% return rate, excellent by any evaluation standard.
Program coordinators for the various mandated trainings presented plans for measuring field implementation resulting from training were presented to the monitoring team and were approved. The new Research and Innovation Unit is now responsible for conducting analyses of evaluation data, and assisting Academy staff in evaluation efforts. An enormous first-time effort to measure training implementation is now underway.
Other new efforts to ensure quality oversight include:
• An SOP C25 Working Group with members from Field Operations, OSPA, and the Academy will meet for the first time in November. The focus of the group is to improve and coordinate current systems and practices impacting the Division.
• A risk analysis assessment was conducted for courses in the In-Service lesson plan data bank to identify needed lesson plan revisions.
• An audit of the MAPPS course was completed. • On-line testing is being utilized by the EDTU in its classes as a beta test prior
to implementation for all training venues. • Training venues are now more strictly conforming to the time allocated for
delivery. • The number of trainers providing mandated training is limited to ensure a
quality presentation. • An intensive search and seizure review has been included in the coaches’
school. • A computer lab/resource room was created to support the increasing need for
training requiring technology. • A Domestic Violence on-line course with on-line testing will be launched in
October. • New computers were purchased for Academy staff and for use by the recruit
classes. The Technology Unit actually worked with the computer company so that programs developed by the unit are installed on the computers at the factory.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 65 of 107 PageID: 587

Status

This task is in full compliance with the exception of fully measuring field implementation of the consent decree mandated training provided by the Academy. This effort is underway and could, depending upon the quality of the assessment, lead to full compliance after the twelfth site visit.

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not in compliance

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

Task 97 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 97 stipulates that:
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.

Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Training Staff
At the present time, the Commandant reports that there are 58 sworn personnel, 11 full-time civilian personnel, and 6 temporary personnel. At the present level of course development, training delivery, evaluation, and quality oversight the Commandant states that this level of staffing is adequate. Members of the monitoring team agree with this assessment. However, new training courses may be required to address emerging organizational needs such as the new focus on career development and succession planning, and the re-structuring of the Division to create a new section devoted to homeland security. The full implementation of the MAPPS program may identify trends requiring a rapid training response. Obviously, the level of staffing must

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 66 of 107 PageID: 588

be re-evaluated on a regular basis to be sure that it keeps pace with training needs. As an example, the Academy is presently receiving an increased volume of requests for training related to the MVR reviews concentrated in the areas of MVR procedures, radio procedures, and interpersonal skills.
In addition, a new program has been implemented in conjunction with the Operations Unit. Five to six operational troopers are detached to the Academy for a seven-month “internship.” During this time they complete the 80-hour instructor training course and act as instructors in the Pre-Service Unit (training recruits) and in other venues as needed. Upon their return to the Operations Unit, another cohort replaces them at the Academy. This program builds understanding and appreciation of the work conducted by the Academy, insures the availability of trainers with recent operational expertise, and insures the availability of operational personnel with recent training experience to act as instructors in specialized training venues conducted at the regional level.
The Academy environment is professional; a strong sense of teamwork is evident, and the staff has resources and manpower to successfully achieve their goals.
According to an interoffice memo, on July 27, 2004 a specialist selection process was initiated for the position of Academy instructor. The application process closed on August 27, 2004. During this time, the Academy Commandant made visits to Troop A, B, and C headquarters to speak at mandated in-service trainings in an effort to recruit superior troopers for this position. Twenty-eight troopers applied for the position.
Post-Academy Staff
Post-Academy trooper training staff falls into one of two categories:
• Trainers who are Academy staff and who provide instruction in courses that are not part of the recruit training, and are included in the data provided above under the heading “Academy Staff;” and
• Trainers who work in specialized units in the Division who are providing training. They are training because they are subject matter experts so they do not require special motivation to apply as trainers.
Trooper Coach Staff
The recruiting process demonstrates that adequate numbers of troopers are applying for coaching positions. Based upon their performance the Trooper Coaches receive extra points on their resumes, thus helping them when they apply for future positions within the Division. This incentive, and the recognized value of this program are strong motivating factors in attracting qualified troopers to apply for this duty.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 67 of 107 PageID: 589

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

Task 98 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Trainers
The selection criteria for Academy trainers are:
• Five years experience as a trooper; • Bachelor’s degree; • Resume; • ITC or MOI;

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 68 of 107 PageID: 590

• Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; and • Continuous meaningful review.
Documentation in the trainers’ files demonstrates that the criteria are being met. Annual audits by Academy staff are in place to be sure that trainers’ records are current and that annual meaningful reviews are conducted. On September 28, 2004, an 8-hour ITC update was conducted for 45 active instructors to update their previous attendance at the course. The topics included adult-based learning techniques and methods for measuring training impact in the field.
Post-Academy Trainers
All Post-Academy trooper trainers who are not full-time Academy staff have been identified since the ninth reporting period. Selection criteria for trooper trainers in operational or specialized units are as follows:
• Resume; • ITC or MOI training; • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; • Bi-annual meaningful review; and • Bachelor’s degree if teaching any consent decree mandated subjects.
The list of criteria noted in the last sentence of this consent task requires that documentation for each trainer be collected and that oversight management of the same be identified. These data are available as follows:
• The ACTS database lists all training that the trooper has received since joining the New Jersey State Police.
• A meaningful review is conducted prior to a trooper-trainer conducting training. The results of this review are kept on file in the Commandant’s office.
• The Academy has compiled a Master Trainers’ List that indicates whether the trooper-trainer has a degree or not.
• The Academy staff chooses trainers for the consent decree courses and reviews the list to be sure that the trainer has a four-year college degree.
Oversight processes are in place to address this issue and the Commandant continues to refine these processes to ensure a high level of quality oversight.
Trooper Coaches
Selection criteria for trooper coach are as follows:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 69 of 107 PageID: 591

• Two years of service as a trooper; • Currently assigned to operations; • Resume; • Supervisory evaluations; • Passing score on the oral boards; • Meaningful review; and • C20 compliance.
These criteria are being met and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy. The files are audited at appropriate intervals by Academy staff.
Status
The Master Instructor List was updated and four instructors were removed from the list.
Academy Trainers
The selection criteria for Academy trainers are:
• Five years experience as a trooper; • Bachelor’s degree; • Resume; • ITC or MOI; • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; and • Continuous meaningful review.
Documentation in the trainers’ files demonstrates that the criteria are being met. Annual audits by Academy staff are in place to be sure that trainers’ records are current and that annual meaningful reviews are conducted.
Post-Academy Trainers
All Post-Academy trooper trainers who are not full-time Academy staff have been identified since the ninth reporting period. Selection criteria for trooper trainers in operational or specialized units are as follows:
• Resume; • ITC or MOI training; • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; • Bi-annual meaningful review; and • Bachelor’s degree if teaching any consent decree mandated subjects.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 70 of 107 PageID: 592

The list of criteria noted in the last sentence of this consent task requires that documentation for each trainer addressing the criteria be collected and that oversight management of the same be identified. These data are available as follows:

• The ACTS database lists all training that the trooper has received since joining the New Jersey State Police. This covers points 2 and 3.
• A meaningful review is conducted prior to the trooper doing training. The results of this review are kept on file in the commandant’s office. This covers point four.
• The Academy has compiled a Master Trainers’ List that indicates whether the trooper has a degree or not.
• The Academy staff chooses trainers for the consent decree courses and reviews the list to be sure that the trainer has a four-year college degree.

Trooper Coaches

Selection criteria for trooper coach are as follows:

• Two years of service as a trooper; • Resume; • Supervisory evaluations; • Passing score on the oral boards; • Meaningful review; and • C20 compliance.

These criteria are being met and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy. The files are audited at appropriate intervals by Academy staff.

Compliance

Academy Personnel Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Post Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coach Personnel In Compliance In Compliance

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

Task 99 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 99 stipulates that: Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 71 of 107 PageID: 593

99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Instructors
Training requirements for Academy instructors are as follows:
• Core competencies must be met; • The 80-hour instructor training course must be completed; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; • Annual meaningful reviews must meet the standard; • Course evaluations must meet the standard; and • Re-certification must be maintained.
Status
All Academy instructors meet the requirements.
Post-Academy Instructors
Training requirements for Post-Academy instructors are as follows:
• Core competencies must be met; • The 80-hour instructor training course must be completed; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; • Annual meaningful reviews must meet the standard; • Course evaluations must meet the standard; and • Re-certification must be maintained.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-71

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 72 of 107 PageID: 594

Status
On September 28, 2004, an 8-hour Instructor Training Course (ITC) update was conducted for 45 active instructors. This included training on adult-based learning and determining return-on-investment measuring training impact. These topics were not included in the ITC course that these instructors had previously completed. Additional ITC update courses were scheduled for November 10 and December 8, 2004.
Training Documentation for Post-Academy Instructors
Documentation maintained at the Academy for troopers providing training in operations and in specialty units includes the following:
• A master training list is maintained by the In-Service Unit; • The ACTS database contains a list of all training each trooper/instructor has
received while a member of the New Jersey State Police. This includes the ITC. • Participant evaluations completed on each instructor teaching a course are analyzed by the In-Service Unit following the completion of each course and that data are maintained in that unit. • A meaningful review is completed for each instructor just prior to his/her providing training. • A copy of each lesson plan/curriculum is maintained within the ACTS system.
Status
All documentation is current.
Trooper Coach
Training requirements for Trooper Coaches are as follows:
• Core competencies must be met; • Completion of the 3-day Trooper Coach Training and Evaluation Course; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; and • Completion a refresher course for an incumbent coach.
Status
The annual audit of trooper coach files was conducted by the program coordinator in September 2004. One discrepancy was noted regarding a selection process folder and appropriate follow-up was implemented to rectify the problem. A trooper coach e-mail

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 73 of 107 PageID: 595

account was implemented to allow the program coordinator at the Academy to receive daily evaluations completed by the coaches. An intranet web application proposal was submitted to the Division IT Section and is a priority project, though as yet uncompleted. Refresher course was conducted for incumbent coaches with increased emphasis on MAPPS and search and seizure issues. A process was implemented whereby the program coordinator is notified of any problematic searches occurring that involve a trooper coach. To date there have been none.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Cultural Awareness

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 74 of 107 PageID: 596

2004 Annual In-Service
This is the first time since the consent decree began that the Academy has had complete control over this task. Academy staff are commended for following the training cycle and for the foresight and the planning involved in this effort at every stage of this cycle.
The topics for task 100, cultural diversity and ethics were combined with the leadership component of task 105. The monitors gave approval to merge these topics into one integrated training program with the stipulation that each topic would be addressed in a meaningful and relevant manner. The training for task 101, Fourth Amendment Rights was conducted during the morning as a separate block of training and is addressed under that task in this report.
Assessment
An assessment was conducted using the following:
• Evaluation from previous mandated training; • Interviews with participants in previous trainings; • Recognized need for leadership training for all personnel. (Previously, leadership
training began at the supervisory level); • Data from the needs assessment survey previously completed by a random
sample of 350 personnel representing a cross sample of the organization. • Shotgun e-mails and surveys to specific personnel such as OPS, OSPA; • Anecdotal information gained in conversations with personnel throughout the
organization; • An information gathering exercise completed in each of the Supervisory Courses
conducted this year; • Anecdotal information gathered from the ten lieutenants’ courses conducted in
the past year; and • A focus group with representatives from within the organization and from the
OSPAs.
Development
Course objectives focused on the reality that cultural diversity, ethics, and leadership are not separate topics. In the daily life of a trooper they are essential and inseparable. Lesson plans were submitted to the IFM for review and approval prior to training delivery.
Delivery

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 75 of 107 PageID: 597

Training was conducted from July 26-September 17, 2004, and consisted of five hours of training provided to participants. The training was conducted regionally at each Troop headquarters. A small cadre of Academy instructors and troopers with subject matter expertise was utilized to ensure the effectiveness of a single message, and to control quality oversight. Participants were grouped at tables to facilitate group work incorporated into the training. Training included lecture, power-point presentations, group discussion, scenarios, and a video.
For the first time, planning for delivery took into account the Training Bureau Calendar and the organization’s deployment needs. This allowed for a break in the training schedule so that troopers could be deployed to aid in security for the Republican National Convention. A member of the monitoring team attended the training conducted at Hamilton Station on September 8, 2004.
Evaluation
A new evaluation form was developed to more accurately measure course content, instructor presentation, and to collect data to forecast future training needs. Each participant was required to complete the evaluation form prior to receiving the test required to meet attendance compliance for the course. Fully 95% of the evaluation forms were returned and are being analyzed. (This is a dramatic increase in returns over the 2003 training.) A total of 99.9% of the action plans were returned.
Implementation
A data collection plan was developed prior to the training to measure the impact of training in the field. Each participant was required to complete an action plan that included an individually identified issue/need which that participant would resolve within 3 months of the training date. The Academy received a copy and will conduct a review to determine the level of implementation achieved or the identification of barriers preventing implementation. An In-service e-mail account has been established for action plan returns. This plan was presented to the monitors and met with their approval.
Documentation
Documentation is in compliance with standards.
Status
A total of 2,499 personnel attended the training. Seven participants failed the test, received subsequent remedial training and received a passing grade. A total of 201 personnel did not attend the training due to one of the following reasons:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 76 of 107 PageID: 598

• Republican National Convention; • Sick Leave/Administrative Leave; • Military Duty; or • Applicant Background Investigator. • Regional make-up dates for this training are being scheduled.

Cultural Diversity

Phase I: Phase II:

In compliance In compliance

Ethics
In compliance In compliance

Leadership
In compliance In compliance

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the nondiscrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdictionrelated training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation.
Fourth Amendment In-Service Training

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 77 of 107 PageID: 599

Assessment
An assessment was conducted using the following:
• 2003 In-Service critique analysis; • Field Operations requests submitted through the training officers and focus
group members; • Mobile Video Recorder reviews; • Field Operations concerns • OPS concerns • Investigative concerns • Office of Professional Standards findings, requests, and recommendations; • New case law.
Development
The curriculum for this course was provided to the monitoring team for review and was approved.
Delivery
Training was conducted from July 26-September 17, 2004, and consisted of 3.5-hours, delivered on the same day as the integrated cultural awareness/ethics/leadership course. The training was conducted regionally at each Troop headquarters. A small cadre of Academy instructors and troopers with subject matter expertise was utilized to ensure the effectiveness of a single message, and to control quality oversight.
Participants were grouped at tables to facilitate group work incorporated into the training. Training included lecture, power-point presentations, group discussion, scenarios, and a video. For the first time, planning for delivery took into account the Training Bureau Calendar and the organization’s deployment needs. This allowed for a break in the training schedule so that troopers could be deployed to aid in security for the Republican National Convention. A member of the monitoring team attended the training conducted at Hamilton Station on September 8, 2004.
Evaluation
A new evaluation form was developed to more accurately measure course content, instructor presentation, and to collect data to forecast future training needs. Each participant was required to complete the evaluation form prior to receiving the test required to meet attendance compliance for the course.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 78 of 107 PageID: 600

Implementation
A data collection plan was developed prior to the training to measure the impact of training in the field. This plan was presented to the monitors and met with their approval. The training appears to have resulted in:
• Reduced number of problematic searches. • Decreased number of problematic searches identified on MVR. • Decrease in the number of OPS complaints.
Members of the monitoring team, in their review of New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop recordings have noted a increased confidence levels regarding search and seizure, which, in the monitors’ opinion are directly attributable to the excellence of the New Jersey State Police training process.

Status

A total of 2,499 personnel attended the training. Seven participants failed the test, received subsequent remedial training and received a passing grade. A total of 201 personnel did not attend the training due to one of the following reasons:
• Republican National Convention; • Sick Leave/Administrative Leave; • Military Duty; or • Applicant Background Investigator.

Regional make-up dates for this training are being scheduled.

Fourth Amendment Recruit Training

Scenarios have been implemented within the Academy recruit training curriculum to provide increased experiential scenarios to recruits, and a number of the scenarios relate to search and seizure incidents. During the site visit a member of the monitoring team observed two recruits making a stop that led to a consent search and the discovery of a controlled substance in the car resulting in an arrest. All procedures were conducted with skill and confidence. The recruits’ comments to the monitoring team member’s questions indicate that they feel very competent because of their participation in many scenarios.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 79 of 107 PageID: 601

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

Task 102 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 102 stipulates that:
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be
approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Status
The State has developed a strong response to all the responsibilities listed in the consent decree for this task, and the Academy personnel tasked with coordinating this program continue to revise and refine their oversight capabilities as new issues arise and new means of gaining oversight information are developed.
• In the 10th IMR, it was noted that Daily Observation Sheets from week 9 were analyzed to determine if any of the 27 performance objectives were scored below a 4.5 rating. Performance objectives #8—“Knowledge and Enforcement of Criminal Law” (rated 4.26), and #22—“CJIS” (rated 4.16) received the lowest ratings, though they did not fall below the acceptable score of four.
• As a result of these findings, revisions were made to the training provided to the coaches in these areas. An expanded search and seizure block of instruction has

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 80 of 107 PageID: 602

been added to the coach training and the refresher course for incumbent coaches. • The FTOs and the Assistant Station Commander’s attended a refresher course since they provide supervision to the coaches. • In addition, the Pre-Service Unit responsible for training recruits increased the instructional time devoted to both topics in the recruit curriculum, and recruits received increased practical experience in both areas when participating in the night duty scenarios. • Each coach now has an e-mail account and is completing the Daily Observation Sheets and sending them to the Academy coach program coordinator at the end of each week. This will dramatically improve quality oversight for this program. • Two recruit classes graduated in September and were involved in the coaching program during the eleventh monitoring team site visit. Early evaluative data from the first three weeks of the program indicate that the probationary troopers are more highly skilled in using the equipment and conducting procedures (directly related to the guard-duty scenarios). This may require a re-evaluation of the coaching program, especially the first 3 weeks, in terms of the behaviors that receive coaching focus. • The Academy, in conjunction with the Division’s IT Unit, is developing an automated system to manage the voluminous data that this program is generating. The project has received a high priority status for completion by the Superintendent.

Status

The quality oversight provided for this program demonstrates an outstanding example of the need for linkages between programs/Academy units/Division sections and bureaus (e.g. recruit training, coach training, coach program revisions, operational supervisory staff, informational technology staff, evaluation staff, section command staff) in order to develop and grow a vital program that contributes dramatically to the development of competent and confident troopers.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 81 of 107 PageID: 603

Task 103 stipulates that:
103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with the Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed supporting documentation.

Status

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent decree-related tasks are handled by notification of specific Division personnel at the quarterly Training Committee meetings and through IOCs. This is a comprehensive oversight process. To be certain that the process is functioning as intended requires a regularly scheduled audit of the documentation at the section level to be sure that all “read and sign documentation” is complete.

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 82 of 107 PageID: 604

Task 104 stipulates that:

104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.

Methodology

A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed the documentation provided.

Status

Since the last site visit, the following tasks have been accomplished:

• The Training Committee has become a key conduit in obtaining the data required by this task. Oversight for much of the activity conducted by regional training staff is possible because of this committee.
• Four mandatory Training Committee meetings have been scheduled for calendar year 2004.
• Two teleconferencing meetings have been held and well received as they do not require the loss of manpower hours to travel to the Academy for attendance.
• Regional training staff are in place at each troop to help identify training needs as they arise, and to relay this information to the Academy.
• The Academy’s in-service unit conducted a Division-wide survey to identify training needs throughout the agency. The results will be available at the next (twelfth) site visit.
• The New Jersey State Police intranet provides a means for any member of the organization to send suggestions for training to the Academy.

Status

The Academy has developed a comprehensive process with many access points for identifying the training needs in the organization.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 83 of 107 PageID: 605

2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 105 stipulates that:
105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in ¶¶100 and 101) shall address effective supervisory techniques to promote police integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided.
Status
In May 2003, when the Academy’s Executive Staff Development Unit (EDTU) was formed, oversight responsibility for this task was assigned to this unit, and one team member was assigned primary oversight responsibility for this task. Currently there is one 80-hour basic course for new sergeants, and one course for those promoted to sergeant first class
Sergeant’s Basic Course
The basic sergeant’s course is currently 80-hours in length and addresses the needs of sergeants, staff sergeants, detective sergeants, and patrol sergeants. This course is provided as needed depending upon the number of newly promoted personnel. In addition, troopers I and II who have performed at a level that demonstrates skill and leadership are referred by their supervisors to attend this class so that they will be better prepared when they are promoted. A total of troopers not in acting supervisory positions attended, and to date, 25% are now in acting sergeant positions.
Assessment

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 84 of 107 PageID: 606

Among the sources of data used to refine and improve this course are the following:
• Participant evaluations from each session; • Evaluation data gathered from participants in the lieutenants’ course; • Data from the leadership survey conducted by EDTU; • Anecdotal data gathered through conversations with Division personnel; • Training committee recommendations; and • MAPPS data related to supervisory issues.
Development
Based upon assessment data that are gathered, changes to this curriculum are made on a continuous basis. Recently, two self-assessment instruments used in management courses were introduced into this course.
The following blocks of instruction were updated to remain current with trends affecting the Division:
• Critical Standards of Procedure; • Progressive discipline; and • Ethics.
Delivery
Five courses were delivered between March and July 2004. A total of 193 personnel received this training. A staff attorney from the AG’s office teaches the search and seizure block of training. Eight courses are planned for 2005. A total of 45 new sergeants have not yet been trained and of these, nine are beyond the six-month limit. They are scheduled for the next session scheduled for November 1st and December 6th.
Evaluation
A pretest is now given prior to the beginning of the training. The test is repeated at the conclusion of the training and is demonstrating improved understanding of the material presented. All participants complete the new evaluation form developed by the Academy.
Implementation
An implementation plan was presented to the monitoring team during the eleventh site visit and received approval.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 85 of 107 PageID: 607
Status
The course meets the requirements of the decree and demonstrates the understanding of the training cycle. The results from the implementation plan will be available on or before the next site visit.
Sergeant First Class Course
This course is titled the Mid-Level Manager’s Course.
Assessment
The original assessment process was described in previous monitoring team reports. On a continuous basis the course critiques, course testing data, MAPPS data, trend analyses, training committee feedback, field requests through the intranet, and anecdotal feedback are utilized to revise and refine this course.
Development
This course was originally developed for the lieutenants. Upon evaluation it was determined to be more appropriate for the SFCs. Modifications to the course are ongoing based upon assessment and evaluation data.
Delivery
Eight courses have been delivered in 2004 with 170 personnel attending. Class size averages 25. A total of 51 SFCs are eligible for training at this time. Another session was scheduled for November 29th.
Evaluation
A pretest is now given prior to the beginning of the training. The test is repeated at the conclusion of the training and is demonstrating improved understanding of the material presented. Participants complete the new evaluation form developed by the Academy.
Implementation
An implementation plan was presented to the monitoring team during this site visit and was approved.
Status

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 86 of 107 PageID: 608

The course meets the requirements of the decree and demonstrates the understanding of the training cycle. The results from the implementation plan will be available on or before the next site visit.

Annual Supervisory/Leadership Training

Status

The annual leadership training for supervisors has been integrated into the annual mandated training for all personnel (task 100). In addition, the supervisory courses provided to sergeants have comprehensive blocks of training on leadership and ethics.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

Task 106 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:
106. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within six months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation.
Lieutenants’ Course

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 87 of 107 PageID: 609

The new “Executive Leadership Course for Lieutenants,” developed by the Executive Development Training Unit (EDTU) was be delivered for the first time in late October 2004. This course sets a new benchmark for New Jersey State Police executive training in that the “classroom” includes a two-day leadership-immersion experience conducted at sites on the Gettysburg Battleground, and actual classroom time at Princeton University.
This major step in ensuring the highest quality leadership training experience is the cooperative result of the creative imagination of EDTU staff in developing and proposing this venue, and the awareness of command staff personnel and the Superintendent regarding the critical role that lieutenants play in the supervisory/management chain of command. When vision and cooperation occur among units, sections, and ranks within an organization the climate and the culture of an organization can change rapidly. This course is an outstanding example of that process working favorably for the New Jersey State Police. The monitoring team commend the Academy and its staff for their vision, commitment and follow-through on this excellent training piece.
Assessment Phase
The following internal and external sources were utilized to complete the needs assessment:
• Previous course critiques; • Interviews with New Jersey State Police personnel; • Anecdotal information; • Attendance at the Bi-Annual station commanders’ meeting; • Surveys of lieutenants attending the January 26th session of the Station
Commanders’ Course; and • Discussion with, visits to, or review of training materials from the following
organizations: o United States Marine Corps o Merck Pharmaceuticals o Northwestern University School of Police Staff and Command o Northwestern University Executive Development Program o New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police o Penn State University POLEX Course o FBI Leadership and Management Seminar o DEA Group Supervisors Course o Johnson and Johnson School of Personal and Professional Development o Columbia Business School, “Executive Development Program: The Transition to General Manager,” and the Columbia Senior Executive Program
Development Phase

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 88 of 107 PageID: 610

From the assessment data, a core group of topics emerged as necessary for this level of executive development training.

• Communication skills; • Team building; • Strategic planning; • Project management; • Conflict/Performance management; • Risk management; • Challenging the organizational culture; • Leadership/Management styles; • Motivation; • Decision-making/Problem solving; • Mastering change; • Situational leadership; and • Emotional intelligence.

These topics are addressed through a three-part training paradigm:

• Know Yourself and Improve Yourself; • Know Your Team and Improve Your Team; and • Know Your Organization and Improve Your Organization.

Lesson plans for the 5-day course were presented to the monitoring team for review and were approved. Class size will be approximately 25 participants.

Delivery Phase

The first session of this course was presented the last week in October. The teaching methods include the following:

• Lecture; • Group work to apply principles; • Hands-on use of computers to apply techniques associated with technical skills; • Self-assessment instruments; • Use of a pre-arrival package including a book about the Gettysburg battle that
each participant can read to prepare for the course; and • Use of video and power-point presentations.

Evaluation Phase

Participants will complete the following:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 89 of 107 PageID: 611

• A pre-test and a post-test; • The completion of a power-point presentation that applies information they
learned during the course; • A plan for a change they intend to implement in the field; and • Completion of the course evaluation form.
Implementation Phase
An implementation plan was presented to the Independent Monitor for review and was approved.
Documentation Phase
The EDTU staff provides thorough documentation presented in a very professional format.
Status
The development of this course demonstrates that the EDTU staff have a complete understanding of the training cycle, and are able to implement all the steps in a comprehensive and professional manner. They continue to set benchmarks for innovative, high quality training.
Captains’ Course
The EDTU developed a course to address the training needs of those advancing to the ranks of captain, major, and lieutenant colonel. This course is divided into a number of modules that will be provided over a span of time rather than in one training session.
Assessment
The EDTU completed a thorough needs assessment that was described at length in the tenth IMR.
Development
The monitoring team was provided with lesson plans for each block of training that meet the compliance standards. The topics to be addressed include the following:
• Module I—Know and Improve Yourself 5 hours o Block 1—Self Assessment o Block 2—The Leadership Clinic: An Introduction

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 90 of 107 PageID: 612

• Module II—Know and Improve Your Command 13 hours o Know What to Expect From Your Mid-Level Managers; Know What They Expect From You o Conflict Resolution/Mediation—Getting to Yes o Labor Relations o Mentor Replacements/Develop Subordinates/Portfolio Development o Mid-Level Management Philosophy—Servant Leadership
• Module III—Know the Division of State Police 6 hours o The Business End of Things o Budget Operations o Fiscal Bureau o Human Resource Management Bureau o Information Technology Bureau
• Module IV—Improve the Division of State Police 8 hours o The Division Planning Model—An Unveiling o The Executive Level Trooper—Planning and Achieving

Delivery

Though this course is planned to be delivered in the order presented above, a portion of the course was presented in mid-September to address an identified organizational need. Approximately seventy upper level management staff attended. Seventeen of those required to attend did not, most of which will be retiring shortly. The remainder of the modules will be presented over the next few months.

Evaluation

Participants completed the new evaluation form created by the Academy.

Implementation

An implementation plan was presented to the monitors’ for review and was approved. Phase II compliance for training for captains and above is pending completion key aspects of the training delivery cycle (scheduled for March and April, 2005) and a meaningful evaluation of training’s impact on behavior in the field.

Captains and Above Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: Not In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 91 of 107 PageID: 613

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 107 stipulates that:
107. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.
Methodology
The monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for developing and delivering this training, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
As noted in the tenth monitors’ report, an agreement to apply this task to personnel returning to operations from other areas of the Division was reached at a time when the State had no processes in place to assess, document, evaluate, or provide oversight for the universe of specialized assignments, related training needs, qualifications of instructors providing specialized training, testing to determine the degree of comprehension of the training, or tracking the implementation of the training operationally.
The Academy now has such processes in place and has demonstrated a high degree of commitment and skill in utilizing the systems to provide the required quality oversight for all areas of training.
The Academy is conducting a needs assessment to identify all training previously being presented outside the oversight function of the Academy, to identify specialty areas/special training needs, and to identify and determine the qualifications of instructors providing specialized training. The Master Trainers’ List has been analyzed and updated, and a re-certification program for all instructors is underway. MAPPS data are being used to identify any trends requiring specialized training. Processes are in place to identify and track on training that troopers receive outside of the Academy and the Division.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-91

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 92 of 107 PageID: 614

Though it will require some time to thoroughly evaluate the scope of this issue, the Academy demonstrates a clear understanding of the need, an ability to use a comprehensive process to address this issue, and has begun to gather the necessary date to maintain compliance with the broadest interpretation of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

Task 108 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 108 stipulates that:
108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
The Technology and Administrative Support Unit staff continue to address the program automation needs for the various Academy units. An Academy website was created that provides access to the various programs and processes that the Academy is responsible for providing and for overseeing. Training records, lesson plans, equipment management, the recruit program, the training calendar, the trooper youth week program, and the new on-line testing function are part of the website which is being expanded to include other Academy programs as they are automated. Further, as part of the operational test of MAPPS conducted by members of the monitoring team, 36 individual troopers’ and sergeants’ MAPPS records were assessed for the presence of

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-92

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 93 of 107 PageID: 615

recently received training, within the automated MAPPS system. All 36 personnel selected had updated training records in the MAPPS system.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 109 stipulates that:
109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy personnel responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
All Academy, trooper coach, and post-academy training materials, curricula, and lesson plans developed by academy staff are maintained in a central repository at the Academy. Security oversight for all training materials, both in paper and digital formats are operative. Master paper copies of lesson plans and curricula materials have been consolidated in one location, and are kept in locked filing cabinets in a locked room with access limited to specified personnel, and a logging system to track the documents.
All equipment at the Academy has been inventoried and a bar code applied to facilitate future regularly scheduled inventories. A Technology Renewal Plan has been implemented to insure that equipment/software will be replaced at appropriate intervals to prevent any degradation of quality in the technology.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-93

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 94 of 107 PageID: 616

The Academy is about to launch a beta test with on-line registration and on-line testing, and plans to extend this procedure to all training venues. This will provide another avenue for improving quality oversight and reducing the amount of time required to process these data.

Oversight processes for tracking training materials generated in units within the Division, but outside the Academy, have been implemented. Quality oversight for training provided by outside vendors has been enacted that specifies what the Academy requires from outside vendors to ensure compliance with quality standards.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 110 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.
Methodology

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-94

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 95 of 107 PageID: 617

Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State’s responses to the requirements of the decree, and/or have queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the State’s response to the decree.

Status

Based on the monitoring team’s review of work product, and information obtained during the process of implementing the eleventh site visit, it is clear to the members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task. Not all duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the eleventh site visit, due to the lack of final implementation of the MAPPS processes for long-term trend analysis and benchmarking. The office provides coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice, and the office is headed by an Assistant AG. The office routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations, and routinely audits performance on MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site reviews, basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team, with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The mechanism and duty assignments, however, exist to complete the duties of the office as soon as practicable, given the implementation schedule of the State’s compliance efforts.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance Unable to Monitor

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 111 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 111 stipulates that:

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-95

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 96 of 107 PageID: 618

111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.

Methodology

The monitors have reviewed data provided by the State regarding this task, and find the State continues to be in compliance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

Task 112 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 112 stipulates that:
112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by ¶62; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.
Methodology
Data regarding task 112 indicate that the State continues to perform this task in a satisfactory manner.
Status

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-96

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 97 of 107 PageID: 619

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 113 stipulates that:

113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State Police Affairs during the course of the site visit during the week of May 19th, 2003.

Status

Based on the team’s observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-97

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 98 of 107 PageID: 620

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task 114 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 114 stipulates that:

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops (by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions (including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.

Methodology

The State has produced its latest “Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data,” in response to this provision of the decree.

Status

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-98

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 99 of 107 PageID: 621

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 115 stipulates that:
115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.
Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000.

Status

The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

Task 118 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-99

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 100 of 107 PageID: 622

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and nonprivileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access while onsite with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.
Status
All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-100

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 101 of 107 PageID: 623

Phase II: In Compliance 2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 122 stipulates that:

122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every six months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State’s submission filed by the State in response to this task. The report’s format has been modified to a more readable and usable format for this reporting period.

Status

The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitors, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-101

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 102 of 107 PageID: 624

Task 123 stipulates that:

123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents, records, recordings and other information during the course of the team’s site visit during October, 2003.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-102

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 103 of 107 PageID: 625

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

Task 124 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 124 stipulates that:
124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State staff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-103

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 104 of 107 PageID: 626

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-104

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 105 of 107 PageID: 627

3.0 Executive Summary
During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been improved substantially in training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
Field Operations
Rapid, meaningful and focused improvements are now being witnessed in the Field Operations component of the New Jersey State Police. Error rates for all aspects related to the consent decree have dropped precipitously over the last two reporting periods. Of the 50 consent decree-related errors noted from among the stop incidents selected by the monitors this period, all but one were considered technical errors, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not errors related directly to Constitutional protections. The data yield a clear picture to the monitors: field operations activities have begun to be internally monitored by a cadre of newly trained (or retrained) supervisors who exhibit a commitment to fair and impartial review of activity in the field. These reviews accounted for 90 individual “interventions” by field operations supervisors—steps taken to call to the attention of road personnel errors or violations of New Jersey State Police procedures and to prevent further similar errors or violations.13

Training

Last reporting period, the monitors noted a dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the eleventh reporting period, the Academy has reaped the benefit of specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted again this period. In fact, the Academy has improved its compliance levels in all areas this period, also addressing the two areas in which it was found non-compliant in the tenth report.

13 Forty of the 90 “interventions” were related to non-decree issues, such as trooper safety, etc.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-105

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 106 of 107 PageID: 628

Executive training and evaluation of the impact of training were addressed during the eleventh reporting period, and substantial improvement has been noted in these areas as well, although full compliance with these two areas was not attained this reporting period. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.
Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the second consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 186 of the 218 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 85 percent supervisory review rate yielded 97 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 97 instances were consent-decree related; however, it is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency is well along its way to that goal. The New Jersey State Police now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 85 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 50 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of 2,128. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 49 of errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 98 percent for the supervisory review process. All but one of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional.
MAPPS Development

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-106

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 61 Filed 12/20/04 Page 107 of 107 PageID: 629
Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work continues on establishing appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted.
The monitors did note, however, one potentially troublesome characteristic of the State’s use of the MAPPS system. In 37 instances in which supervisors had noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, the MAPPS carried the action taken regarding the problems as “No Action.” The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State contends—and the monitors are willing to accept—that this is an issue of supervisory discretion and leadership, e.g., the ability to treat minor or first-time infractions via truly verbal counseling, rather than creating an “official record” of first-time or minor events.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for two consecutive periods.

Eleventh Independent Monitors’ Report

Page-107

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 753
Monitors’ Twelfth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
July 12, 2005

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-1 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 754

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

iv

1 Introduction

1

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

1

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Progress toward Compliance

4

2 Assessment of Compliance

7

2.1 Methodology

7

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

8

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

13

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

16

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

18

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

27

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 32

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

35

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

36

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

37

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

38

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 40

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

41

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

42

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions 43

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 44

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

46

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System 47

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal

MAPPS Data

49

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts”

49

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

51

Table of Contents

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-1 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 755

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

51

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

52

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 53

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data 55

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

55

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

56

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

57

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

58

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

59

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Jersey Turnpike

60

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

61

2.33 Training Assessment

61

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

Training Programs

62

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

66

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

68

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

70

2.38 Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

72

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

74

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

76

2.41 Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

78

2.42 Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

79

2.43 Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 80

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

83

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

87

2.46 Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS0

Program

89

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

90

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

91

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Motor Vehicle Stops

92

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen

Complaint Processes

93

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

Table of Contents

p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-1 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 756

the Office of State Police Affairs

94

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

94

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor 95

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

96

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 97

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

98

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

99

3.0 Executive Summary

101

Table of Contents

p. iii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-2 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 757

Executive Summary
During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been attained in all aspects of the decree as of the twelfth site visit, including the pending areas of training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a continuing focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period: 100 percent compliance with all requirements of the decree. This marks the first reporting period in which all requirements of the decree have been implemented. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
1.5.1 Training
For the last two reporting periods, the monitors noted a dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the twelfth reporting period, the Academy continues to benefit from specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in all areas of the training function were noted again this period. In fact, the Academy has improved its compliance levels in all areas this period, including the two areas in which it was found not in phase two compliance in the tenth and eleventh reports. Executive training for captains and above and evaluation of the impact of training were addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and compliance was achieved in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Training is in complete compliance with all requirements of the decree effective this reporting period. This marks the first reporting period in which all requirements of the decree have been implemented for training-related requirements.
1.5.2 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the third consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully

Executive Summary

iv

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-2 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 758

engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 306 of the 313 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 97.7 percent supervisory review rate yielded 87 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 87 instances were consent-decree related, and all but one of these errors were technical in nature, e.g. related to reporting or process, rather than constitutional errors. It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency is well along its way to that goal. The New Jersey State Police continue to subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 97.7 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 45 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of thousands1. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 45 of the 45 errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 100 percent for the supervisory review process. All of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional errors. The supervisory functions continue to be in full compliance with the requirements of the decree, the second consecutive reporting period of such compliance.
In the past two monitor’s reports, the monitors raised this issue, concerned that “no further action” classifications would lead to a problem with ensuring progressive discipline. The MAPPS unit has developed and implemented a “history” subsystem that allows supervisors to review an individual trooper’s MAPPS history in a user-friendly manner. It appears that this subsystem is being used by supervisory personnel as part of the motor vehicle stop supervisory review process (Supervisory Review of a Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings (SRMVCRs)).

1 Each motor vehicle stop is subjected to 107 quality checks by the monitors.

Executive Summary

v

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-2 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 759

An issue was noted this reporting period relating to the timeliness of management reviews of motor vehicle stop interactions, with a time-lag between event and supervisory review leading to the appearance of problems related to progressive discipline. Upon more detailed review by the monitors, the problem was not with progressive discipline, but was with a delay in supervisory review. Not all motor vehicle stops were reviewed within the State’s self-imposed two-week deadline. The monitors will continue to monitor this supervisory issue—although the State remains in compliance with the related aspects of the decree—to assess its impact on supervisory processes.
This reporting period marks a milestone for the State; 100 percent of all errors noted by the monitors this period, were first noted and corrected by supervisory personnel. A 100 percent “success rate” for any system as complex as that engaged in by the New Jersey State Police is truly remarkable.
1.5.3 MAPPS Development
Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed, allowing establishment ofappropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced this reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. As a system, MAPPS works well. It is user friendly, and continues to evolve in light of issues noted through a continuous improvement process. As it stands, MAPPS yields exceptionally meaningful data on day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police, and places the NJSP at the forefront of data-driven policing in the United States, with other agencies visiting the New Jersey State Police to review their supervisory and data management systems.
1.5.4 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for three consecutive periods.

Executive Summary

vi

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 103 PageID: 760

Independent Monitors’ Twelfth Report Period Ending March 31, 2005
1 Introduction
This document represents the twelfth “Independent Monitors’ Report” (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for the period October 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005. In order to complete the report in a timely fashion, monitoring activities were accomplished during the period May 9 through 20, 2005.
The report is organized into three sections, identified below:
• Introduction; • Compliance Assessment; and • Summary.
The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions used by the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of “compliance” are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, “Compliance Assessment,” includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the monitors and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, “Summary,” provides an overall assessment of the State’s performance for this reporting period.
1.1 Overall Status Assessment
Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.
1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment
The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree. It reports on the State’s compliance using the individual requirements of the decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using “to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop” (Decree at para 26). The following

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-1

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 103 PageID: 761

components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as “Phase I,” and “Phase II,” with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

• Selection of a random or stratified random sample; • Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every instance of selection of random samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring team while on-site.

The performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the consent decree was assessed by the monitoring team during the period ending March 31, 2005. The twelfth independent monitors’ report was submitted to the court during the month of July, 2005.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

• Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course of business1; and/or
• Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state government
during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

1 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance “special reports” prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 103 PageID: 762

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative

description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task

requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology used to assess the task,

and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to note, however, that a finding of

non-compliance does not mean the State is engaging in inappropriate behavior. It

simply means the State has not yet completed its efforts toward compliance. The

graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate

status in each compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below.

The first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first year

and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the time allowed

by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time period is represented

by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth segments represent the time

required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase I or Phase II compliance. A

vertically patterned light blue bar

indicates that compliance was achieved in the

time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow bar

indicates that compliance

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in

the opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance

with the decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the

delay may seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the decree, and

which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the State’s successful

compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or could not be monitored is

represented by a hollow bar

.

1.3.3 Standards for “Compliance”

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for “compliance” to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 4 of 103 PageID: 763

requirements of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard. This change to compliance standards is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, below.
1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Task nn 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance has not been attained (but which does not affect the State’s eventual compliance).
1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process
Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of “policy compliance:” the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational compliance—institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.
1.5 Progress toward Compliance
During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been attained in all aspects of the decree as of the twelfth site visit, including the pending areas of training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a continuing focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 5 of 103 PageID: 764

period: 100 percent compliance with all requirements of the decree. This marks the first reporting period in which all requirements of the decree have been implemented. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
1.5.1 Training
For the last two reporting periods, the monitors noted a dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the twelfth reporting period, the Academy continues to benefit from specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in all areas of the training function were noted again this period. In fact, the Academy has improved its compliance levels in all areas this period, including the two areas in which it was found not in phase two compliance in the tenth and eleventh reports. Executive training for captains and above and evaluation of the impact of training were addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and compliance was achieved in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Training is in complete compliance with all requirements of the decree effective this reporting period. This marks the first reporting period in which all requirements of the decree have been implemented for training-related requirements.
1.5.2 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the third consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 306 of the 313 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 97.7 percent supervisory review rate yielded 87 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 87 instances were consent-decree related, and all but one of these errors were technical in nature, e.g. related to reporting or process, rather than constitutional errors. It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency is well along its way to that goal. The New Jersey State Police continue to subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 6 of 103 PageID: 765

and supporting documentation and video tapes for 97.7 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 45 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of thousands2. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 45 of the 45 errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 100 percent for the supervisory review process. All of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional errors. The supervisory functions continue to be in full compliance with the requirements of the decree, the second consecutive reporting period of such compliance.
In the past two monitor’s reports, the monitors raised this issue, concerned that “no further action” classifications would lead to a problem with ensuring progressive discipline. The MAPPS unit has developed and implemented a “history” subsystem that allows supervisors to review an individual trooper’s MAPPS history in a user-friendly manner. It appears that this subsystem is being used by supervisory personnel as part of the motor vehicle stop supervisory review process (Supervisory Review of a Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings (SRMVCRs)).
An issue was noted this reporting period relating to the timeliness of management reviews of motor vehicle stop interactions, with a time-lag between event and supervisory review leading to the appearance of problems related to progressive discipline. Upon more detailed review by the monitors, the problem was not with progressive discipline, but was with a delay in supervisory review. Not all motor vehicle stops were reviewed within the State’s self-imposed two-week deadline. The monitors will continue to monitor this supervisory issue—although the State remains in compliance with the related aspects of the decree—to assess its impact on supervisory processes.
This reporting period marks a milestone for the State; 100 percent of all errors noted by the monitors this period, were first noted and corrected by supervisory personnel. A 100 percent “success rate” for any system as complex as that engaged in by the New Jersey State Police is truly remarkable.

2 Each motor vehicle stop is subjected to 107 quality checks by the monitors.
Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 7 of 103 PageID: 766
1.5.3 MAPPS Development
Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed, allowing establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced this reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. As a system, MAPPS works well. It is user friendly, and continues to evolve in light of issues noted through a continuous improvement process. As it stands, MAPPS yields exceptionally meaningful data on dayto-day operations of the New Jersey State Police, and places the NJSP at the forefront of data-driven policing in the United States, with other agencies visiting the New Jersey State Police to review their supervisory and data management systems.
1.5.4 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for three consecutive periods.
2 Assessment of Compliance
2.1 Methodology
The monitors assessed the State’s compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. “Compliance” was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).
The following sections of the twelfth Monitors’ Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the decree between May 1, 2004 and September 30, 2004.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 8 of 103 PageID: 767

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

Task 26
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology

During the twelfth site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured onsite reviews of the operations of ten New Jersey State Police Road Stations. These reviews were conducted of operations reported during the dates of May 9, 2005 through May 20, 2005, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available). The team conducted these reviews of Troops A and E, including the Troop A stations of Atlantic City Expressway, Bellmawr, Bridgeton, Buena Vista, Port Norris, Woodbine, and Woodstown. Troop E stations (Bass River, Bloomfield and Holmdel) were also reviewed. As part of this review, members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business data on 313 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 158 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team’s methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 9 of 103 PageID: 768

Data Requests
Prior to its site visits in May 2005, the monitoring team requested of the State electronic and hard-copy data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other non-electronic data requests:
 Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated poststop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drugdetection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.
 Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop “communications center call-ins” for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.
 The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.
Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop records for Troops A and E (taken from the State’s motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop “event” records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the active dates of the twelfth site visit.
Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the twelfth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.
Motor Vehicle Stops
Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical,

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 10 of 103 PageID: 769

mechanical or chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the State.

Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Twelfth Site Visit

Type of Activity Selected MVS Incidents MVS Involving Consent Search Requests MVS Involving Canine Deployment MVS Involving Use of Force Probable Cause Searches of Vehicles Probable Cause Searches of Persons

Report Reviews 313
34
23
16 21
31

Tape Reviews 158
34
11
8 15
26

Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment.
 Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports, etc.), referred to as Type I data;
 Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and
 Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.
These records indicated four events that resulted in consent search requests from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and 30 events from other stations resulting in consent search requests, for a total of 34 consent search requests.3 All

3 Two consent requests were declined by drivers during the reporting period.
Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 11 of 103 PageID: 770

incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search.
All consent searches occurring were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team4. Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 23 times during the reporting period. Reports from all 23 consent searches were reviewed by the monitoring team, and videos from 11 of those events were also reviewed by the monitoring team. Force reportedly was used by New Jersey State Police personnel in 16 motor vehicle stop incidents during the reporting period, and reports from all of these incidents were reviewed by the monitoring team. Video tapes of eight of the use of force events were reviewed by members of the monitoring team during the twelfth site visit. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
Selected motor vehicle stop incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table Two, below.
Type I Event Reviews
A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was

4 Not all consent search tapes, as some were conducted at secondary locations, such as road stations, or involved searches impossible to tape, such as unloading and reloading tractor-trailer rigs, etc.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 12 of 103 PageID: 771

doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 313 Type I reviews were conducted this period.

Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

Station
1 Atlantic City Expressway 2 Bellmawr 3 Bridgeton 4 Buena Vista 5 Port Norris 6 Woodbine 7 Woodstown 8 Bass River 9 Bloomfield 10 Holmdel 11 Other Stations

Type I Reviews
28 19 27 27 26 27 19 23 20 38 58 313

Type II Reviews
27 6 15 7 16 21 16 5 9 12 24 158

Type III Reviews
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Type II Event Review
A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 158 Type II reviews were conducted this period.
Type III Event Review
In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, were selected for review, six events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the monitoring team. Based on the State’s past

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 13 of 103 PageID: 772

performance, ten consecutive quarters in which no unreported events were discovered, no Type III reviews were conducted this reporting period.

Status. The monitoring team’s review of New Jersey State Police SOPs indicates that the agency remains in Phase I and Phase II compliance with Task 26. The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. The vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police are “non-discretionary,” e.g., searches incidental to arrest, with a total of 229 of the 252 searches of vehicles being conducted “incidental to arrest.” Of the 267 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 254 were “non-discretionary” searches incidental to arrest. The monitors continue to commend the State for improving the quality and tenor of the “average” traffic stop observed by the monitoring team during the past four reporting periods. The monitors have noted no indications of racial profiling in the data reviewed this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 27

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in ¶ 26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with ¶¶ 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 14 of 103 PageID: 773

Methodology

Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. The monitors have noted a remarkable change in the quality, frequency, and tone of supervisory review during the twelfth monitoring period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in a law enforcement procedures were effected in 306 of 313 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 97.7 percent. For comparison purposes, the supervisory review rate for the eleventh reporting period was 85 percent. More importantly, the New Jersey State Police have implemented a much different type of supervisory review process, attempting to meet the goal of having first-line (stationlevel) supervisors review all motor vehicle stops which result in a law enforcement procedure (vehicle exit, frisk, arrest, search, canine deployment, consent request, or use of force). The majority of the supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources—quality assurance reviews, OSPA reviews or other non-station sources. The vast majority of reviews conducted during the tenth, eleventh and twelfth reporting period were conducted by station-level supervisors.

Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present in 31 of 72 “critical incidents” (an incident involving a consent request, use of force, canine deployment) monitored activity this reporting period. Video tapes were reviewed by first- and second-line supervisors in 97.7 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors this period. This 97.7 percent supervisory review rate yielded only 45 instances in which New Jersey State Police personnel committed errors related to the consent decree. In each of these 45 instances, New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted these violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. As a result of this newly implemented supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 45 decree-related errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With this new system, these 45 decree-related errors were noted and corrected in “real time,” before the monitors called them to the attention of the State. The “corrected error rate” was 32.8 percent for the tenth period, and fell to 21.1 percent for the eleventh period. This period, the “corrected error rate” was zero percent, meaning all errors were corrected prior to the monitors’ site visit! Further, all but one of the errors noted by the monitoring team this period were procedural, e.g. related to reporting processes, etc, rather than constitutional.

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 15 of 103 PageID: 774

Status

A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the implemented MAPPS process indicates that the agency is in Phase I compliance with the requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. None of the incidents of the 313 reviewed included an operational error not caught and remedied by field supervisors prior to the monitoring team selecting cases for review this reporting period!

This constitutes and error rate of zero of 313 motor vehicle stop incidents, or 100 percent, well within the allowable margin of error of five percent. Compliance for this task is defined as “greater than 94 percent.” The State’s is judged to be in compliance with the requirements of this task.

The reader should note a continued quantitative and a qualitative difference in the supervisory review process. Since late in the sixth reporting period, supervisory personnel have been required to review all consent search, uses of force, and canine deployment reports. Errors in those activities continue to drop this period. In fact, the monitoring team has noted a continuation of last reporting period’s remarkable and laudable increase in supervisory review processes, and resulting performance notices— both positive and negative—based on those reviews. Several of these reviews indicated to the monitoring team that the New Jersey State Police are identifying procedural errors prior to the monitoring team’s noting them. A total of 306 MVS incidents reviewed by the monitoring team were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. Within those 306 events, the monitoring team noted 45 various errors by law enforcement personnel. New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted each of those errors prior to the monitors’ review process, and corrected all of these procedural errors prior to the monitors’ site visit.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-15

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 16 of 103 PageID: 775

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

Task 28

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 28 stipulates:
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants, which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of 34 law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the twelfth report’s operational dates. Two of these involved consent search requests that were declined, resulting in terminations of the consent search processes. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Three below. Tables Three through Five depict data from the 313 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers”

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 17 of 103 PageID: 776
depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 313 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 113 white drivers of the total of 313 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 36.2 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Three depicts eight consent requests of white drivers, twelve requests of black drivers, twelve requests of Hispanic drivers, and two requests of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, which were, subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The reader should note that the State has reduced substantially the number of consent search requests, from a high of 59 the fifth reporting period to only twelve last period, and 34 this period. As such, the numbers reported in Table Three are not statistically meaningful when reported viz a viz race and ethnicity.
All but one of the 32 consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of the consent decree5. The one improperly conducted consent was caught and corrected by supervisory personnel as it was being conducted! Obviously, this represents an improvement in performance over last period’s consent request actions.
An error rate of none of 32 consent searches constitutes zero percent, falling well within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree. The quality of these consent requests has improved dramatically, however, with the monitors finding difficulty with eight of 59 consent requests in the fifth reporting period. This reporting period, the monitors found problems with one, and this problem was actually corrected “real time,” as the consent search was being conducted, by a cell phone call between the troopers and supervisors.

5 Two drivers refused consent requests. Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 18 of 103 PageID: 777

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Table Three—Consent Request Activity

Number of Drivers
113(36.2) 115(36.7) 77(24.7)
8(2.61) 313

Number of Requests for
Search6 8 12 12 2 34

Percent Consent Request by
Race/Ethnicity 7.1 10.4 15.6 25.0 --

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 29a stipulates that:

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data
a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop; 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stop;

6 Two consent search requests were refused. Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 19 of 103 PageID: 778

3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended; 5. license number/state of stopped vehicle; 5A. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); 8A. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]); 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted; 14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges; 17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force; 18. the trooper's race and gender; and 19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.
Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State’s compliance with this task.
Status

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 20 of 103 PageID: 779

The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 313 incidents involving a poststop law enforcement activity of interest to the decree. Use of force, non-consensual searches and deployment of canines received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Four, Five and Six, below.
Use of Force
New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force 16 times during the reporting period. The use of force rate for white drivers in the sample was 9.7 percent. For black drivers in the sample, the use of force rate was 4.4 percent, and for Hispanic drivers in the sample, zero percent. Members of the monitoring team reviewed reports of all use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. All of the reports were included as part of the MVSR reporting process. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process.7 None of the use of force practices were found to be problematic.
Table Four depicts data from the 313 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 207 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 113 white drivers of the total of 313 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 36.2percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Four depicts 11 incidents of use of force against white drivers (or occupants), five incidents of use of force against black drivers (or occupants), no incident of use of force against Hispanic drivers, and no uses against force of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews. Data contained in this table were not sufficient in number to be considered statistically significant.

7 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 21 of 103 PageID: 780

Table Four: Use of Force Activity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers 113(36.2) 115(36.7) 77(24.7) 8(2.61) 313

Incidents of Use of Force 11 5 0 0 16

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
9.7 4.3 0 -na

Canine Deployments
The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 23 times during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment, and reviewed video tapes of eight canine deployments. No reporting problems were noted in any of the 23 deployments, and the video taped incidents reviewed indicated that the written reports accurately reflected actual events. All canine deployments were professionally executed and were executed for legitimate cause. The numbers of canine deployments were so small as to be statistically insignificant regarding the race of the drivers. Data contained in this table were not sufficient in number to be considered statistically significant.
Table Five depicts data from the 313 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 313 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 113 white drivers of the total of 313 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 36.2 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Five depicts five canine deployment for white drivers, eight canine deployments for black drivers, eight canine deployment for Hispanic drivers, and two canine deployments for drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews. Two of these canine deployments were for “tracking purposes,” and not of direct interest to the decree. Data contained in this table were not sufficient in number to be considered statistically significant.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 22 of 103 PageID: 781

Table Five: Canine Deployments

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 113(36.2) 115(36.7) 77(24.7) 8(2.61) 313

Canine Deployments
5 8 8 2 23

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
4.4 6.9 10.4 25.0 na

Non-Consensual Searches
Members of the New Jersey State Police conducted 252 non-consensual searches of vehicles among the 313 reports reviewed by the monitoring team during the reporting period. White drivers’ vehicles constituted 25.6 percent of the “searched population,” while black drivers’ vehicles constituted 32.9 percent, and Hispanics drivers’ vehicles constituted 20.1 percent of the searched vehicle population. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all 252 of these non-consensual searches of vehicles. None of these non-consensual searches appeared to be problematic.

Table Six depicts the results, by race/ethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 313 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. Table Six depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by race/ethnicity of the 252 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 80 white drivers were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 75 white drivers searched incidental to arrest, four subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 75 searches incidental to arrest constitute 93.8 percent of all searches of white drivers. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Of the 252 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with none that were not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 23 of 103 PageID: 782

Table Six: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of Drivers’ Vehicles, By Race of Driver

Reason for Search
Incidental to Arrest Probable Cause

White #(%) 75(93.8) 4(5.0)

Plain View Proof of Ownership
Total

1(1.25) (0) 80

Black #(%) 90(87.4) 10(9.7)

Hispanic #(%) 59(93.7) 4(6.3)

Other #(%) 5(83.3) 1(16.7)

2(1.9) 1(0) 103

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

63

6

Table Seven depicts probable cause non-consensual search-of-person activity by race, for probable cause searches, and Table Eight depicts “incidental to arrest” searches by race.

Table Seven: Probable Cause Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 113(36.2) 115(36.7) 77(24.7) 8(2.61) 313

Probable Cause Searches 4 22 5 0 31

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
3.5 19.1 6.5
---

Table Eight: Incidental to Arrest Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers
113(36.2) 115(36.7) 77(24.7)
8(2.61) 313

Searches Incidental to
Arrest 86 109 53 6 254

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
76.1 94.7 68.8 75.0
--

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 45 separate incidents in which procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 45 of these

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 24 of 103 PageID: 783

problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining prior to the monitor’s noting the behavior. An error of zero from among 313 yields an error rate of 100 percent, within the allowable margin of error agreed to by the parties. The State’s performance this period represents a drastic improvement in this task over the ninth reporting period, which showed an error rate for this task in excess of 65 percent. Undoubtedly, this improvement, is attributable to the State’s newly implemented supervisory processes.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of

Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 29b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29b stipulates that:
b. The protocols listed in ¶29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in ¶¶ 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 25 of 103 PageID: 784

The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.

The reader should also note that the data collected in the traffic stop reporting process is among the most robust in the nation. The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the State’s database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as “expeditious” implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase Il:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31, 32 and 33

Task 29c

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29c stipulates that:
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and ¶¶ 31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 26 of 103 PageID: 785

The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.

Status

Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. None of the compliance problems noted above are attributable to forms, reports or logs created in response to this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

Task 29e

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29e stipulates that:
e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the State, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 27 of 103 PageID: 786

protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

Task 30

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30 stipulates that:
30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in ¶ 29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in ¶29(a), and as revised pursuant to ¶29(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these tasks is measured under a new standard for the tenth reporting period, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 28 of 103 PageID: 787

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and control of these processes, and when recent amendments to the MVR procedures policies, SOP F-19, are fully implemented, should further improve agency performance in these areas.

For the past ten reporting periods, the State has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors’ review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 158 video recordings and documentation from 313 vehicle stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Of the 158 video recordings reviewed by the monitors, only two included an error in
call-in or documentation of a motor vehicle stop. Supervisory personnel noted and
corrected both of these failures. The monitors found no pattern that would indicate
these were intentional acts on the part of enforcement personnel. An error rate of zero incidents of 158 constitutes zero percent.8

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30a stipulates that:

8 These numbers reflect those recording failures not attributable to technical difficulties with audio or video recording devices.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 29 of 103 PageID: 788

a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent race/ethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 158 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number; 99.9 percent list the primary trooper’s badge number; 99.9 percent list the race and gender of the primary trooper; 99.9 percent list the driver’s race and gender; 99.9 percent list a reason for the stop and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this task. Of the 158 stop records reviewed by the monitoring team, two indicated that the MVR began after the trooper approached the vehicle. Both of these errors were noted by supervisory review, constituting an error rate of zero percent. The State is in compliance with this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

Task 30b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30b stipulates that: Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 30 of 103 PageID: 789

b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.
Status

Of the 252 search events reported (and reviewed by video tape), 31 involved a probable cause search, and all but five of these searches were called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. Supervisory personnel caught and corrected, as part of the routine monitoring process, all of these errors prior to the monitoring team’s notice of data pulls. This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, within the >94 percent established as the criterion for this task. This rate is a substantial reduction from the 20 percent noted for the ninth reporting period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stop activity continue to note these failures in the field. The dramatic reduction in problems with these call-ins, undoubtedly, is due to the revised supervisory review process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30c stipulates that:
c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 31 of 103 PageID: 790

summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. More than 99 percent of electronic CAD records reviewed by the monitors this reporting period were found to have “clearance codes” indicating a call in notifying the communications center of the trooper’s actions and time of clearance. Of the 158 stops reviewed by video tape, all were found to have clearance codes. The State is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30d stipulates that:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 32 of 103 PageID: 791

d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure (i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.

Methodology

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have “CAD Incident Numbers” indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 158 stops reviewed by video tape, CAD numbers were present in documentation for all video tapes reviewed, and in 99 percent of all electronic records. Overall, more than 99 percent of all records included the required CAD incident numbers.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 31 stipulates that:
31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 33 of 103 PageID: 792

complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A MVSR form was completed accurately in all 34 motor vehicle stop reports that included a consent search request. Two of the incidents involved a consent request that was denied. This constitutes a 100 percent compliance rate. In addition, the information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all cases. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

Task 31a-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information : 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 34 of 103 PageID: 793
driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search; 5. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived; 6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied: 1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search; 3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and, 6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.
Methodology

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 35 of 103 PageID: 794

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for 34 consent requests and 32 consent searches9, and reviewed video tape recordings of all motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events depicted on eight video tapes reviewed (three were not taped; two were declined) were assessed in light of the reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status

Members of the monitoring team noted only one incident in which there was a reporting or process problem with the 32 consent searches. This event involved a consent request that was made based on less than reasonable suspicion—although such suspicion could easily have been developed—and without prior approval of supervisory personnel. Supervisory personnel actually corrected this error while it was being made, via a cell phone call among the troopers and supervisory personnel. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of Non-Consensual Searches

Task 32

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
TPahsakse3I2I stipulates that:

32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident;

9 Two consent searches were refused. Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 36 of 103 PageID: 795

3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.

Of the 252 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with none. Eight were not taped, but circumstances did not reasonably allow taping of these searches. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

Task 33

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 33 stipulates that:
33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 37 of 103 PageID: 796

canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed; 5. whether an alert occurred; 6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, all 23 reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and canines to have been deployed in conformance with the requirements of procedures and the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 38 of 103 PageID: 797

Task 34a stipulates that:

34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 158 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.

Status

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 39 of 103 PageID: 798

c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.

Methodology

In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each day
of this reporting period (see above), members of the monitoring team pulled for review
a sample of 313 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the decree. These
included 313 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 158 procedures assessed by reviewing video tapes10.

Status

While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the decree, particularly stops that transition from a motor vehicle accident or motorist aid into a motor vehicle stop.

Once stops that are not “pure” motor vehicle stops, e.g., motorist’s aids and motor vehicle accidents, are removed from the sample, compliance rates for this aspect of task 34c are all within the originally established 95 percent minimum.

A review of the 158 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning “out of tape” issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units. The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem involves technical

10 All 158 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 313 MVSRs reviewed.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 40 of 103 PageID: 799

difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 158 stops reviewed via video-tape this period, 20 exhibited some form of audio difficulty. Troopers have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting no events (of 158 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. This constitutes and error rate of zero percent, within the 95 percent requirement. The State in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to ¶¶31-33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting
period indicated that 100 percent of these were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The
monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.
A review of 313 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates all reports were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 313 selected stops reviewed this quarter for evidence of reporting or procedural errors that should have

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 41 of 103 PageID: 800

been noted by supervisory personnel. The monitors also reviewed 283 MVS tapes that were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. From those 283 events, the monitors found none that exhibited any form of reporting problem not caught by supervisory review.

This constitutes and error rate of zero of 306 events reviewed by supervisory personnel or zero percent, well within the allowable five percent error rate for this task. The monitors have noted a strong improvement in the process of supervisory review of video tapes. The quality of supervisory reviews, continues to improve markedly. The monitors commend the new focus on supervision generated by the New Jersey State Police during the last two reporting periods.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:

36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 42 of 103 PageID: 801

Training for supervisory personnel regarding revisions to the procedures noted above was completed in November, 2001. The State developed, and implemented in November, 2001, a formal policy requirement regarding MVR review processes for supervisory personnel, using a structured review process that, in the opinion of the monitoring team, has drastically improved the quality of supervisory review. OSPA provides advanced training to field supervisors regarding MVR/MVSR review protocols.

During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed 306 supervisors’ MVR review reports. The quality of these reports has improved substantially. Nearly all reviews assessed this reporting period were completed using the new MAPPS performance management system. This process is a vast improvement over earlier processes. Members of the monitoring team were able to compare 306 supervisors’ reviews with actual video tapes (the same tapes reviewed by supervisors as part of their review process). Members of the monitoring team noted no reporting or procedural issues in the 306 tapes they reviewed that were missed by the supervisory cadre at the New Jersey State Police. This constitutes a change in compliance rates from 88.3 percent in the tenth quarter, to 100 percent for the twelfth reporting period!

Supervisory reviews of incidents involving two troopers indicated potential problems with the process of progressive discipline.11 The artifact of two troopers receiving
multiple instances of similar intervention processes without a progressive step-up in
discipline represents a failure rate of 4.8 percent (two of 42 troopers reviewed). This is
within the allowable five-percent error rate.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

11 One trooper received seven verbal counseling interventions for radio procedures. A second received three verbal counseling interventions for MVR issues, followed by four more MVR-related problems, without intervention. The monitors consider these errors statistically minor, given the large number of interventions processed by the State Police in a given six month period.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 43 of 103 PageID: 802

Task 37 stipulates that:

37. After conducting a review pursuant to ¶35, ¶36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in ¶29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

During the monitors’ site visits for this reporting period, the monitors noted one incident that should have been forwarded to OPS in response to the requirements of this task. This was appropriately forwarded to OPS for investigation and response. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 44 of 103 PageID: 803

38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews of referral decisions pursuant to ¶ 37 to ensure appropriate referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.

Methodology

Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Recently completed training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to “copy” to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.

Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel’s review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.

Status

During the tenth monitoring site visit, the monitors noted one event that should have been referred to OPS for investigation and response. This event was appropriately forwarded. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task. One incident was noted, during the eleventh monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS, and the referral was appropriately made. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

Task 39
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 45 of 103 PageID: 804

Task 39 stipulates that:
39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.
Methodology
Numerous changes in New Jersey State Police policies regarding this task were made in the fourth reporting period, and were fully implemented in the sixth reporting period. New Jersey State Police policies F-19 (MVR Equipment), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-31 (Consent to Search) and F-55 (Patrol Procedures) were revised in October, 2001 to reflect changes in operational practices designed to better assess New Jersey State Police patrol actions relative to prohibiting race- or ethnicity-based decision making. For example, supervisory personnel now review motor vehicle stop recordings (MVSRs) of all motor vehicle stops involving consent search requests. Supervisors also are required to routinely monitor and review, using a new, highly structured “checklist” a larger number of “routine” MVSRs, and now are required to review all consent searches, uses of force, and canine deployments engaged in by their personnel. In addition, law enforcement personnel who have exhibited problematic on-road behavior in the past are selected for enhanced monitoring through review of a larger number of MVSRs on a quarterly (and in some cases even daily) basis. The position of “road sergeant” has been implemented, thus increasing substantially the level of direct supervision of road activities. Supervisors are now required to approve all consent searches, and, where practicable, to be present when consent searches are conducted. Training in these new procedures and policies has also been provided to all supervisory personnel and troopers involved in law enforcement activities. During this reporting period, additional revisions were made to SOPs F-7, F-31 and F-55. These changes were designed to improve performance on call-ins prior to search and consent search.
In addition, attorneys from the Office of State Police Affairs have been assigned to the State Police’s five troops, for the purpose of serving as legal advisors to the troops. These attorneys also perform site visits to State Police road stations to obtain feedback from law enforcement personnel regarding training and remediation of errors in traffic stop procedures. OSPA also initiated in-field audits of all consent searches, uses of force and canine deployments, with remedial mentoring of State Police supervisors in instances in which problematic procedures are noted. OSPA has also modified, during this reporting period, the non-consensual search protocols, requiring enhanced supervisory presence at the scenes of such procedures, and also requiring supervisory approval of such procedures.
Status

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 46 of 103 PageID: 805

The Monitors selected a sample of motor vehicle stop cases all of which indicated that a supervisor was present. That sample was assessed for errors in supervisorpreventable areas of interest to the consent decree. From that sample, only 45 decreerelated errors were observed by the monitors’ video tape reviews, from a potential universe of 1,580 possible errors (ten possible errors on each of 158 stops). All of these 45 errors were caught and corrected upon supervisory review of the video tapes from the selected stops. None of these errors were related to in-field supervision.

The overall number of errors noted by the monitors is down substantially this reporting period—from over 100 in past periods, to only 45 this period. This tends to indicate that error rates for stops that have a supervisor present are generally more trouble free than error rates for past quarters.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

Task 40
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 40 stipulates that:
40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
Methodology
The ninth monitors’ report marked a milestone for the MAPPS development process. During the ninth site visit, the New Jersey State Police demonstrated to the members of the monitoring team an operational version of the MAPPS information system. For the twelfth report, the monitors viewed the system components, and used live data to

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 47 of 103 PageID: 806

ensure that the MAPPS system contained all data elements outlined by the decree. In addition, members of the monitoring team, using live data, ensured that each system capability required by the decree was available and functional in the MAPPS information system.

This reporting period, the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all, the monitors performed 1,188 separate tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems tests, the monitors used MAPPS as it would be expected to be used by supervisory and management personnel in the day-to-day processes of managing the New Jersey State Police. The results of these process tests are discussed below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51.

MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data in MAPPS, as of the monitors’ twelfth site visit, are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS. The application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities for conducting long-term analyses have now been achieved, with implementation of the “high-level” risk assessment process implemented this period.

In effect, the State has made substantial progress in bringing a functional MAPPS system on-line, and, at the time of the monitors’ site visit, the system was being used to manage the New Jersey State Police. The monitors reviewed MAPPS data regarding bench marking and high-level risk analysis functions and approved the implementation of these two functions. With completion and implementation of these two functions, MAPPS functions are in complete compliance with the requirements of the decree.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System

Task 41

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 41 requires that:
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 48 of 103 PageID: 807

a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to ¶29 and the protocols listed in ¶29of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and
c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being “narrative elements” which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, was found to be functional in the MAPPS system reviewed by the monitors. In addition, the five nonprimary requirements, identified as “narrative elements” were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors found the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways, and found the system to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required by subparagraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers are able to use these systems on a daily basis. The State continues in compliance with this task.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 49 of 103 PageID: 808

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal MAPPS Data

Task 42

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 42 requires that:

42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written. The data identified above are included in MAPPS, and are easily available, from a systems standpoint, for review by individual troopers.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts” and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43Phase 1I: 2In Co3mplia4nce 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II: Not In Compliance

Phase I Phase II

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 50 of 103 PageID: 809

Task 43 requires that:
43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29(a)(5A, 8A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in ¶41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in ¶41(b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by “count” and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (5a, 8a, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel are accessing the system on a day-today basis.
Compliance:
The State remains in compliance with this task.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 51 of 103 PageID: 810

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:

44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The State has identified the “CAD incident number” as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

Task 45

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 45 requires that:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 52 of 103 PageID: 811

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

Task 46
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 46 requires that:
46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by ¶¶48-53.
Methodology

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 53 of 103 PageID: 812

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

With implementation of the MAPPS components In January, 2004, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan. Final planning components, high-level risk analysis and benchmarking, were implemented, as planned, this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

Task 47
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 47 requires that:
47. Consistent with the requirements of ¶¶48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January, 2004. The monitors executed 1,188 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 54 of 103 PageID: 813

The monitors did note, however, one potentially troublesome characteristic of the State’s use of the MAPPS system. In instances involving 12 troopers, in which supervisors had noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, the MAPPS carried the action taken regarding the problems as “No Further Action.” The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State contends—and the monitors are willing to accept—that this is an issue of supervisory discretion and leadership, e.g., the ability to treat minor or firsttime infractions via truly verbal counseling, rather than creating a searchable “official record” in the intervention module of MAPPS of first-time or minor events.

The monitors agree with the State’s position regarding the importance of supervisory discretion in the leadership processes; however, the monitors will continue to assess MAPPS records of “Action Taken” to ensure that the necessary steps are taken by supervisors to “piece together” interventions actually labeled as “no further action” in MAPPS.

The monitors did find evidence that the State’s use of MAPPS, to document supervisory reviews of events that noted decree-related errors was acceptable. Incidents involving two troopers indicated problems with the process of progressive discipline.12 Neither of these two involved “no further action” MAPPS entries, however. In the past two monitor’s reports, the monitors raised this issue, concerned that “no further action” classifications would lead to a problem with ensuring progressive discipline. The MAPPS unit has developed and implemented a “history” subsystem that allows supervisors to review an individual trooper’s MAPPS history in a user-friendly manner; however, it appears that this subsystem is being used by supervisory personnel as part of the motor vehicle stop supervisory review process (Supervisory Review of a Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings (SRMVCRs)). The artifact of two troopers receiving multiple instances of similar intervention processes without a progressive step-up in discipline represents a failure rate of 4.8 percent (two of 42 troopers reviewed). This is within the allowable five-percent error rate.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

12 One trooper received seven verbal counseling interventions for radio procedures. A second received three verbal counseling interventions for MVR issues, followed by four more MVR-related problems, without intervention. The monitors consider these errors statistically minor, given the large number of interventions processed by the State Police in a given six month period.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 55 of 103 PageID: 814

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task 48

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 48 requires that:
48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures have been executed. The monitors executed 396 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance
Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

Task 49

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 49 requires that:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 56 of 103 PageID: 815

49. To the extent reflected in ¶43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in ¶73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these have been executed. The monitors executed 396 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 50 requires that:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 57 of 103 PageID: 816

50. To the extent reflected in ¶43, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see ¶¶54-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

During the twelfth site visit, the monitors reviewed the benchmarking processes available in MAPPS and reviewed trend analysis capabilities. The monitors also reviewed official documents regarding organizational use of benchmarking and trend analysis processes. It is clear that the requirements of the decree for comparison of stop data by race, ethnicity, and by activity are being met by the existing system, and that decisions are being made based on trend analysis and benchmarking issue analysis.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 51

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 51 requires that: Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 58 of 103 PageID: 817

51. To the extent reflected in ¶43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and
subunits.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

During the twelfth site visit, the monitors reviewed the trend analysis processes available in MAPPS and reviewed trend analysis capabilities. The monitors also reviewed official documents regarding organizational use of benchmarking and trend analysis processes. It is clear that the requirements of the decree for comparison of stop data by race, ethnicity, and by activity are being met by the existing system, and that decisions are being made based on trend analysis and benchmarking issue analysis.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 59 of 103 PageID: 818

During the twelfth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted several instances of supervisory personnel issuing “performance notices” or other interventions for actions by taken by division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are beginning to carefully review trooper activity and to issue performance notices or other “interventions” when inappropriate behavior occurs. In addition, the “knowable error rate” for supervisory review has begun to decline after a period of rising rates, from 11.2 percent during the seventh period to 13.3 percent for the eighth period, to 26.4 percent for the ninth quarter. The tenth quarter’s “knowable error rate” was 19.8. The “knowable error rate” for the eleventh and twelfth reporting periods was less than five percent. The monitors commend the State and the supervisory and management personnel at the New Jersey State Police for a marked and impressive improvement in the level and quality of supervisory review evidenced during this reporting period. The monitors continue to express concern about the need to review troopers’ MAPPS history prior to completing a supervisory intervention. See sections 2.13 and 2.16, above, for additional comments relative to supervisor review.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 53 stipulates that:

53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to ¶ 73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.

Status

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 60 of 103 PageID: 819

The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two misconduct investigations in a two-year period, but additional work is pending regarding protocols for and assessment of supervisory response to this section. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During the tenth reporting period, the State had assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards. Data indicate that these reviews are being conducted as required by the decree. Evidence was also noted within MAPPS that indicates that these reviews are being conducted and documented.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 54 stipulates that:
54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.
Methodology

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-60

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 61 of 103 PageID: 820

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition with the Court for release from most of the requirements of the consent decree related to OPS. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the monitors will discontinue monitoring activities for OPS requirements as of this reporting period, with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90).

Task 87, which requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens’ complaints within 120 days, was evaluated by reviewing the “120-day Report,” an OPS-generated, “normal course of business” report developed to monitor overdue cases and prevent an additional case backlog. Based on the 120-day Report, the State remains in compliance with this task.

Task 90, which requires imposition of appropriate discipline in Consultation with MAPPS, was evaluated by reviewing “course of business” documents related to the OPS review of sustained OPS investigations, executive-level decisions regarding discipline, and the existence in MAPPS of records reflecting discipline. The State is judged to be in Phase I and Phase II compliance with the requirements of Task 90.

2.33 Training Assessment
At the completion of the twelfth site visit it was determined that The Academy had attained compliance in all training tasks. This includes tasks 93 through 109.
The Superintendent and the command staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to insuring adequate staffing with qualified personnel for the New Jersey State Police Academy. The Academy commandant and all his personnel continue to provide innovative, high-quality training utilizing each phase of the training cycle.
Actions noted during the monitors’ twelfth site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 62 of 103 PageID: 821

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

Task 93 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 93 stipulates that:
93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation regarding the task.
Status
Task 93 enumerates the eight areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. Each area will be reviewed with further details referenced in subsequent tasks that address each area of responsibility more specifically.
Ensure Quality Training for all State Troopers

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 63 of 103 PageID: 822

To ensure quality oversight for training requires sufficient staff that are competent to perform the functions assigned to them and who have the resources necessary to perform those functions. At the present time, the table of organization indicates 58 sworn personnel, ten full-time civilian personnel, eight temporary personnel, five acting positions, and seven vacant positions (six troopers and one sergeant). Various units at the Academy are using interns to assist with manpower needs and this has proven to be a highly successful strategy. Several interns have been hired as temporary or fulltime permanent staff. Two positions have been transferred out of the Academy. A discussion was held with the Major in the Administrative Section of the NJSP about how this might impact on attracting and retaining quality staff, and diminish the promotion capability within the Academy. The Major was very aware of these possibilities and is monitoring the situation.
Presently, the Academy has fully competent staff in its various units and their performance is exemplary. They are focused on producing a continuously improving product and are doing so in increasingly creative and innovative ways.
The implementation phase of the training cycle was successfully demonstrated during this site visit for all tasks related to training. The Research and Innovation Unit (R and I) analyzed the data provided to them by the Executive Development Training Unit, the In-Service Unit, and the Pre-Service Unit staff for the trainings that they conducted. R and I staff provided a comprehensive report of the findings that demonstrates a clear understanding of measuring field implementation related to the information and skills taught in the various classes.
It is evident that Academy staff understands, and is able to utilize all phases of the training cycle successfully, and are committed to producing only the highest quality products and services.
Curriculum for Training State Police Recruits;
The Division is focused upon attracting a diverse group of committed candidates who are prepared to complete the Academy training. A number of assessments addressing the many factors that impact on attracting and retaining men and women to the NJSP Academy are in progress. Since the previous site visit, the following initiatives have been implemented in the Pre-Services Unit:
• The Research/Innovation Unit has developed a recruit test reporting procedure, and will conduct a program evaluation of the recruit program to determine costs and benefits and make recommendations.
• A needs assessment was conducted with the coaches. The major finding was that more focus was needed on producing better prepared entry-level road

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 64 of 103 PageID: 823

troopers as opposed to well-trained recruits. Appropriate changes were made in light of this information.
• The Physical Training Program is being audited to ensure that it properly links the Division’s training goals with the incoming recruit’s physical abilities.
• The recruit curriculum has been completely reviewed and major revisions have been implemented based on that review.
• A total of 69 lesson plans have been through the complete revision process.
• Approximately 55 lesson plans need minimal revisions.
• A peer-mentoring program has been implemented.
• A twelve-hour Academy Day was just conducted for all recruit candidates to familiarize them with the facility and the daily routine. Ten outstanding members of the current recruit classes were available and each was assigned to 18-20 of the attending candidates to answer questions. At the end of the day the 20 candidates identified as not having computers or e-mail accounts spent an additional two hours with the Technology Unit director learning how to use a computer, having a Yahoo e-mail account started for them, and learning how to use public library computers or being allowed to come back and use Academy computers to access the electronic bulletin board.
• An E-learning course and an electronic bulletin board has been added to the NJSP website. Candidates will go through the course after they attend Academy Awareness Day, and there are two surveys they will complete at the end of the course. On the site they can view photos depicting Academy life, and they can ask questions that will be answered by Academy staff via e-mail.
Provide Training for Academy Instructors
The Academy provides a comprehensive Instructor Training Course (ITC) to qualify troopers as instructors, and has quality oversight processes in place to insure that trainer records are audited annually. The ITC course was recently revised to include the new concepts that are integral to measuring field implementation of training. As new competencies are required of instructors, the ITC course will be revised to ensure that instructors remain current. Staff development is also a focus now and sending staff to external training venues for relevant training is being implemented.
Select and Train State Trooper Coaches

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 65 of 103 PageID: 824

A new coordinator has been assigned to oversee the coach program and a complete review of the program is in progress. All files have been reviewed and the computerized data management system is operational. It is being refined with the assistance of the NJSP technology office to more completely support the services provided by this program. A program is being contemplated that would allow Trooper coaches to attend the Instructor Training Course to assist them in their responsibility of training probationary troopers.
Approve and Supervise all Post-Academy Training
A process is in place to identify all training that troopers receive in workshops, conferences, and other venues external to the New Jersey State Police. The next step will be to evaluate the worth of these courses.
Post-Academy training provided directly through the Academy is coordinated through the In-Service Unit and the Advanced Training Unit. Regional training staff is in place in each troop to provide quality oversight for training conducted by instructors outside the Academy. Quality oversight systems are in place to assure that all personnel attend mandated training or are held accountable if they have no legitimate excuse for not attending.
Post-Academy Training Instructors
The Academy has identified all troopers providing training outside the Academy but within the Division and developed a Master Trainers’ List. All instructors are required to complete the MOI/ITC training, and any instructional personnel teaching a consent decree-related course must have a four-year college degree. Meaningful reviews are completed on trainers on a regular basis and documentation is maintained.
Procedures for Evaluating Training
This requirement includes an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught.
The Academy successfully evaluates the content and the quality of instruction. Access oversight to all curricula is controlled by the Technology Unit at the Academy with varying levels of access for personnel. A thorough review process for any newly developed lesson plan is in place insuring that the content and delivery techniques meet the standards. The process for receiving evaluation forms at the completion of each training session requires that each participant hand in a completed evaluation prior to receiving the test required for completion of the training.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 66 of 103 PageID: 825

The various data gathering measures and analyses to demonstrate the Academy’s ability to measure implementation are discussed in detail under tasks 100, 101, 105, and 106.

Status

The State is judged to be in full compliance with this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In compliance

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

Task 97 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 97 stipulates that:
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.

Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Training Staff
At the present level of course development, training delivery, evaluation, and quality oversight the staffing levels for the Academy appears to be adequate. Obviously, the level of staffing must be re-evaluated on a regular basis to be sure that it keeps pace with added training needs and responsibilities. The Academy environment is professional; a strong sense of teamwork is evident, and the staff has resources and manpower to successfully achieve their goals.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 67 of 103 PageID: 826

Members of the NJSP are recognizing the new level of professionalism and enthusiasm demonstrated by Academy staff related to their work environment and the projects they are developing. The quality of the products and services the Academy staff deliver are setting new benchmarks for the law enforcement profession, especially in the areas of research, integrating curricula and measuring implementation.
The Academy is having no difficulty in attracting highly qualified staff when the need arises. The Academy is also involved in career planning and advancement within the Academy environment. Staff members are indicating a desire to move between the various units to more fully develop the skills required to fulfill all phases of the training cycle. Members of the command staff are voicing an understanding and recognition that specialized skills are now necessary for Academy staff to perform the duties and responsibilities of providing training based upon utilization of the training cycle.

Post-Academy Staff

Post-Academy trooper training staff falls into one of two categories:

• Trainers who are Academy staff and who provide instruction in courses that are not part of the recruit training, and are included in the data provided above under the heading “Academy Staff;” and
• Trainers who work in specialized units in the Division who are providing training. They are training because they are subject matter experts so they do not require special motivation to apply as trainers.

Trooper Coach Staff

The recruiting process demonstrates that adequate numbers of troopers are applying for coaching positions. Based upon their performance the Trooper Coaches receive extra points on their resumes, thus helping them when they apply for future positions within the Division. This incentive, and the recognized value of this program are strong motivating factors in attracting qualified troopers to apply for this duty.

Thirty-eight new coaches were selected and trained to work with the recruits who are about to graduate.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 68 of 103 PageID: 827

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

Task 98 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Trainers
The selection criteria for Academy trainers are:
• Five years experience as a trooper; • Bachelor’s degree; • Resume; • ITC or MOI; • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; and • Continuous meaningful review.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 69 of 103 PageID: 828

Documentation in the trainers’ files demonstrates that the criteria are being met. Annual audits by Academy staff are in place to be sure that trainers’ records are current and that annual meaningful reviews are conducted.
Post-Academy Trainers
All Post-Academy trooper trainers who are not full-time Academy staff have been identified since the ninth reporting period. Selection criteria for trooper trainers in operational or specialized units are as follows:
• Resume; • ITC or MOI training; • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; • Bi-annual meaningful review; and • Bachelor’s degree if teaching any consent decree mandated subjects.
The list of criteria noted in the last sentence of this consent task requires that documentation for each trainer be collected and that oversight management of the same be identified. These data are available as follows:
• The ACTS database lists all training that the trooper has received since joining the New Jersey State Police.
• A meaningful review is conducted prior to a trooper-trainer conducting training. The results of this review are kept on file in the Commandant’s office.
• The Academy has compiled a Master Trainers’ List that indicates whether the trooper-trainer has a degree or not.
• The Academy staff chooses trainers for the consent decree courses and reviews the list to be sure that the trainer has a four-year college degree.
Oversight processes are in place to address this issue and the Commandant continues to refine these processes to ensure a high level of quality oversight.
Trooper Coaches
Selection criteria for trooper coach are as follows:
• Two years of service as a trooper; • Currently assigned to operations; • Resume; • Supervisory evaluations; • Passing score on the oral boards;

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 70 of 103 PageID: 829

• Meaningful review; and • C20 compliance.

These criteria are being met and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy. The files are audited at appropriate intervals by Academy staff.

Status

Academy Personnel Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Post Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coach Personnel In Compliance In Compliance

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

Task 99 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 99 stipulates that:
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Instructors

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 71 of 103 PageID: 830

Training requirements for Academy instructors are as follows:
• Core competencies must be met; • The 80-hour instructor training course must be completed; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; • Annual meaningful reviews must meet the standard; • Course evaluations must meet the standard; and • Re-certification must be maintained.
Status
All Academy instructors meet the requirements. Documentation is on file, and was reviewed by members of the monitoring team.
Post-Academy Instructors
Training requirements for Post-Academy instructors are as follows:
• Core competencies must be met; • The 80-hour instructor training course must be completed; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; • Bi-annual meaningful reviews must meet the standard; • Course evaluations must meet the standard; and • Re-certification must be maintained.
Status
All Post-Academy instructors meet the requirements. Documentation is on file.
Trooper Coach
Training requirements for Trooper Coaches are as follows:
• Core competencies must be met; • Completion of the 3-day Trooper Coach Training and Evaluation Course; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; and • Completion of a refresher course for an incumbent coach.
Status
All Trooper Coaches meet the requirements. Documentation is on file.
Compliance:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-71

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 72 of 103 PageID: 831

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Cultural Awareness
2004 Annual In-Service
Implementation Phase
The 2004 annual in-service training included an “integrated” cultural diversity component, similar to many university-based concepts of “across the curriculum” education. Members of the monitoring team had previously reviewed the proposed

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 73 of 103 PageID: 832

curriculum and approved it. A member of the monitoring team reviewed the delivery of the training to ensure that it met the requirements of the planned and approved curriculum.
2005 Annual In-Service
Assessment
Assessment for the 2005 course has been completed. Assessment data is collected in the following manner:
• Evaluations from 2004 mandated training; • Interviews with participants in the 2004 trainings; • Shotgun e-mails and surveys to specific personnel such as OPS, OSPA; • Anecdotal information gained in conversations with personnel throughout the
organization; • Anecdotal information gathered from the personnel attending other courses
conducted in the past year; • Focus groups with representatives from within the organization and from the
OSPAs on an as need basis; • Visits and phone calls to other police agencies to assess the types of training and
topics being addressed.
Development
Academy staff was engaged in this phase during the site visit. There is a focus on increasing expertise, promoting self-responsibility, planning for career development, and reinforcing the mission and core values of the organization. Discussions centered on developing values-laden training, a formal mentoring program, setting personal and professional goals and objectives, and applying the training cycle to problem-solving in the field. The completed curriculum will be provided to the monitoring team for approval before the delivery of training.
Delivery
Training will be scheduled for late September and early October of 2005. This will be a one-day training held at regional locations and will integrate cultural awareness, leadership, ethics, and search and seizure.
Evaluation
The test questions will be linked to the learning objectives, and evaluated by the R and I process.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 74 of 103 PageID: 833

Implementation

Implementation measures for the 2005 in-service will be developed simultaneously with the learning objectives.

Documentation

Documentation is in compliance with standards.

Status:

Academy staff was in the development phase for this task during this site visit. The State remains in compliance with this task based on past performance and current levels of planning.

Cultural Diversity

Ethics

Leadership

Phase I: Phase II:

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the non-discrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdiction-related training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.
Methodology

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 75 of 103 PageID: 834
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation.
Fourth Amendment In-Service Training
2004 Annual In-Service
Implementation Phase
The 2004 annual in-service training included an “integrated” Fourth Amendment component, similar to many university-based concepts of “across the curriculum” education. Members of the monitoring team had previously reviewed the proposed curriculum and approved it. A member of the monitoring team reviewed the delivery of the training to ensure that it met the requirements of the planned and approved curriculum.
2005 Annual In-Service
Assessment
Assessments are conducted using the following:
• 2004 In-Service critique analysis; • Field Operations requests submitted through the training officers and focus
group members; • Mobile Video Recorder reviews; • Field Operations concerns; • OPS concerns; • Investigative concerns; • Office of Professional Standards findings, requests, and recommendations; • New case law.
Development
The curriculum for this course is currently being developed for the 2005 in-service. It will be provided to the monitoring team for review and approval prior to the delivery of training.
Delivery

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 76 of 103 PageID: 835

Training will be scheduled for late September and early October of 2005. This will be a one-day training held at regional locations and will integrate cultural awareness, leadership, ethics, and search and seizure.

Evaluation

The test questions will be linked to the learning objectives.

Implementation

Implementation measures for the 2005 in-service will be developed simultaneously with the learning objectives.

Documentation

Documentation is in compliance with standards.

Status

Academy staff was in the development phase for this task during this site visit. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task based on past performance and current status in the planning process.

Fourth Amendment Recruit Training

Scenarios have been implemented within the Academy recruit training curriculum to provide increased experiential scenarios to recruits, and a number of the scenarios relate to search and seizure incidents.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

Task 102 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 77 of 103 PageID: 836

Task 102 stipulates that:
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.

Methodology

A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation.

Status

The State has developed a strong response to all the responsibilities listed in the consent decree for this task, and the Academy personnel tasked with coordinating this program continue to revise and refine their oversight capabilities as new issues arise and new means of gaining oversight information are developed. Currently, the NJSP technology unit and the Academy technology unit are about to launch a revised coach website and an electronic data management system for this program.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 78 of 103 PageID: 837

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 103 stipulates that:
103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.

Methodology
The monitoring team spoke with the Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed supporting documentation.
Status
The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent decree-related tasks are handled by notification of specific Division personnel at the quarterly Training Committee meetings and through IOCs. This is a comprehensive oversight process. To be certain that the process is functioning as intended requires a regularly scheduled audit of the documentation at the section level to be sure that all “read and sign documentation” is complete. Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 79 of 103 PageID: 838

Phase II: In Compliance

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 104 stipulates that:
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed the documentation provided.
Status
The following systems insure that the Academy can identify training needs and evaluate the effectiveness of training provided:
• A Training Committee composed of key personnel representing the various sections and bureaus of the NJSP is a key conduit in obtaining the data required by this task. Oversight for much of the activity conducted by regional training staff is possible because of this committee.
• Mandatory quarterly Training Committee meetings are scheduled. • Teleconferencing meetings have been utilized as needed to reduce the loss of
manpower hours to travel to the Academy. • Regional training staff are in place at each troop to help identify training
needs as they arise, and to relay this information to the Academy. • The Academy conducts surveys to identify training needs throughout the
agency as needed. • The New Jersey State Police intranet provides a means for any member of
the organization to send suggestions for training to the Academy.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 80 of 103 PageID: 839

The Academy has developed a comprehensive process with many access points for identifying the training needs in the organization.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 105 stipulates that:
105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in ¶¶100 and 101) shall address effective supervisory techniques to promote police integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided.
Status
In May 2003, when the Academy’s Executive Staff Development Unit (EDTU) was formed, oversight responsibility for this task was assigned to this unit, and one team member was assigned primary oversight responsibility for this task. Currently there is one 80-hour basic course for new sergeants, and one course for those promoted to sergeant first class.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 81 of 103 PageID: 840

Sergeant’s Basic Course
A new staff member has assumed responsibility for this course and it is being completely re-evaluated for content, length, methods of delivery, and the rank of personnel who should attend.
All newly promoted personnel are attending within the six-month limit after promotion. Currently the focus is shifting to requiring attendance for those who are eligible for promotion and allowing attendance for troopers who demonstrate outstanding performance.
Assessment
Among the sources of data used to refine and improve this course are the following:
• Participant evaluations from each session; • Evaluation data gathered from participants in the lieutenants’ course; • Data from the leadership survey conducted by EDTU; • Anecdotal data gathered through conversations with Division personnel; • Training committee recommendations; and • MAPPS data related to supervisory issues.
Data received indicate a low score in the area of team building. This will be a major focus of the curriculum revision.
Development
The current curriculum may be modified after the completion of the assessment. The curriculum will be provided to the monitoring team for review and approval prior to delivery.
Delivery
Delivery methods will be assessed for effectiveness during the assessment.
Evaluation
A pretest is now given prior to the beginning of the training. The test is repeated at the conclusion of the training and is demonstrating improved understanding of the material presented.
All participants complete the new course evaluation form developed by the Academy.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 82 of 103 PageID: 841

Implementation
The 2004 annual Basic Sergeant’s training included presentation of a curriculum previously approved by the monitors. A member of the monitoring team reviewed the delivery of the training to ensure that it met the requirements of the planned and approved curriculum.
Status
The course meets the requirements of the decree and demonstrates an understanding of all phases of the training cycle.
Sergeant First Class Course
This course is titled the Mid-Level Manager’s Course.
Assessment
On a continuous basis the course is assessed utilizing the following:
• Course critiques; • Course testing data; • MAPPS data; • Trend analyses; • Training committee feedback; • Field requests through the intranet; • Anecdotal feedback.
Development
Modifications to the course are on-going based upon assessment and evaluation data.
Delivery
All personnel with this rank have been trained. This course will be opened to personnel from outside police agencies.
Evaluation
A pretest is now given prior to the beginning of the training. The test is repeated at the conclusion of the training and is demonstrating improved understanding of the material presented. Participants complete the new evaluation form developed by the Academy.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 83 of 103 PageID: 842

Implementation

The 2004 annual SFC’s training included presentation of a curriculum previously approved by the monitors. A member of the monitoring team reviewed the delivery of the training to ensure that it met the requirements of the planned and approved curriculum.

Status

The course meets the requirements of the decree and demonstrates the understanding of the training cycle. The results from the implementation plan will be available on or before the next site visit.

Annual Supervisory/Leadership Training

Status

The annual leadership training for supervisors has been integrated into the annual mandated training for all personnel (task 100). In addition, the supervisory courses provided to sergeants have comprehensive blocks of training on leadership and ethics.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

Task 106 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:
106. The State shall design and implement postacademy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 84 of 103 PageID: 843

trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within six months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation.
Lieutenants’ Course
This course is held off-site and includes 3-days in class at Princeton University, and a two-day leadership-immersion experience conducted at sites on the Gettysburg Battleground.
Assessment Phase
Internal and external sources were utilized to complete the needs assessment:
• Previous course critiques; • Interviews with New Jersey State Police personnel; • Anecdotal information; • Attendance at the Bi-monthly station commanders’ meeting; • Discussion with, visits to, or review of training materials from the following
organizations: o United States Marine Corps o Merck Pharmaceuticals o Northwestern University School of Police Staff and Command o Northwestern University Executive Development Program o New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police o Penn State University POLEX Course o FBI Leadership and Management Seminar o DEA Group Supervisors Course o Johnson and Johnson School of Personal and Professional Development o Columbia Business School, “Executive Development Program: The Transition to General Manager,” and the Columbia Senior Executive Program
Development Phase
This 5-day course includes the following core group of topics: • Communication skills; • Team building;

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 85 of 103 PageID: 844

• Strategic planning; • Project management; • Conflict/Performance management; • Risk management; • Challenging the organizational culture; • Leadership/Management styles; • Motivation; • Decision-making/Problem solving; • Mastering change; • Situational leadership; and • Emotional intelligence.
Delivery Phase
The teaching methods include the following:
• Lecture; • Group work to apply principles; • Hands-on use of computers to apply techniques associated with technical skills; • Self-assessment instruments; • Use of a pre-arrival package including a book about the Gettysburg battle that
each participant can read to prepare for the course; and • Use of video and power-point presentations.
Evaluation Phase
Participants complete the following:
• A pre-test and a post-test; • The completion of a power-point presentation that applies information they
learned during the course; • A plan for a change they intend to implement in the field; and • Completion of the course evaluation form.
Implementation Phase
The 2004 annual lieutenant’s training included presentation of a curriculum previously approved by the monitors. A member of the monitoring team reviewed the delivery of the training to ensure that it met the requirements of the planned and approved curriculum.
Documentation Phase

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 86 of 103 PageID: 845

The EDTU staff provides thorough documentation presented in a very professional format.

Status

All newly promoted lieutenants have attended the course. Sergeants First Class who are acting in lieutenant’s positions are now being invited to attend prior to promotion. Personnel from outside agencies at the rank of sergeant or lieutenant can attend as space allows.

Captains’ Course

The EDTU developed a course to address the training needs of those advancing to the ranks of captain, major, and lieutenant colonel.

Assessment

The EDTU completed a thorough needs assessment.

Development

The topics addressed include the following:
• Module I—Know and Improve Yourself 5 hours o Block 1—Self Assessment o Block 2—The Leadership Clinic: An Introduction
• Module II—Know and Improve Your Command 13 hours o Know What to Expect From Your Mid-Level Managers; Know What They Expect From You o Conflict Resolution/Mediation—Getting to Yes o Labor Relations o Mentor Replacements/Develop Subordinates/Portfolio Development o Mid-Level Management Philosophy—Servant Leadership The Business End of Things
o • Module III—Know the Division of State Police 6 hours
o Budget Operations o Fiscal Bureau o Human Resource Management Bureau o Information Technology Bureau • Module IV—Improve the Division of State Police 8 hours o The Division Planning Model—An Unveiling—Strategic Planning o The Executive Level Trooper—Planning and Achieving

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 87 of 103 PageID: 846

Delivery
The training modules are presented over a period of months, and some of them require work to be completed by the attendees between sessions. Adult-based learning techniques and group work are utilized.
Members of the monitoring team attended two 8-hour sessions of the strategic planning in module IV prior to this site visit.
The first eight-hour session included information on how to do strategic planning with participants creating a mission, vision, goals, and objectives. Each person then had one week to develop a draft strategic plan for their area of responsibility. This was done electronically using a new e-learning platform developed by the Academy technology unit.
The second eight-hour session consisted of each participant presenting their strategic plan to the entire group with discussion and some critique.
Evaluation
A test for content was completed. The course evaluation forms were unanimously positive regarding the content and delivery.
Implementation
These plans will be refined and presented to supervisors within specified time-frames, and each person will be held accountable for implementing their approved plan by the Office of Strategic Initiatives within the NJSP.

Captains and Above Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 88 of 103 PageID: 847

Task 107 stipulates that:

107. The State shall design and implement postacademy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for developing and delivering this training, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.

Status

The Academy has demonstrated a high degree of commitment and skill in providing the required quality oversight for all areas of training.

The Academy is conducting a needs assessment to identify all training previously being presented outside the oversight function of the Academy, to identify specialty areas/special training needs, and to identify and determine the qualifications of instructors providing specialized training. The Master Trainers’ List has been analyzed and updated, and a re-certification program for all instructors is underway. MAPPS data are being used to identify any trends requiring specialized training. Processes are in place to identify and track on training that troopers receive outside of the Academy and the Division.

Though it will require some time to thoroughly evaluate the scope of this issue, the Academy demonstrates a clear understanding of the need, an ability to use a comprehensive process to address this issue, and has begun to gather the necessary data to maintain compliance with the broadest interpretation of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 89 of 103 PageID: 848

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

Task 108 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 108 stipulates that:
108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information. Methodology
Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
The Technology and Administrative Support Unit staff continue to address the program automation needs for the various Academy units. Since the last site visit, the following changes have occurred:
• The NJSP Academy’s Technology Unit has taken the lead in implementing several of the platforms included in the new Geo Learning Software purchased by the State for all its agencies.
• A project manager has been hired by the company that developed the software to work with NJSP staff in the Technology Unit.
• The six-digit sign-in code to access programs in being customized to accept the four-digit badge number of each trooper as the access code.
• On-line registration and testing is being implemented for all training. • An on-line course was developed for recruit candidates to complete. • On-line training for annually mandated domestic violence training is in
progress • Mandated consent decree training will be videotaped and placed on-line
so those who miss the training can access it electronically and be tested electronically at their worksite.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 90 of 103 PageID: 849

• An electronic bulletin board was established for recruit candidates to ask
questions and receive answers electronically prior to starting at the
Academy. • The captain, major, and lt. colonels developed their strategic plans
electronically using this system. • All Academy training records will be managed with this system.

Status

There are still platforms in this program that have not been turned on yet because each platform is being phased in sequentially. The NJSP Academy is leading the way in demonstrating how the program can assist personnel in managing their responsibilities at every level in the organization.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 109 stipulates that:
109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy personnel responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 91 of 103 PageID: 850

The new Geo Learning electronic program is allowing the Academy to automate all its functions. This capability includes the oversight and management of all training records and trooper coach materials.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 110 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State’s responses to the requirements of the decree, and/or have queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the State’s response to the decree.
Status

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-91

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 92 of 103 PageID: 851

Based on the monitoring team’s review of work product, and information obtained during the process of implementing the twelfth site visit, it is clear to the members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task. All duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the twelfth site visit, upon final implementation of the MAPPS processes for long-term trend analysis and benchmarking. The office provides coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice, and the office is headed by an Assistant AG. The office routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations, and routinely audits performance on MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site reviews, basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team, with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The mechanism and duty assignments exist to complete the duties of the office as soon as practicable.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 111 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 111 stipulates that:
111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.
Methodology
The monitors have reviewed data provided by the State regarding this task, and find the State continues to be in compliance.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-92

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 93 of 103 PageID: 852

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

Task 112 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 112 stipulates that:

112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by ¶62; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.

Methodology

Data regarding task 112, intakes, disposition and discipline, indicate that the State continues to perform this task in a satisfactory manner.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-93

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 94 of 103 PageID: 853

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 113 stipulates that:

113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State Police Affairs during the course of the site visit during the week of May 19th, 2003.

Status

Based on the team’s observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task 114 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 114 stipulates that:
114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-94

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 95 of 103 PageID: 854

enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops (by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions (including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.

Methodology

The State has produced its latest “Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data,” in response to this provision of the decree.

Status

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 115 stipulates that:
115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-95

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 96 of 103 PageID: 855

Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000.
Status
The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

Task 118 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and nonprivileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-96

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 97 of 103 PageID: 856

addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access while onsite with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment. Aspects of site visits related to OSPA coordination and organization are superior, with State activity related to this site visit being the best organized and coordinated to date.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 122 stipulates that:

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-97

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 98 of 103 PageID: 857

122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every six months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State’s submission filed by the State in response to this task. The report’s format has been modified to a more readable and usable format for this reporting period.

Status

The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitors, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:

123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-98

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 99 of 103 PageID: 858

the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents, records, recordings and other information during the course of the team’s site visit during October, 2003.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

Task 124 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 124 stipulates that:

124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State staff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall,

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-99

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 100 of 103 PageID: 859

unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-100

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 101 of 103 PageID: 860

3.0 Executive Summary
During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress toward compliance in several areas, including training; supervision; development of a MAPPS performance management system; and inspections, audit and quality control. Compliance levels have been attained in all aspects of the decree as of the twelfth site visit, including the pending areas of training, supervision, MAPPS and quality control. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a continuing focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period: 100 percent compliance with all requirements of the decree. This marks the first reporting period in which all requirements of the decree have been implemented. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
1.5.5 Training
For the last two reporting periods, the monitors noted a dramatic and remarkable improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the twelfth reporting period, the Academy continues to benefit from specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in all areas of the training function were noted again this period. In fact, the Academy has improved its compliance levels in all areas this period, including the two areas in which it was found not in phase two compliance in the tenth and eleventh reports. Executive training for captains and above and evaluation of the impact of training were addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and compliance was achieved in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to and interest in the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Training is in complete compliance with all requirements of the decree effective this reporting period. This marks the first reporting period in which all requirements of the decree have been implemented for training-related requirements.
1.5.6 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the third consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-101

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 102 of 103 PageID: 861

engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 306 of the 313 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 97.7 percent supervisory review rate yielded 87 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Not all of these 87 instances were consent-decree related, and all but one of these errors were technical in nature, e.g. related to reporting or process, rather than constitutional errors. It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency is well along its way to that goal. The New Jersey State Police continue to subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 97.7 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to and interest in the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team.

New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 45 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of thousands13. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 45 of the 45 errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 100 percent for the supervisory review process. All of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional errors. The supervisory functions continue to be in full compliance with the requirements of the decree, the second consecutive reporting period of such compliance.

In the past two monitor’s reports, the monitors raised this issue, concerned that “no further action” classifications would lead to a problem with ensuring progressive discipline. The MAPPS unit has developed and implemented a “history” subsystem that allows supervisors to review an individual trooper’s MAPPS history in a user-friendly manner. It appears that this subsystem is being used by supervisory personnel as part of the motor vehicle stop supervisory review process (Supervisory Review of a Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings (SRMVCRs)).

An issue was noted this reporting period relating to the timeliness of management reviews of motor vehicle stop interactions, with a time-lag between event and

13 Each motor vehicle stop is subjected to 107 quality checks by the monitors.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-102

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 65-3 Filed 07/12/05 Page 103 of 103 PageID: 862
supervisory review leading to the appearance of problems related to progressive discipline. Upon more detailed review by the monitors, the problem was not with progressive discipline, but was with a delay in supervisory review. Not all motor vehicle stops were reviewed within the State’s self-imposed two-week deadline. The monitors will continue to monitor this supervisory issue—although the State remains in compliance with the related aspects of the decree—to assess its impact on supervisory processes.
This reporting period marks a milestone for the State; 100 percent of all errors noted by the monitors this period, were first noted and corrected by supervisory personnel. A 100 percent “success rate” for any system as complex as that engaged in by the New Jersey State Police is truly remarkable.
1.5.7 MAPPS Development
Strong progress continues to be made with the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed, allowing establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced this reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. As a system, MAPPS works well. It is user friendly, and continues to evolve in light of issues noted through a continuous improvement process. As it stands, MAPPS yields exceptionally meaningful data on day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police, and places the NJSP at the forefront of data-driven policing in the United States, with other agencies visiting the New Jersey State Police to review their supervisory and data management systems.
1.5.8 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for three consecutive periods.

Twelfth Independent Monitors’ Draft Report

Page-103

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-2 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 873
Monitors’ Thirteenth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
December, 2005

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-3 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 874

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

iv

1 Introduction

1

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

1

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Progress toward Compliance

4

2 Assessment of Compliance

7

2.1 Methodology

7

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

8

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

13

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

16

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

18

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

27

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 32

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

35

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

36

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

37

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

38

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 39

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

41

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

42

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions 43

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 44

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

44

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System 45

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal

MAPPS Data

47

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts”

47

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

49

Table of Contents

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-3 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 875

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

49

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

50

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 51

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data 52

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

53

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

54

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

55

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

56

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

57

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Jersey Turnpike

58

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

58

2.33 Training Assessment

59

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

Training Programs

59

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

64

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

65

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

68

2.38 Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

69

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

71

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

74

2.41 Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

75

2.42 Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

76

2.43 Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 77

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

81

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

84

2.46 Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS0

Program

85

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

86

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

87

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Motor Vehicle Stops

88

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen

Table of Contents

p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-3 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 876

Complaint Processes

89

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

the Office of State Police Affairs

89

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

90

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor 91

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

92

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 93

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

94

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

95

3.0 Executive Summary

97

Table of Contents

p. iii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 100 PageID: 977
Independent Monitors’ Thirteenth Report Period Ending September 30, 2005
1 Introduction
This document represents the thirteenth “Independent Monitors’ Report” (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for the period April 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005. In order to complete the report in a timely fashion, monitoring activities were accomplished during the period October 19 through November 2, 2005.
The report is organized into three sections, identified below:
• Introduction; • Compliance Assessment; and • Summary.
The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions used by the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of “compliance” are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, “Compliance Assessment,” includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the monitors and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, “Summary,” provides an overall assessment of the State’s performance for this reporting period.
1.1 Overall Status Assessment
Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.
1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment
The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree. It reports on the State’s compliance using the individual requirements of the decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using “to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-1

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 100 PageID: 978

which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop” (Decree at para 26). The following components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as “Phase I,” and “Phase II,” with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

• Selection of a random or stratified random sample; • Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every instance of selection of random samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring team while on-site.

The performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the consent decree was assessed by the monitoring team during the period ending March 31, 2004. The thirteenth independent monitors’ report was submitted to the court during the month of December, 2004.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

• Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course of business1; and/or
• Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state government
during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

1 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance “special reports” prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 100 PageID: 979

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative

description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task

requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology used to assess the task,

and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to note, however, that a finding of

non-compliance does not mean the State is engaging in inappropriate behavior. It

simply means the State has not yet completed its efforts toward compliance. The

graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate

status in each compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below.

The first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first year

and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the time allowed

by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time period is represented

by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth segments represent the time

required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase I or Phase II compliance. A

vertically patterned light blue bar

indicates that compliance was achieved in the

time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow bar

indicates that compliance

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in

the opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance

with the decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the

delay may seriously affect the State’s eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the decree, and

which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the State’s successful

compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or could not be monitored is

represented by a hollow bar

.

1.3.3 Standards for “Compliance”

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for “compliance” to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 100 PageID: 980

requirements of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard. This change to compliance standards is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, below.
1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Task nn 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance has not been attained (but which does not affect the State’s eventual compliance).
1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process
Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of “policy compliance:” the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational compliance—institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.
1.5 Progress toward Compliance
During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress in all areas of compliance. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency, and an aggressive, continuing push to ensure that field operations activities related to the consent decree are 100 percent compliant. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period in training, supervision, MAPPS, and inspections and audit processes. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 5 of 100 PageID: 981
1.5.1 Training
Last reporting period, the monitors noted a continued improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the thirteenth reporting period, the Academy continues to reap the benefit of specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted again this period, with one exception. Evaluation of the impact of training in the field, which was listed as in compliance by the monitors during the twelfth reporting period appears to have progressed little in the six months since that report. While it is unrealistic to expect comprehensive impact evaluations each reporting period, the monitors continue to be focused on impact evaluations related to training, and anticipate their availability for the fourteenth reporting period. Specific and tangible impact evaluations related to training will be expected for the fourteenth reporting period to maintain compliance with this task. Executive training was addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and substantial improvement has been noted in these areas as well, although issues related to budget may begin to affect the exceptional quality of executive and mid-level training in the future. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to, and interest in, the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.
1.5.2 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the fifth consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 313 of the 313 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 100 percent supervisory review rate yielded 55 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency has achieved that goal.
New Jersey State Police personnel now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 100 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 6 of 100 PageID: 982
assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to, and interest in, the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team. In addition, the monitors have noted evidence that the supervisory process continues to self-correct. One potentially serious lapse in the supervisory process was observed this reporting period that was caught and corrected by the second tier of management review. This involved a sergeant who counseled troopers under his command for failing to frisk passengers in a vehicle based on the arrest of the driver. No statutory empowerment for such frisks exists, and this error on the part of a field supervisor was noted and corrected by management review, lending still more credence to the monitors’ belief that the New Jersey State Police supervisory and management review processes are effective, engaged and supportive of improved policing processes.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 57 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of 25,584. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 55 of errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 95 percent for the supervisory review process. All of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional and not substantially related to compliance.
This reporting period reflects a major milestone for Field Operations aspects of the consent decree. The monitors noted only two consent-decree related errors this reporting period that were not first caught and corrected (prior to the monitors identifying cases to be reviewed this period) by supervisory personnel. Field Operations personnel have been within the 95 percent compliance requirement for four reporting periods (24 months) and 100 percent effective (including supervisory corrective actions) relative to consent decree activities for 12 months. It is clear that the day-today activities of field operations personnel are in compliance with the consent decree, and have been for more than a year.
Performance of supervisory activities within field operations is also exceptional, reducing error rates for some of the most complex human interactions, e.g., consent searches, arrests, detentions, frisks and searches of persons and vehicles, to near or at zero. The errors the monitors are noting at this stage of the monitoring process are truly minor, akin to “box checking errors,” rather than related to constitutional protections. And even those error rates are miniscule (two from a potential universe of 25,584 this period, or 0.0000078 percent!). This is a truly remarkable figure considering the complexity of the law enforcement processes under scrutiny. Again this reporting period, the monitors found all New Jersey State Police to be professionally conducted, and to be free of indicators of race- or ethnicity-based decision making.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 7 of 100 PageID: 983
As a result of this continued high level of performance, the monitors recommend that the parties consider modification of the monitoring process to focus more of the monitors’ efforts on the supervisory functions involved within the New Jersey State Police Field Operations processes. The monitors believe there is little to be gained in direct monitoring of field operations activities via review of video tapes, etc, and more to be gained by increased focus on field-level supervision and management review processes, and the training and MAPPS processes that support this supervisory process.
1.5.3 MAPPS Development
Full compliance has been continued regarding the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed, allowing establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and the second of the New Jersey State Police’s five field operations troops received its written benchmarking and data analytic reports this reporting period. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced this reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted.
1.5.4 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for three consecutive periods.
2 Assessment of Compliance
2.1 Methodology
The monitors assessed the State’s compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. “Compliance” was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 8 of 100 PageID: 984

The following sections of the thirteenth Monitors’ Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the decree between May 1, 2004 and September 30, 2004.
2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

Task 26
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology

During the thirteenth site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured on-site reviews of the operations of nine New Jersey State Police Road Stations. These reviews were conducted of operations reported during the dates of April 1, 2005 through July 31, 2005, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available). The team conducted these reviews of Troops B and D. As part of this review, members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business data on 313 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 276 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team’s methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 9 of 100 PageID: 985
visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.
Data Requests
Prior to its site visits in October, 2004, the monitoring team requested of the State electronic and hard-copy data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other non-electronic data requests:
 Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated poststop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drugdetection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.
 Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop “communications center call-ins” for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.
 The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.
Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop records for Troops B and D (taken from the State’s motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop “event” records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the active dates of the thirteenth site visit.
Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the thirteenth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.
Motor Vehicle Stops
Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 10 of 100 PageID: 986

enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the State.

Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment.

Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Thirteenth Site Visit

Type of Activity Selected MVS Incidents MVS Involving Consent Search Requests MVS Involving Canine Deployment MVS Involving Use of Force Probable Cause Searches of Vehicles Probable Cause Searches of Persons

Report Reviews 313
23
11
6 35
36

Tape Reviews 276
23
8
6 30
31

 Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports etc.), referred to as Type I data;
 Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and
 Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 11 of 100 PageID: 987
These records indicated 19 events that resulted in consent search requests from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and four events from other stations resulting in consent search requests, for a total of 23 consent search requests.2 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search, and by reviewing the available video tape records for those consent requests.
All consent searches conducted were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team. Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 11 times during the reporting period. Reports from all 11 of these events were reviewed by the monitoring team, and videos from eight of those events were also reviewed by the monitoring team. Force reportedly was used by New Jersey State Police personnel in six motor vehicle stop incidents during the reporting period, and reports from all of these incidents were reviewed by the monitoring team. Video tapes of all six of the use of force events were reviewed by members of the monitoring team during the thirteenth site visit. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
Selected motor vehicle stop incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table Two, below.
Type I Event Reviews
A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were
2 Two consent requests were declined by drivers during the reporting period.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 12 of 100 PageID: 988

noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 313 Type I reviews were conducted this period.

Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

Station
(B20) Hope (B50) Sussex (B60) Totawa (B80) Netcong (B110) Perryville (B130) Sommerville (B150) Washington (D10) Cranbury (D20) Moorestown (D30) Newark Other Stations

Type I Reviews
23 24 34 37 32 36 9 26 39 34 19 313

Type II Reviews
22 21 27 33 31 33 9 22 29 31 18 276

Type III Reviews
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Type II Event Review
A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 276 Type II reviews were conducted this period.
Type III Event Review
In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, were selected for review, six events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 13 of 100 PageID: 989

using a form developed by the monitoring team. Based on the State’s past performance, ten consecutive quarters in which no unreported events were discovered, no Type III reviews were conducted this reporting period.

Status

The monitoring team’s review of New Jersey State Police SOPs indicates that the agency remains in Phase I and Phase II compliance with Task 26. The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. The vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police are “non-discretionary,” e.g., searches incidental to arrest, with a total of 231 of the 269 searches of vehicles being conducted “incidental to arrest.” Of the 266 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 229 were “non-discretionary” searches incidental to arrest. The monitors continue to see a professional quality and tenor of the “average” traffic stop observed by the monitoring team during the past six reporting periods. The monitors have noted no indications of racial profiling in the data reviewed this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 27

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in ¶ 26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 14 of 100 PageID: 990
implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with ¶¶ 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. The monitors have noted a remarkable change in the quality, frequency, and tone of supervisory review during the thirteenth monitoring period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in a law enforcement procedures were effected in 313 of 313 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 100 percent3. More importantly, the New Jersey State Police have continued to implement a much different type of supervisory review process, attempting to meet the goal of having first-line (stationlevel) supervisors review all motor vehicle stops which result in a law enforcement procedure (vehicle exit, frisk, arrest, search, canine deployment, consent request, or use of force). The majority of the supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources—quality assurance reviews, OSPA reviews or other non-station sources. The vast majority of initial reviews conducted during the tenth through thirteenth reporting period were conducted by station-level supervisors.
Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present in 26.5 percent of monitored activity this reporting period. Video tapes were reviewed by firstand second-line supervisors in 100 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors this period. This supervisory review rate yielded 57 instances in which New Jersey State Police personnel committed errors related to the consent decree. In all but two of these 57 instances, New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted these violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations4.
It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. As a result of this newly implemented supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 55 decreerelated errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With this new system, these 55 decree-related errors were noted and corrected in “real time,” before the monitors called them to the attention of the State. The two remaining errors were
3 All MVSRs reviewed by the monitoring team had been reviewed by either first line supervisors or subjected to “management review.” The majority had received both. 4 Both of these errors were considered too minor to affect compliance rates.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 15 of 100 PageID: 991
all classified by the monitors as “box checking errors,” e.g., inaccurate reporting of a driver’s gender, reporting a vehicle search that was not.
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the implemented MAPPS process indicates that the agency is compliance with the requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. No incidents, from among the 313 reviewed, included an operational error not caught and remedied by field supervisors prior to the monitoring team selecting cases for review this reporting period.
This constitutes and error rate of zero of 313 motor vehicle stop incidents, or 0.000 percent, well within the allowable margin of error of five percent. Compliance for this task is defined as “greater than 94 percent.” The State’s compliance rate for these processes stands at 100 percent.
The reader should note a continued quantitative and a qualitative difference in the supervisory review process. Since late in the sixth reporting period, supervisory personnel have been required to review all consent search, uses of force, and canine deployment reports. Errors in those activities continue to drop this period. In fact, the monitoring team has noted a continuation of last reporting period’s remarkable and laudable increase in supervisory review processes, and resulting performance notices— both positive and negative—based on those reviews. Several of these reviews indicated to the monitoring team that the New Jersey State Police are identifying procedural errors prior to the monitoring team’s noting them. A total of 313 MVS incidents reviewed by the monitoring team were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. Within those 313 events, the monitoring team noted 57 various errors by law enforcement personnel. New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted 55 of those errors prior to the monitors’ review process, and corrected all of these procedural errors prior to the monitors’ site visit through performance notices, interventions or verbal counseling. The remaining four errors were considered too minor to affect compliance rates (see p. 14, above).
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-15

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 16 of 100 PageID: 992

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

Task 28

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 28 stipulates:
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants, which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of 23 law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the thirteenth report’s operational dates. Two of these involved consent search requests that were declined. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Three below. Tables Three through Five depict data from the 313 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 313 incidents.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 17 of 100 PageID: 993

The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 132 white drivers of the total of 313 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 42.5 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Three depicts two consent requests of white drivers, 10 requests of black drivers, eight requests of Hispanic drivers, and three requests of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, who were subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.

The reader should note that the State has reduced substantially the number of consent search requests, from a high of 59 the fifth reporting period to only twelve during the eleventh period. The twelfth reporting period saw 34 consent requests, and there were 23 consent requests this reporting period . As such, the numbers reported in Table Three are not statistically meaningful when reported viz a viz race and ethnicity.

All of the 21 consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of the consent decree5. Obviously, this represents continued strong performance levels
over the last five reporting periods.

An error rate of none of 21 consent searches constitutes zero percent, falling well within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree. These numbers are so small that they are not statistically significant.

Table Three—Consent Request Activity

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers
132 (42.5) 108 (34.5) 61 (19.5)
11 (3.5) 313 (100)

Number of Requests for
Search6 2 10 8 3 23

Percent Consent Request by
Race/Ethnicity 1.5 9.3 13.1 27.3 --

5 Two drivers refused consent requests. 6 Two consent search requests were refused.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 18 of 100 PageID: 994

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 29a stipulates that:

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data
a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop; 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended; 5. license number/state of stopped vehicle; 5A. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); 8A. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]);

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 19 of 100 PageID: 995
10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted; 14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges; 17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force; 18. the trooper's race and gender; and 19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.
Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State’s compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 313 incidents involving a poststop law enforcement activity of interest to the decree. Use of force, non-consensual searches and deployment of canines received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Four, Five and Six, below.
Use of Force
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 20 of 100 PageID: 996

New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force six times during the reporting period. The use of force rate for white drivers in the sample was 3.0 percent. For black drivers in the sample, the use of force rate was 1.9 percent, and for Hispanic drivers in the sample, zero percent. Members of the monitoring team reviewed reports of all use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. All of the reports were included as part of the MVSR reporting process. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process.7 None of the use of force practices were found to be problematic.

Table Four depicts data from the 313 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 313 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 132 white drivers of the total of 313 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 42.5 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Four depicts four incidents of use of force against white drivers (or occupants), two incidents of use of force against black drivers (or occupants), no incident of use of force against Hispanic drivers, and no uses against force of drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Table Four: Use of Force Activity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers
132 (42.5) 108 (34.5) 61 (19.5)
11 (3.5) 313 (100)

Incidents of Use of Force 4 2 0 0 0

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
3.0 1.9 ----

Canine Deployments

7 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 21 of 100 PageID: 997

The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units eleven times during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment, and reviewed video tapes of all canine deployments. No reporting problems were noted in any of the 11 deployments, and the video taped incidents reviewed indicated that the written reports accurately reflected actual events. All canine deployments were professionally executed and were executed for legitimate cause. The numbers of canine deployments were so small as to be statistically insignificant regarding the race of the drivers.
Table Five depicts data from the 313 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. “Number of Drivers” depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 313 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 132 white drivers of the total of 313 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 42.5 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, “Number” depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Five depicts four canine deployment for white drivers, four canine deployments for black drivers, three canine deployment for Hispanic drivers, and no canine deployments for drivers of “other” race/ethnicity. The last column, “Percent” depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Table Five: Canine Deployments

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers
132 (42.5) 108 (34.5) 61 (19.5)
11 (3.5) 313 (100)

Canine Deployments
4 4 3 0 11

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
3.0 3.7 ----

Non-Consensual Searches
Members of the New Jersey State Police conducted 269 non-consensual searches of vehicles among the 313 reports reviewed by the monitoring team during the reporting period. White drivers’ vehicles constituted 42.5 percent of the “searched population,” while black drivers’ vehicles constituted 34.5 percent, and Hispanics drivers’ vehicles constituted 19.5 percent of the searched vehicle population. Members of the

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 22 of 100 PageID: 998

monitoring team reviewed all 185 of these non-consensual searches of vehicles. None of these non-consensual searches were problematic.

Table Six depicts the results, by race/ethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 313 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. Table Six depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by race/ethnicity of the 269 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 122 white drivers were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 104 white drivers searched incidental to arrest, 15 subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 104 searches incidental to arrest constitute 85.2 percent of all searches of white drivers. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Of the 269 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with none that were not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel.
Table Six: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of Drivers’ Vehicles, By Race of Driver

Reason for Search
Incidental to Arrest Probable Cause

White #(%) 104(85.2) 15 (12.3)

Black #(%) 76(83.5) 13(91.7)

Hispanic #(%) 40(85.1) 7(14.8)

Other #(%) 9(100)
0

Plain View 3(2.5)

1(1.1)

0

0

Proof of Ownership

0

1(1.1)

0

0

Total

122

91

47

9

Table Seven depicts probable cause non-consensual search-of-person activity by race, for probable cause searches, and Table Eight depicts “incidental to arrest” searches by race.
In all, members of the monitoring team noted 57 separate incidents in which procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 23 of 100 PageID: 999

Table Seven: Probable Cause Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 132 (42.5) 108 (34.5) 61 (19.5) 11 (3.5) 313 (100)

Probable Cause Searches 15 13 7 0 35

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
11.4 12.0 11.5
0 --

Table Eight: Incidental to Arrest Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers
132 (42.5) 108 (34.5) 61 (19.5)
11 (3.5) 313 (100)

Searches Incidental to
Arrest 106 76 40 9 231

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
80.3 70.4 --8 81.8
--

complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 55 of these problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining or other form of intervention prior to the monitor’s noting the behavior. Both of the remaining errors were considered too minor to report, e.g., failing to check an appropriate box in a motor vehicle stop report. These errors were deemed not to be intentional, akin to a simple failure to check the appropriate box. An error of zero from among 313 yields an error rate of 0.00 percent, within the allowable margin of error agreed to by the parties. The State’s performance this period represents continued superior performance in this. The monitors continue to attribute this improvement to the State’s enhanced field supervision processes.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

8 Nine searches incidental to arrest were the result of the arrest of Hispanic passengers.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 24 of 100 PageID: 1000

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of

Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 29b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29b stipulates that:
b. The protocols listed in ¶29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in ¶¶ 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.
The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 25 of 100 PageID: 1001

The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the State’s database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as “expeditious” implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase Il:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31, 32 and 33

Task 29c

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29c stipulates that:
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and ¶¶ 31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology
The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.
Status
Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. None of the compliance problems noted above are attributable to forms, reports or logs created in response to this task.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 26 of 100 PageID: 1002

Phase II: In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

Task 29e

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29e stipulates that:

e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the State, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 27 of 100 PageID: 1003

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

Task 30

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30 stipulates that:
30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in ¶ 29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in ¶29(a), and as revised pursuant to ¶29(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these tasks is measured under a new standard this reporting period, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Status
New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and control of these processes, and when fully implemented, should further improve agency performance in these areas.
For the past ten reporting periods, the State has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors’ review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 276 video recordings and documentation from 313 vehicle stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 28 of 100 PageID: 1004

was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Of the 276 video recordings reviewed by the monitors, nine included an error in call-in or documentation of a motor vehicle stop. Supervisory personnel noted and corrected all of these failures . The monitors found no pattern that would indicate these were intentional acts on the part of enforcement personnel. An error rate of zero incidents of 276 constitutes 0.00 percent, within the newly established parameter of >90 percent, and interestingly, within the original requirement of 95 percent.9

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30a stipulates that:
a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent race/ethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.
Methodology

9 These numbers reflect those recording failures not attributable to technical difficulties with audio or video recording devices. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 29 of 100 PageID: 1005

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 276 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number; 100 percent percent list the driver’s race and gender; 99.9 percent list a reason for the stop and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this task. Of the 276 stop records reviewed by the monitoring team, six indicated that the MVR began after the trooper approached the vehicle. Supervisory action was taken in all of these six incidents. The State is in compliance with this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

Task 30b

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30b stipulates that:
b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.
Status

The parties and the monitors have agreed that this section (regarding notice prior to search of a vehicle) applies only to probable cause searches, since state police policy
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 30 of 100 PageID: 1006

requires a search of all vehicles incidental to the effecting of an arrest. Of the 35 probable cause search events reported (and reviewed by video tape), 32 were called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. Supervisory personnel caught and corrected, as part of the routine monitoring process, two of these errors prior to the monitoring team’s notice of data pulls. The third event was a search based on exigent circumstances, thus this requirement did not apply to that incident. This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, within the >94 percent established as the criterion for this task. Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30c stipulates that:
c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 31 of 100 PageID: 1007

is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. Of the 276 stops reviewed by video tape, all were found to have clearance codes. The State is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30d stipulates that:
d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure (i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.
Methodology
New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.
Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have “CAD Incident Numbers” indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 276 stops reviewed by video tape, CAD numbers were present in documentation for all video tapes reviewed, and in 100 percent of all hard copy documents reviewed by the monitoring team that required a CAD number.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 32 of 100 PageID: 1008

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 31 stipulates that:
31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
A MVSR form was completed accurately in all motor vehicle stop reports that included a consent search request. Two of the incidents involved consent requests that were denied. Three consent search request processes proved to be problematic regarding completion of the consent request reporting form; however, these issues were corrected by supervisory review and intervention prior to the monitors notifying the State of their incident selections. This constitutes a 100 percent compliance rate. In addition, the information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all cases.

Compliance
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 33 of 100 PageID: 1009

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

Task 31a-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information : 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search; 5. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived; 6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied:
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 34 of 100 PageID: 1010

1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search; 3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and, 6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.
Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for 23 consent requests and 21 consent searches10, and reviewed video tape recordings of all motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events depicted on 20 video tapes reviewed (one was not taped; two declined) were assessed in light of the reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

Members of the monitoring team noted seven reporting or process problems from among the 21 consent searches. All of these incidents were noted by supervisory review and corrected by retraining or intervention prior to announcement of the monitors’ data pulls. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

10 Two consent requests were refused. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 35 of 100 PageID: 1011

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of Non-Consensual Searches

Task 32

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
TPahsakse3I2I stipulates that:

32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.
Of the 269 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with none. The State remains in compliance with this task.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 36 of 100 PageID: 1012

Phase II: In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

Task 33

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 33 stipulates that:
33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed; 5. whether an alert occurred; 6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.
Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, eleven reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 37 of 100 PageID: 1013

canines to have been deployed in conformance with the requirements of procedures and the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34a stipulates that:

34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 276 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.

Status

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings, or documentation of in-field mechanical problems, for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 38 of 100 PageID: 1014

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.
c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.
Methodology
In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each day of this reporting period (see above), members of the monitoring team pulled for review a sample of 313 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the decree. These included 313 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 276 events assessed by reviewing video tapes11.
11 All 276 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 313 MVSRs reviewed. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 39 of 100 PageID: 1015

Status
While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the decree.
Once stops that are not “pure” motor vehicle stops, e.g., motorist’s aids and motor vehicle accidents, are removed from the sample, compliance rates for this aspect of task 34c are all within the originally established 95 percent minimum.

A review of the 276 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning “out of tape” issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units (only four of 276 incidents resulted in an “out of tape” finding). The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 276 stops reviewed via video-tape this period, 41 exhibited some form of audio difficulty, and eight exhibited some form of video difficulty. Troopers have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting only six events (of 276 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. This constitutes and error rate of 2.2 percent, within the newly established 90 percent requirement for this task, and interestingly, within the original 95 percent requirement. The State in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to ¶¶31-33 within 14 days of the

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 40 of 100 PageID: 1016

precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting
period indicated that 100 percent of these were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The
monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.

A review of 313 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates all reports were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 313 selected stops reviewed this quarter for evidence of reporting or procedural errors that should have been noted by supervisory personnel. All tapes reviewed by the monitors were also reviewed by supervisory personnel prior to the monitors’ review. From those 313 events, the monitors found two that exhibited some form of reporting problem that should have been noted by supervisory review, but were not. Both of the errors were classified by the monitors as “box checking errors,” e.g., inaccurate reporting of a driver’s gender, reporting a vehicle search that was not conducted.

This constitutes and error rate of zero of 276 events reviewed by supervisory personnel, or less than one percent, well within the allowable five percent error rate for this task. The monitors have noted a strong improvement in the process of supervisory review of video tapes. The quality of supervisory reviews, continues to improve markedly. The monitors commend the new focus on supervision generated by the New Jersey State Police during the last two reporting periods.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 41 of 100 PageID: 1017

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:
36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed 276 supervisors’ MVR review reports. The quality of these reports has improved substantially. All reviews assessed this reporting period were completed using the new MAPPS performance management system. This process is a vast improvement over earlier processes. Members of the monitoring team were able to compare 276 supervisors’ reviews with actual video tapes (the same tapes reviewed by supervisors as part of their review process). Members of the monitoring team noted only two reporting or procedural issues in the 276 tapes they reviewed that were missed by the supervisory cadre at the New Jersey State Police. Both of these were inconsequential “box checking” errors. None of these were considered substantive errors. This constitutes an overall error rate for supervisory review of zero.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 42 of 100 PageID: 1018

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 37 stipulates that:

37. After conducting a review pursuant to ¶35, ¶36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in ¶29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

During the monitors’ site visits for the tenth reporting period, the monitors noted three incidents that should have been forwarded to OPS in response to the requirements of this task. This was appropriately forwarded to OPS for investigation and response. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task. No incidents were noted, during the thirteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. The State remains in compliance with this task based on past performance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 43 of 100 PageID: 1019

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:

38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews of referral decisions pursuant to ¶ 37 to ensure appropriate referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.

Methodology

Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Recently completed training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to “copy” to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.

Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel’s review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.

Status

No incidents were noted, during the thirteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. The State remains in compliance with this task based on past performance

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 44 of 100 PageID: 1020

Task 39
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 39 stipulates that:

39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed 82 motor vehicle stop tapes that recorded and event at which a New Jersey State Police sergeant was present, constituting field activity in 26.2 percent of all stops selected this period.

Status

Based on the monitors’ review of 82 tapes recording incidents at which state police supervisors were present, the monitors noted no incidents in which procedural violations related to the consent decree were made that were not duly noted and corrected by field supervisory personnel on the scene or upon subsequent tape review.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

Task 40
Phase I Phase II

1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 40 stipulates that:

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 45 of 100 PageID: 1021

40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
Methodology

This reporting period, the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all, the monitors performed more than 1,000 separate tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems tests, the monitors used MAPPS as it would be expected to be used by supervisory and management personnel in the day-to-day processes of managing the New Jersey State Police. The results of these process tests are discussed below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51.
MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data in MAPPS, as of the monitors’ thirteenth site visit, are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS. The application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities for conducting long-term analyses continue to be observed for the second reporting period.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System

Task 41

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 41 requires that:
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to ¶29 and the protocols listed
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 46 of 100 PageID: 1022

in ¶29of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and
c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being “narrative elements” which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, was found to be functional in the MAPPS system reviewed by the monitors. In addition, the five nonprimary requirements, identified as “narrative elements” were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors found the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways, and found the system to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required by subparagraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers are able to use these systems on a daily basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers’ Personal MAPPS Data
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 47 of 100 PageID: 1023

Task 42
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 42 requires that:

42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of “Counts” and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43Phase 1I: 2In Co3mplia4nce 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II: Not In Compliance

Phase I Phase II

Task 43 requires that:

43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 48 of 100 PageID: 1024

and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ¶29(a)(5A, 8A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ¶29(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in ¶41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in ¶41(b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by “count” and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (5a, 8a, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel are accessing the system on a day-today basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 49 of 100 PageID: 1025

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:

44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The State has identified the “CAD incident number” as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

Task 45

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 45 requires that:

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.
Methodology
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 50 of 100 PageID: 1026

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

Task 46
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 46 requires that:
46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by ¶¶48-53.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 51 of 100 PageID: 1027

With implementation of the MAPPS components during the eleventh reporting period, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

Task 47
Phase I Phase II

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 47 requires that:
47. Consistent with the requirements of ¶¶48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January, 2004. The monitors executed 1,116 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.
For the past three reporting periods, the monitors have been carefully reviewing the use of supervisory review processes regarding instances in which supervisors have noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, noting in the MAPPS the action taken regarding the problems as “No Further Action.” The monitors discussed this issue in
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 52 of 100 PageID: 1028

detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State contends—and the monitors are willing to accept—that this is an issue of supervisory discretion and leadership, e.g., the ability to treat minor or first-time infractions via truly verbal counseling, rather than creating a searchable “official record” in the intervention module of MAPPS of first-time or minor events. Records of these errors exist within MAPPS; however, they exist mainly in a narrative form, as opposed to a “searchable” database, requiring supervisors to deliberately check each trooper’s MAPPS record for similar problems each time an error in a motor vehicle stop is noted.

The process articulated above removes an important ability from the MAPPS system— the ability to generate quantitative reports regarding actions taken upon supervisory review, and requires supervisors to search and “take note” of MAPPS narratives to piece together a subordinate’s MAPPS record. The monitors agree with the State’s position regarding the importance of supervisory discretion in the leadership processes, and are willing to accept this diminution of MAPPS flexibility to support these processes; however, the monitors will continue to assess MAPPS records of “Action Taken” to ensure that the necessary steps are taken by supervisors to “piece together” interventions actually labeled as “no further action” in MAPPS.

During the thirteenth reporting period, the monitors noted no instances in which the “No Further Action” classification created problems with the effective and appropriate delivery of corrective action and progressive discipline.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task 48

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 48 requires that:

48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.

Methodology Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 53 of 100 PageID: 1029

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures have been executed. The monitors executed 1,116 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

Task 49

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 49 requires that:
49. To the extent reflected in ¶43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in ¶73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.
Methodology
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 54 of 100 PageID: 1030

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police C-11 and supporting documentation. Implementation of these have been executed. The monitors executed 1,116 individual assessments of the functionality and rate of use of these functions, and found the State to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13

Phase I Phase II

Task 50 requires that:

50. To the extent reflected in ¶43, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see ¶¶54-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.

Methodology

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 55 of 100 PageID: 1031

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
During the thirteenth site visit, MAPPS personnel presented to the monitors detailed documentation regarding benchmarking and trend analysis. Data analysis for the second of the State Police’s five troops were completed this reporting period (with data for the second of the five road troops completed during last reporting period). The monitors also reviewed official documents regarding organizational use of benchmarking and trend analysis processes. It is clear that the requirements of the decree for comparison of stop data by race, ethnicity, and by activity are being met by the existing system, and that decisions are being made based on trend analysis and benchmarking issue analysis.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 51

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

Phase I Phase II

10 11 12

Task 51 requires that:
51. To the extent reflected in ¶43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and
subunits.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 56 of 100 PageID: 1032

During the twelfth site visit, the monitors reviewed the trend analysis processes available in MAPPS and reviewed trend analysis capabilities. The monitors also reviewed official documents regarding organizational use of benchmarking and trend analysis processes. It is clear that the requirements of the decree for comparison of stop data by race, ethnicity, and by activity are being met by the existing system, and that decisions are being made based on trend analysis and benchmarking issue analysis.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

During the thirteenth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted several instances of supervisory personnel issuing “performance notices” or other interventions for actions by taken by division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are beginning to carefully review trooper activity and to issue performance notices or other “interventions” when inappropriate behavior occurs. In addition, the “knowable error rate” for supervisory review has begun to decline after a period of rising rates, from 11.2 percent during the seventh period to 13.3 percent for the eighth period, to 26.4 percent for the ninth reporting period. The tenth reporting period’s “knowable error rate” was 19.8. The eleventh period’s was less than one percent. The “knowable error rate” for the twelfth and thirteenth reporting periods was zero percent. The monitors
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 57 of 100 PageID: 1033

commend the State and the supervisory and management personnel at the New Jersey State Police for a marked and impressive improvement in the level and quality of supervisory review evidenced during this reporting period. See sections 2.13 and 2.16, above, for additional comments relative to supervisor review.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 53 stipulates that:

Status

53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to ¶ 73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.

The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two misconduct investigations in a two-year period, but additional work is pending regarding protocols for and assessment of supervisory response to this section. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During the tenth reporting period, the State had assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards. Data indicate that these reviews are being conducted as required by the decree. Documentary evidence available in MAPPS indicates that supervisory personnel are meeting with troopers meeting the criteria of this task, and discussing any applicable patterns of complaints.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 58 of 100 PageID: 1034

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

1

2

3 4

5

6

78

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 54 stipulates that:

54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

Methodology

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition with the Court for release from most of the requirements of the consent decree related to OPS. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the monitors will discontinue monitoring activities for OPS
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 59 of 100 PageID: 1035

requirements as of this reporting period, with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90).
Task 87, which requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens’ complaints within 120 days, was evaluated by reviewing the “120-day Report,” an OPS-generated, “normal course of business” report developed to monitor overdue cases and prevent an additional case backlog. Based on the 120-day Report, the State remains in compliance with this task.
Task 90, which requires imposition of appropriate discipline in Consultation with MAPPS, was evaluated by reviewing “course of business” documents related to the OPS review of sustained OPS investigations, executive-level decisions regarding discipline, and the existence in MAPPS of records reflecting discipline. The State is judged to be in Phase I and Phase II compliance with the requirements of Task 90.

2.33 Training Assessment
The Academy had attained compliance in all but two specific areas (executive trainingtask 106 and implementation measurement for training—task 93) at the end of the tenth monitoring team site visit. Those two areas have been addressed and are in the process of being executed (see the specific tasks for details). Based upon the analysis of the data related to these areas, which should be available for the fourteenth site visit in the spring, it is possible that all training tasks will reach full compliance at that time.
The return on the Division’s investment in increased manpower, equipment, and automation at the Academy over the past twelve months is remarkable and is reflected in the findings in this report. The Superintendent and the command staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to, and interest in the training function provided by the New Jersey State Police Academy.
Actions noted during the monitors’ thirteenth site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.
2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

Task 93 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 93 stipulates that:
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 60 of 100 PageID: 1036
93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation regarding the task.
Status
Task 93 enumerates the eight areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. Each area will be reviewed with further details referenced in subsequent tasks that address each area of responsibility more specifically.
Ensure Quality Training for all State Troopers
To ensure quality oversight for training requires sufficient staff who are competent to perform the functions assigned to them and who have the resources necessary to perform those functions. At the present time, the table of organization indicates 53 sworn personnel with four detached and two vacancies at the time of the site visit12; 11 full-time civilian personnel with 2 vacancies, six temporary personnel with some vacancies pending, five acting positions, and 1 intern. Various units at the Academy are using interns to assist with manpower needs and this has proven to be a highly successful strategy. Several interns have been hired as temporary or full-time permanent staff, and some have been accepted as recruits.
At the last site visit, two positions had been transferred out of the Academy and this is still the case. Authorized sworn positions remains at 59.
12 At the time of this writing, those vacancies have been filled. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-60

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 61 of 100 PageID: 1037
The monitoring team has some concerns about the Academy's Technology/ Support Unit. The staff in this unit, through their initiative in obtaining and utilizing the GeoLearning Software Program have created a strong foundation for managing the data generated by the Academy staff to fulfill the Academy's mission. In addition, they continue to create new applications that impact dramatically on the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of all the programs that the Academy is responsible for providing.
Though the plan to civilianize this unit to insure long-term continuity of experienced staff was discussed as a priority on previous visits, no progress appears to have been made with this effort. The need to transfer troopers in order to foster their growth and chances for promotion appears to the monitors to be important to the success of this unit. The outstanding professional skills, both technical and interpersonal, displayed by the past and current supervisors of this unit are clearly evident in the accomplishments they were able to achieve in the two years since this unit was formed.
The stability provided by a qualified supervisor for this unit appears important to sustain and improve upon the support this unit provides to the other Academy units, and, ultimately, to the product those units are able to produce. In addition, this unit currently has one vacant staff position which is delaying data entry. Academy management are aware of the criticality of this position, due to the importance this unit plays in providing support, quality oversight data, security of files/records, and innovative solutions for programmatic challenges to every unit at the Academy. The performance level of this unit will be closely followed by the monitoring team on future site visits.
Curriculum for Training State Police Recruits;
The Division is focused upon attracting a diverse group of committed candidates who are prepared to complete the Academy training. A number of assessments addressing the many factors that impact on attracting and retaining men and women to the NJSP Academy are in progress. Since the last site visit the following has occurred:
• Graduation of the 140th and the 141st recruit classes; • Graduation of the 142nd and the 143rd recruit classes is scheduled for November
18th; • An Academy Instructor Certification Course has been proposed; • A stringent dismissal process with specific documentation has been proposed;
and • 360 degree evaluations of instructors have been proposed.
These actions are consistent with effective curriculum development.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 62 of 100 PageID: 1038
Provide Training for Academy Instructors
The Academy provides a comprehensive Instructor Training Course (ITC) to qualify troopers as instructors, and has quality oversight processes in place to insure that trainer records are audited annually. As new competencies are required of instructors, the ITC course will be revised to ensure that instructors remain current. Staff development is also a focus now and sending staff to external training venues for relevant training is being implemented.
Select and Train State Trooper Coaches
A new coordinator has been assigned to oversee the coach program and a complete review of the program is in progress. All files have been reviewed and the computerized data management system is operational. It is being refined with the assistance of the NJSP technology office and the Academy Technology/Support Unit to more completely support the services provided by this program. An Instructor Training Course has been customized to assist coaches in fulfilling their responsibilities is in progress.
Approve and Supervise all Post-Academy Training
A process is in place to identify all training that troopers receive in workshops, conferences, and other venues external to the New Jersey State Police. The next step will be to evaluate the worth of these courses.
Post-Academy training provided directly through the Academy is coordinated through the In-Service Unit and the Advanced Training Unit. Regional training staff is in place in each troop to provide quality oversight for training conducted by instructors outside the Academy. Quality oversight systems are in place to assure that all personnel attend mandated training or are held accountable if they have no legitimate excuse for not attending.
Post-Academy Training Instructors
The Academy has identified all troopers providing training outside the Academy but within the Division and developed a Master Trainers’ List. All instructors are required to complete the MOI/ITC training, and any instructional personnel teaching a consent decree-related course must have a four-year college degree. Meaningful reviews are completed on trainers on a regular basis and documentation is maintained.
Procedures for Evaluating Training
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 63 of 100 PageID: 1039
This requirement includes an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught.
The Academy successfully evaluates the content and the quality of instruction. Access oversight to all curricula is controlled by the Technology Unit at the Academy with varying levels of access for personnel. A thorough review process for any newly developed lesson plan is in place insuring that the content and delivery techniques meet the standards established by the Academy. The process for receiving evaluation forms at the completion of each training session requires that each participant hand in a completed evaluation prior to receiving the test required for completion of the training.
Each instructor is evaluated by the participants in the class taught and by the instructor's supervisors at the Academy
Processes for measuring implementation of training taught are in place and are being refined to insure that training development proceeds from objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and trackable over time.
Written information provided to the monitoring team demonstrates that the Academy staff continue to work on the process of writing objectives that include specific measurable components that can be tracked for compliance. The monitors anticipate the availability of detailed analyses of these impact evaluations for the fourteenth reporting period.
The objectives written for the lieutenants' course "Use of the Project Life Cycle when completing assigned projects within their command," measured by "A 20% increase in the use of the Project Life Cycle when coordinating projects," does include a measurable benchmark.
The monitoring team was not provided with any written information to demonstrate that field implementation of training provided to various ranks since the last site visit has occurred. In addition, when discussing newly proposed measures for some of the courses the monitoring team noted a lack of clarity regarding measurement benchmarks and measurement methodology.
Status
At the next site visit, written information related to implementation measurement will be expected by monitoring team, and will be reviewed for evidence demonstrating that data is being collected, analyzed, and a response to the analysis is instituted in order for this task and potentially related task 93 to remain in compliance.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 64 of 100 PageID: 1040

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

Task 97 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 97 stipulates that:
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.

Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Training Staff
At the present level of course development, training delivery, evaluation, and quality oversight, the staffing levels for the Academy appears to be adequate. Obviously, the level of staffing should be re-evaluated on a regular basis to be sure that it keeps pace with added training needs and responsibilities. The Academy environment is professional; a strong sense of teamwork is evident, and the staff has resources and manpower to successfully achieve their goals.
Members of the NJSP are recognizing the new level of professionalism and enthusiasm demonstrated by Academy staff related to their work environment and the projects they are developing. The quality of the products and services the Academy staff deliver are setting new benchmarks for the law enforcement profession, especially in the areas of research, integrating curricula and measuring implementation.
The Academy is having no difficulty in attracting highly qualified staff when the need arises. The Academy is also involved in career planning and advancement within the Academy environment. Staff members are indicating a desire to move between the
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 65 of 100 PageID: 1041

various units to more fully develop the skills required to fulfill all phases of the training cycle. Members of the command staff are voicing an understanding and recognition that specialized skills are now necessary for Academy staff to perform the duties and responsibilities of providing training based upon utilization of the training cycle.
The monitor's concern about the Technology and Support Unit's staffing issues and the possible destabilization to Academy operations that would impact on the quality of training was addressed in detail in Task 93.

Post-Academy Staff

Post-Academy trooper training staff falls into one of two categories:

• Trainers who are Academy staff and who provide instruction in courses that are not part of the recruit training, and are included in the data provided above under the heading “Academy Staff;” and
• Trainers who work in specialized units in the Division who are providing training. They are training because they are subject matter experts so they do not require special motivation to apply as trainers.

Trooper Coach Staff

The recruiting process demonstrates that adequate numbers of troopers are applying for coaching positions. Based upon their performance the Trooper Coaches receive extra points on their resumes, thus helping them when they apply for future positions within the Division. This incentive, and the recognized value of this program, are strong motivating factors in attracting qualified troopers to apply for this duty.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

Task 98 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 66 of 100 PageID: 1042
Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Trainers
The selection criteria for Academy trainers are:
• Five years experience as a trooper; • Bachelor’s degree; • Resume; • ITC or MOI; • Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; and • Continuous meaningful review.
Documentation in the trainers’ files demonstrates that the criteria are being met. Annual audits by Academy staff are in place to be sure that trainers’ records are current and that annual meaningful reviews are conducted.
Post-Academy Trainers
All Post-Academy trooper trainers who are not full-time Academy staff have been identified since the ninth reporting period. Selection criteria for trooper trainers in operational or specialized units are as follows:
• Resume; • ITC or MOI training; Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 67 of 100 PageID: 1043

• Knowledge/expertise/background in the field of instruction; • Bi-annual meaningful review; and • Bachelor’s degree if teaching any consent decree mandated subjects.

The list of criteria noted in the last sentence of this consent task requires that documentation for each trainer be collected and that oversight management of the same be identified. These data are available as follows:

• The ACTS database lists all training that the trooper has received since joining the New Jersey State Police.
• A meaningful review is conducted prior to a trooper-trainer conducting training. The results of this review are kept on file in the Commandant’s office.
• The Academy has compiled a Master Trainers’ List that indicates whether the trooper-trainer has a degree or not.
• The Academy staff chooses trainers for the consent decree courses and reviews the list to be sure that the trainer has a four-year college degree.

Oversight processes are in place to address this issue and the Commandant continues to refine these processes to ensure a high level of quality oversight.

Trooper Coaches

Selection criteria for trooper coach are as follows:

• Two years of service as a trooper; • Currently assigned to operations; • Resume; • Supervisory evaluations; • Passing score on the oral boards; • Meaningful review; and • C20 compliance.

These criteria are being met and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy. The files are audited at appropriate intervals by Academy staff.

Status

Academy Personnel Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Post Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coach Personnel In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 68 of 100 PageID: 1044

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

Task 99 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 99 stipulates that:
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed related documentation.
Status
Academy Instructors
Training requirements for Academy instructors are as follows:
• Core competencies must be met; • The 80-hour instructor training course must be completed; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; • Annual meaningful reviews must meet the standard; • Course evaluations must meet the standard; and • Re-certification must be maintained.
Status
All Academy instructors meet the requirements. Documentation is on file, and was reviewed by members of the monitoring team. A recruiting effort was underway for several training positions.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 69 of 100 PageID: 1045

Post-Academy Instructors

Training requirements for Post-Academy instructors are as follows:

• Core competencies must be met; • The 80-hour instructor training course must be completed; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; • Bi-annual meaningful reviews must meet the standard; • Course evaluations must meet the standard; and • Re-certification must be maintained.

Status

All Post-Academy instructors meet the requirements. Documentation is on file.

Trooper Coach

Training requirements for Trooper Coaches are as follows:

• Core competencies must be met; • Completion of the 3-day Trooper Coach Training and Evaluation Course; • Performance evaluations must meet or exceed the standards; and • Completion of a refresher course for an incumbent coach.

Status

All Trooper Coaches meet the requirements. Documentation is on file. A new ITC course, customized to better meet the needs of the coaches, is being developed.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 70 of 100 PageID: 1046
Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation.
2005 Annual In-Service
Assessment
Academy staff has continuously demonstrated a clear understanding of and ability to accurately perform this process.
Development
Academy staff continues to demonstrate that they are able to develop a quality product utilizing the training cycle.
Delivery
Training began in early October of 2005 and will continue through mid-December. This is a one-day training held at regional locations and integrates cultural awareness, leadership, ethics, and search and seizure.
Evaluation
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate testing and evaluation methodologies and that the feedback is used to improve the training when necessary.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 71 of 100 PageID: 1047

Implementation Implementation data for this training will be available at the next site visit. Documentation The Academy staff provide thorough documentation presented in a very professional format. Status

Academy staff was in the delivery phase for this task during this site visit. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task based on past performance and current status in the planning process.

Cultural Diversity

Ethics

Leadership

Phase I: Phase II:

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the nondiscrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdictionrelated training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-71

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 72 of 100 PageID: 1048
2005 Annual In-Service
Assessment Phase
Assessments for this annually mandated training are conducted using the following:
Fourth Amendment Rights:
• 2004 In-Service critique analysis; • Field Operations requests submitted through the training officers and focus
group members; • Mobile Video Recorder reviews; • Field Operations concerns; • OPS concerns; • Investigative concerns; • Office of Professional Standards findings, requests, and recommendations; • New case law.
Cultural Awareness, Ethics, Leadership
Written feedback on the action plans troopers completed at the end of the 2004 annual mandated in-service were provided. It was noted that of the 603 responses received and analyzed by Academy In-Service staff, 242 were directly related to mentoring. This need for mentoring and being able to mentor also emerged from the evaluations conducted in the coaching program and in trainings for sergeants, lieutenants, and trainers.
Academy staff has continuously demonstrated a clear understanding of and ability to accurately perform this process.
Development Phase
Academy staff continues to demonstrate that they are able to develop a quality product utilizing the training cycle. Staff from the Office of State Police Affairs are the content experts for Fourth Amendment rights training included in this annual mandated training day.
Delivery Phase
Training began in early October of 2005 and will continue through mid-December. This is a one-day training held at regional locations and integrates cultural awareness,
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 73 of 100 PageID: 1049
leadership, ethics, and search and seizure. The class is taught by an attorney from the Office of State Police Affairs and a state trooper.
1. Fourth Amendment Rights Training
The training addressed the following issues:
• A new handcuffing policy; • A review of how to conduct a Belton search based upon new case law; • Electronic recordation of confessions; • Presentation of the new search and seizure guide.
2. Cultural Awareness, Leadership and Ethics Training
The focus of this portion of the training was on the organizational culture of the NJSP. Part of the presentation included a written review of the accomplishments of the seven sections in the division since the 2004 training.
Participants completed a self-assessment instrument to increase their awareness related to their individual perceptions of the work culture.
The data on the need for assistance with mentoring described above generated the development of an organized mentoring/career development program that is being developed through the new Office of Employee Assistance. This program was presented to the participants by a member of that office during this training.
Implementation Phase
Implementation objectives for the 2005 training were provided to the monitoring team, but no measurement data will be available for this course until the next site visit as the delivery phase will not be completed until mid-December 2005.
Documentation Phase
The Academy staff provides thorough documentation presented in a very professional format.
Evaluation Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate testing and evaluation methodologies and that the feedback is used to improve the training when necessary. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 74 of 100 PageID: 1050

Status

At the next site visit, written information related to implementation measurement will be expected by the monitoring team demonstrating that data are being collected, analyzed, and a response to the analysis is instituted in order for this task to remain in compliance.

Fourth Amendment Recruit Training

Scenarios have been implemented within the Academy recruit training curriculum to provide increased experiential scenarios to recruits, and a number of the scenarios relate to search and seizure incidents.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

Task 102 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 102 stipulates that:
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be
approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.

Methodology
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 75 of 100 PageID: 1051

A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task, and reviewed related documentation.

Status

The State has developed a strong response to all the responsibilities listed in the consent decree for this task, and the Academy personnel tasked with coordinating this program continue to revise and refine their oversight capabilities as new issues arise and new means of gaining oversight information are developed. Currently, the NJSP technology unit and the Academy technology unit completed the revised coach website and are continuing to refine the electronic data management system for this program.

Several classes have graduated since the last site visit and the coach program is functioning well in meeting the needs of the new probationary troopers. The monitors routinely observe young troopers in the performance of their duties during their review of video tapes of motor vehicle stops, and contest to the value of the Trooper Coach process.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 103 stipulates that:
103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 76 of 100 PageID: 1052

and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with the Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed supporting documentation.

Status

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent decree-related tasks are handled by notification of specific Division personnel at the quarterly Training Committee meetings and through IOCs. This is a comprehensive oversight process. To be certain that the process is functioning as intended requires a regularly scheduled audit of the documentation at the section level to be sure that all “read and sign documentation” is complete.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 104 stipulates that:
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 77 of 100 PageID: 1053

Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed the documentation provided.
Status
The following systems insure that the Academy can identify training needs and evaluate the effectiveness of training provided:
• A Training Committee composed of key personnel representing the various sections and bureaus of the NJSP is a key conduit in obtaining the data required by this task. Oversight for much of the activity conducted by regional training staff is possible because of this committee.
• Mandatory quarterly Training Committee meetings are scheduled. • Teleconferencing meetings have been utilized as needed to reduce the loss of
manpower hours to travel to the Academy. • Regional training staff are in place at each troop to help identify training
needs as they arise, and to relay this information to the Academy. • The Academy conducts surveys to identify training needs throughout the
agency as needed. • The New Jersey State Police intranet provides a means for any member of
the organization to send suggestions for training to the Academy.
The Academy has developed a comprehensive process with many access points for identifying the training needs in the organization.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 78 of 100 PageID: 1054
Task 105 stipulates that:
105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in ¶¶100 and 101) shall address effective supervisory techniques to promote police integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task, and reviewed related documentation provided.
Status
In May 2003, when the Academy’s Executive Staff Development Unit (EDTU) was formed, oversight responsibility for this task was assigned to this unit, and one team member was assigned primary oversight responsibility for this task. Currently there is one 80-hour basic course for new sergeants, and one 40-hour course for those promoted to sergeant first class.
Sergeant’s Basic Course
A review of the content, length, and methods of delivery was completed on this course since the previous site visit. An emphasis is being placed on team-building and the implementation of the situational leadership style of supervision by sergeants. Some minor changes were made to the content. All newly promoted personnel are attending within the six-month limit after promotion. Currently the focus is shifting to requiring attendance for those who are eligible for promotion and allowing attendance for troopers who demonstrate outstanding performance.
Assessment
Academy staff has continuously demonstrated a clear understanding of and ability to accurately perform this process.
Development
Academy staff has developed a quality product for the training the sergeants. After each training, the topics presented are re-assessed based upon class feedback
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 79 of 100 PageID: 1055
Delivery Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate training modalities in the delivery of training.
Implementation Phase
All newly promoted sergeants have completed the training within six months of promotion. Implementation objectives were provided to the monitoring team, but no measurement data was available.
Documentation Phase
The EDTU staff provides thorough documentation presented in a very professional format.
Evaluation Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate testing and evaluation methodologies and that the feedback is used to improve the training when necessary.
Status
During this visit no written data were provided to the monitoring team to allow evaluation of the extent of the implementation of the training for sergeants. At the next site visit, one year's worth of data will be available to the NJSP. At that time, written information will be expected by the monitoring team demonstrating that data is being collected, analyzed, and a response to the analysis is instituted in order for this task to remain in compliance.
Sergeant First Class Course
This course is titled the Mid-Level Manager’s Course.
Assessment Phase
The EDTU staff plan to re-evaluate the content of this course in the coming months.
Development Phase
Modifications to the course are on-going based upon assessment and evaluation data. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 80 of 100 PageID: 1056
Delivery Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate training modalities in the delivery of training.
Implementation Phase
All newly promoted sergeants have completed the training within six months of promotion. Implementation objectives were provided to the monitoring team, but no measurement data were available.
Documentation Phase
The EDTU staff provides thorough documentation presented in a very professional format.
Evaluation Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate testing and evaluation methodologies and that the feedback is used to improve the training when necessary.
Status
During this visit no written data were provided to the monitoring team to evaluate the extent of the implementation in the field of the training for sergeants. At the next site visit, one year's worth of data will be available to the NJSP. At that time, written information will be expected by the monitoring team demonstrating that data is being collected, analyzed, and a response to the analysis is instituted in order for this task to remain in compliance.
Annual Supervisory/Leadership Training
Status
The annual leadership training for supervisors has been integrated into the annual mandated training for all personnel (task 100). In addition, the supervisory courses provided to sergeants have comprehensive blocks of training on leadership and ethics.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 81 of 100 PageID: 1057

Phase II: In Compliance 2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

Task 106 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:

106. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within six months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.

Methodology

A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation.

Lieutenants’ Course

This course is held off-site and includes 3-days in class at Princeton University, and a two-day leadership-immersion experience conducted at sites on the Gettysburg Battleground.

Assessment Phase

Academy staff has continuously demonstrated a clear understanding of and ability to accurately perform this process.

Development Phase

Academy staff has developed a quality product for the training lieutenants. The topics presented are re-assessed after each training session based upon class feedback. Feedback from the sergeants regarding any unmet needs they are experiencing in being supervised by the lieutenants, and changes in the responsibilities assigned to lieutenants also impact on the modules taught.

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 82 of 100 PageID: 1058
Delivery Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate training modalities in the delivery of training.
It seems that the Gettysburg experience that is an integral part of this training may be deleted from the program because of budget constraints. If this occurs, careful evaluation of learning objectives and related measurements should be made to ensure that the quality of training provided continues to meet the needs of the agency.
Implementation Phase
All newly promoted lieutenants have completed the training within six months of promotion. Implementation objectives were provided to the monitoring team, but no measurement data was available.
Evaluation Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate testing and evaluation methodologies and that the feedback is used to improve the training when necessary.
Status
During this visit no written data were provided to the monitoring team to evaluate the extent of the implementation of the training for lieutenants. At the next site visit, one year's worth of data will be available to the NJSP. At that time, written information will be expected by monitoring team demonstrating that data is being collected, analyzed, and a response to the analysis is instituted in order for this task to remain in compliance.
Command Staff Training
The EDTU developed a course to address the training needs of those advancing to the ranks of captain, major, and lieutenant colonel.
Assessment Phase
Academy staff has continuously demonstrated a clear understanding of and ability to accurately perform this process.
Development Phase
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 83 of 100 PageID: 1059

Academy staff has developed a quality product for the training the command staff ranks. The topics presented are re-assessed after each training based upon class feedback
Delivery Phase
The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate training modalities in the delivery of training.

Documentation Phase

The EDTU staff provides thorough documentation presented in a very professional format.

Implementation Phase

The command staff who completed this training were required to develop and implement strategic plans. Plans were completed and a comprehensive oversight system to monitor the implementation of the plans was developed by the Office of Strategic Initiatives.

Evaluation Phase

The Academy staff has demonstrated that they understand and utilize many appropriate testing and evaluation methodologies and that the feedback is used to improve the training when necessary.

Status

During this visit written data were provided to the monitoring team that allowed evaluation the extent of submission of acceptable strategic plans. At the next site visit, one year's worth of data will be available to the NJSP. At that time, written information will be expected by the monitoring team demonstrating that data are being collected, analyzed, and a response to the analysis is instituted in order for this task to remain in compliance.

Captains and Above Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 84 of 100 PageID: 1060

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 107 stipulates that:

107. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for developing and delivering this training, and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.

Status

The Academy has demonstrated a high degree of commitment and skill in providing the required quality oversight for all areas of training.

The Academy is conducting a needs assessment to identify all training previously being presented outside the oversight function of the Academy, to identify specialty areas/special training needs, and to identify and determine the qualifications of instructors providing specialized training. The Master Trainers’ List has been analyzed and updated, and a re-certification program for all instructors is underway. MAPPS data are being used to identify any trends requiring specialized training. Processes are in place to identify and track on training that troopers receive outside of the Academy and the Division.

Though it will require some time to thoroughly evaluate the scope of this issue, the Academy demonstrates a clear understanding of the need, an ability to use a comprehensive process to address this issue, and has begun to gather the necessary data to maintain compliance with the broadest interpretation of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 85 of 100 PageID: 1061

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

Task 108 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 108 stipulates that:
108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team spoke with Academy staff responsible for implementing this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
The Technology and Administrative Support Unit staff continue to address the program automation needs for the various Academy units. Since the last site visit, the following changes have occurred.
The NJSP Academy’s Technology Unit continues to implement new platforms included in the new Geo Learning Software. Included in the new applications are the following:
• Event scheduling for all classrooms • All purchasing • All lesson plans • On-line registration and testing for six classes is complete • On-line training for annually mandated domestic violence training that was being
developed by this unit during the last visit is complete and the training is in progress. The development costs (not including staff time) were approximately $100.00. Last year, an outside vendor developed the training at a cost of approximately $250,000. • Mandated consent decree training is now videotaped and placed on-line so those who miss the training can access it electronically and be tested electronically at their worksite.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 86 of 100 PageID: 1062

• All Academy training records are being managed with this system. • Homework assignments for recruits are monitored on-line

There are still platforms in this program that have not been initiated yet because each platform is being phased in sequentially. The NJSP Academy is leading the way in demonstrating how the program can assist personnel in managing their responsibilities at every level in the organization.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 109 stipulates that:
109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.
Methodology
A member of the monitoring team spoke with Academy personnel responsible for this task and reviewed related documentation provided by Academy staff.
Status
The Geo Learning electronic program allows the Academy to provide oversight and management of all training records and trooper coach materials.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 87 of 100 PageID: 1063

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 110 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State’s responses to the requirements of the decree, and/or have queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the State’s response to the decree.
Status
Based on the monitoring team’s review of work product, and information obtained during the process of implementing the twelfth site visit, it is clear to the members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task. All duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the twelfth site visit, upon final implementation of the MAPPS processes for long-term trend analysis and benchmarking. The office provides coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice, and the office is headed by an Assistant AG. The office routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations, and routinely audits performance on
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 88 of 100 PageID: 1064

MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site reviews, basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team, with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The mechanism and duty assignments exist to complete the duties of the office as soon as practicable.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 111 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 111 stipulates that:

111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.

Methodology

The monitors have reviewed data provided by the State regarding this task, and find the State continues to be in compliance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 89 of 100 PageID: 1065

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

Task 112 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 112 stipulates that:

112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by ¶62; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.

Methodology

Data regarding task 112 indicate that the State continues to perform this task in a satisfactory manner.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 90 of 100 PageID: 1066

Task 113 stipulates that:

113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State Police Affairs during the course of the site visit during the week of May 19th, 2003.

Status

Based on the team’s observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task 114 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 114 stipulates that:

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops (by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions (including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 91 of 100 PageID: 1067

information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.

Methodology

The State has produced its latest “Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data,” in response to this provision of the decree.

Status

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 115 stipulates that:
115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-91

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 92 of 100 PageID: 1068

Methodology Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000. Status The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task. Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

Task 118 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and nonprivileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-92

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 93 of 100 PageID: 1069

Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access while onsite with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122 1

2

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 122 stipulates that:

122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every six months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

Methodology

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-93

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 94 of 100 PageID: 1070

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State’s submission filed by the State in response to this task. The report’s format has been modified to a more readable and usable format for this reporting period.

Status

The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitors, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:
123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-94

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 95 of 100 PageID: 1071

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents, records, recordings and other information during the course of the team’s site visit during October, 2003.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

Task 124 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 124 stipulates that:
124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State staff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-95

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 96 of 100 PageID: 1072

asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-96

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 97 of 100 PageID: 1073
3.0 Summary
3.1 Progress toward Compliance
During the last reporting period, the State has continued to make remarkable progress in all areas of compliance. These new compliance levels are, in the monitors’ opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency, and an aggressive, continuing push to ensure that field operations activities related to the consent decree are 100 percent compliant. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State’s compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed this reporting period in training, supervision, MAPPS, and inspections and audit processes. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
3.2 Training
Last reporting period, the monitors noted a continued improvement in training function implementation. This improvement was due, in part, to substantial increases in staffing levels noted in the ninth reporting period. During the thirteenth reporting period, the Academy continues to reap the benefit of specific planning, organization and development functions implemented during the tenth reporting period. Improvements in virtually all areas of the training function were noted again this period, with one exception. Evaluation of the impact of training in the field, which was listed as in compliance by the monitors during the twelfth reporting period appears to have progressed little in the six months since that report. While it is unrealistic to expect comprehensive impact evaluations each reporting period, the monitors continue to be focused on impact evaluations related to training, and anticipate their availability for the fourteenth reporting period. Specific and tangible impact evaluations related to training will be expected for the fourteenth reporting period to maintain compliance with this task. Executive training was addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and substantial improvement has been noted in these areas as well, although issues related to budget may begin to affect the exceptional quality of executive and mid-level training in the future. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to, and interest in, the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.
3.3 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the third consecutive Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-97

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 98 of 100 PageID: 1074
reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing 313 of the 313 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. This 100 percent supervisory review rate yielded 55 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency has achieved that goal.
New Jersey State Police personnel now subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 100 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These new supervisory initiatives, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to, and interest in, the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police, to a level heretofore not observed by the monitoring team. In addition, the monitors have noted evidence that the supervisory process continues to self-correct. One potentially serious lapse in the supervisory process was observed this reporting period that was caught and corrected by the second tier of management review. This involved a sergeant who counseled troopers under his command for failing to frisk passengers in a vehicle based on the arrest of the driver. No case law empowerment for such frisks exists, and this error on the part of a field supervisor was noted and corrected by management review, lending still more credence to the monitors’ belief that the New Jersey State Police supervisory and management review processes are effective, engaged and supportive of improved policing processes.13
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free—only 57 consent-decree-related mistakes from a potential universe of 25,584. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught 55 of errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 95 percent for the supervisory review process. All of these errors were considered by the monitoring team to be “technical” in nature, i.e., errors in reporting or process, not Constitutional and not substantially related to compliance.
This reporting period reflects a major milestone for Field Operations aspects of the consent decree. The monitors noted only two consent-decree related errors this reporting period that were not first caught and corrected (prior to the monitors identifying cases to be reviewed this period) by supervisory personnel. Field Operations
13 Under the facts of this incident, there was no right to frisk the passengers pursuant to the arrest of the dirver. Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report
Page-98

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 99 of 100 PageID: 1075
personnel have been within the 95 percent compliance requirement for five reporting periods (15 months) and 100 percent effective (including supervisory corrective actions) relative to consent decree activities for 12 months. It is clear that the day-today activities of field operations personnel are in compliance with the consent decree, and have been for more than a year.
Performance of supervisory activities within field operations is also exceptional, reducing error rates for some of the most complex human interactions, e.g., consent searches, arrests, detentions, frisks and searches of persons and vehicles, to near or at zero. The errors the monitors are noting at this stage of the monitoring process are truly minor, akin to “box checking errors,” rather than related to constitutional protections. And even those error rates are miniscule (two from a potential universe of 25,584 this period, or 0.0000078 percent!). This is a truly remarkable figure considering the complexity of the law enforcement processes under scrutiny. Again this reporting period, the monitors found all New Jersey State Police to be professionally conducted, and to be free of indicators of race- or ethnicity-based decision making.
As a result of this continued high level of performance, the monitors recommend that the parties consider modification of the monitoring process to focus more of the monitors’ efforts on the supervisory functions involved within the New Jersey State Police Field Operations processes. The monitors believe there is little to be gained in direct monitoring of field operations activities via review of video tapes, etc, and more to be gained by increased focus on field-level supervision and management review processes, and the training and MAPPS processes that support this supervisory process.
3.4 MAPPS Development
Full compliance has been continued regarding the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper’s workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed, allowing establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and the second of the New Jersey State Police’s five road troops received its written benchmarking and data analytic reports this reporting period. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced this reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-99

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 67-1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 100 of 100 PageID: 1076 3.5 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for three consecutive periods.
Thirteenth Independent Monitors’ Report Page-100

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1214
Monitors' Fourteenth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
June, 2006

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 1215

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the last reporting period, the State has achieved 100 percent compliance with all tasks outlined in the consent decree-well beyond the requirements established by the monitors and the parties for effective compliance with the requirements of the decree. These new compliance levels continue to be, in the monitors' opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency, and an aggressive, continuing effort to review 100 percent of field operations activities related to the consent decree. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State's compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed again this reporting period in training, supervision, MAPPS, and inspections and audit processes. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
Training Specific and tangible impact evaluations related to training were implemented during the fourteenth reporting period. Executive training was addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and substantial improvement continues to be evidenced in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy during this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to, and interest in, the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. The training academy achieved 100 percent compliance during the fourteenth reporting period, meeting the minimum requirements of the consent decree in all areas, and far exceeding the requirements in the areas of curriculum planning, staffing, and development. More than 100 percent compliance is evident in the training function this reporting period.
Supervision As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the
changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New
Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the sixth consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing in advance of the
monitors' notice of selection of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports, 135 of the 135 motor
vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. 1 This 100 percent supervisory review rate yielded 41 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise
1 The State does not receive advanced notice of the stop incidents that will be reviewed by the monitors.

Executive Summary

p. iv

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 1216

responded to those violations. Errors noted and corrected by supervisory personnel, again this reporting period, were procedural in nature, not Constitutional errors. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency has achieved that goal.
New Jersey State Police personnel continue to subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 100 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These supervisory processes, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to, and interest in, the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police. In addition, the monitors have noted evidence that the supervisory process continues to self-correct. Errors at the initial supervisory review level are routinely noted and corrected by management review, lending still more credence to the monitors' belief that the New Jersey State Police supervisory and management review processes are effective, engaged and supportive of improved policing processes.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught all errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 100 percent for the three-tier supervisory review process. In effect, the New Jersey State Police have replaced an independent monitoring team of five with
192 internal monitors in the form of State Police road sergeants, "integrity" officers,
and management personnel. Their performance over the last 30 months has been exceptionally strong.
This reporting period reflects a major milestone for Field Operations aspects of the
consent decree. The monitors noted no consent-decree related errors this reporting
period that were not first caught and corrected (prior to the monitors identifying cases to be reviewed this period) by supervisory personnel. Field Operations personnel have been within the 95 percent compliance requirement for five reporting periods (30 months) and 100 percent effective (including supervisory corrective actions) relative to consent decree activities for 18 months. It is clear that the day-to-day activities of field operations personnel are in compliance with the consent decree, and have been for more than a 24 months.
Performance of supervisory activities within field operations is also exceptional, reducing error rates for some of the most complex human interactions, e.g., consent searches, arrests, detentions, frisks and searches of persons and vehicles, to zero. This

Executive Summary

p. v

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 1217

is a truly remarkable figure considering the complexity of the law enforcement processes under scrutiny. Again this reporting period, the monitors found all New Jersey State Police interactions reviewed by the monitors to be professionally conducted, and to be free of indicators of race- or ethnicity-based decision making. Field Operations has gone well beyond the requirements of the consent decree, and is now fielding one of the most comprehensive, data-driven, and well documented supervisory systems in American law enforcement. The New Jersey State Police have fielded supervisory and field operations systems that attain well more than that which was envisioned and required by the decree.
MAPPS Development Full compliance has been continued regarding the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and the third of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops received its written benchmarking and data analytic reports this reporting period. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced last reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. During the fourteenth reporting period, the MAPPS system implemented a "trooper centric" data access process that allows a supervisor to simply enter a badge number and to collect all relevant MAPPS data related to that badge number with one inquiry. As with other areas of compliance, MAPPS processes meet, and in many cases, exceed all requirements of the decree. Technically, the MAPPS processes are in 100 percent compliance with the requirements
of the decree; however, operationally, MAPPS exceeds those requirements in many
areas.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for five consecutive periods. OSPA has been an

Executive Summary

p. vi

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 1218

important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
The final determination of compliance status is articulated in the decree-agreed to among the parties and the Court-as "substantial compliance." A synopsis of compliance efforts, however, may be helpful in aiding the reader in understanding the State's compliance with the requirements of the decree in four overarching areas of the decree:
Supervisory and management reviews of trooper activities; Development and implementation of an automated personnel performance management system; Internal investigations of allegations of trooper misconduct; and Development and evaluation of training programs for New Jersey State Police personnel.
Review of Trooper Activities
The State attained complete compliance (defined as 100 percent compliance with all areas involved in reviewing trooper activities, and correcting those actions found not to be in compliance with established policies, including those reflecting the decree) during the eleventh reporting period. In many ways, the State has exceeded the requirements of the decree. For example, the State subjects to detailed supervisory review 100 percent of all events in which a driver or passenger is subjected to post-stop law enforcement actions articulated by the decree, i.e., asked to exit the vehicle, subjected to a frisk, subjected to a search of a vehicle, search of a person, use of force, deployment of a drug-detection canine or request for a consent search. Moreover, this review is multi-tiered, involving road sergeants, station sergeants and lieutenants, integrity process supervisors, and OSPA.
During the eleventh reporting period, the State achieved complete compliance with all of the requirements related to supervisory review of trooper activity in the field. That review has resulted in hundreds of supervisory interventions designed to improve trooper performance in the field. The result of this process has been a palpable improvement in the execution of police duties in the field. These interventions, invariably involving teaching processes designed to correct errors and omissions in field law enforcement processes, have resulted in a greatly improved "average" traffic stop, both in terms of constitutional and legal protections, and in "tone and timbre." After achieving complete compliance, the State has maintained that compliance for four

Executive Summary

p. vii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 1219

consecutive reporting periods, i.e., from the eleventh through the fourteenth reporting periods, a total of two years.

Development and Implementation of Automated Personnel Performance Management System

The MAPPS system (Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System) was designed in response to the requirements of sections 40-51 of the decree. As of the tenth reporting period, the MAPPS system met eleven of the thirteen requirements of the decree. Among the eleven requirements found to be in compliance by the tenth reporting period, the State far exceeded the specific requirements of the decree by implementing a system that was future-oriented, user friendly, and both efficient and effective, collecting data elements on trooper activity that exceeded the criteria of the decree. In fact, development of the MAPPS system was effectuated by using the
decree as a baseline, and developing a personnel management system that fit the
needs of management in addition to meeting the specific requirements of the decree.

The two decree requirements not implemented by the State by the tenth reporting

period-benchmarking (Task 50) and analysis of long-term trends (Task 51)-were

important to compliance, but not critical to compliance. The benchmarking elements of

the decree required comparisons of law enforcement actions by race, ethnicity, by the

reason for the motor vehicle stop. Long-term trend analysis required "evaluations of

trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between

troopers, units, and subunits." These two requirements of the decree came into

compliance during the twelfth reporting period, and have remained in compliance

during the thirteenth and fourteenth reporting periods. While the monitors contend

that these two requirements required by the decree, they

were were

important to not essential

the long-term to substantial

success of the changes short-term compliance. 2

Internal Investigations of Allegations of Trooper Misconduct

In April of 2004, based on 30 months of compliance with tasks articulated in the decree related to internal investigations of allegations of trooper misconduct, the parties jointly petitioned the Court, asking that the elements of the decree related to the Office of Professional Standards be removed from further monitoring. The monitors supported that petition based solely on the State's performance levels over the preceding 30 months. As a result of the petition, the Court removed all but two components of the decree's requirements from continued monitoring (Tasks 87 [timelines for completion of internal investigations] and 90 [requirements for appropriate discipline]). Since April of

2 Task 40 was also found to be non-compliant during the eleventh reporting period because of the issues discussed under Tasks 50 and 51.

Executive Summary

p. viii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 1220

2004, the monitors have found the State to remain in compliance with these two remaining tasks, based on a review of "course of business" documents relating to internal investigations' timelines and outcomes. This constitutes more than four years of compliance in the area of internal investigations of trooper misconduct.
Development and Evaluation of Training Programs
As of the eleventh reporting period, the State was in compliance with all but two of the fourteen requirements established by the decree. Tasks 93 and 106 were found to be non-compliant in the eleventh reporting period. Task 93 required "evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught." While evaluation plans had been developed by the eleventh reporting period, these plans had not been implemented until the fourteenth reporting period. Task 106 required on-going professional training for newly promoted New Jersey State Police troopers. During the eleventh reporting period, the monitors were still expressing concern over the documentation processes for training of captains and above. These issues were resolved in the twelfth reporting period. As with the issues discussed in the section on MAPPS performance monitoring systems, while the tasks outlined in 93 and 106 were important to the long-term success of the consent decree requirements, they were not
critical.
Final Assessment
The monitors' fourteenth report represents a monitoring project that started in March of 2000, and has consisted of fourteen on-site visits and thousands of hours of monitoring effort. After six years of monitoring, including the review of video tapes of more than a thousand motor vehicle stops, the monitors have determined that the State is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. With four exceptions, the State of New Jersey was in full compliance with all aspect of the
consent decree during the eleventh reporting period. Those four exceptions (Tasks 50 [MAPPS benchmarking], 51 [MAPPS trend analysis], 93 [training for executives] and
106 [evaluation of training efforts]) were classified by the monitors as important to long-term compliance, but not critical to the manner in which day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police complied to the consent decree. It is important to note that the State eventually attained compliance in these four areas, and the monitors have concluded that the delayed attainment of compliance did not diminish the achievement of substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. These four exceptions stand in contradistinction to the State's attainment of required compliance status for 95 of the 99 requirements of the decree, as of the eleventh reporting period. As such, it is the determination of the monitors, based on a thorough review of the overall performance of the State, that the State was in substantial

Executive Summary

p. ix

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 1221
compliance with the requirements of the consent decree as of the eleventh reporting period, and have remained in compliance for four consecutive reporting periods from April 1, 2004 through May 31, 2006, more than the required two years.
The monitors are convinced of two important achievements related to the consent decree: the changes implemented over the last six years have been accepted by the members of the New Jersey State Police, and have been institutionalized in practice and policy. Secondly, the New Jersey State Police have embraced the consent decree as an effective change mechanism, and have met the requirements of the decree in both letter and spirit. Leadership at the agency have articulated-and demonstrated-that
the decree is a baseline for long-term organizational development. At this juncture, the
operations of the New Jersey State Police have far exceeded the written requirements of the consent decree. The agency has implemented training, supervisory, information systems, and internal investigative processes that are a solid foundation for moving the organization forward in a professional, constitutional, and ethically progressive manner.

Executive Summary

p.x

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 1222

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

iv

1 Introduction

1

1. 1 Overall Status Assessment

1

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Progress toward Compliance

4

1.6 Overall Compliance Assessment

7

1.7 Final Assessment

10

2 2.1 2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6 2.7 2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12 2.13 2.14
2.15 2.16 2.17
2.18 2.19

Assessment of Compliance

1 0

Methodology

10

Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

11

Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

16

Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

19

Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

21

Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

30

Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 35

Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

39

Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

40

Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

41

Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

42

Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 43

Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

44

Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

46

Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions 47

Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 48

Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

48

Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System

49

Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal

MAPPS Data

51

Table of Contents

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 1223

2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32 2.33 2.34

Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts"

52

Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

53

Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

54

Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

54

Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 55

Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

56

Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

57

Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

58

Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

59

Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

60

Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

61

Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Jersey Turnpike

62

Office of Professional Standards Requirements

62

Training Assessment

63

Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

Training Programs

63

2.35
2.36
2.37 2.38 2.39
2.40
2.41
2.42
2.43 2.44
2.45 2.46
2.47
2.48
2.49

Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

64

Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

65

Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

66

Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

67

Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

68

Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

69

Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

70

Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

71

Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 72

Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

73

Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

74

Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPSO

Program

75

Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

76

Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

76

Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Table of Contents

p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70 Filed 06/27/06 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 1224

2.50 2.51
2.52 2.53 2.54
2.55 2.56 2.57
3.0

Motor Vehicle Stops

78

Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen

Complaint Processes

78

Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

the Office of State Police Affairs

79

Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

80

Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor 81

Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

82

Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 83

Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

84

Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

85

Executive Summary

87

Table of Contents

p. iii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 31 PageID: 1257

Independent Monitors' Fourteenth Report Period Ending March 31, 2006

1 Introduction
This document represents the fourteenth "Independent Monitors' Report" (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for the period October 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006. In order to complete the report in a timely fashion, monitoring activities were accomplished during the months of March and April, 2006.
The report is organized into three sections, identified below:

•

Introduction;

•

Compliance Assessment; and

•

Summary.

The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions used by
the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of "compliance" are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, "Compliance Assessment," includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the monitors and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, "Summary," provides an
overall assessment of the State's performance for this reporting period.

1.1 Overall Status Assessment
Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment
The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree. It reports on the State's compliance using the individual requirements of the decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using "to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop" (Decree at para 26). The following Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-l

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 31 PageID: 1258

components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as "Phase I," and "Phase II," with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either
collected by:

•

Selection of a random or stratified random sample;

•

Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every instance of selection of random samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring
team while on-site.

The performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the consent decree was assessed by the monitoring team during the period ending March 31, 2006. The fourteenth independent monitors' report was submitted to the court during the month of June, 2006.
All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

• Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course of
business/ and/or • Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state government
during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

1 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance "special reports" prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 31 PageID: 1259

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative

description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task

requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology used to assess the task,

and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to note, however, that a finding of

non-compliance does not mean the State is engaging in inappropriate behavior. It

simply means the State has not yet completed its efforts toward compliance. The

graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate

status in each compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below.

The first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first year

and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the time allowed

by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time period is represented

by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth segments represent the time

required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase I or Phase II compliance. A

vertically patterned light blue bar

indicates that compliance was achieved in the

time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow bar

indicates that compliance

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in

the opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State's eventual compliance

with the decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the

delay may seriously affect the State's eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the decree, and

which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the State's successful

compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or could not be monitored is

represented by a hollow bar

1.3.3 Standards for "Compliance"

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for "compliance" to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 31 PageID: 1260

requirements of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard. This change to compliance standards is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, below.
1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Task nn
Phase I Phase II

3 4

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance was attained in the twelfth reporting period, much later than required by the decree, and thus did seriously threaten the State's successful compliance with the decree.
1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process
Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of "policy compliance:" the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational compliance-institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.
1.5 Progress toward Compliance
During the last reporting period, the State has achieved 100 percent compliance with all tasks outlined in the consent decree-well beyond the requirements established by the monitors and the parties for effective compliance with the requirements of the decree. These new compliance levels continue to be, in the monitors' opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency, and an aggressive, continuing effort to review 100 percent of field operations activities related to the consent decree. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State's compliance efforts, with remarkable
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 5 of 31 PageID: 1261
effects observed again this reporting period in training, supervision, MAPPS, and inspections and audit processes. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
1.5.1 Training
Specific and tangible impact evaluations related to training were implemented during the fourteenth reporting period. Executive training was addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and substantial improvement continues to be evidenced in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy during this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to, and interest in, the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. The training academy achieved 100 percent compliance during the fourteenth reporting period, meeting the minimum requirements of the consent decree in all areas, and far exceeding the requirements in the areas of curriculum planning, staffing, and development. More than 100 percent compliance is evident in the training function this reporting period.
1.5.2 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the
changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New
Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the sixth consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing in advance of the monitors' notice of selection of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports, 135 of the 135 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors.2 This 100 percent supervisory review rate yielded 41 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Errors noted and corrected by supervisory personnel, again this reporting period, were procedural in nature, not Constitutional errors. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency has achieved that goal.
New Jersey State Police personnel continue to subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 100 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These supervisory processes, again, are reflective of a strong
2 The State does not receive advanced notice of the stop incidents that will be reviewed by the monitors.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-S

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 6 of 31 PageID: 1262
commitment to, and interest in, the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police. In addition, the monitors have noted evidence that the supervisory process continues to self-correct. Errors at the initial supervisory review level are routinely noted and corrected by management review, lending still more credence to the monitors' belief that the New Jersey State Police supervisory and management review processes are effective, engaged and supportive of improved policing processes.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught all errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 100 percent for the three-tier supervisory review process. In effect, the New Jersey State Police have replaced an independent monitoring team of five with
192 internal monitors in the form of State Police road sergeants, "integrity" officers,
and management personnel. Their performance over the last 30 months has been exceptionally strong.
This reporting period reflects a major milestone for Field Operations aspects of the
consent decree. The monitors noted no consent-decree related errors this reporting
period that were not first caught and corrected (prior to the monitors identifying cases to be reviewed this period) by supervisory personnel. Field Operations personnel have been within the 95 percent compliance requirement for five reporting periods (30 months) and 100 percent effective (including supervisory corrective actions) relative to consent decree activities for 18 months. It is clear that the day-to-day activities of field operations personnel are in compliance with the consent decree, and have been for more than a 24 months.
Performance of supervisory activities within field operations is also exceptional, reducing error rates for some of the most complex human interactions, e.g., consent searches, arrests, detentions, frisks and searches of persons and vehicles, to zero. This is a truly remarkable figure considering the complexity of the law enforcement processes under scrutiny. Again this reporting period, the monitors found all New Jersey State Police interactions reviewed by the monitors to be professionally conducted, and to be free of indicators of race- or ethnicity-based decision making.
Field Operations has gone well beyond the requirements of the consent decree, and is now fielding one of the most comprehensive, data-driven, and well documented supervisory systems in American law enforcement. The New Jersey State Police have fielded supervisory and field operations systems that attain well more than that which was envisioned and required by the decree.
1.5.3 MAPPS Development
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 7 of 31 PageID: 1263

Full compliance has been continued regarding the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and the third of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops received its written benchmarking and data analytic reports this reporting period. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced last reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. During the fourteenth reporting period, the MAPPS system implemented a "trooper centric" data access process that allows a supervisor to simply enter a badge number and to collect all relevant MAPPS data related to that badge number with one inquiry. As with other areas of compliance, MAPPS processes meet, and in many cases, exceed all requirements of the decree. Technically, the MAPPS processes are in 100 percent compliance with the requirements
of the decree; however, operationally, MAPPS exceeds those requirements in many
areas.

1.5.4 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control

Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for five consecutive periods. OSPA has been an important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree.

1.6

Overall Compliance Status

The final determination of compliance status is articulated in the decree-agreed to among the parties and the Court-as "substantial compliance." A synopsis of compliance efforts, however, may be helpful in aiding the reader in understanding the State's compliance with the requirements of the decree in four overarching areas of the
decree:

• Supervisory and management reviews of trooper activities; • Development and implementation of an automated personnel performance
management system; • Internal investigations of allegations of trooper misconduct; and
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 8 of 31 PageID: 1264
• Development and evaluation of training programs for New Jersey State Police personnel.
•
Review of Trooper Activities
The State attained complete compliance (defined as 100 percent compliance with all
areas involved in reviewing trooper activities, and correcting those actions found not to be in compliance with established policies, including those reflecting the decree) during
the eleventh reporting period. In many ways, the State has exceeded the requirements
of the decree. For example, the State subjects to detailed supervisory review 100 percent of all events in which a driver or passenger is subjected to post-stop law enforcement actions articulated by the decree, i.e., asked to exit the vehicle, subjected to a frisk, subjected to a search of a vehicle, search of a person, use of force, deployment of a drug-detection canine or request for a consent search. Moreover, this review is multi-tiered, involving road sergeants, station sergeants and lieutenants, integrity process supervisors, and OSPA.
During the eleventh reporting period, the State achieved complete compliance with all of the requirements related to supervisory review of trooper activity in the field. That review has resulted in hundreds of supervisory interventions designed to improve
trooper performance in the field. The result of this process has been a palpable
improvement in the execution of police duties in the field. These interventions,
invariably involving teaching processes designed to correct errors and omissions in field
law enforcement processes, have resulted in a greatly improved "average" traffic stop, both in terms of constitutional and legal protections, and in "tone and timbre." After achieving complete compliance, the State has maintained that compliance for four consecutive reporting periods, i.e., from the eleventh through the fourteenth reporting periods, a total of two years.
Development and Implementation of Automated Personnel Performance Management System
The MAPPS system (Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System) was designed in response to the requirements of sections 40-51 of the decree. As of the tenth reporting period, the MAPPS system met eleven of the thirteen requirements of the decree. Among the eleven requirements found to be in compliance by the tenth reporting period, the State far exceeded the specific requirements of the decree by implementing a system that was future-oriented, user friendly, and both efficient and effective, collecting data elements on trooper activity that exceeded the criteria of the decree. In fact, development of the MAPPS system was effectuated by using the
decree as a baseline, and developing a personnel management system that fit the
needs of management in addition to meeting the specific requirements of the decree.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-S

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 9 of 31 PageID: 1265
The two decree requirements not implemented by the State by the tenth reporting period-benchmarking (Task 50) and analysis of long-term trends (Task 51)-were important to compliance, but not critical to compliance. The benchmarking elements of the decree required comparisons of law enforcement actions by race, ethnicity, by the reason for the motor vehicle stop. Long-term trend analysis required "evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits." These two requirements of the decree came into compliance during the twelfth reporting period, and have remained in compliance during the thirteenth and fourteenth reporting periods. While the monitors contend that these two requirements were important to the long-term success of the changes required by the decree, they were not essential to substantial short-term compliance. 3
Internal Investigations of Allegations of Trooper Misconduct
In April of 2004, based on 30 months of compliance with tasks articulated in the decree related to internal investigations of allegations of trooper misconduct, the parties jointly petitioned the Court, asking that the elements of the decree related to the Office of Professional Standards be removed from further monitoring. The monitors supported that petition based solely on the State's performance levels over the preceding 30 months. As a result of the petition, the Court removed all but two components of the decree's requirements from continued monitoring (Tasks 87 [timelines for completion of internal investigations] and 90 [requirements for appropriate discipline]). Since April of 2004, the monitors have found the State to remain in compliance with these two remaining tasks, based on a review of "course of business" documents relating to internal investigations' timelines and outcomes. This constitutes more than four years of compliance in the area of internal investigations of trooper misconduct.
Development and Evaluation of Training Programs
As of the eleventh reporting period, the State was in compliance with all but two of the fourteen requirements established by the decree. Tasks 93 and 106 were found to be non-compliant in the eleventh reporting period. Task 93 required "evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught." While evaluation plans had been developed by the eleventh reporting period, these plans had not been implemented until the fourteenth reporting period. Task 106 required on-going professional training for newly promoted New Jersey State Police troopers. During the eleventh reporting period, the monitors were still expressing concern over the documentation processes for training of captains and above. These issues were resolved in the twelfth reporting period. As with the issues discussed in the section on
3 Task 40 was also found to be non-compliant during the eleventh reporting period because of the issues discussed under Tasks 50 and 51.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 10 of 31 PageID: 1266
MAPPS performance monitoring systems, while the tasks outlined in 93 and 106 were important to the long-term success of the consent decree requirements, they were not critical.
1.7 Final Assessment
The monitors' fourteenth report represents a monitoring project that started in March of 2000, and has consisted of fourteen on-site visits and thousands of hours of monitoring effort. After six years of monitoring, including the review of video tapes of more than a thousand motor vehicle stops, the monitors have determined that the State is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. With four exceptions, the State of New Jersey was in full compliance with all aspect of the consent decree during the eleventh reporting period. Those four exceptions (Tasks 50 [MAPPS benchmarking], 51 [MAPPS trend analysis], 93 [training for executives] and 106 [evaluation of training efforts]) were classified by the monitors as important to long-term compliance, but not critical to the manner in which day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police complied to the consent decree. It is important to note that the State eventually attained compliance in these four areas, and the monitors have concluded that the delayed attainment of compliance did not diminish the achievement of substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. These four exceptions stand in contradistinction to the State's attainment of required compliance status for 95 of the 99 requirements of the decree, as of the eleventh reporting period. As such, it is the determination of the monitors, based on a thorough review of the overall performance of the State, that the State was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree as of the eleventh reporting period, and have remained in compliance for four consecutive reporting periods from April 1, 2004 through May 31, 2006, more than the required two years.
The monitors are convinced of two important achievements related to the consent decree: the changes implemented over the last six years have been accepted by the members of the New Jersey State Police, and have been institutionalized in practice and policy. Secondly, the New Jersey State Police have embraced the consent decree as an effective change mechanism, and have met the requirements of the decree in both letter and spirit. Leadership at the agency have articulated-and demonstrated-that the decree is a baseline for long-term organizational development. At this juncture, the operations of the New Jersey State Police have far exceeded the written requirements of the consent decree. The agency has implemented training, supervisory, information systems, and internal investigative processes that are a solid foundation for moving the organization forward in a professional, constitutional, and ethically progressive manner.
2 Assessment of Compliance
2.1 Methodology Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 11 of 31 PageID: 1267

The monitors assessed the State's compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. "Compliance" was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).
The following sections of the fourteenth Monitors' Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the decree between October 1, 2005 and May 31, 2006.
2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

Task 26
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology

During the fourteenth site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured on-site reviews of the operations of eight New Jersey State Police Road Stations. These reviews were conducted of operations reported during the dates October 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available). The team conducted these reviews of Troops C and E. As part of this review, members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 12 of 31 PageID: 1268
data on 135 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 135 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team's methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.
Data Requests
Prior to its site visits in March, 2006, the monitoring team requested of the State electronic and hard-copy data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other non-electronic data requests:
• Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated poststop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drugdetection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.
• Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop "communications center call-ins" for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.
• The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.
Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop records for Troops C and E (taken from the State's motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop "event" records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the active dates of the fourteenth site visit.
Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the fourteenth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 13 of 31 PageID: 1269

Motor Vehicle Stops

Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the State.

Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment.

Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Fourteenth Site Visit

Type of Activity

Report Reviews I Tape Reviews

Selected MVS Incidents

135

53

MVS Involving Consent I

30

30

Search Requests

I I

MVS Involving Canine

15

10

Deployment

I

I

MVS Involving Use of

I

4

4

1 Force

I Probable Cause Searches

27

6

I
I of Vehicles

I Probable Cause Searches

12

I

6

1

I of Persons

I

I

• Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports etc.), referred to as Type I data;
• Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 14 of 31 PageID: 1270
• Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.
These records indicated 15 events that resulted in consent search requests from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and 15 events from other stations resulting in consent search requests, for a total of 30 consent search requests.4 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search, and by reviewing the available video tape records for those consent requests. All consent searches conducted were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team.
Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 15 times during the reporting period. Reports from all 15 of these events were reviewed by the monitoring team, and videos from ten of those events were also reviewed by the monitoring team. Force reportedly was used by New Jersey State Police personnel in four motor vehicle stop incidents during the reporting period, and reports from all of these incidents were reviewed by the monitoring team. Video tapes of all four of the use of force events were reviewed by members of the monitoring team during the fourteenth site visit. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
Selected motor vehicle stop incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table Two, below.
Type I Event Reviews
A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent
4 Five consent requests were declined by drivers during the reporting period. Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 15 of 31 PageID: 1271

to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 135 Type I reviews were conducted this period.

Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

I Station
I I (C20) Bordentown
(C30) Kingwood
, (C60) Hiqhtstown (C80) Red Lion
I (C120) Tuckerton
I (E30) Bass River
I (E40) Bloomfield
(ESO) Holmdel I Other Stations
I Total

Type I Type II Reviews Reviews

13

1

12

0

23

0

10 I 1
2I 0

11

0

13

0

11

2

40

49

I '

135

535

Type In Reviews
I 0

I 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

I

0

I

0

Type II Event Review
A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 53 Type II reviews were conducted this period.
Type III Event Review
5 The monitors reviewed 44 tapes of motor vehicle stops; however, these 44 tapes included 53 post-stop actions of interest to the decree. The 30 consent requests reviewed also included nine canine deployments.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-15

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 16 of 31 PageID: 1272

In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, were selected for review, six events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the monitoring team. Based on the State's past performance, ten consecutive quarters in which no unreported events were discovered, no Type III reviews were conducted this reporting period.

Status

The monitoring team's review of New Jersey State Police SOPs indicates that the agency remains in Phase I and Phase II compliance with Task 26. The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. The vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police are "non-discretionary," e.g., searches incidental to arrest, with a total of 82 of the 125 searches of vehicles being conducted "incidental to arrest." Of the 153 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 100 were "non-discretionary" searches incidental to arrest. The monitors continue to see a professional quality and tenor of the "average" traffic stop observed by the monitoring team during the past six reporting periods. The monitors have noted no indications of racial profiling in the data reviewed this reporting period. Further, the monitors noted that all motor vehicle stops reviewed this reporting period were professionally conducted, and met all Constitutional requirements relating to the consent decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

I f Task 27
Phase I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 17 of 31 PageID: 1273
Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in , 26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with ,, 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. The monitors have continued to note improvements in the quality, frequency, and tone of supervisory review during the fourteenth monitoring period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in a law enforcement procedures were effected in 135 of 135 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 100 percent.6 More importantly, the New Jersey State Police have continued to implement a much different ~ of supervisory review process, attempting to meet the goal of having first-line (station-level) supervisors review a// motor vehicle stops which result in a law enforcement procedure (vehicle exit, frisk, arrest, search, canine deployment, consent request, or use of force). The majority of the supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources-quality assurance reviews, OSPA reviews or other non-station sources. The vast majority of initial reviews conducted during the tenth through fourteenth reporting period were conducted by station-level supervisors.
Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present in 26.7 percent of monitored activity this reporting period. This constitutes the highest level of in-field supervision noted since the inception of the consent decree, six years ago. Video tapes were reviewed by first- and second-line supervisors in 100 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors this period.7 This supervisory review rate yielded 41
6 All MVSRs reviewed by the monitoring team had been reviewed by either first line supervisors or subjected to "management review." The majority had received both. 7 These reviews are now conducted routinely, and a// were conducted before the monitors notified the State of which MVS incidents would be selected for by the monitors.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 18 of 31 PageID: 1274
instances in which New Jersey State Police personnel committed errors related to the consent decree. In all of these 41 instances, New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted these violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations, prior to being notified by the monitoring team of the motor vehicle stops that would be reviewed this period. In addition, the monitors noted that all of the 41 errors this reporting period were procedural in nature, i.e., related to reporting issues or minor policy violations, as opposed to Constitutional violations or errors. Unlike past periods, it appears that the majority of supervisory interventions are being conducted by first-line supervisors, as opposed to secondary sources.
It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. As a result of this newly implemented supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 41 decreerelated errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With this new system, these 41 decree-related errors were noted and corrected in "real time," before the monitors called them to the attention of the State. In the flood of data that constitute the monitors' reports, the significance of this accomplishment may tend to be lost. In a complex, fluic;l sometimes chaotic environment that constitutes the field laboratory ofpolicing, the New Jersey State Police have created a supervisory system that has notec;l corrected and documented all known (and knowable) errors in a virtually real-time process. This is truly a remarkable capacity, and very rarely observed in American law enforcement.
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the implemented MAPPS process indicates that the agency is compliance with the requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. No incidents, from among the 135 reviewed, included an operational error not caught and remedied by field supervisors prior to the monitoring team selecting cases for review this reporting period.
This constitutes and error rate of zero of 135 motor vehicle stop incidents, or 0.0 percent, well within the allowable margin of error of five percent. Compliance for this task is defined as "greater than 94 percent." The State's compliance rate for these processes stands at 100 percent.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 19 of 31 PageID: 1275

The reader should note a continued quantitative and a qualitative difference in the supervisory review process. Since late in the sixth reporting period, supervisory personnel have been required to review all consent search, uses of force, and canine deployment reports. Errors in those activities continue to drop this period. In fact, the monitoring team has noted a continuation of last reporting period's remarkable and laudable increase in supervisory review processes, and resulting performance noticesboth positive and negative-based on those reviews. Several of these reviews indicated to the monitoring team that the New Jersey State Police are identifying procedural errors prior to the monitoring team's noting them. A total of 135 MVS incidents reviewed by the monitoring team were also reviewed by supervisory personnel. Within those 135 events, the monitoring team noted 41 various errors by law enforcement personnel. New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted all 41 of those errors prior to the monitors' review process, and corrected all of these procedural errors prior to the monitors' site visit through performance notices, interventions such as verbal counseling or retraining.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

Task 28

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 28 stipulates:
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants,
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 20 of 31 PageID: 1276
which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of 30 law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the fourteenth report's operational dates. Five of these involved consent search requests that were declined. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Three below. Tables Three through Five depict data from the 135 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 135 incidents.
The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total
sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 66 white drivers of the total of 135 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 48.9 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Three depicts six consent requests of white drivers, 15 requests of black drivers, nine requests of Hispanic drivers, and no requests of drivers of "other" racejethnicity. The last column, "Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, who were subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The reader should note that the State has reduced substantially the number of consent search requests, from a high of 59 the fifth reporting period to only twelve during the eleventh period. The twelfth reporting period saw 34 consent requests, and there were 23 consent requests during the thirteenth reporting period, compared to 30 this period. As such, the numbers reported in Table Three are not statistically meaningful when
reported viz a viz race and ethnicity.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 21 of 31 PageID: 1277

All of the 30 consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of the consent decree.8 Obviously, this represents continued strong performance levels
over the last five reporting periods.

An error rate of none of 30 consent searches constitutes zero percent, falling well within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree.

Table Three-Consent Request Activity

I Race/ Ethnicity

White

Black

Hispanic

' '

Other

Total

Number of Drivers
66(48.9) 48(35.6) 18(13.3) 3(02.2) 135(100)

Number of Requests for
Search9
6 15 9 0 30

Percent Consent Request by
Race/Ethnicity 9.1 31.2 50.0 NA NA

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 29a stipulates that:

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data
a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19

8 Five drivers refused consent requests. 9 Five consent search requests were refused.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors, Report
Page-21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 22 of 31 PageID: 1278
(MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop; 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended; 5. license number/state of stopped vehicle; SA. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); SA. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]); 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted; 14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges; 17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force;
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 23 of 31 PageID: 1279
18. the trooper's race and gender; and 19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.
Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State's compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 135 incidents involving a poststop law enforcement activity of interest to the decree. Use of force, non-consensual searches and deployment of canines received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Four, Five and Six, below.
Use of Force
New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force four times during the reporting period. The use of force rate for white drivers in the sample was 1.5 percent. For black drivers in the sample, the use of force rate was 6.3 percent, and for Hispanic drivers in the sample, zero percent. Members of the monitoring team reviewed reports of all use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. All of the reports were included as part of the MVSR reporting process. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process. 10 None of the use of force practices were found to be problematic.
Tables Three trough Five depict data from the 135 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 135 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 66 white drivers of the total of 135 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 48.9 percent of all drivers in
10 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree. Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 24 of 31 PageID: 1280

the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Four depicts one incident of use of force against a white driver (or occupant), three incidents of use of force against black drivers (or occupants), no incident of use of force against Hispanic drivers, and no uses of force against drivers of "other" racejethnicity. The last column, "Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews. These numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant.
Table Four: Use of Force Activity

Race/ Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other! Total

Number of Drivers 66(48.9) 48(35.6) 18(13.3) 3(02.2) 135(100)

I Inci:~~:r~! Use

Percent by I Race/Ethnicity

I

1

1.5

I

3

I

0

6.3
--

I

0

--

I

0

I

--

Canine Deployments
The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units eleven times during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment, and reviewed video tapes of all canine deployments. No reporting problems were noted in any of the 15 deployments, and the video taped incidents reviewed indicated that the written reports accurately reflected actual events. All canine deployments were professionally executed and were executed for legitimate cause.
Table Five depicts data from the 135 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 135 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Three through Five, there were 66 white drivers of the total of 135 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 48.9 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Five depicts four canine deployment for white drivers, eight canine deployments for black drivers, three canine deployment for Hispanic drivers, and no canine deployments for drivers of "other" racejethnicity. The last column, "Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 25 of 31 PageID: 1281

or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews. The numbers of canine deployments were so small as to be statistically insignificant regarding the race of the drivers.
Table Five: Canine Deployments

I Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White
Black I
Hispanic
Other

Number of Drivers 66(48.9) 48(35.6) 18(13.3) 3(02.2) 135(100)

Canine

Deployments

4

8

!

3

0

15

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
6.1
16.7
16.7
--
--

Non-Consensual Searches
Members of the New Jersey State Police conducted 125 non-consensual searches of vehicles among the 135 reports reviewed by the monitoring team during the reporting period. White drivers' vehicles constituted 59.2 percent of the "searched population" (more than their distribution in the "stopped" population), while black drivers' vehicles
constituted 31.2 percent of the "searched population" (slightly less than the "stopped
population" of 35.6 percent, and Hispanics drivers' vehicles constituted 7.2 percent of the "searched population" (significantly less than their "stopped population" of 13.3 percent. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all 125 of these non-consensual searches of vehicles. None of these non-consensual searches were problematic.

Table Six depicts the results, by racejethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 135 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. Table Six depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by racejethnicity of the 125 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 74 white drivers' vehicles were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 43 white drivers' vehicles searched incidental to arrest, 26 subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 43 searches incidental to arrest constitute 58.1 percent of all searches of white drivers. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Of the 125 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found no problems that were not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel.

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 26 of 31 PageID: 1282

Table Six: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of Drivers' Vehicles, By Race of Driver

Reason for Search
I
Incidental to Arrest
Probable Cause
Plain View Proof of Ownership
Total

White #(%) 43(58.1)
26 (35.1)
5(6.7) 0 74

Black #(%) 27 (69.2)
12(30.7)
0(0) 0(0) 39

Hispanic 1 Other I #(%) I #(%)

9(100)

3 I

c10o) I

0(14.8)

0 I
I

0

0

0

0

9

3

Table Seven depicts probable cause non-consensual search-of-person activity by race, for probable cause searches, and Table Eight depicts "incidental to arrest" searches by race.

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 41 separate incidents in which procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a

Table Seven: Probable Cause Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

1 Race/Ethnicity , of Drivers

I ' ' '

White Black

'

Hispanic

Other

Number of Drivers 66(48.9) 48(35.6) 18(13.3) 3(02.2) 135(100)

Probable Cause Searches 26 12 0 0 38

Percent by '

Race/ Ethnicitv

39.3

25.0

!

NA

NA
--

Table Eight: Incidental to Arrest Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity j
of Drivers I
White Black Hispanic Other
I

Number of Drivers
66(48.9) 48(35.6) 18(13.3) 3(02.2) 135(100)

I Searches

i Incidental to

I

Arrest

I

43

27

9

3

82

Percent by Race/ Ethnicity
65.1 56.3 50.0 100
--

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 27 of 31 PageID: 1283

complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 41 of these problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining or other form of intervention prior to the monitor's noting the behavior. In addition, the monitors noted that all of the 41 errors this reporting period were procedural in nature, i.e., related to reporting issues or minor policy violations, as opposed to Constitutional violations or errors. An error of zero from among 135 yields an error rate of 0.00 percent, within the allowable margin of error agreed to by the parties. The State's performance this period represents continued superior performance in this area of the decree. The monitors continue to attribute this improvement to the State's enhanced field supervision processes.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of

Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 29b

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29b stipulates that:
b. The protocols listed in ,29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in , , 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 28 of 31 PageID: 1284

the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.

The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.

The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the State's database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as "expeditious" implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31, 32 and 33

Task 29c I 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I lilil!HW
Phase II Jl!!!!l!m

Task 29c stipulates that:
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and 1111 31, 32, and 33
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 29 of 31 PageID: 1285

(and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology

The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.

Status

Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

Task 29e I 1 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase II lliD!!!!!!i

Task 29e stipulates that:

e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the State, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 30 of 31 PageID: 1286

protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

Task 30

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

~

Task 30 stipulates that:
30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor
vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in 'II
29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in 'IJ29(a), and as revised pursuant to 'IJ29(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these tasks has been measured under a revised standard for several reporting periods, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-1 Filed 06/27/06 Page 31 of 31 PageID: 1287

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and control of these processes, and when fully implemented, should further improve agency performance in these areas.

For the past ten reporting periods, the State has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors' review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 4411 video recordings and documentation from 135 vehicle stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or
within associated MVSRs.

Of the 135 incidents reviewed by the monitors, only two included an error in call-in or documentation of a motor vehicle stop. Supervisory personnel noted and corrected both of these failures . The monitors found no pattern that would indicate these were intentional acts on the part of enforcement personnel. An error rate of zero incidents of 135 constitutes 0.00 percent, within the newly established parameter of >90 percent, and interestingly, within the original requirement of 95 percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 30a stipulates that:

11 Some video taped incidents included more than one post-stop activity of interest to the decree. For example, nine of the 30 consent requests also included a canine deployment.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 28 PageID: 1186

a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent racejethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 135 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number; 100 percent list the driver's race and gender; 99.9 percent list a reason for the stop and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this task. Of the 135 stop records reviewed by the monitoring team, six indicated that the MVR began after the trooper approached the vehicle. Supervisory action was taken in all of these six incidents. The State is in compliance with this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

Task 30b
Phase I Phase II

9 10 11 12

Task 30b stipulates that:
b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 28 PageID: 1187

Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.
Status

The parties and the monitors have agreed that this section (regarding notice prior to search of a vehicle) applies only to probable cause searches, since state police policy requires a search of all vehicles incidental to the effecting of an arrest. 12 Of the 30 probable cause search events reported (and reviewed by video tape), all 30 were called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, within the >94 percent established as the
criterion for this task.
Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

!!1!\i!Hilll

Task 30c stipulates that:
c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the
12 While New Jersey case law has since changed the requirements and practices of "search incidental to arrest" of a motor vehicle, at the time of the monitors' fourteenth site visit, a complete search of a motor vehicle was allowed, incidental to arrest, by current federal and state law.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 28 PageID: 1188

information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. Of the 44 stops reviewed by video tape, all were found to have clearance codes. Of the 91 stops reviewed by document review, these call-ins were present in the CAD abstract, indicating that they had been made by the trooper and contemporaneously recorded. The State is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

liil!i'iiili ILiililil!i!

Task 30d stipulates that:
d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure {i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.
Methodology
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 28 PageID: 1189

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have "CAD Incident Numbers" indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 135 stops reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period, CAD numbers were present in documentation for all video tapes reviewed, and in 100 percent of all hard copy documents reviewed by the monitoring team that required a CAD number.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 31 stipulates that:
31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 5 of 28 PageID: 1190

Status
A MVSR form was completed accurately in all 30 motor vehicle stop reports that included a consent search request this reporting period. Five of the incidents involved consent requests that were denied. All 30 consent requests were appropriately recorded. This constitutes a 100 percent compliance rate. In addition, the information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all cases.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

Task 31a-c I 1 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

!liiiiiiilli

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search; 5. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived;
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 6 of 28 PageID: 1191
6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied: 1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search; 3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and, 6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for 30 consent requests and 25 consent searches,13 and reviewed video tape recordings of all motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events depicted on 25 video tapes reviewed (five drivers declined) were assessed in light of the reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
13 Five consent requests were refused. Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 7 of 28 PageID: 1192

Members of the monitoring team noted eight reporting or process problems from among the 25 consent searches. All of these incidents were noted by supervisory review and corrected by retraining or intervention prior to announcement of the monitors' data pulls. The State is judged to be in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of Non-Consensual Searches

If Task 32
Phase I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II

32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 8 of 28 PageID: 1193

New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.
Of the 129 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found problems with none. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

Task 33 Phase I

~ 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II r

Task 33 stipulates that:
33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed; 5. whether an alert occurred; 6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 9 of 28 PageID: 1194

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, 15 reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and canines to have been deployed in conformance with the requirements of procedures and the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

~2 Task 34a

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34a stipulates that:
34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.
Methodology

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 10 of 28 PageID: 1195

Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 135 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.

Status

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings, or documentation of in-field mechanical problems, for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.
c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 11 of 28 PageID: 1196
the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.
Methodology
In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each day of this reporting period (see above), members of the monitoring team pulled for review a sample of 135 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the decree. These included 135 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 44 events assessed by reviewing video tapes. 14
Status
While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the decree.
Once stops that are not "pure" motor vehicle stops, e.g., motorist's aids and motor vehicle accidents, are removed from the sample, compliance rates for this aspect of task 34c are all within the originally established 95 percent minimum.
A review of the 44 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has effectively resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning "out of tape" issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units (only one of 44 incidents resulted in an "out of tape" finding). The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 44 stops reviewed via videotape this period, six exhibited some form of audio difficulty, and four exhibited some form of video difficulty. These incidents continue to reflect the age and maintenance of the equipment, rather than trooper-error. The State's planned new digital video systems may reduce these numbers even further. Troopers have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting one event (of 44 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. This constitutes and error rate of 2.3 percent, within the newly established 90 percent requirement for this task, and interestingly, within the original 95 percent requirement. The State remains in compliance with this task.
Compliance
14 All 44 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 135 MVSRs reviewed. Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 12 of 28 PageID: 1197

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to ~~31-33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis
processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status
A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting period indicated that 100 percent of these were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.
A review of 135 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates all reports were reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 135 selected stops reviewed this quarter for evidence of reporting or procedural errors that should have been noted by supervisory personnel. All tapes reviewed by the monitors were also reviewed by supervisory personnel prior to the monitors' review. From those 135 events, the monitors found none that exhibited some form of reporting problem that should have been noted by supervisory review, but were not.
This constitutes and error rate of zero of 135 events reviewed by supervisory personnel, well within the allowable five percent error rate for this task. The monitors have noted a strong improvement in the process of supervisory review of video tapes. The quality of supervisory reviews, continues to improve markedly. The monitors commend
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 13 of 28 PageID: 1198

the new focus on supervision generated by the New Jersey State Police during the last three reporting periods.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36 11 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

- - Phase I
Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:

36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed 135 supervisors' MVR review reports. The quality of these reports has improved substantially. All reviews assessed this reporting period were completed using the new MAPPS performance management system. This process is a vast improvement over earlier processes. Members of the monitoring team were able to compare 44 supervisors' reviews with actual video tapes (the same tapes reviewed by supervisors as part of their review process). Members of the monitoring team noted no reporting or procedural issues in the 44 tapes they reviewed that were missed by the supervisory cadre at the New Jersey State Police. This constitutes an
overall error rate for supervisory review of zero.

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 14 of 28 PageID: 1199

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

II:Hi lili I

Task 37 stipulates that:
37. After conducting a review pursuant to '1]35, '1]36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in '1]29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.
Status
The monitors have observed "course-of-business" records of continual referrals to OPS of actions or omissions by road personnel, although such referrals have become more rare in recent reporting periods. This is, in the monitors' opinions, directly due to the increased levels of routine supervision, which have reduced errors on the part of road personnel. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task. No incidents were noted, during the fourteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. Compliance
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 15 of 28 PageID: 1200

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

~2 Task 38

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:
38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews
of referral decisions pursuant to 'II 37 to ensure appropriate
referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.
Methodology
Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Recently completed training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to "copy" to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.
Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel's review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.
Status
No incidents were noted, during the fourteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. The State remains in compliance with this task based on past performance
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 16 of 28 PageID: 1201

Phase II: In Compliance 2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

Task 39 I 1 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

~

Phase II

Task 39 stipulates that:
39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed 44 motor vehicle stop reports that recorded an event at which a New Jersey State Police sergeant was present, constituting field activity in 26.7 percent of all stops selected this period.

Status

Based on the monitors' review of 44 tapes recording incidents at which state police supervisors were present, the monitors noted no incidents in which procedural violations related to the consent decree were made that were not duly noted and corrected by field supervisory personnel on the scene or upon subsequent tape review.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

Task 40

I1 I 2 I 3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

liiil!liillil

I

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 17 of 28 PageID: 1202

Task 40 stipulates that:
40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
Methodology
This reporting period, the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all, the monitors performed more than 135 tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems tests, the monitors attended and observed a risk management meeting, which uses MAPPS data and information to assess risks to the agency that might require changes in training, supervision, policy or leadership. The results of these process tests are discussed below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51.
MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data in MAPPS, as of the monitors' fourteenth site visit, are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS. The application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities for conducting long-term analyses continue to be observed for the third consecutive reporting period.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System

Task 41
Phase I Phase II

If I 3 I

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 41 requires that:
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 18 of 28 PageID: 1203

a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to '!129 and the protocols listed in '!129of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and
c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being "narrative elements" which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, continue to be found in the MAPPS system. In addition, the five non-primary requirements, identified as "narrative elements" were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors continue to find the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways. The system continues to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required by subparagraphs "b" and "c" of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers use these systems on a daily basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 19 of 28 PageID: 1204

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal MAPPS Data

Task 42 11 I 2 I 3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 42 requires that:
42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts" and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 43 requires that:
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 20 of 28 PageID: 1205

43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ,29 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ,29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in ,29(a)(5A, SA, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in ,29(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in ,41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in ,41(b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by "count" and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (Sa, Sa, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel are accessing the system on a day-today basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 21 of 28 PageID: 1206

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:
44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The State has identified the "CAD incident number" (CIN) as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

Task 45

1 2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

=1 I

I

~

Task 45 requires that:

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 22 of 28 PageID: 1207

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

I I I Task 46

12 34

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

I

Task 46 requires that:
46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by 111148-53.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 23 of 28 PageID: 1208

With implementation of the MAPPS components during the tenth reporting period, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

Task 47 I 1 I 2 I 3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

~

I

Task 47 requires that:
47. Consistent with the requirements of ~~48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January, 2004.
For the past four reporting periods, the monitors have been carefully reviewing the use of supervisory review processes regarding instances in which supervisors have noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, noting in the MAPPS the action taken regarding the problems as "No Further Action." The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State has
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 24 of 28 PageID: 1209

implemented, during the fourteenth reporting period, a "trooper centric" data query system that deals with this issue in an effective and elegant manner.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task 48
Phase I Phase II

=I 1 I 2 I 3 I

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 48 requires that:

48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures have been executed. The monitors have reviewed reports generated in response to this section of the decree, and find them to be responsive to the requirements of the decree and to be used effectively as management tools.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 25 of 28 PageID: 1210

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

If: Task 49

3

Phase I

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II

Task 49 requires that:
49. To the extent reflected in 'l]43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in 'l]73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description ofthe methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these have been executed. During the site visits for the fourteenth reporting period, the monitors reviewed MAPPS reports created in response to this section of the decree and found them to be effective management tools. The State remains in compliance with this requirement of the decree.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 26 of 28 PageID: 1211

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50

13

Phase I Phase II

Task 50 requires that:
so. To the extent reflected in 1143, analyses of MAP data
concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see 111154-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and sub-units.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

During the fourteenth site visit, MAPPS personnel presented to the monitors detailed documentation regarding benchmarking and trend analysis. Data analysis for the third of the State Police's five troops were completed this reporting period (with data for the second of the five road troops completed during last reporting period). The monitors also reviewed official documents regarding organizational use of benchmarking and trend analysis processes. It is clear that the requirements of the decree for comparison of stop data by race, ethnicity, and by activity are being met by the existing system, and that decisions are being made based on trend analysis and benchmarking issue analysis.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 27 of 28 PageID: 1212

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 51

Phase I Phase II

11 12

Task 51 requires that:

51. To the extent reflected in 'l)43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences
between troopers, units, and subunits.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

During the fourteenth site visit, the monitors reviewed the trend analysis processes available in MAPPS and reviewed trend analysis capabilities. The monitors also reviewed official documents regarding organizational use of benchmarking and trend analysis processes. It is clear that the requirements of the decree for comparison of stop data by race, ethnicity, and by activity are being met by the existing system, and that decisions are being made based on trend analysis and benchmarking issue analysis.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/06 Page 28 of 28 PageID: 1213

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

During the fourteenth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted 41 instances of supervisory personnel issuing "performance notices" or other interventions for actions by taken by division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are carefully reviewing trooper activity and issuing performance notices or other "interventions" when inappropriate behavior occurs. The monitors commend the State and the supervisory and management personnel at the New Jersey State Police for a marked and impressive improvement in the level and quality of supervisory review evidenced during this reporting period. See sections 2.13 and 2.16, above, for additional comments relative to supervisor review.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 32 PageID: 1225

Task 53 stipulates that:
53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to ~ 73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.

Status
The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two misconduct investigations in a two-year period, but additional work is pending regarding protocols for and assessment of supervisory response to this section. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During the tenth reporting period, the State had assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards. Data indicate that these reviews are being meaningfully conducted as required by the decree. Documentary evidence available in MAPPS indicates that supervisory personnel are meeting with troopers meeting the criteria of this task, and, when necessary, discussing any applicable patterns of complaints.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 54 stipulates that:
54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-60

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 32 PageID: 1226

to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

Methodology

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition with the Court for release from most of the requirements of the consent decree related to OPS. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the monitors discontinued monitoring activities for OPS requirements as of July, 2004 (the twelfth reporting period), with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90).

Task 87, which requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens' complaints within 120 days, was evaluated by reviewing the "120-day Report," an OPS-generated, "normal course of business" report developed to monitor overdue cases and prevent an additional case backlog. Based on the 120-day Report, the State remains in compliance with this task.

Task 90, which requires imposition of appropriate discipline in Consultation with MAPPS, was evaluated by reviewing "course of business" documents related to the OPS review of sustained OPS investigations, executive-level decisions regarding discipline, and the existence in MAPPS of records reflecting discipline. The State is judged to be in Phase I and Phase II compliance with the requirements of Task 90.

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 32 PageID: 1227

2.33 Training Assessment
The Academy has attained compliance performance areas as of the fourteenth reporting period. The return on the Division's investment in increased manpower, equipment, and automation at the Academy over the past twelve months is remarkable and is reflected in the findings in this report. The Superintendent and the command staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to, and interest in the training function provided by the New Jersey State Police Academy.
Actions noted during the monitors' fourteenth site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.
2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

Task 93 I 1 I 2

3 4

5

... 9

10 11 12 13 14

Phase I I Phase II

Task 93 stipulates that:
93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 32 PageID: 1228

Status

Task 93 enumerates the eight areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. No changes were noted in Academy processes related to the requirements of the decree outlined in this section. The Academy has developed and implemented comprehensive processes relating to ensuring quality training for all state troopers, curriculum development for recruit training, training for Academy instructors, training for trooper coaches, and training evaluation, and continues to implement those processes in a professional and effective manner.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

Task 97

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 97 stipulates that:
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.

Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
Staffing levels at the Academy continue to be monitored to ensure that they adequately meet the demands placed on the Academy. The monitors did not note any significant indicators that suggested less than adequate staffing at the Academy this reporting period.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 5 of 32 PageID: 1229

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

Task 98
Phase I Phase II

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The criteria stipulated by this section of the decree are being met and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy. The files are audited at appropriate intervals by Academy staff.
Status Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 6 of 32 PageID: 1230

Academy Personnel Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Post Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coach Personnel In Compliance In Compliance

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

Task 99

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 99 stipulates that:
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
All Academy and post-Academy instructors, and Trooper Coach personnel meet the requirements. Documentation is on file, and was reviewed by members of the monitoring team.
Compliance:
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 7 of 32 PageID: 1231

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

The Academy continues to provide cultural diversity, ethics and leadership training as part of its integrated training curricula. Training in these areas continue to conform to the seven-step training development, delivery and evaluation process agreed to between the monitors and the State.

Cultural Diversity

Ethics

Leadership

Phase I: Phase II:

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 8 of 32 PageID: 1232

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the nondiscrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdictionrelated training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

During the fourteenth reporting period, the Academy developed and provided to the monitors detailed written information related to implementation of measurement of the impact of training on operations in the field. The monitors have reviewed these data, and find them to be a reasonable and effective response to the requirements of this section of the decree. In addition, scenarios have been implemented within the Academy recruit training curriculum to provide increased experiential scenarios to
recruits.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 9 of 32 PageID: 1233

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

~ Task 102

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

I

Phase II

Task 102 stipulates that:
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.

Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The State continues to field a strong response to all the responsibilities listed in the consent decree for this task, and the Academy personnel tasked with coordinating this program continue to revise and refine their oversight capabilities as new issues arise and new means of gaining oversight information are developed. Currently, the NJSP technology unit and the Academy technology unit completed the revised coach website and are continuing to refine the electronic data management system for this program.
Several classes have graduated since the last site visit and the coach program is functioning well in meeting the needs of the new probationary troopers. The monitors routinely observe young troopers in the performance of their duties during their review
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 10 of 32 PageID: 1234

of video tapes of motor vehicle stops, and attest to the value of the Trooper Coach process.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 103 stipulates that:

103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.
Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with the Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed supporting documentation.

Status

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent decree-related tasks are handled by notification of specific Division personnel at the quarterly Training
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 11 of 32 PageID: 1235

Committee meetings and through IOCs. This is a comprehensive oversight process. To be certain that the process is functioning as intended requires a regularly scheduled audit of the documentation at the section level to be sure that all "read and sign
documentation" is complete.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 104 stipulates that:
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period.
Status
No changes were noted in academy processes related to the requirements of the decree outlined in this section. The Academy has developed a comprehensive process with many access points for identifying the training needs in the organization, and continue to act on identified needs professionally.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 12 of 32 PageID: 1236

2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105
Phase I Phase II

8 9 10 11 12

Task 105 stipulates that:
105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in 'll'll100 and 101) shall integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
Training at the academy continues to be developed, delivered and evaluated using the seven-step process developed early on in the consent decree process: Assessment, Development, Delivery, Implementation, Documentation and Evaluation. Initial training was provided within the first year, as required, and annual in-service training has been offered since inception of the monitoring process. Training continues to be updated based on needs assessments and evaluation processes. Integration of training continues to be a strong focus of the training processes.

Compliance:
Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-71

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 13 of 32 PageID: 1237

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

Task 106 I 1 I 2

3

4

...

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

Phase I Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:
106. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within six months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

Evaluation processes were the last outstanding requirement for complete compliance with this aspect of the decree. These processes were identified by the Academy during this reporting period, and have been reviewed by the monitoring team, and found to be meaningfully related to performance-in-the-field factors for this task.

Captains and Above Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107

8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 14 of 32 PageID: 1238

Task 107 stipulates that:

107. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

Training processes for post-academy training for "newly assigned" troopers were implemented during the seventh reporting period. Evaluation processes related to the "impact in the field" of this training were implemented during the fourteenth reporting period. These processes were identified by the Academy during this reporting period, and have been reviewed by the monitoring team, and found to be meaningfully related to performance-in-the-field factors for this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

~2 Task 108

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

=

Task 108 stipulates that:

108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 15 of 32 PageID: 1239

training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information.
Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The NJSP Academy's Technology Unit continues to implement new platforms included in the new Geo Learning Software. The NJSP Academy is leading the way in demonstrating how the program can assist personnel in managing their responsibilities at every level in the organization.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109 I 1

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

=

Task 109 stipulates that:
109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 16 of 32 PageID: 1240

detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The Geo Learning electronic program allows the Academy to provide oversight and management of all training records and trooper coach materials.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 110

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State's
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 17 of 32 PageID: 1241

responses to the requirements of the decree/ and/or have queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the States response to the decree.
Status
Based on the monitoring team/s review of work product/ and information obtained during the process of implementing the twelfth site visit1 it is clear to the members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task. All duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the twelfth site visit1 upon final implementation of the MAPPS processes for long-term trend analysis and benchmarking. The office provides coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice/ and the office is headed by an Assistant AG. The office routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations/ and routinely audits performance on MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site reviews/ basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team/ with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The mechanism and duty assignments exist to complete the duties of the office as soon as practicable.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 111 I 1 I 2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

~

Task 111 stipulates that:
111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop1 to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules1 regulations/ procedures1 and directives1 and the requirements of this Decree.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors/ Report Page-76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 18 of 32 PageID: 1242

Methodology

The monitors have reviewed data provided by the State regarding this task, and find the State continues to be in compliance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

I Task 112 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 112 stipulates that:
112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by 1]62; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.
Methodology
Data regarding task 112 indicate that the State continues to perform this task in a satisfactory manner.
Status
The State remains in compliance with this task.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 19 of 32 PageID: 1243

Phase II: In Compliance
2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

1!111111111
[l!ll!!!!!

Task 113 stipulates that:
113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.

Methodology
Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State Police Affairs during the course of the site visit during the week of May 19th, 2003.

Status
Based on the team's observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task114 •

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

lllllllllilil

Task 114 stipulates that:

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 20 of 32 PageID: 1244

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic
enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved.
These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops (by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement
actions (including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in
connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the
status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not
be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information
collected pursuant to this Decree.

Methodology
The State has produced its latest "Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data," in response to this provision of the decree.

Status
Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115 11 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

~

Task 115 stipulates that:

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 21 of 32 PageID: 1245

115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000.

Status

The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

I Task 118 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I l!lliilliill
Phase II J!!liD!!!!]

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and nonprivileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 22 of 32 PageID: 1246

Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access while onsite with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 23 of 32 PageID: 1247

Task 122 stipulates that:
122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every six months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State's submission filed by the State in response to this task. The report's format has been modified to a more readable and usable format.

Status
The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitors, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance 2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:
123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 24 of 32 PageID: 1248

for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents, records, recordings and other information during the course of the team's site visit during March and April, 2006.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

Task 124 I 1 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

-= Phase I
Phase II

Task 124 stipulates that:

124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State
staff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including
databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 25 of 32 PageID: 1249

access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: {1) all State Police documents {or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and {2) all documents {or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 26 of 32 PageID: 1250
3.0 Summary
3.1 Progress toward Compliance
During the last reporting period, the State has achieved 100 percent compliance with all tasks outlined in the consent decree-well beyond the requirements established by the monitors and the parties for effective compliance with the requirements of the decree. These new compliance levels continue to be, in the monitors' opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency, and an aggressive, continuing effort to review 100 percent of field operations activities related to the consent decree. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State's compliance efforts, with remarkable effects observed again this reporting period in training, supervision, MAPPS, and inspections and audit processes. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
3.1.1 Training
Specific and tangible impact evaluations related to training were implemented during the fourteenth reporting period. Executive training was addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and substantial improvement continues to be evidenced in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy during this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to, and interest in, the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. The training academy achieved 100 percent compliance during the fourteenth reporting period, meeting the minimum requirements of the consent decree in all areas, and far exceeding the requirements in the areas of curriculum planning, staffing, and development. More than 100 percent compliance is evident in the training function this reporting period.
3.1.2 Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the
changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New
Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the sixth consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing in advance of the monitors' notice of selection of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports, 135 of the 135 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. 15 This 100 percent supervisory review rate yielded 41 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted
15 The State does not receive advanced notice of the stop incidents that will be reviewed by the monitors.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 27 of 32 PageID: 1251
violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Errors noted and corrected by supervisory personnel, again this reporting period, were procedural in nature, not Constitutional errors. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency has achieved that goal.
New Jersey State Police personnel continue to subject each motor vehicle stop to at least three levels of review. Immediate supervisors (the real key to compliance) reviewed motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documentation and video tapes for 100 percent of all motor vehicle stops of interest to the decree selected by the monitors. New Jersey State Police quality assurance reviews subject the supervisory reviews to quality assurance assessments. The Office of State Police Affairs also reviews stop activities. These supervisory processes, again, are reflective of a strong commitment to, and interest in, the supervisory function by the New Jersey State Police. In addition, the monitors have noted evidence that the supervisory process continues to self-correct. Errors at the initial supervisory review level are routinely noted and corrected by management review, lending still more credence to the monitors' belief that the New Jersey State Police supervisory and management review processes are effective, engaged and supportive of improved policing processes.
New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period proved remarkably trouble free. Supervisory personnel, upon review of the incidents selected by them for review, caught all errors made by road personnel, an efficiency rate of 100 percent for the three-tier supervisory review process. In effect, the New Jersey State Police have replaced an independent monitoring team of five with 192 internal monitors in the form of State Police road sergeants, "integrity" officers, and management personnel. Their performance over the last 30 months has been exceptionally strong.
This reporting period reflects a major milestone for Field Operations aspects of the
consent decree. The monitors noted no consent-decree related errors this reporting
period that were not first caught and corrected (prior to the monitors identifying cases to be reviewed this period) by supervisory personnel. Field Operations personnel have been within the 95 percent compliance requirement for five reporting periods (30 months) and 100 percent effective (including supervisory corrective actions) relative to consent decree activities for 18 months. It is clear that the day-to-day activities of field operations personnel are in compliance with the consent decree, and have been for more than a 24 months.
Performance of supervisory activities within field operations is also exceptional, reducing error rates for some of the most complex human interactions, e.g., consent searches, arrests, detentions, frisks and searches of persons and vehicles, to zero. This Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 28 of 32 PageID: 1252
is a truly remarkable figure considering the complexity of the law enforcement processes under scrutiny. Again this reporting period, the monitors found all New Jersey State Police interactions reviewed by the monitors to be professionally conducted, and to be free of indicators of race- or ethnicity-based decision making.
Field Operations has gone well beyond the requirements of the consent decree, and is now fielding one of the most comprehensive, data-driven, and well documented supervisory systems in American law enforcement. The New Jersey State Police have fielded supervisory and field operations systems that attain well more than that which was envisioned and required by the decree.
3.1.3 MAPPS Development
Full compliance has been continued regarding the MAPPS information system. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and the third of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops received its written benchmarking and data analytic reports this reporting period. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and forwarded to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced last reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004. No errors or violations of approved MAPPS policies were noted. During the fourteenth reporting period, the MAPPS system implemented a "trooper centric" data access process that allows a supervisor to simply enter a badge number and to collect all relevant MAPPS data related to that badge number with one inquiry. As with other areas of compliance, MAPPS processes meet, and in many cases, exceed all requirements of the decree. Technically, the MAPPS processes are in 100 percent compliance with the requirements ofthe decree; however, operationally, MAPPS exceeds those requirements in many areas.
3.1.4 Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for five consecutive periods. OSPA has been an important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree. Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report
Page-87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 29 of 32 PageID: 1253

3.2

Overall Compliance Status

The final determination of compliance status is articulated in the decree-agreed to among the parties and the Court-as "substantial compliance." A synopsis of compliance efforts, however, may be helpful in aiding the reader in understanding the State's compliance with the requirements of the decree in four overarching areas of the decree:
• Supervisory and management reviews of trooper activities; • Development and implementation of an automated personnel performance
management system; • Internal investigations of allegations of trooper misconduct; and • Development and evaluation of training programs for New Jersey State Police
personnel.
•
Review of Trooper Activities
The State attained complete compliance (defined as 100 percent compliance with all areas involved in reviewing trooper activities, and correcting those actions found not to be in compliance with established policies, including those reflecting the decree) during the eleventh reporting period. In many ways, the State has exceeded the requirements of the decree. For example, the State subjects to detailed supervisory review 100 percent of all events in which a driver or passenger is subjected to post-stop law enforcement actions articulated by the decree, i.e., asked to exit the vehicle, subjected to a frisk, subjected to a search of a vehicle, search of a person, use of force, deployment of a drug-detection canine or request for a consent search. Moreover, this review is multi-tiered, involving road sergeants, station sergeants and lieutenants, integrity process supervisors, and OSPA.
During the eleventh reporting period, the State achieved complete compliance with all of the requirements related to supervisory review of trooper activity in the field. That review has resulted in hundreds of supervisory interventions designed to improve trooper performance in the field. The result of this process has been a palpable improvement in the execution of police duties in the field. These interventions, invariably involving teaching processes designed to correct errors and omissions in field law enforcement processes, have resulted in a greatly improved "average" traffic stop, both in terms of constitutional and legal protections, and in "tone and timbre." After achieving complete compliance, the State has maintained that compliance for four consecutive reporting periods, i.e., from the eleventh through the fourteenth reporting periods, a total of two years.

Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 30 of 32 PageID: 1254
Development and Implementation of Automated Personnel Performance Management System
The MAPPS system (Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System) was designed in response to the requirements of sections 40-51 of the decree. As of the tenth reporting period, the MAPPS system met eleven of the thirteen requirements of the decree. Among the eleven requirements found to be in compliance by the tenth reporting period, the State far exceeded the specific requirements of the decree by implementing a system that was future-oriented, user friendly, and both efficient and effective, collecting data elements on trooper activity that exceeded the criteria of the decree. In fact, development of the MAPPS system was effectuated by using the decree as a baseline, and developing a personnel management system that fit the needs of management in addition to meeting the specific requirements of the decree.
The two decree requirements not implemented by the State by the tenth reporting period-benchmarking (Task 50) and analysis of long-term trends (Task 51)-were important to compliance, but not critical to compliance. The benchmarking elements of the decree required comparisons of law enforcement actions by race, ethnicity, by the reason for the motor vehicle stop. Long-term trend analysis required "evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits." These two requirements of the decree came into compliance during the twelfth reporting period, and have remained in compliance during the thirteenth and fourteenth reporting periods. While the monitors contend that these two requirements were important to the long-term success of the changes required by the decree, they were not essential to substantial short-term compliance. 16
Internal Investigations of Allegations of Trooper Misconduct
In April of 2004, based on 30 months of compliance with tasks articulated in the decree related to internal investigations of allegations of trooper misconduct, the parties jointly petitioned the Court, asking that the elements of the decree related to the Office of Professional Standards be removed from further monitoring. The monitors supported that petition based solely on the State's performance levels over the preceding 30 months. As a result of the petition, the Court removed all but two components of the decree's requirements from continued monitoring (Tasks 87 [timelines for completion of internal investigations] and 90 [requirements for appropriate discipline]). Since April of 2004, the monitors have found the State to remain in compliance with these two remaining tasks, based on a review of "course of business" documents relating to internal investigations' timelines and outcomes. This constitutes more than four years of compliance in the area of internal investigations of trooper misconduct.
16 Task 40 was also found to be non-compliant during the eleventh reporting period because of the issues discussed under Tasks 50 and 51.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 31 of 32 PageID: 1255
Development and Evaluation of Training Programs
As of the eleventh reporting period, the State was in compliance with all but two of the fourteen requirements established by the decree. Tasks 93 and 106 were found to be non-compliant in the eleventh reporting period. Task 93 required "evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught." While evaluation plans had been developed by the eleventh reporting period, these plans had not been implemented until the fourteenth reporting period. Task 106 required on-going professional training for newly promoted New Jersey State Police troopers. During the eleventh reporting period, the monitors were still expressing concern over the documentation processes for training of captains and above. These issues were resolved in the twelfth reporting period. As with the issues discussed in the section on MAPPS performance monitoring systems, while the tasks outlined in 93 and 106 were important to the long-term success of the consent decree requirements, they were not critical.
3.3 Final Assessment
The monitors' fourteenth report represents a monitoring project that started in March of 2000, and has consisted of fourteen on-site visits and thousands of hours of monitoring effort. After six years of monitoring, including the review of video tapes of more than a thousand motor vehicle stops, the monitors have determined that the State is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. With four exceptions, the State of New Jersey was in full compliance with all aspect of the consent decree during the eleventh reporting period. Those four exceptions (Tasks 50 [MAPPS benchmarkingt 51 [MAPPS trend analysis], 93 [training for executives] and 106 [evaluation of training efforts]) were classified by the monitors as important to long-term compliance, but not critical to the manner in which day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police complied to the consent decree. It is important to note that the State eventually attained compliance in these four areas, and the monitors have concluded that the delayed attainment of compliance did not diminish the achievement of substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree. These four exceptions stand in contradistinction to the State's attainment of required compliance status for 95 of the 99 requirements of the decree, as of the eleventh reporting period. As such, it is the determination of the monitors, based on a thorough review of the overall performance of the State, that the State was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decree as of the eleventh reporting period, and have remained in compliance for four consecutive reporting periods from April 1, 2004 through May 31, 2006, more than the required two years.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 70-3 Filed 06/27/06 Page 32 of 32 PageID: 1256 The monitors are convinced of two important achievements related to the consent decree: the changes implemented over the last six years have been accepted by the members of the New Jersey State Police, and have been institutionalized in practice and policy. Secondly, the New Jersey State Police have embraced the consent decree as an effective change mechanism, and have met the requirements of the decree in both letter and spirit. Leadership at the agency have articulated-and demonstrated-that the decree is a baseline for long-term organizational development. At this juncture, the operations of the New Jersey State Police have far exceeded the written requirements of the consent decree. The agency has implemented training, supervisory, information systems, and internal investigative processes that are a solid foundation for moving the organization forward in a professional, constitutional, and ethically progressive manner.
Fourteenth Independent Monitors' Report Page-91

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1506
Monitors' Fifteenth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
January, 2007

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-1 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1547
Monitors' Fifteenth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
January, 2007

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-2 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1606

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

iv

1 Introduction

1

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

1

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Summary of Compliance Activities

4

2 2.1 2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6 2.7 2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12 2.13 2.14
2.15 2.16 2.17
2.18 2.19
2.20 2.21

Assessment of Compliance

9

Methodology

9

Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

9

Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

16

Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

18

Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

24

Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

32

Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 38

Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

41

Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

42

Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

43

Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

44

Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 46

Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

47

Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

48

Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions 49

Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 50

Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

52

Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System 52

Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal 53

MAPPS Data

53

Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts"

54

Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

55

Table of Contents

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-2 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1607

2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32 2.33 2.34

Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

56

Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

57

Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 57

Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

58

Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

59

Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

60

Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

64

Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

66

Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

67

Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Jersey Turnpike

67

Office of Professional Standards Requirements

68

Training Assessment

69

Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

Training Programs

63

2.35
2.36
2.37 2.38 2.39
2.40
2.41
2.42
2.43 2.44
2.45 2.46
2.47
2.48
2.49
2.50

Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

71

Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

72

Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

73

Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

74

Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

75

Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

76

Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

77

Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

78

Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 79

Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

80

Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

81

Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPSO

Program

82

Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

83

Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

85

Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Motor Vehicle Stops

Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen

Table of Contents

p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-2 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1608

Complaint Processes

85

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

the Office of State Police Affairs

86

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

87

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor 88

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

89

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 90

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

91

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

92

3.0 Executive Summary

93

Table of Contents

p. iii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-3 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1601
EXECUTNE SUMMARY
During the last reporting period, the State has continued its compliance efforts at a sustained high level. These new compliance levels continue to be, in the monitors' opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State's compliance efforts, with positive effects observed again this reporting period in training, supervision, MAPPS, and inspections and audit processes. Some compliance issues were noted this period that require the attention of the agency if compliance is to be maintained. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
Training
Compliance levels continued to be maintained in training for the fifteenth reporting period. Executive training was addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and substantial improvement continues to be evidenced in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy during this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to, and interest in, the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. The training academy achieved 100 percent compliance during the fourteenth reporting period, meeting the minimum requirements of the consent decree in all areas, and far exceeding the requirements in the areas of curriculum planning, staffing, and development. More than 100 percent compliance is evident in the training function this reporting period. A training oversight incident rose to the surface this period, leading to revisions to departmental SOPs related to training. The system, in effect, "worked," noting that unapproved training was offered to some road patrol troopers, and terminating the training until it is fully vetted by the Academy and approved for delivery to road troopers.
Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this
period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers
within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the seventh consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing in advance of the monitors' notice of selection of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports, 129 of the 151 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors. 1
1 The State does not receive advanced notice of the stop incidents that will be reviewed by the monitors.

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-3 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1602
This 85 percent supervisory review rate yielded 34 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Only two errors noted by the monitors had not been first noted and corrected by supervisory review. This constitutes an effectiveness rate of 98.5 percent, down slightly from the "customary" 100 percent established by the New Jersey State Police in prior reporting periods. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency has achieved that goal.
The monitors noted only two consent-decree related errors this reporting period that were not first caught and corrected (prior to the monitors identifying cases to be reviewed this period) by supervisory personnel. Field Operations personnel have been within the 95 percent compliance requirement for six reporting periods (36 months).
Performance of supervisory activities within field operations is also exceptional, reducing error rates for some of the most complex human interactions, e.g., consent searches, arrests, detentions, frisks and searches of persons and vehicles, to near zero. This is a truly remarkable figure considering the complexity of the law enforcement processes under scrutiny. Supervisory presence on the road has risen to new highs, with supervisors present in fully 61 percent of all reviewed motor vehicle stops. Again this reporting period, the monitors found all New Jersey State Police interactions reviewed by the monitors to be professionally conducted, and to be free of indicators of race- or ethnicitybased decision making.
During the fifteenth reporting period, with the consent of the monitors, the State began field testing a new supervisory review system, moving from a blanket "100 percent review" process for post-stop interactions. The monitors and the New Jersey State Police considered the 100 percent review standard to be impractical over extended time. The State, as a result of consultation with the monitors, is testing a more targeted review process. This process still requires a 100 percent review of all critical motor vehicle stops (stops with a consent search request, use of force or canine deployment), and will supplement that with a system of required "random" reviews and targeted reviews as dictated by events in the field, i.e., a surge in complaints about a give tactic or process, an inexplicable surge in trooper injuries, etc.
Field Operations continues to go well beyond the requirements of the consent decree, and is now fielding one of the most comprehensive, data-driven, and well documented supervisory systems in American law enforcement. The New

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-3 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1603
Jersey State Police have fielded supervisory and field operations systems that attain well more than that which was envisioned and required by the decn:e.
MAPPS Development
Full compliance has been continued regarding MAPPS information system capabilities. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and three of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops have received written benchmarking and data analytic reports. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and delivered to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced during the thirteenth reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004.
Two issues arose this reporting period regarding MAPPS and the use of the MAPPS processes. The State has missed its deadline for providing the Troop D data report and for analyzing the Troop C andTroop D data via the Risk Assessment Core Group process. This misstep comes after two reporting periods of compliance, and is, the monitors believe, a function of increased workload which illustrates a very positive evolution of the data-centric and data-analytic nature of the New Jersey State Police at this point in time. It does, however, represent a breakdown in established compliance activities, albeit for understandable and documentable reasons.
The evolution of the New Jersey State Police's use of the MAPPS data system into a proactive problem identification and problem solving system emerged this reporting period. In effect, the New Jersey State Police have taken the MAPPS system beyond the requirements of the consent decree, using it for more than a tracking and control device for motor vehicle stops, use of force, and complaints, and instead using it to identify systemic organizational issues and to craft solutions to those issues before they negatively impact the organization in any significant way. In the past six months, using MAPPS-based tools, the leadership of the New Jersey State Police identified two issues of concern: a perceived increase in allegations of off-duty misconduct incidents among Division personnel and a significant increase in the number of consent search requests made by Division personnel.

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-3 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1604
Within six months of noting the potential impact of these two issues, the New Jersey State Police planned, developed and executed two separate data-centric and data-analytic problem solving actions designed to identify the nature and scope of the problems, assess their impact on the organization, and develop recommendations to deal with the issues in a real-time manner. Elements from the Office of Strategic Initiatives, MAPPS and the Risk Assessment Core Group were melded to deal with these two issues. Unfortunately, these two added workload elements uncovered several previously unrecognized faults in the current MAPPS-OSI-RACG structure.
These faults were found in the areas of workload, staffing, technology and information access. It effect, because the evolved MAPPS-OSI-RACG system worked well, it effectively overloaded itself, and as a result, the State missed two critical deadlines required by the decree, endangering long-term compliance with Tasks 50 and 51 (comparisons using benchmarks and long-term trend analysis).
The monitors noted in the fourteenth monitoring report that Task 50 and 51 functions were "important to long-term compliance." The monitors further noted that "delayed attainment of compliance" in these areas "did not diminish achievement of substantial compliance" with the decree. The record indicates
that the State has significantly delayed compliance activities related to Tasks 50
and 51, albeit for understandable-and in some cases uncontrollable-reasons. The State is placed under warning for these tasks. Failure to come into full compliance by April 30, 2007 will result in a loss of compliance in these areas.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for six consecutive periods. OSPA has been an important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
The monitors' fifteenth report represents a monitoring project that started in March of 2000, and has consisted of fifteen on-site visits and thousands of hours of monitoring effort. With four exceptions, the State of New Jersey was in full compliance with all aspect of the consent decree during the eleventh reporting period. Those four exceptions (Tasks 50 MAPPS benchmarking, 51 MAPPS trend analysis, 93 training for executives and 106 evaluation of training efforts) were

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-3 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1605
classified by the monitors as importantto long-term compliance, but not critical to the manner in which day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police complied to the consent decree. It is important to note that the State eventually attained compliance in these four areas.
Monitoring processes this reporting period have indicated that the State has missed its deadline for providing the Troop D data report and for analyzing the Troop C andTroop D data via the Risk Assessment Core Group process, both compliance issues for Task 50 andTask 51. While these problems are understandable, the monitors have placed the State under warning for these two tasks. Failure to complete Task 50 and Task 51 requirements by April 30, 2007 will result in a loss of compliance in these areas. Prior to the sixteenth site visit in May, 2007, the State must have completed the data reports for Troops D and E and must have completed the RACG process for Troops C, D and E.

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 40 PageID: 1507

Independent Monitors' Fifteenth Report Period Ending September 30, 2006

1 Introduction

This document represents the fifteenth "Independent Monitors' Report" (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for the period April 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006. Monitoring activities were accomplished during the months of October and December, 2006.

The report is organized into three sections, identified below:

•

Introduction;

•

Compliance Assessment; and

•

Summary.

The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions used by the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of "compliance" are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, "Compliance Assessment," includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the monitors and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, "Summary," provides an overall assessment of the State's performance for this reporting period.

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree. It reports on the State's compliance using the individual requirements of the decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using "to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop" (Decree at para 26). The following

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-l

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 40 PageID: 1508

components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as "Phase I," and "Phase II," with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

•

Selection of a random or stratified random sample;

•

Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every instance of selection of random samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring team while on-site.

The monitoring team assessed the performance of the New Jersey State Police on each
task outlined in the consent decree during the period ending September 30, 20061. The
fifteenth independent monitors' report was submitted to the court during the month of
January 2007.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

• Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course of business; 2 and/or
• Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state government
during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

1 Motor vehicle stop activity was assessed through June 30, 2006, the last available date for complete
electronic records for motor vehicle stops. 2 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance "special reports" prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 40 PageID: 1509

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative

description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task

requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology used to assess the task,

and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to note, however, that a finding of

non-compliance does not mean the State is engaging in inappropriate behavior. It

simply means the State has not yet completed its efforts toward compliance. The

graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate

status in each compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below.

The first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first year

and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the time allowed

by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time period is represented

by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth segments represent the time

required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase I or Phase II compliance. A

vertically patterned light blue bar 111111111111 indicates that compliance was achieved in the

time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow bar I

I

indicates that compliance

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in

the opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State's eventual compliance

with the decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the

delay may seriously affect the State's eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the decree, and

which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the State's successful

compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or could not be monitored is

represented by a hollow bar 1 I.

1.3.3 Standards for "Compliance"

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for "compliance" to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 40 PageID: 1510

requirements of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard. This change to compliance standards is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, below.

1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

I Task nn 11 2

3 4

...

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

Phase I Phase II

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance was attained in the twelfth reporting period, much later than required by the decree,
and thus did seriously threaten the State's successful compliance with the decree.
1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process
Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of "policy compliance:" the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational compliance-institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.
1.5 Summary of Compliance Activities
During the last reporting period, the State has continued its compliance efforts at a sustained high level. These new compliance levels continue to be, in the monitors' opinions, directly attributable to a focused and clear leadership mandate, emanating from the Office of the Superintendent, placing compliance efforts among the top goals of the agency. Continued cooperation with, and support from the Office of State Police Affairs has focused the State's compliance efforts, with positive effects observed again this reporting period in training, supervision, MAPPS, and inspections and audit processes. Some compliance issues were noted this period that require the attention of

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 40 PageID: 1511

the agency if compliance is to be maintained. Each of these areas is discussed briefly below.
Training
Compliance levels continued to be maintained in training for the fifteenth reporting period. Executive training was addressed during the twelfth reporting period, and substantial improvement continues to be evidenced in these areas as well. Again, the monitors find the focus, attention to detail, commitment of resources and results achieved by the Academy during this period to be exceptional. They reflect a strong commitment to, and interest in, the training function by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. The training academy achieved 100 percent compliance during the fourteenth reporting period, meeting the minimum requirements of the consent decree in all areas, and far exceeding the requirements in the areas of curriculum planning, staffing, and development. More than 100 percent compliance is evident in the training function this reporting period, as the State continues to exceed the requirements of the decree. A training oversight incident rose to the surface this period, leading to revisions to departmental SOPs related to training. The system, in effect, "worked," noting that unapproved training was offered to some road patrol troopers, and terminating the training until it is fully vetted by the Academy and approved for delivery to road troopers.
Supervision
As dramatic as the positive changes have been at the Training Academy this period, the changes made in the process and outcome of supervision of troopers within the New Jersey State Police continues to be even more remarkable. For the seventh consecutive reporting period, evidence exists that New Jersey State Police supervisors are fully engaged in the consent decree compliance process, reviewing in advance of the monitors' notice of selection of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports, 129 of the 151 motor vehicle stop events reviewed by the monitors.3 This 85 percent supervisory review rate yielded 34 instances in which New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations. Only two errors noted by the monitors had not been first noted and corrected by supervisory review. This constitutes an effectiveness rate of 98.5 percent, down slightly from the "customary" 100 percent established by the New Jersey State Police in prior reporting periods. Command staff in field operations continued to be committed to a supervisory review of all incidents involving a law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. The agency has achieved that goal.

3 The State does not receive advanced notice of the stop incidents that will be reviewed by the monitors.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-s

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 6 of 40 PageID: 1512

The monitors noted only two consent-decree related errors this reporting period that
were not first caught and corrected (prior to the monitors identifying cases to be reviewed this period) by supervisory personnel. Field Operations personnel have been within the 95 percent compliance requirement for six consecutive reporting periods (36 months).

Performance of supervisory activities within field operations is also exceptional, reducing error rates for some of the most complex policing interactions, e.g., consent searches, arrests, detentions, frisks and searches of persons and vehicles, to near zero. This is a truly remarkable figure considering the complexity of the law enforcement processes under scrutiny. Supervisory presence on the road has risen to new highs, with supervisors present in fully 61 percent of all reviewed motor vehicle stops. Again this reporting period, the monitors found all New Jersey State Police interactions reviewed by the monitors to be professionally conducted, and to be free of indicators of race- or ethnicity-based decision making.
During the fifteenth reporting period, with the consent of the monitors, the State began field testing a new supervisory review system, moving from a blanket "100 percent review" process for post-stop interactions. The monitors and the New Jersey State Police considered the 100 percent review standard to be impractical over extended time. The State, as a result of consultation with the monitors, is testing a more targeted review process. This process still requires a 100 percent review of all critical motor vehicle stops (stops with a consent search request, use of force or canine deployment), and will supplement that with a system of required "random" reviews and targeted reviews as dictated by events in the field, i.e., a surge in complaints about a give tactic or process, an inexplicable surge in trooper injuries, etc.
Field Operations continues to go well beyond the requirements of the consent decree, and is now fielding one of the most comprehensive, datadriven, and well documented supervisory systems in American law enforcement. The New Jersey State Police have fielded supervisory and field operations systems that attain well more than that which was envisioned and required by the decree.

MAPPS Development

Full compliance has been continued regarding MAPPS information system capabilities.
The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and three of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops have received written benchmarking and data analytic reports. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 7 of 40 PageID: 1513

developed and approved by the monitors, and delivered to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced during the thirteenth reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004.
Two issues arose this reporting period regarding MAPPS and the use of the MAPPS processes. The State has missed its deadline for providing the Troop D data report and for analyzing the Troop C andTroop D data via the Risk Assessment Core Group process. This misstep comes after two reporting periods of compliance, and is, the monitors believe, a function of increased workload that illustrates a very positive evolution of the data-centric and data-analytic nature of the New Jersey State Police at this point in time. It does, however, represent a breakdown in established compliance activities, albeit for understandable and documentable reasons.
The evolution of the New Jersey State Police's use of the MAPPS data system into a proactive problem identification and problem solving system emerged this reporting period. In effect, the New Jersey State Police have taken the MAPPS system beyond the requirements of the consent decree, using it for more than a tracking and control device for motor vehicle stops, use of force, and complaints, and instead using it to identify systemic organizational issues and to craft solutions to those issues before they negatively impact the organization in any significant way. In the past year, using MAPPS-based tools, the leadership of the New Jersey State Police identified two issues of concern: a perceived rise in allegations of off-duty misconduct incidents among Division personnel and a significant increase in the number of consent search requests made by Division personnel.
Within six months of noting the potential impact of these two issues, the New Jersey State Police planned, developed and executed two separate data-centric and dataanalytic problem solving actions designed to identify the nature and scope of the problems, assess their impact on the organization, and develop recommendations to deal with the issues in a real-time manner. Elements from the Office of Strategic Initiatives, MAPPS and the Risk Assessment Core Group were melded to deal with these two issues. Unfortunately, these two added workload elements uncovered several previously unrecognized faults in the current MAPPS-OSI-RACG structure.
These faults were found in the areas of workload, staffing, technology and information access. In effect, because the evolved MAPPS-OSI-RACG system worked well, it effectively overloaded itself, and as a result, the State missed two critical deadlines required by the decree, endangering long-term compliance with Tasks 50 and 51 (comparisons using benchmarks and long-term trend analysis).

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 8 of 40 PageID: 1514
The monitors noted in the fourteenth monitoring report that Task 50 and 51 functions were "important to long-term compliance." The monitors further noted that "delayed attainment of compliance" in these areas "did not diminish achievement of substantial compliance" with the decree. The record indicates that the State has significantly delayed compliance activities related to Tasks 50 and 51, albeit for understandableand in some cases uncontrollable-reasons. The State is placed under warning for these tasks. Failure to come into full compliance by April 30, 2007 will result in a loss of compliance in these areas.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for six consecutive periods. OSPA has been an important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
The monitors' fifteenth report represents a monitoring project that started in March of 2000, and has consisted of fifteen on-site visits and thousands of hours of monitoring effort. With four exceptions, the State of New Jersey was in full compliance with all aspect of the consent decree during the eleventh reporting period. Those four exceptions (Tasks 50 MAPPS benchmarking, 51 MAPPS trend analysis, 93 training for executives and 106 evaluation of training efforts) were classified by the monitors as importantto long-term compliance, but not criticalto the manner in which day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police complied to the consent decree. It is important to note that the State eventually attained compliance in these four areas.
Monitoring processes this reporting period have indicated that the State has missed its deadline for providing the Troop D data report and for analyzing the Troop C andTroop D data via the Risk Assessment Core Group process, both compliance issues for Task 50 andTask 51. While these problems are understandable, the monitors have placed the State under warning for these two tasks. Failure to complete Task 50 and Task 51 requirements by April 30, 2007 will result in a loss of compliance in these areas. Prior to the sixteenth site visit in May 2007, the State must have completed the data reports for Troops D and E and must have completed the RACG process for Troops C, D and E.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 9 of 40 PageID: 1515

2 Assessment of Compliance

2.1 Methodology

The monitors assessed the State's compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. "Compliance" was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).

The following sections of the fifteenth Monitors' Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the decree between April 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006.
2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

I Task 26 11 2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology

During the fifteenth site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured onsite reviews of the operations of ten New Jersey State Police Road Stations. These reviews were conducted of operations reported during the dates February 1, 2006

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 10 of 40 PageID: 1516

through June 30, 2006, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available). The team conducted these reviews of Troops A and D. As part of this review, members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business data on 151 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 96 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team's methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.
Data Requests
Prior to its site visits in October and December 2006, the monitoring team requested of the State electronic and hard-copy data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other nonelectronic data requests:
• Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated poststop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drugdetection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.
• Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop "communications center call-ins" for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.
• The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.
Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop records for Troops A and D (taken from the State's motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop "event" records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the active dates of the fifteenth site visit.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 11 of 40 PageID: 1517

Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the fifteenth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.
Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Fifteenth Site Visit

MVS Involving Consent

94

Search

MVS Involving Canine

5

34

MVS Involving Use of

5

5

Force

Probable Cause Searches

50

23

Vehicles

Cause Searches

44

of Persons

Motor Vehicle Stops

Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the State. Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment:

• Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports

4 Tape reviews total more than 96 due to the fact that a// tapes reviewed included more than a single class of law enforcement activity.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 12 of 40 PageID: 1518

and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports etc.), referred to as Type I data;
• Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings
of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and
• Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.
These records indicated 11 events that resulted in consent search requests from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and 83 events from other stations resulting in consent search requests, for a total of 94 consent search requests. 5 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search, and by reviewing the available video tape records for those consent requests. All consent searches conducted were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team.
Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 34 times during the reporting period. The monitoring team reviewed reports from all 34 of these events, and the monitoring team also reviewed videos from all 34 of those events. New Jersey State Police personnel in five motor vehicle stop incidents reportedly used force during the reporting period, and the monitoring team reviewed reports from all of these incidents. Members of the monitoring team reviewed video tapes of all five of the use of force events during the fifteenth site visit. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
Selected motor vehicle stop incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table Two, below.
Type I Event Reviews

5 Drivers declined fifteen consent requests during the reporting period.
Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 13 of 40 PageID: 1519
A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 151 Type I reviews were conducted this period.
Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events
Station

Type II Event Review
A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were

6 The monitors reviewed 96 tapes of motor vehicle stops; however, these 96 tapes included 193 poststop actions of interest to the decree. The 94 consent requests reviewed also included 24 canine deployments.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 14 of 40 PageID: 1520

collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 96 Type II reviews were conducted this period.

Type III Event Review

In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which
should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were not
reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, were selected for review, seven events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the monitoring team. Based on the State's past performance, eleven consecutive periods in which no unreported events were discovered, no Type III reviews were conducted this reporting period.

Status

The monitoring team's review of New Jersey State Police SOPs indicates that the agency remains in Phase I and Phase II compliance with Task 26. The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. In past reports, the vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police were "non-discretionary," e.g., searches incidental to arrest, with searches of vehicles being conducted "incidental to arrest." Based on revised New Jersey case law7, effective this reporting period, the search of a vehicle can no longer be conducted incidental to arrest, leading to a substantial change in the nature of searches of vehicles for this reporting period. As a result, "consent request" now replaces "incidental to arrest" as the number one reason for a search of a vehicle, with 65.8 percent of all searches of vehicles based on a request for consent to search. Of the 100 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 66 were "nondiscretionary" searches incidental to arrest. Two activities this reporting period were conducted frequently enough to lend themselves to statistical analysis for indications of race- or ethnicity based decision making on the part of the New Jersey State Police: consent requests (n=94) and canine deployments (n=34).

Perhaps in response to the loss of the tool for searches of vehicles incidental arrest, the monitors have observed a substantial increase in the number of consent request

7 State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (2006).

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 15 of 40 PageID: 1521

activities engaged in by the New Jersey State Police. Table Three, below, depicts consent request activity for the last seven reporting periods.

Table Three: Consent Requests for Past Seven Reporting Periods

Reporting Period
9tn
wtn
11th 12tn 13tn 14tn lstn

Consent Requests
9 7 12 34 23 30 94

%
Increase/ Decrease
--
(22.2)
71.4
64.7 (26.5)
30.4
213.3

The monitors continue to see a professional quality and tenor of the "average" traffic stop observed by the monitoring team during the past seven reporting periods. The monitors have noted no indications of racial profiling in the data reviewed this reporting period. While the data in Table Four indicate higher consent request rates for blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as .53) these data are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences may be attributable to chance. 8 Similarly, deployments of canines were also indicated at a higher rate for blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as 4.3); however, these data are not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences may be attributable to chance. 9,10 These activities, for the first time, recorded sufficient numbers of incidents this reporting period to be statistically meaningful.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

8 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a chi-square of 6.98 with three degrees of freedom, p>O.OS.
The distribution was not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 9 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a chi-square of 7.58 with three degrees of freedom, p>O.OS.
The distribution was not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 10 See pages 25-26, Table Six for a discussion of canine deployment rates by race.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-lS

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 16 of 40 PageID: 1522

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

If Task 27
Phase I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II

Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set
forth in 'll 26 and has been approved by the United States in so
far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure
compliance with '!I'll 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of
any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. The monitors have continued to note improvements in the quality, frequency, and tone of supervisory review during the fifteenth monitoring period. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in a law enforcement procedures were effected in 129 of 151 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 85.4 percent. 11 More importantly, the New Jersey State Police have continued to implement a much different~ of supervisory review process, attempting to meet the goal of having first-line (station-level) supervisors review a// motor vehicle stops which result in a law enforcement procedure (vehicle exit, frisk, arrest, search, canine deployment, consent request, or use of force). The majority of the supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources-quality assurance reviews, OSPA reviews or other non-station sources. Station-level

11 85 percent MVSRs reviewed by the monitoring team had been reviewed by either first line supervisors or subjected to "management review." The majority had received both.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 17 of 40 PageID: 1523

supervisors conducted the vast majority of initial reviews conducted during the tenth through fifteenth reporting periods.

Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present in 60.9 percent of monitored activity this reporting period. This constitutes the highest level of in-field supervision noted since the inception of the consent decree, seven years ago. First- and second-line supervisors in 84.5 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors this period reviewed video tapesP This supervisory review rate yielded 36 instances in which New Jersey State Police personnel committed errors related to the consent decree. In reviewing the same documents and video tapes, the monitors noted 36 errors in procedure related to the consent decree. New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted 34 of these violations of New Jersey State Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations, prior to being notified by the monitoring team of the motor vehicle stops that would be reviewed this period. 13 The two remaining errors involved:
1. Failure to note lack of reasonable articulable suseicion to warrant consent request, i.e., "conflicting statements" re itinerary; 4 and
2. Failure to document and explain an "extemporaneous" frisk of a driver for no apparent articulable suspicion.

In addition, the monitors noted that all but one of the 34 errors this reporting period were procedural in nature, i.e., related to reporting issues or minor policy violations, as
opposed to Constitutional violations or errors. Unlike past periods, it appears that the
majority of supervisory interventions are being conducted by first-line supervisors, as
opposed to secondary sources.

It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. As a result of this newly implemented supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 34 decreerelated errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With the current supervisory system, these 34 decree-related errors were noted and corrected in "real time," before the monitors called them to the attention of the State. The supervisory system did, however, fail to note and correct two errors that should have

12 These reviews are now conducted routinely, although the State has implemented a new pilot program
testing the efficacy of moving to a more focused and less universal method of stop review. One of the errors noted this reporting period, the second error noted above, was made as a result of this new pilot program. All reviews conducted were conducted before the monitors notified the State of which MVS incidents would be selected for by the monitors. 13 The failure to document and explain the frisk was not an incident subjected to supervisory review by
New Jersey State Police personnel. It was noted as part of the monitors' review. 14 This event occurred as part of a directed stop related to a dismounted post toll evasion detail.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 18 of 40 PageID: 1524

been caught by supervisory review. 15 See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the implemented MAPPS process indicates that the agency is compliance with the requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. Two incidents, from among the 151 reviewed, included an operational error not caught and remedied by field supervisors prior to the monitoring team selecting cases for review this reporting period.
This constitutes and error rate of two of 151 motor vehicle stop incidents, or 1.3 percent, within the allowable margin of error of five percent. Compliance for this task is defined as "greater than 94 percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

I I Task 28

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Iiiii! !i
~

~

Task 28 stipulates:

28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a

15 One of these errors was noted by the monitors in a motor vehicle stop that had not first been
reviewed by supervisory personnel, as it occurred at one of three road stations that had been selected for a test program that allowed less than a 100 percent review of all motor vehicle stops with post-stop interactions of interest to the decree.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 19 of 40 PageID: 1525

motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crimej that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the searchi that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consentj that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants, which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such righti that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reasonj and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis}.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of 94 law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the fifteenth report's operational dates. Fifteen of these involved consent search requests that were declined. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Four below. Tables Four through Seven depict data from the 151 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 151 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Four through Seven, there were 38 white drivers of the total of 151 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 25 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Four depicts 17 consent requests of white drivers, 48 requests of black drivers, 25 requests of Hispanic drivers, and four requests of drivers of "other" racejethnicity. The last column, "Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, who were subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The reader should note that the State has increased substantially the number of consent search requests, to an all-time high of 94 this reporting period. With 94 requests this

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 20 of 40 PageID: 1526

period, the numbers reported in Table Three become statistically meaningful when reported viz a viz race and ethnicity.

All but four of the 94 consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of the consent decree. 16 These requests were made absent reasonable
articulable suspicion; however, supervisors caught and corrected three of these.

An error rate of one of 94 consent searches constitutes 1.1 percent, falling within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree.

Table Four-consent Request Activity

Race/ Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers
38(25.2) 70(46.4) 39(25.8) 4(02.7) 151(100)

Number of Requests for
Search 17 17
48
25 4
94

Percent Consent Request by
Race/Ethnicity 44.7 68.6 64.1 100 62.3

While the data in Table Four indicate higher consent request rates for blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as .53) these data are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences may be attributable to chance.18

The monitors noted several significant changes in the consent request processes of the New Jersey State Police this reporting period. The number and tenor of consent requests changed markedly this period, and the rate of consent requests jumped more than 200 percent this period (see Table Three, page 15). In addition, the monitors observed several other issues that raised concern about consent request practices at the New Jersey State Police this reporting period. Many of these issues may be the direct result of two new training programs, designed for commercial vehicle inspection personnel that were also attended by regular troopers in Troops B and D. The federal Department of Transportation and Department of Homeland Security presented to State Police personnel two drug interdiction programs designed for commercial vehicle inspection personnel: The Drug Interdiction Awareness Program (DIAP) and Operation Desert Snow. While the vast majority of consent request processes engaged in by

16 Fifteen drivers refused consent requests. 17 Fifteen consent search requests were refused. 18 Chf-Square analysis of these data yielded a chi-square of 6.98 with three degrees of freedom, p>O.OS.
The distribution was not statistically significant.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 21 of 40 PageID: 1527
members of the New Jersey State Police this reporting period met the requirements of the decree and existing policy/ the monitors are concerned by several issues relating to the consent request incidents observed this reporting period.
The issues noted this reporting period included:
• The reappearance of "boilerplate" language in troopers/ stop report narratives;
• An apparent marked increase in the length of time for consent request stops;
• A reappearance of aggressive and protracted questioning of drivers regarding itinerary/ relationships among drivers and passengers/ and other issues not related directly to the reason for the stop;
• Reliance on intangible indicators to support requests for consent searches; and • Lengthy questioning of drivers stopped for other than moving violations.
Each of these issues is discussed in more detail below.
Boilerplate
The monitors have identified "Boilerplate" language in police reports as a potential indicator for imprecise application of law enforcement procedures. Boilerplate language
can indicate intent to support a pre-determined law enforcement action/ such as a
request for consent to search a vehicle. During this reporting period/ the monitors observed a marked increase in the use of such language/ usually related to "nervousness// "failure to make eye contact// "pacing/ "mumbled answers/ etc. In itself1 use of boilerplate language in police reports is of concern to the monitors/ but
when coupled with an increase in the length of time for consent request stops/ it can be
indicative of troopers simply working to get the outcome they desire rather than letting the facts dictate the actions they need to take.
Increased Times of Stops
The monitors noticed a marked increase in the length of time it takes troopers to make stops in which consent requests are made. Based on a review of 94 video tapes1 it
appears that the reason for the increase is a renewed focus on building reasonable
articulable suspicion to support consent search requests. The average length of time for a motor vehicle stop resulting in a consent request was more than 101 minutes. It is apparent from the monitors/ review of video tapes that many consent request stops were simply protracted until troopers could finally obtain reasonable articulable suspicion to make the consent request.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 22 of 40 PageID: 1528

Protracted Questioning

A total of 13 consent requests were made for non-moving violations this reporting period. Of those 13, eleven resulted in consent requests for intangible reasons, i.e., "reasonable articulable suspicion" developed based on nervousness, irritability, rapid pulse rates, pacing, or other intangible indicators not apparently directly related to criminal activity. Consent requests that resulted in protracted questioning leading to requests based on intangible factors accounted for eight of the ten longest consent request-related stops identified this period, including the longest stop of 243 minutes, which entailed the off-loading of a tractor-trailer.

Intangible Factors Leading to Consent Requests

Troopers were observed to make consent to search requests for three types of reasons: intangible, tangible and probative. Intangible factors included the following:
• Rigid seating position; • Failure to make eye contact; • Mumbling; • Pacing; • Crossed arms; • Nervousness; • Annoyance for being stopped; and • Rapid pulse rate.

Tangible reasons included:

• Presence of multiple air fresheners in the vehicle; • Alteration to original equipment standards (removed door panels, center consoles,
etc.);
• Conflicting statements by drivers and passengers; • Hidden compartments; and • Possession of large sums of cash.

Probative reasons included:

• Odor of burnt or raw marijuana; • Known criminal histories for drug-related or firearms crimes; • Ejection of suspected contraband from the vehicle; and • Previous drug seizures related to the stopped vehicle.
Fully 44 percent of consent requests were justified by intangible reasons. Eight of the ten longest stop times were observed as troopers worked to find sufficient intangible

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 23 of 40 PageID: 1529
evidence to justify consent requests. Many of these consent requests based on intangible evidence were also characterized by aggressive and protracted questioning of the drivers and passengers. Black drivers tended to have their consent requests supported more often by probative factors, while whites and Hispanics tended to have consent requests made of them more often for intangible factors.
Table Five, below, depicts an analysis of consent search requests by type of violation
and reason for the request. The table indicates virtually no difference between moving and non-moving violations, reason for stop, and the nature of the evidence supporting the request for a consent search.
Table Five: Consent Search Requests by Type of Violation and Reason for Request
Reason for Stop

Lengthy Questioning of Drivers for Other than Non-Moving Violations
More than 30 percent of the drivers subjected to extended questioning about itinerary, relationships with passengers, luggage, etc., had been stopped for what the monitors
consider to be discretionary moving infractions (improper lane change, failure to keep
right, etc)19 or non-moving violations. Nearly 58 percent of requests supported by intangible reasons were for non-moving violations or what the monitors perceive to be discretionary moving violations.
New Jersey State Police Action Related to Consent Searches
The reader should note that, based on the record available, the New Jersey State Police noted the increased numbers of consent requests this reporting period prior to the issue being brought to their attention by members of the monitoring team. The record indicates that in late August, New Jersey State Police issued a mandate to the MAPPS unit to conduct an analysis of consent searches for the 2006 year-to-date. (The

19 The monitors have repeatedly had conversations concerning the issue of "minor" moving violations as a source of potentially questionable post-stop interactions. The State Police contend that "any" violation is substantial; however, based on the monitors' experiences, actions executed as a result of stops for minor moving violations are of particular concern to the monitors.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 24 of 40 PageID: 1530

monitors' site visit was conducted during the first week of October). This report noted the unusual increase in the number of consent requests, linked it potentially to the loss of the capacity to search vehicles incidental to arrest, and to training offered in drug interdiction (the same training noted above by the monitors), and developed one specific recommended action in response to the issues noted. This recommended action was for feedback to the training bureau for modification of 2006 in-service training. After the monitors' site visit, based on conversations with the monitoring team, the State initiated two additional recommendations designed to address issues with consent searches, and, in addition, met with a//New Jersey State Police members who had received the DIAP and Desert Snow training and reaffirmed existing policies and operations guidance.

One of the two stops that resulted in supervisory errors this reporting period was related to consent requests. Errors regarding articulable suspicion constituted 1.1 percent of all consent search requests, within the allowable error rate.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 29a stipulates that:

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data
a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-SS (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop;

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 25 of 40 PageID: 1531

2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop; 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended;
5. license numberf state of stopped vehicle;
SA. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); SA. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO]); 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted; 14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges; 17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force; 18. the trooper's race and gender; and 19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.
Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State's compliance with this task.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 26 of 40 PageID: 1532

Status

The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 151 incidents involving a poststop law enforcement activity of interest to the decree. Use of force, non-consensual searches and deployment of canines received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Six, Seven, and Eight, below.

Use of Force
New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force five times during the reporting period. The use of force rate for white drivers in the sample was 10.5 percent. For black drivers in the sample, the use of force rate was 1.4 percent, and for Hispanic drivers in the sample, zero percent. Members of the monitoring team reviewed reports of all use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. All of the reports were included as part of the MVSR reporting process. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process. 20 None of the use of force practices were found to be problematic.

Tables Six through Eight depict data from the 151 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 151 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the
percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Six through Eight,
there were 38 white drivers of the total of 151 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 25.2 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Six depicts four incidents of use of force against white drivers (or occupants), one incident of use of force against black drivers (or occupants), no incident of use of force against Hispanic drivers, and no uses of force against drivers of "other" race/ethnicity. The last column, "Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews. These numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

20 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 27 of 40 PageID: 1533

Table Six: Use of Force Activity

Race/ Ethnicity of Drivers
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers 38(25.2) 70(46.4) 39(25.8) 4(2.7) 151(100)

Incidents of Use of Force 4 1
0 0 5

Percent by Race/Ethnicity
10.5
1.4
----

Canine Deployments

The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 34 times during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment/ and reviewed video tapes of all canine deployments. No reporting problems were noted in any of the 34 deployments/ and the video taped incidents reviewed indicated that the written reports accurately reflected actual events. All canine deployments were professionally executed and were executed for legitimate cause.

Table Seven depicts data from the 151 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers// depicts the number of drivers/ by race/ in the 151
incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers
in the total sample/ by race. Thus/ for Tables Six through Eight1 there were 38 white drivers of the total of 151 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period/ constituting 25.2 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column/ "Number// depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example/ Table Seven depicts four canine deployment for white drivers1 21 canine deployments for black drivers/ seven canine deployment for Hispanic drivers/ and two canine deployments for drivers of "other// racejethnicity. The last column/ "Percenf/ depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.

While the data in Table Seven indicate higher canine "deployment rates// for blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as 4.3) these data are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level1 indicating that the differences may be attributable to chance. 21
21 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a chi-square of 7.58 with three degrees of freedom, p>O.OS. The distribution was not statistically significant.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors/ Report

Page-27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 28 of 40 PageID: 1534

Table Seven: Canine Deployments

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 38(25.2) 70( 46.4) 39(25.8) 4(2.7) 151(100)

Canine Deployments
4 21 7 2 34

Percent by Race/ Ethnicity
2.6
13.9
4.6 50.0
--

Non-Consensual Searches

Table Eight depicts the results, by racejethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 151 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. Table Eight depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by racejethnicity of the 125 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 15 white drivers' vehicles were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with no white drivers' vehicles searched incidental to arrest, 15 subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 15 probable cause searches constitute 100 percent of all searches of white drivers vehicles. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Of the 53 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found no problems that were not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel.

Table Eight: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of Drivers' Vehicles, By Race of Driver

Reason for Search
Incidental to Arrest Probable Cause
Plain View Proof of Ownership
Total

White #(%}
0 15(100)
0 0 15

Black #(%}
0 24(93.3)

Hispanic #(%} 0 11(100)

Other #(%}
0 0

3(4.7)

0

0

0

0

0

27

11

0

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 29 of 40 PageID: 1535

Table Nine depicts non-consensual search-of-person activity by race, for probable cause searches and plain view.

Table Nine: Probable Cause Searches, by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hispanic Other

Number of Drivers 38(25.2) 70(46.4) 39(25.8) 4(2.7) 151(100)

Probable Cause Searches 15 24 11 0 50

Percent by Race/Ethnicitv
39.5
34.3
28.2
--
--

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 36 separate incidents in which constitutional, procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 34 of these problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining or other form of intervention prior to the monitor's noting the behavior. In addition, the monitors noted that all but two of the 36 errors this reporting period were procedural in nature, i.e., related to reporting issues or minor policy violations, as opposed to Constitutional violations or errors. An error of two from among 151 yields an error rate of 1.3 percent, within the allowable margin of error of five percent agreed to by the parties. The State continues in compliance with this task this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of

Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 29b

I 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase I

.·

Phase !I

.·.·

Task 29b stipulates that:

b. The protocols listed in '1!29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in '11'11 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 30 of 40 PageID: 1536

approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.

The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.

The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the State's database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as "expeditious" implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 31 of 40 PageID: 1537

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31, 32 and 33

Task 29c 1 2

1

I

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase II iii!i

Task 29c stipulates that:
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as
may be required to implement this paragraph and m1 31, 32, and 33
(and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology
The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.
Status
Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

I I Task 29e 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

ll1TillTill

Phase II ..liifiil

Task 29e stipulates that:

e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 32 of 40 PageID: 1538

paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the State, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

Task 30

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30 stipulates that:
30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in ~ 29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in ~29(a), and as revised

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 33 of 40 PageID: 1539

pursuant to ~29(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these tasks has been measured under a revised standard for several reporting periods, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and control of these processes, and when fully implemented, should further improve agency performance in these areas.

For the past eleven reporting periods, the State has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors' review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 9622 video recordings and documentation from 151 vehicle stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Of the 151 incidents reviewed by the monitors, none included an error in call-in or documentation of a motor vehicle stop. An error rate of zero incidents of 151 constitutes zero percent, within the newly established parameter of >90 percent, and interestingly, within the original requirement of 95 percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

22 Some video taped incidents included more than one post-stop activity of interest to the decree. For example, 24 of the 94 consent requests also included a canine deployment.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 34 of 40 PageID: 1540

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a 1 2

1

I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I rmmmt

Phase II 1.· .·

.·•

I

Task 30a stipulates that:
a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent race/ethnicity, and their apparent gender}. Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status
Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 151 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number; 100 percent list the driver's race and gender; 99.9 percent list a reason for the stop and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this task

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 35 of 40 PageID: 1541

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

Task 30b
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 30b stipulates that:

b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.

Status

The parties and the monitors have agreed that this section (regarding notice prior to search of a vehicle) applies only to probable cause and consent searches, since state police policy requires a search of all vehicles incidental to the effecting of an arrest. 23 Of the 50 probable cause search events and 79 consent searches reported (and reviewed by video tape), all but two were called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. Supervisory personnel noted and corrected one of these. This constitutes an error rate of less than one percent, within the >94 percent established as the criterion for this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

23 New Jersey case law (State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (2006)) has changed the requirements and practices
of "search incidental to arrest" of a motor vehicle. New Jersey State Police policy now precludes searches of vehicles incidental to arrest.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 36 of 40 PageID: 1542

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

!lil!!i!ll

·.·..·.. · .·.

Task 30c stipulates that:

c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. Of the 96 stops reviewed by video tape, all were found to have clearance codes. Of the 151 stops reviewed by document review, these call-ins were present in the CAD abstract, indicating that they had been made by the trooper and contemporaneously recorded. The State is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 37 of 40 PageID: 1543

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

I I Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase II IITffi!I!i1

Task 30d stipulates that:

d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure (i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.

Methodology

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have "CAD Incident Numbers" indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 151 stops reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period, CAD numbers were present in documentation for all video tapes reviewed, and in 100 percent of all hard copy documents reviewed by the monitoring team that required a CAD number.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 38 of 40 PageID: 1544

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

1 2 1I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

llilil!!!!l
r

Task 31 stipulates that:

31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A MVSR form was completed accurately in all 94 motor vehicle stop reports that included a consent search request this reporting period. Fifteen of the incidents involved consent requests that were denied. All but three of the 94 consent requests were appropriately recorded and executed. Two of these errors were caught and corrected upon supervisory review. One was not corrected by supervisory review. This constitutes a 97.7 percent compliance rate. In addition, the information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all but one case. Supervisors caught and corrected this error.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 39 of 40 PageID: 1545

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

I Task 31a-c 1 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

IIDIDIDl

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information : 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search;
s. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized
to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived; 6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied: 1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search;

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-4 Filed 01/17/07 Page 40 of 40 PageID: 1546

3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and, 6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for 94 consent requests and 79 consent searches, 24 and reviewed video tape recordings of all motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events depicted on 94 video tapes reviewed (fifteen drivers declined) were assessed in light of the reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

All but one of these the 94 consent request activities required by this section of the consent decree were either appropriately recorded or had errors corrected by supervisory personnel. The one that did not result in prior supervisory intervention consisted of poor or non-existent explanation of the reasons for the consent request. This constitutes and error rate of 1.1 percent. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

24 Fifteen consent requests were refused.
Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 53 PageID: 1548

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of Non-Consensual Searches

I I Task 32

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

liiiiiWi I ·..·.
. ····.
32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.
Of the 53 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles25, members of the monitoring team found problems with two incidents in which the troopers failed to call in the search prior to conducting it. One of these errors was caught upon supervisory review, and corrected prior to the monitors notifying the State

25 Three plain view searches were also conducted this reporting period.
Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 53 PageID: 1549

of their data pulls for this reporting period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

If Task 33
Phase I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II

Task 33 stipulates that:
33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed;
s. whether an alert occurred;
6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 53 PageID: 1550

The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, 34 reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and canines to have been deployed in conformance with the requirements of procedures and the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a
Phase I Phase II

• 2
mmnn

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 34a stipulates that:
34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio {MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey {including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 96 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.
Status

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 53 PageID: 1551

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings, or documentation of in-field mechanical problems, for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c

7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.
c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.

Methodology Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 53 PageID: 1552

In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each incident selected for review this reporting period (see above), members of the
monitoring team pulled for review a sample of 151 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the decree. These included 151 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 96 events assessed by reviewing video tapes.26

Status

While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the decree.

Once stops that are not "pure" motor vehicle stops, e.g., motorist's aids and motor
vehicle accidents, are removed from the sample, compliance rates for this aspect of task 34c are all within the originally established 95 percent minimum.

A review of the 96 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has effectively resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning "out of tape" issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units (only four of 96 incidents reviewed via video tape resulted in an "out of tape" finding). The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 96 stops reviewed via video-tape this period, 13 exhibited some form of audio difficulty, and five exhibited some form of video difficulty. These incidents continue to reflect the age and maintenance of the equipment, rather than trooper-error. The State's planned new digital video systems may reduce these numbers even further. Troopers have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting no events (of 96 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. This constitutes and error rate of zero percent, within the newly established 90 percent requirement for this task, and interestingly, within the original 95 percent requirement. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

26 All 96 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 151 MVSRs reviewed.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 6 of 53 PageID: 1553

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to '11'1131-33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting period indicated that all selected events had their supporting MVSRs reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.
A review of 151 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates supervisory personnel reviewed 129 of 151 reports. The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 151 selected stops reviewed this period for evidence of reporting or procedural errors that should have been noted by supervisory personnel. Supervisory personnel, prior to the monitors' review, also reviewed all but 22 tapes reviewed by the monitors. From those 129 events, the monitors found only one that exhibited some form of reporting problem that should have been noted by supervisory review, but were not. This report involved failure to note lack of reasonable articulable suspicion to warrant request, i.e., "conflicting statements" re itinerary.

This constitutes and error rate of one of 129 events reviewed by supervisory personnel (less than one percent), within the allowable five percent error rate for this task. The quality of supervisory review remains within acceptable standards.

Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 7 of 53 PageID: 1554

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:
36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed 129 supervisors' MVR review reports. The quality of these reports had improved substantially over the past six reporting periods. That improvement was interrupted this reporting period. All reviews assessed this reporting period were completed using the new MAPPS performance management system. This process is a vast improvement over earlier processes. Members of the monitoring team were able to compare 129 supervisors' reviews with actual video tapes (the same tapes reviewed by supervisors as part of their review process). Members of the monitoring team noted two issues in the 129 tapes they reviewed that were missed by the supervisory cadre at the New Jersey State Police.

These included:

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 8 of 53 PageID: 1555

1. This report involved failure to note lack of reasonable articulable suspicion to warrant request, i.e., "conflicting statements" re itinerary27•

2. Failure to document and explain an "extemporaneous" frisk of a driver for no apparent articulable suspicion.28

This constitutes an overall error rate for supervisory review of 1.6 percent, within the acceptable error rate of five percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

If Task 37
Phase I

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II I ... ..·..

.·

.·.··

Task 37 stipulates that:
37. After conducting a review pursuant to 'IJ35, '!136, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in '!129 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.
Methodology

27 This event occurred as part of a directed stop related to a dismounted post toll evasion detail.
28 This stop report was not reviewed by OSPA personnel as it was not among the critical incidents
requiring review by management and OSPA personnel.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 9 of 53 PageID: 1556

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

The monitors have observed "course-of-business" records of continual referrals to OPS of actions or omissions by road personnel, although such referrals have become more rare in recent reporting periods. This is, in the monitors' opinions, directly due to the increased levels of routine supervision, which have reduced errors on the part of road personnel. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task. One incident was noted, during the fifteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. An appropriate referral was made.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:
38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews
of referral decisions pursuant to 'II 37 to ensure appropriate
referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.
Methodology
Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to "copy" to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.
Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 10 of 53 PageID: 1557

New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel's review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.

Status

One incident was noted, during the fifteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. Appropriate referrals were made. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

Task 39 I 1 I 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

~.· Phase I
Phase II

...·.· ..·< ·. ·•·

Task 39 stipulates that:

39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed 92 motor vehicle stop reports that recorded an event at which a New Jersey State Police sergeant was present, constituting field activity in 61.0 percent of all stops selected this period.

Status

Based on the monitors' review of 96 tapes recording incidents at which state police supervisors were present, the monitors noted only two incidents in which procedural violations related to the consent decree were made that were not duly noted and

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 11 of 53 PageID: 1558

corrected by field supervisory personnel on the scene or upon subsequent tape review. This constitutes and error rate of 2.1 percent/ within the allowable 95 percent compliance rate.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

I I I Task 40

12 34

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

II !!IIIII

I

Task 40 stipulates that:
40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
Methodology
This reporting period/ the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all1 the monitors performed more than 151 tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported below/ in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems tests/ the monitors attended and observed a risk management meeting/ which uses MAPPS data and information to assess risks to the agency that might require changes in training/ supervision/ policy or leadership. The results of these process tests are discussed below/ in the analysis of tasks 41-51.
MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system/ and as implemented/ has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data in MAPPS1 as of the monitors/ fifteenth site visit/ are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS. The application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 12 of 53 PageID: 1559

for conducting long-term analyses continue to be observed for the third consecutive reporting period.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 41 requires that:
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to '1129 and the protocols listed in '1!29of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and
c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 13 of 53 PageID: 1560

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being "narrative elements" which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, continue to be found in the MAPPS system. In addition, the five non-primary requirements, identified as "narrative elements" were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors continue to find the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways. The system continues to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required by subparagraphs "b" and "c" of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers use these systems on a daily basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal MAPPS Data

I I Task 42 11

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 42 requires that:
42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 14 of 53 PageID: 1561

Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written. Compliance:

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts" and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43

1 2 34

Phase I Phase II

-1 I

I

~

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 43 requires that:

43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in
'1129 {a) {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, s, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in '1129{a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods {e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in
'lf29{a){5A, SA, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in 'lf29{a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access {through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in 'lf41{b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve
numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of
misconduct allegations or other information identified in 'lf41{b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 15 of 53 PageID: 1562

Status

The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by "count" and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (Sa, Sa, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel are accessing the system on a day-today basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:
44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
The State has identified the "CAD incident number" (CIN) as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree process.
Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 16 of 53 PageID: 1563

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

Task 45
Phase I Phase II
Task 45 requires that:

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 17 of 53 PageID: 1564

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

Task 46 1 1 I 2 I 3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I mmmr I
Phase II

Task 46 requires that:
46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by '11'1148-53.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

With implementation of the MAPPS components during the tenth reporting period, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

I I I Task 47

12 34

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I mmml I
Phase II

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 18 of 53 PageID: 1565

Task 47 requires that:
47. Consistent with the requirements of ~~48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January, 2004.
For the past ftve reporting periods, the monitors have been carefully reviewing the use of supervisory review processes regarding instances in which supervisors have noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, noting in the MAPPS the action taken regarding the problems as "No Further Action." The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State implemented, during the fourteenth reporting period, a "trooper centric" data query system that deals with this issue in an effective and elegant manner.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task 48

12 34

Phase I Phase II

-1 I

I
I

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 48 requires that:

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 19 of 53 PageID: 1566

48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures have been executed. The monitors have reviewed reports generated in response to this section of the decree, and find them to be responsive to the requirements of the decree and to be used effectively as management tools.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

Task 49

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 49 requires that:
49. To the extent reflected in ~43, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other}, road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 20 of 53 PageID: 1567

or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in 'l)73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these has been executed. During the site visit for the fifteenth reporting period, the monitors reviewed MAPPS reports created in response to this section of the decree and found them to be effective management tools. The State remains in compliance with this requirement of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50
Phase I Phase II

11 12 13 14 15

Task 50 requires that:

50. To the extent reflected in 'l)43, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-60

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 21 of 53 PageID: 1568

available (see ~~54-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and sub-units.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
During the thirteenth site visit, MAPPS personnel presented to the monitors detailed documentation regarding benchmarking and trend analysis. The activities related to Task 50 were organized into two separate functions: detailed data analysis using external and internal benchmarking processes, and high-level analysis and decision making regarding issues identified by the analysis by the Risk Management Core Group (RACG), in which key command staff review and discuss MAPPS data reports and take key decisions to move the organization forward regarding motor vehicle stop (and other) critical issues. Data analysis and the RACG meeting process for the third of five State Police troops (A, B and C) were completed during the fourteenth reporting period. The anticipated fourth data analysis report for Troop D was not completed during the fifteenth reporting period. Troops A and B comparisons and analyses were completed by implementation of a Risk Assessment Core Group (RACG) meeting process, The monitors approved both the MAPPS analytic process and the RACG discussion, analysis and decision processes as co-components of compliance for Task 50. Planning for the Task 50 Risk Management Advisory Panel (RMAP) meeting on Troop C was "in progress" during the Monitors' 14th site visit in May, 2006. Prior to the filing of the monitors' 14th status report, OSPA and NJSP planned to hold the meeting on Troop C data during the fifteenth reporting period, and to hold that meeting concurrently with the Troop D meeting.
As of the date of preparation of this report, the RACG meeting's critical analysis and problem-solving process for long-term trend analysis and benchmarking for motor vehicle stop data related to racial and ethnic characteristics of drivers and passengers has not been conducted. Troop C data should have been subjected to that process during the 15th reporting period, and is now six-months delayed. Troop D data should

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 22 of 53 PageID: 1569

have been subjected to that process during the 15th reporting period, and is now also past due.29 It appears that OSPA had communicated with personnel within the Office of Strategic Initiatives regarding the need to convene Task 50 (and Task 51) related meetings of the Risk.
Key components of the analytic process for Troops C and D (and to a lesser extent, Troop E) were completed during the fifteenth reporting period; however, the final data analytic reports have not been completed and RMAP meetings have not been held on Troops C or D. Based on these facts, the monitors implemented a second site visit related to the fifteenth monitors' report. This site visit took place in December, 2006. The purpose of the second site visit was to clarify issues related to Tasks 50 and 51, and to further refine the monitors' understanding of DIAP and Desert Snow training issues.
During the course of this second site visit, issues surfaced regarding Task 50 and 51 that were previously unknown to the monitors, but which also provided clarification regarding the reasons for delays to the Troop C and D analytic processes. These issues included workload, staffing, technology, and information access factors. Each of these is discussed in some detail below.
Workload
During the course of the fifteenth reporting period, the New Jersey State Police evolved in its use of the MAPPS/RACG process, moving beyond what was required by the decree to exceptional problem-analytic and problem solving processes using MAPPS and portions of the RACG structure. New Jersey State Police noted two emergent issues during the fifteenth reporting period. The first was a peak in the frequency of incident related to an increase in off-duty misconduct allegations involving Division personnel. The second, as noted earlier, was a significant peak in consent search request incidents. The Office of the Superintendent tasked MAPPS and the Office of Strategic Initiatives to conceptualize, implement, and report a data-centric analytic process to determine the scope of these two issues, identify critical factors related to these issues, and synthesize solutions and recommendations. This occurred between May and October, 2006, and represented a dramatic increase in workload for the MAPPS-RACG function.
Obviously one of these issues is decree-related, but both impact on the ability of the organization's top management to identify and deal with problems before they become critical issues. This is exactly the type of functions that MAPPS was designed to facilitate, and the monitors commend the Division for its initiative and foresight in

29 The RACG meeting for Troops C and D is currently planned for January, 2007.
Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 23 of 53 PageID: 1570

moving to address these problems in an immediate fashion. The workload generated by these processes, however, appeared to seriously over-tasked assigned personnel.
Staffing
During the fifteenth reporting period, a civilian analyst, critical to the completion of Task 50 and Task 51 functions took an extended (two month) medical leave. This virtually brought an end to the Division's ability to provide the type of analytical skills necessary to comply with Task 50 and 51, particularly considering the dramatic increase in workload experienced this reporting period. The loss of personnel undoubtedly affected the organization's ability to meet its Task 50 and 51 duties this reporting period, and, we believe, is directly tied to some of the missed deadlines noted in this report. As with the training academy issues noted early on in this monitoring project, the monitors see the need for a detailed workload and staffing analysis for the MAPPS unit and the Office of Strategic Initiatives/RACG units to ensure that staff are adequately cross-trained, that critical staffing levels are met, and that sufficient redundancies are built in to the personnel component to avoid a repeat of the issues confronted with staffing and workload this reporting period.
Technology
It appears that critical technology allowing MAPPS/OSI/RACG personnel to access, organize and analyze operational data are not available at this time, although requests for purchase of hardware and software resources have been approved through asset forfeiture funds for these functions. While the technology needs are substantive, they are relatively basic, given the operational requirements outlined by the decree and current internal mandates: hardware and software allowing direct access to MAPPS, CAD and RMS data, and analysis of that data, distilling it to useable form for managers and key decision-makers. The monitors understand that fiscal issues endemic within the State at this time have delayed these acquisitions; however, Task 50 and 51 functions are critical to decree-related issues, and the monitors fail to see how the State can maintain compliance without providing the necessary tools for MAPPS/RACG/OSI to provide the data analytic functions required by the decree.
Information Access
Information obtained during the monitors' second site visit for the fifteenth reporting indicated that MAPPS/RACG/OSI personnel were having difficulty obtaining data from the Information Technology Bureau in a timely fashion. The monitors were troubled by this revelation for two reasons: first a great deal of the information necessary for Task 50 analyses is "fixed," i.e., knowable in advance, and thus "programmable" through institutionalized, standing data requests to the ITB with knowable delivery windows allowing time to gather, transfer, analyze, and report these data. That

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 24 of 53 PageID: 1571

institutionalization of data requests has not been accomplished. (Access to the more critical supplemental data, to inform new or emerging issues is less amenable to routinization). Second, the monitoring project is a very mature one, having been implemented six years ago. To have difficulty gaining access to information needed for compliance with the decree at this stage of the process is out of character with the State's performance to date.

Compliance

The State has missed its deadline for providing the Troop D data report and for analyzing the Troop C andTroop D data via the RACG process. This misstep comes after two reporting periods of compliance, and is, the monitors believe, a function of increased workload that illustrates a very positive evolution of the data-centric and data-analytic nature of the New Jersey State Police at this point in time. It does, however, represent a breakdown in established compliance activities, albeit for understandable and documentable reasons.
The monitors noted in the fourteenth monitoring report that Task 50 functions were "important to long-term compliance." The monitors further noted that "delayed attainment of compliance" in these areas "did not diminish achievement of substantial compliance" with the decree. After two consecutive reporting periods of compliance, the record indicates that the State has significantly delayed compliance activities related to Task 50, albeit for understandable-and in some cases uncontrollable-reasons. To allow the monitors to more fully asses the nature of the State's compliance efforts for Task 50, the State is placed under warning for this task. Failure to come into full compliance by April 30, 2007 will result in a loss of compliance for this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 50

6

10 11 12 13 14 15

Phase I Phase II

Task 51 requires that:
51. To the extent reflected in ,43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 25 of 53 PageID: 1572

Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
During the course of the fifteenth reporting period, the New Jersey State Police evolved in its use of the MAPPS/RACG process, moving beyond what was required by the decree to exceptional problem-analytic and problem solving processes using MAPPS and portions of the RACG structure. New Jersey State Police noted two emergent issues during the fifteenth reporting period. The first was a peak in the frequency of incident related to allegations of off-duty misconduct involving Division personnel. The second, as noted earlier, was a significant peak in consent search request incidents. The Office of the Superintendent tasked MAPPS and the Office of Strategic Initiatives to conceptualize, implement, and report a data-centric analytic process to determine the scope of these two issues, identify critical factors related to these issues, and synthesize solutions and recommendations.
Execution of Task 50 functions and completion of Risk Assessment Core Group functions are critical to the maintenance of compliance with this task as it relates to motor vehicle stop data. See Section 2.27, above, for a complete discussion of these compliance issues.
Compliance
The State has missed its deadline for providing the Troop D data report and for analyzing the Troop C andTroop D data via the RACG process. This misstep comes after two reporting periods of compliance, and is, the monitors believe, a function of increased workload, which illustrates a very positive evolution of the data-centric and data-analytic nature of the New Jersey State Police at this point in time. It does, however, represent a breakdown in established compliance activities, albeit for understandable and documentable reasons.
The monitors noted in the fourteenth monitoring report that Task 50 functions were "important to long-term compliance." The monitors further noted that "delayed attainment of compliance" in these areas "did not diminish achievement of substantial compliance" with the decree. After two consecutive reporting periods of compliance, the record indicates that the State has significantly delayed compliance activities related to Task 51, albeit for understandable-and in some cases uncontrollable-reasons. To allow the monitors to more fully asses the nature of the State's compliance efforts for

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 26 of 53 PageID: 1573

Task 51, the State is placed under warning for this task. Failure to come into full compliance by April 30, 2007 will result in a loss of compliance for this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

During the fifteenth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted 32 instances of supervisory personnel issuing "performance notices" or other interventions for actions taken by division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are carefully reviewing trooper activity and issuing performance notices or other "interventions" when inappropriate behavior occurs. The monitors commend the State and the supervisory and management personnel at the New Jersey State Police for a marked and impressive improvement in the level and quality of supervisory review evidenced during this reporting period. See sections 2.13 and 2.16, above, for additional comments relative to supervisor review.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 27 of 53 PageID: 1574

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 53 stipulates that:

53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three
misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to 'II
73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in
intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.

Status

The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two misconduct investigations in a two-year period. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During the tenth reporting period, the State had assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards. Data indicate that these reviews are being meaningfully conducted as required by the decree. Documentary evidence available in MAPPS indicates that supervisory personnel are meeting with troopers meeting the criteria of this task, and, when necessary, discussing any applicable patterns of complaints.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 28 of 53 PageID: 1575

Task 54 stipulates that:

54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

Methodology

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition with the Court for release from most of the requirements of the consent decree related to OPS. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the monitors discontinued monitoring activities for OPS requirements as of July, 2004 (the twelfth reporting period), with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90).

Task 87, which requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens' complaints within 120 days, was evaluated by reviewing the "120-day Report," an OPS-generated, "normal course of

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 29 of 53 PageID: 1576

business" report developed to monitor overdue cases and prevent an additional case backlog. Based on the 120-day Report, the State remains in compliance with this task.

Task 90, which requires imposition of appropriate discipline in Consultation with MAPPS, was evaluated by reviewing "course of business" documents related to the OPS review of sustained OPS investigations, executive-level decisions regarding discipline, and the existence in MAPPS of records reflecting discipline. The State is judged to be in Phase I and Phase II compliance with the requirements of Task 90.

2.33 Training Assessment

The Academy has attained compliance performance areas as of the fourteenth reporting period. The return on the Division's investment in increased manpower, equipment, and automation at the Academy over the past twelve months is remarkable and is reflected in the findings in this report. The Superintendent and the command staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to, and interest in the training function provided by the New Jersey State Police Academy.

Actions noted during the monitors' fifteenth site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

~2 Task 93

3

Phase I Phase II

I

·.. ·.. ·.

·.

4 5
·.·

Task 93 stipulates that:

... 9

10 11 12 13 14

93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 30 of 53 PageID: 1577

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

Task 93 enumerates the eight areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. No significant changes were noted in Academy processes related to the requirements of the decree outlined in this section. The Academy staff continues to use evaluation data to update and to refine program procedures, curricula, and training techniques. The Academy has developed and implemented comprehensive processes relating to ensuring quality training for all state troopers, curriculum development for recruit training, training for Academy instructors, training for trooper coaches, and training evaluation, and continues to implement those processes in a professional and effective manner.

The process of measuring field implementation of training objectives continues to evolve. The Research and Innovation Unit is using new software to collect and analyze data related to implementation for the other Academy units, which develop and deliver the training. The monitoring team expects that this process will grow with time and experience and will become more comprehensive and sophisticated in its measures and its methods.

A training oversight incident rose to the surface this period, leading to revisions to departmental SOPs related to training. The federal Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security presented to State Police personnel two drug interdiction programs designed for commercial vehicle inspection personnel: The Drug
Interdiction Awareness Program (DIAP) and Operation Desert Snow. This training was intended for commercial vehicle personnel, but was actually offered to a number of regular road troopers, without the requisite curriculum review required by the consent decree. The system, in effect, "worked/' noting that unapproved training was offered to some road patrol troopers, and terminating the training until it is fully vetted by the Academy and approved for delivery to road troopers. Curriculum review processes have been revised to reflect this incident.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 31 of 53 PageID: 1578

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

I I Task 97 1 2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

~

Task 97 stipulates that:

97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.

Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The quality of training depends upon the availability of qualified training staff in adequate numbers to fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Academy. This unit has an impact on every member of the organization through the training it provides and the evaluation of how that training is implemented throughout the Division. This is an area of critical importance, and as such, the levels of staffing must be reviewed on a regular basis and with a timely response to the needs that occur.

• Staffing levels at the Academy continue to be monitored to ensure that they adequately meet the demands placed on the Academy. The monitors noted that the organizational chart lists 62 personnel assigned to the Academy; however, a number of detachments reduces the active number of personnel currently working on site. It appears, at this time, that the Academy is adequately staffed.
• The Executive Development Training Unit submitted a well-documented request for

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-71

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 32 of 53 PageID: 1579

additional staffing in April 2006. The staff from this unit provides support to all other units on the topic of leadership. They have also opened the First Line Supervisor's Course and the Lieutenant's Course to outside agencies and are generating income that could offset the cost of increasing additional staff to this unit.

• The lists of eligible applicants for Academy staff and for trooper coaches have been exhausted. A request for applicants will be submitted to the division soon. Academy staff conducted a recruiting education day at each of the troop headquarters to further trooper understanding the functions and responsibilities involved in being a member of the Academy staff. Also, due to the number of specialist positions that are often available, the pool of applicants for trooper coach has been smaller than hoped of late.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

Task 98
Phase I Phase II

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 33 of 53 PageID: 1580

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The criteria stipulated by this section of the decree are being met and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy. The files are audited at appropriate intervals by Academy staff.

Status

Academy Personnel Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Post Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coach Personnel In Compliance In Compliance

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

~2 Task 99

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

. . .··.. ·..·

Task 99 stipulates that:
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 34 of 53 PageID: 1581

processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

All Academy and post-Academy instructors, and Trooper Coach personnel meet these requirements. Documentation is on file, and was reviewed by members of the monitoring team. Trooper coaches will now be completing the Instructor Training Course as part of the coach training to better prepare them in their teaching role with the probationary troopers.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

.. 2

Phase I Phase II

Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 35 of 53 PageID: 1582

processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The Academy continues to provide cultural diversity, ethics and leadership training as part of its integrated training curricula. Training in these areas continues to conform to the seven-step training development, delivery and evaluation process agreed to between the monitors and the State. Mandated annual training on these topics begins in October and will be completed before December 31, 2006.

Cultural Diversity

Ethics

Leadership

Phase I: Phase II:

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101

8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the nondiscrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdictionrelated training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 36 of 53 PageID: 1583

detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The Academy continues to provide integrated training curricula that conform to the seven-step training development, delivery and evaluation process agreed to between the monitors and the State.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

Task 102

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 102 stipulates that:
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.

Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 37 of 53 PageID: 1584

detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The State continues to field a strong response to all the responsibilities listed in the consent decree for this task, and the Academy personnel tasked with coordinating this program continue to revise and refine their oversight capabilities as new issues arise and new means of gaining oversight information are developed. Currently, the New Jersey State Police technology unit and the Academy technology unit completed the revised coach website and are continuing to refine the electronic data management system for this program.

The coach program is functioning well in meeting the needs of the new probationary troopers. The monitors routinely observe young troopers in the performance of their duties during their review of video tapes of motor vehicle stops, and attest to the value of the Trooper Coach process. The SOP governing this program is being revised to include improvements made to the program and to ensure the oversight processes.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 103 stipulates that:
103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 38 of 53 PageID: 1585

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with the Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed supporting documentation.

Status

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent decree-related tasks are handled by notification of specific Division personnel at the quarterly Training Committee meetings and through IOCs. This is a comprehensive oversight process. To be certain that the process is functioning as intended requires a regularly scheduled audit of the documentation at the section level to be sure that all "read and sign documentation" is complete.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 104 stipulates that:
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
Methodology

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 39 of 53 PageID: 1586

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period.
Status
The Academy has developed a comprehensive process with many access points for identifying the training needs in the organization, and continues to act on identified needs professionally.
It has been determined that the Instructor Training Program will be provided to instructors who provide training to school liaison officers to ensure the quality of training.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 105 stipulates that:
105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in '11'11100 and 101) shall integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 40 of 53 PageID: 1587

detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
Training at the academy continues to be developed, delivered and evaluated using the seven-step process developed early on in the consent decree process. Initial training was provided within the first year, as required, and annual in-service training has been offered since inception of the monitoring process. Training continues to be updated based on needs assessments and evaluation processes. Integration of training continues to be a strong focus of the training processes. This program was recently conducted for supervisors from outside police agencies and received excellent reviews. It also generated income for the Division.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

""'"'. Phase I

2

3 4

... 8

9

10 11 12 13 14

Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:

106. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within seven months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 41 of 53 PageID: 1588

Status

The Academy continues to provide integrated training curricula that conform to the seven-step training development, delivery and evaluation process agreed to between the monitors and the State.

Captains and Above Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107

8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 107 stipulates that:
107. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
Training processes for post-academy training for "newly assigned" troopers were implemented during the seventh reporting period. Evaluation processes related to the "impact in the field" of this training were implemented during the fourteenth reporting period. These processes were identified by the Academy during this reporting period, and have been reviewed by the monitoring team, and found to be meaningfully related to performance-in-the-field factors for this task. All instructors external to the Academy

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 42 of 53 PageID: 1589

will be completing the Instructor Training Program to insure the delivery of quality training.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

I I Task 108 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I lillilliiil
Phase II

Task 108 stipulates that:

108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information.
Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The New Jersey State Police Academy's Technology Unit continues to implement new platforms included in the new Geo Learning Software. The New Jersey State Police Academy is leading the way in demonstrating how the program can assist personnel in managing their responsibilities at every level in the organization.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 43 of 53 PageID: 1590

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 109 stipulates that:

109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The Geo Learning electronic program allows the Academy to provide oversight and management of all training records and trooper coach materials.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 110

10 11 12

Phase I Phase !I

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 44 of 53 PageID: 1591

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State's responses to the requirements of the decree, and/or have queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the State's response to the decree.
Status
Based on the monitoring team's review of work product, and information obtained during the process of implementing the fifteenth site visit, it is clear to the members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task. All duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the twelfth site visit, upon final implementation of the MAPPS processes for long-term trend analysis and benchmarking. The office provides coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice, and the office is headed by an Assistant AG during this reporting period. The office routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations, and routinely audits performance on MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site reviews, basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team, with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The mechanism and duty assignments exist to

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 45 of 53 PageID: 1592

complete the duties of the office as soon as practicable. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 111

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 111 stipulates that:

111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.

Methodology

The monitors have reviewed data provided by the State regarding this task, and find the State continues to be in compliance.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

• Task 112

Phase I

.·

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 46 of 53 PageID: 1593

Task 112 stipulates that:

112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by 'ft62; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.

Methodology

Data regarding task 112 indicate that the State continues to perform this task in a satisfactory manner.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

m
llllliiTI

Task 113 stipulates that:
113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.
Methodology

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 47 of 53 PageID: 1594

Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State Police Affairs during the course of the site visit during the week of May 19th, 2003.

Status

Based on the team's observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task 114

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 114 stipulates that:

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops {by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions {including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures {including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.

Methodology

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 48 of 53 PageID: 1595

The State has produced its latest "Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data," in response to this provision of the decree.

Status

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115
Phase I Phase II

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 115 stipulates that:
115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000.
Status
The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 49 of 53 PageID: 1596

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

~ Task 118

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

mm:
IIIli!! II:

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and nonprivileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 50 of 53 PageID: 1597

Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access while onsite with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 122 stipulates that:

122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every seven months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State's submission filed by the State in response to this task. The report's format has been modified to a more readable and usable format.

Status

The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitors, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 51 of 53 PageID: 1598

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:
123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents, records, recordings and other information during the course of the team's site visit during March and April, 2006.
Status

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-91

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 52 of 53 PageID: 1599

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

I Task 124 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

=

Task 124 stipulates that:

124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State staff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-92

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 75-5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 53 of 53 PageID: 1600
the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.
Status
The State remains in compliance with this task.
Compliance
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-93

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 2032
Monitors' Sixteenth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
August, 2007
156320 vl

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-1 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 2029

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

iv

1 Introduction

1

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

1

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

1

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

2

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

4

1.5 Summary of Compliance Activities

4

2 Assessment of Compliance

7

2.1 Methodology

7

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity

in Decision Making

8

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

29

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only

upon Reasonable Suspicion

35

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

38

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

46

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests 52

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

54

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

55

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

56

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

57

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 59

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

60

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

61

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

62

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 63

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

64

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System

65

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal

MAPPS Data

66

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-1 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 2030

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts"

67

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

68

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

69

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

69

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 70

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

71

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

72

2.27 Compliance with Task 50:

Comparisons Using Benchmarks

73

2.28 Compliance with Task 51 :Analysis of Trends

74

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement

Necessary Changes

75

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers

with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

76

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New

Je~Tumpi~

n

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

78

2.33 Training Assessment

78

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of

Training Programs

79

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to

Apply for Academy

81

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training

Personnel

82

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

83

2.38 Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

84

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on

Fourth Amendment Requirements

86

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper

Coach Process

87

2.41 Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree

to all State Troopers

88

2.42 Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for

Police Training

89

2.43 Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

90

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted

State Troopers

91

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

92

2.46 Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPSO

Pqffim

~

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for

Training Records

93

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State

Police Affairs

94

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to

Motor Vehicle Stops

96

~fe 1of Contents

p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-1 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 2031

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen

Complaint Processe

96

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for

the Office of State Police Affairs

97

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of

Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

98

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

99

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

100

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 101

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

102

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

103

3.0 Summary

105

Annex One: High, Median and Low Discretionary Violations

110

Annex Two: Data Tables for Chi-Square Analyses

111

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-2 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1986

Executive Summary

Summary of Compliance Activities
The New Jersey State Police appear to have reached a watershed moment during the last two reporting periods. Ample evidence exists to suggest that the agency has become self-monitoring and self-correcting to a degree not often observed in American law enforcement. In January and February 2006, agency training pre-delivery monitoring processes "slipped," allowing unapproved training to be delivered by two outside vendors unfamiliar with the New Jersey State Police consent decree. These two trainings created a serious spike in the number of consent search requests observed during the fifteenth and sixteenth reporting periods. In addition, they created a substantial spike in the number of problematic law enforcement procedures observed by the monitors, jumping
from approximately 17 per reporting period to 84 this reporting period.
The response of the New Jersey State Police was anything but typical. In March 2006 the Office of State Police Affairs was tasked to develop a special study relating to the spike in consent requests. By May 2006, the Office of State Police Affairs and the New Jersey State Police developed a field supervisors' checklist for managing consent requests in the field. By June 2006, OSPA had worked with legal advisors to develop corrective processes to control many of the issues identified by the monitors during their May site visits related to the "tone and timbre" of the consent requests observed during the site visit. By July 2006, enhanced troop-level (executive) and OSPA review systems had been implemented. By August 2006, in-service field supervisor training was modified to address issues raised by the drug interdiction training. By October 2006 global supervisory and managerial reviews began to note and correct problematic consent requests by field personnel using a "best practices" remedial policy.
The New Jersey State Police response to the unapproved training depicts an agency that has become self-monitoring and adaptive, able to note, analyze and correct problems with the delivery of field services in real time. The essential characteristic designed into the current crop of consent decrees strives for just that type of self-awareness and adaptivity on the part of American law enforcement agencies. It appears the ultimate goal has been attained.
Training
Compliance levels continued to be maintained in training for the sixteenth reporting period. The Academy continues to assess performance in the area of training, and is currently conducting a unit-wide evaluative process to update and refine program procedures, curricula and training techniques. Technological

EXe'etttive Summary

--iv

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-2 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1987
innovations continue to streamline processes and improve efficiency. Workload analysis and planning processes continue to monitor the training environment for potential stressors on staffing levels and plan for adaptation to ebbs and flows in workload. Training certifications are routinely monitored, and coordination with field units regarding training topics is routine. As with the agency as a whole, the Academy appears to have become self-monitoring and adaptive.
Supervision
Error rates in field supervision jumped during the fifteenth and sixteenth reporting periods, with on-scene and first-level supervisors missing procedural errors on the part of field personnel, and relying instead on management and OSPA reviews to catch and correct in-field errors. This is directly attributable to the unapproved provision of two separate training events by vendors unfamiliar with the New Jersey State Police consent decree. As a result of this training, field personnel began implementing consent search and vehicle stop processes that were at the margins of New Jersey State Police policies and procedures, and, when counseled concerning these practices, often advised their supervisors "that's how we were trained." The New Jersey State Police noted the divergence of training for field supervisors and field personnel, changed their supervisory inservice training practices, and, by August 2007, had updated the field supervisory in-service training to conform to their "best practices" model of supervision. Again, the agency appears to have become self-monitoring and self adaptive.
MAPPS Development
Full compliance has been reattained regarding MAPPS information system capabilities. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and all five of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops have received written benchmarking and data analytic reports. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and delivered to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced during the thirteenth reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004.

E*e'Ctitive Summary

--v

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-2 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1988
The evolution of the New Jersey State Police's use of the MAPPS data system into a proactive problem identification and problem solving system emerged this reporting period. In effect, the New Jersey State Police have taken the MAPPS system beyond the requirements of the consent decree, using it for more than a tracking and control device for motor vehicle stops, use of force, and complaints, and instead using it to identify systemic organizational issues and to craft solutions to those issues before they negatively impact the organization in any significant way. In the past year, using MAPPS-based tools, the leadership of the New Jersey State Police identified two issues of concern: a perceived rise in allegations of off-duty misconduct incidents among Division personnel and a significant increase in the number of consent search requests made by Division personnel.
Within six months of noting the potential impact of these two issues, the New Jersey State Police planned, developed and executed two separate data-centric and data-analytic problem solving actions designed to identify the nature and scope of the problems, assess their impact on the organization, and develop recommendations to deal with the issues in a real-time manner. Elements from the Office of Strategic Initiatives, MAPPS and the Risk Assessment Core Group (RACG) were melded to deal with these two issues.
The faults noted last reporting period in the areas of workload, staffing, technology and information access have now been addressed. MAPPS and RACG are now in full compliance, staffed to a sufficient level with technological capacity and information access regimens suitable for the workload facing MAPPS and RACG.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for six consecutive periods. OSPA continues to be an important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
Compliance requirements in all areas are now at 100 percent levels. Policy, training, supervision, inspections and audit, and MAPPS processes are fully staffed, fully functioning, and, in the opinion of the monitors, fully capable of self-monitoring and self-adaptation.

~~Cltive Summary

--vi

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 40 PageID: 1989

Independent Monitors' Sixteenth Report Period Ending May 30, 2007

1 Introduction

This document represents the sixteenth "Independent Monitors' Report" (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a consent decree (decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the monitoring team regarding compliance monitoring for the period October 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007.

The report is organized into three sections, identified below:

•

Introduction;

•

Compliance Assessment; and

•

Summary.

The methodology employed by the monitors in developing the report, definitions used by the monitors, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of "compliance" are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, "Compliance Assessment," includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the monitors and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, "Summary," provides an overall assessment of the State's performance for this reporting period.

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the decree: the date of entry of the decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the consent decree. It reports on the State's compliance using the individual requirements of the decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using "to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop" (Decree at para 26). The following

SWtle!:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-1

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 40 PageID: 1990

components of the decree are treated similarly. Compliance is classified as "Phase I," and "Phase II," with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

•

Selection of a random or stratified random sample;

•

Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police or the Office of State Police Affairs. In every instance of selection of random samples, personnel or Office of State Police Affairs personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by the monitors or by the monitoring team while on-site.

The monitoring team assessed the performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the consent decree during the period ending March 31, 20071. The
sixteenth independent monitors' report was submitted to the court during the month of
August.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

• Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course of business; 2 and/or
• Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state government
during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

1 Motor vehicle stop activity was assessed through December 31, 2006, the last available date for
complete electronic records for motor vehicle stops. 2 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance "special reports" prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.

swt~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 40 PageID: 1991

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a narrative

description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the nature of the task

requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology used to assess the task,

and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to note, however, that a finding of

non-compliance does not mean the State is engaging in inappropriate behavior. It

simply means the State has not yet completed its efforts toward compliance. The

graphic description depicts compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate

status in each compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below.

The first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first year

and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the time allowed

by the consent decree to complete the particular task. This time period is represented

by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and fourth segments represent the time

required to complete the task, and to achieve Phase I or Phase II compliance. A

vertically patterned light blue bar 111111111111 indicates that compliance was achieved in the

time allotted. A diagonally patterned yellow bar I I indicates that compliance

was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, but that the delay, in

the opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State's eventual compliance

with the decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the decree, and the

delay may seriously affect the State's eventual compliance with the decree. A solid red

bar

indicates expired time which is more than that allowed by the decree, and

which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously threaten the State's successful

compliance with the decree. A task that was not, or could not be monitored is

represented by a hollow bar I 1.

1.3.3 Standards for "Compliance"

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for "compliance" to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the

91Xt~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 4 of 40 PageID: 1992

requirements of the decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard. This change to compliance standards is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, below.
1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Tasknn 1 1

2
I

3 4

...

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

Phase I Phase II

=

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance was attained in the twelfth reporting period, much later than required by the decree,
and thus did seriously threaten the State's successful compliance with the decree.

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of "policy compliance:" the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase, represented by this report and future reports, focuses on issues of operational compliance-institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.

1.5 Summary of Compliance Activities

The New Jersey State Police appear to have reached a watershed moment during the last two reporting periods. Ample evidence exists to suggest that the agency has become self-monitoring and self-correcting to a degree not often observed in American law enforcement. In January and February 2006, agency training pre-delivery monitoring processes "slipped," allowing unapproved training to be delivered by two outside vendors unfamiliar with the New Jersey State Police consent decree. These two trainings created a serious spike in the number of consent search requests observed during the fifteenth and sixteenth reporting periods. In addition, they created a substantial spike in the number of problematic law enforcement procedures observed

9!Xt~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 5 of 40 PageID: 1993

by the monitors, jumping from approximately 17 per reporting period to 84 this reporting period.
The response of the New Jersey State Police was anything but typical. In March 2006 the Office of State Police Affairs was tasked to develop a special study relating to the spike in consent requests. By May 2006, the Office of State Police Affairs and the New Jersey State Police developed a field supervisors' checklist for managing consent requests in the field. By June 2006, OSPA had worked with legal advisors to develop corrective processes to control many of the issues identified by the monitors during their May site visits related to the "tone and timbre" of the consent requests observed during the site visit. By July 2006, enhanced troop-level (executive) and OSPA review systems had been implemented. By August 2006, in-service field supervisor training was modified to address issues raised by the drug interdiction training. By October 2006 global supervisory and managerial reviews began to note and correct problematic consent requests by field personnel using a "best practices" remedial policy.
The New Jersey State Police response to the unapproved training depicts an agency that has become self-monitoring and adaptive, able to note, analyze and correct problems with the delivery of field services in real time. The essential characteristic designed into the current crop of consent decrees strives for just that type of selfawareness and adaptivity on the part of American law enforcement agencies. It appears the goal has been attained.
Training
Compliance levels continued to be maintained in training for the sixteenth reporting period. The Academy continues to assess performance in the area of training, and is currently conducting a unit-wide evaluative process to update and refine program procedures, curricula and training techniques. Technological innovations continue to streamline processes and improve efficiency. Workload analysis and planning processes continue to monitor the training environment for potential stressors on staffing levels and plan for adaptation to ebbs and flows in workload. Training certifications are routinely monitored, and coordination with field units regarding training topics is routine. As with the agency as a whole, the Academy appears to have become selfmonitoring and adaptive.

Supervision
Error rates in field supervision jumped during the fifteenth and sixteenth reporting periods, with on-scene and first-level supervisors missing procedural errors on the part of field personnel, and relying instead on management and OSPA reviews to catch and correct in-field errors. This is directly attributable to the unapproved provision of two separate training events by vendors unfamiliar with the New Jersey State Police consent

S'(~~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-S

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 6 of 40 PageID: 1994

decree. As a result of this training, field personnel began implementing consent search and vehicle stop processes that were at the margins of New Jersey State Police policies and procedures, and, when counseled concerning these practices, often advised their supervisors "that's how we were trained." The New Jersey State Police noted the divergence of training for field supervisors and field personnel, changed their supervisory in-service training practices, and, by August 2007, had updated the field supervisory in-service training to conform to their "best practices" model of supervision. Again, the agency appears to have become self-monitoring and self adaptive.
MAPPS Development
Full compliance has been reattained regarding MAPPS information system capabilities. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and all five of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops have received written benchmarking and data analytic reports. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and delivered to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes, such as verbal counselings, performance notices, and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced during the thirteenth reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database, and found it to contain active data from January 1, 2004.

The evolution of the New Jersey State Police's use of the MAPPS data system into a proactive problem identification and problem solving system emerged this reporting period. In effect, the New Jersey State Police have taken the MAPPS system beyond the requirements of the consent decree, using it for more than a tracking and control device for motor vehicle stops, use of force, and complaints, and instead using it to identify systemic organizational issues and to craft solutions to those issues before they negatively impact the organization in any significant way. In the past year, using MAPPS-based tools, the leadership of the New Jersey State Police identified two issues of concern: a perceived rise in allegations of off-duty misconduct incidents among Division personnel and a significant increase in the number of consent search requests made by Division personnel.

Within six months of noting the potential impact of these two issues, the New Jersey State Police planned, developed and executed two separate data-centric and dataanalytic problem solving actions designed to identify the nature and scope of the problems, assess their impact on the organization, and develop recommendations to deal with the issues in a real-time manner. Elements from the Office of Strategic

S'!Xt~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 7 of 40 PageID: 1995
Initiatives, MAPPS and the Risk Analysis Core Group (RACG) were melded to deal with these two issues.
The faults noted last reporting period in the areas of workload, staffing, technology and information access have now been addressed. MAPPS and RACG are now in full compliance, staffed to a sufficient level with technological capacity and information access regimens suitable for the workload facing MAPPS and RACG.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for six consecutive periods. OSPA continues to be an important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
Compliance requirements in all areas are now at 100 percent levels. Policy, training, supervision, inspections and audit, and MAPPS processes are fully staffed, fully functioning, and, in the opinion of the monitors, fully capable of self-monitoring and self-adaptation.
2 Assessment of Compliance
2.1 Methodology
The monitors assessed the State's compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. "Compliance" was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).
The following sections of the sixteenth Monitors' Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the decree between October 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007.

S'fXt~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 8 of 40 PageID: 1996

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

I I Task 26

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I pmnmj
Phase II

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology

During the sixteenth site visit, members of the monitoring team conducted structured on-site reviews of the operations of ten New Jersey State Police Road Stations. These reviews were conducted of motor vehicle stop operations reported during the dates July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available).3 The team conducted these reviews of Troops B and E. As part of this review, members of the monitoring team collected and or reviewed course-of-business data on 269 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed video recordings of 200 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the decree. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team's methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of

3 The sixteenth reporting period was the first period in which a full six months of data were available for analysis, a fact that led to higher numbers of reported post-stop activities.

S'IXt~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 9 of 40 PageID: 1997
various tasks required by the decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.
Data Requests
Prior to its site visits in May 2007, the monitoring team requested of the State electronic and hard copy data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronic-format data, in addition to other non-electronic data requests:
• Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the stations selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated poststop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drugdetection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.
• Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop "communications center call-ins" for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.
• The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the decree.
Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop records for Troops B and E (taken from the State's motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the State as motor vehicle stop "event" records. Computer Assisted Dispatch System (CADS) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations for the active dates of the sixteenth site visit.
Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the sixteenth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.

SMI!!e!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 10 of 40 PageID: 1998

Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Sixteenth Site Visit

\si >l:'ype ofAd:iviw····
Selected MVS Incidents MVS Involving Consent Search Requests MVS Involving Canine Deployment MVS Involving Use of Force Probable Cause Searches of Vehicles Probable Cause Searches of Persons

RePortR.eview!i··· .. ·•·•:·:>••••Tape••R¢views1••···

269

151

134

134

60

56

1

1

99

100

59

58

Motor Vehicle Stops

Based on the data provided by the State, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the State.

Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment:

• Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports etc.), referred to as Type I data;

• Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and

4 Tape and report reviews total more than 269 due to the fact that alltapes and most reports reviewed included more than a single class of law enforcement activity.

SM~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 11 of 40 PageID: 1999

• Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.
These records indicated 41 events that resulted in consent search requests from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and 93 events from other stations resulting in consent search requests, for a total of 134 consent search requests. 5 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search, and by reviewing the available video tape records for those consent requests. All consent searches conducted were subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team.
Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 60 times during the reporting period. The monitoring team reviewed reports from all 60 of these events, and the monitoring team also reviewed videos from 56 of those events. New Jersey State Police personnel in one motor vehicle stop incident reportedly used force during the reporting period, and the monitoring team reviewed all reports from that incident. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
Selected motor vehicle stop incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table Two, below.
Type I Event Reviews
A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree, i.e., request for

5 Drivers declined 20 consent requests during the reporting period.
SfXt~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 12 of 40 PageID: 2000

permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 269 Type I reviews were conducted this period.

Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

Station
820-Hope 850-Sussex 860-Totawa 880-Netcong 8110-Perrvville 8130-Sommerville 8150-Washington E30-8ass River E40-81oomfield E50-Sayerville Other Total

TyP~~
~evieW!!
11 10 14 17 12 16 7 13 34 18 117
269

'~'¥~~~"
RevieWS'
3 1 4 3 3 5 1 0 18 6 107
151"

"('Y~:l'II Reviews
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Type II Event Review
A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 151 Type II reviews were conducted this period.
Type III Event Review

6 The monitors reviewed 151 tapes of motor vehicle stops; however, these 151 tapes included more than 151 post-stop actions of interest to the decree. For example, the 134 consent request tapes reviewed also included 45 canine deployments.

91l(t~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 13 of 40 PageID: 2001
In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which should have been reported, based on the requirements of the decree, but were not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, was selected for review, seven events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the monitoring team. Based on the State's past performance, eleven consecutive periods in which no unreported events were discovered, no Type III reviews were conducted this reporting period.
Status
The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. In past reports, the vast majority of all searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police were "non-discretionary," e.g., searches incidental to arrest, with searches of vehicles being conducted "incidental to arrest." Based on revised New Jersey case law7, effective the fifteenth reporting period, the search of a vehicle can no longer be conducted as incidental to arrest, leading to a substantial change in the nature of searches of vehicles for this reporting period. As a result, "consent request" now replaces "incidental to arrest" as the number one reason for a search of a vehicle, with 51.8 percent of all searches of vehicles based on a request for consent to search. Of the 167 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 153 were "non-discretionary" searches incidental to arrest. As with the fifteenth reporting period, two activities this reporting period were conducted frequently enough to lend themselves to statistical analysis for indications of race- or ethnicity-based decision making on the part of the New Jersey State Police: consent requests (n=134) and canine deployments (n=60). Table Three, below, depicts consent request activity for the last eight reporting periods. Figure One depicts these data graphically.

7 State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (2006). SiXt!!!~th Independent Monitors' Report

Page-13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 14 of 40 PageID: 2002

Table Three: Consent Requests for Past Eight Reporting Periods

Reporting Period
9th lOth-
11th
12th
13th 14th 15th 16th

Consent Requests
9 7 12 34 23 30 94 134

%
Increase/ Decrease
--
(22.2)
71.4
64.7 (26.5)
30.4
213.3~
42.5

Figure One: Consent Search Requests by Period

Consent Requests

160 140

120

100 80

60

40

20

0 Period 9th

1Oth 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th

8 During the fifteenth reporting period, the decision in State v. Eckel (185 NJ 523 (2006)) removed "search incidental to arrest" as a legal justification for search of vehicle.

9fl(t~~th Independent Monitors' Report

Page-14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 15 of 40 PageID: 2003

The data in Table Four indicate higher consent request rates for blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as 1.5). Data in Table Four depict the total number of drivers who were not asked for consent to search in the overall sample of 269, by race, and the percentage of drivers by race (in parentheses). Data for drivers who were asked for
consent to search their vehicles are presented in a similar manner. For example, Table Four depicts a sample of drivers not asked for a consent to search for this period of 135, with 70, or 51.9 percent being white. Similarly, Table Four depicts consent search
requests for 53 black drivers, or 39.6 percent of the total of 134 drivers who were asked for permission to search their vehicles.9 For the first time, these data are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences are not attributable to chance. 10

Table Four: Consent Requests by Race-Ethnicity of Driver 16th Reporting Period

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other

No Consent Request 70 (51.9) 68 (28.1) 26 (19.3) 1 (0.7) 0 (0.0) 135

Consent Request
36 (26.9) 53 (39.6) 42 (31.3)
2 (1.5) 1 (0.7)
134

Similarly, deployments of canines, as shown in Table Five, were also indicated at a higher rate for blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as 6.4). Table Five depicts a total sample of drivers not experiencing a canine deployment for this period of 209, with 101, or 48.3 percent being white. Similarly, Table Five depicts a canine deployment for 32 black drivers, or 53.3 percent of the total of 60 drivers who had a canine unit deployed for drug detection purposes during their motor vehicle stop. These data are also statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences are not attributable to chance. 11

°9 A total of 20 drivers refused consent.
1 Chi-Square analysis of consent request data yielded a Chi-Square of 23.26 with two degrees of
freedom, and a p-value 0.0000089. The distribution was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. The Chi-Square test was run on white versus black and Hispanic drivers only, as inclusion of other categories generated at least one expected frequency less than "1." 11 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 30.271 with two degrees of freedom, and a p-value of 0.000000027. The distribution was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for

SfXt~!'!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-15

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 16 of 40 PageID: 2004

Table Five: Canine Deployments by Race-Ethnicity of Driver 16th Reporting Period

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other

No Canine Deployment 101 (48.3)
59 (28.2) 48 (23.0) 1 (0.05)
0 (0.0) 209

Canine Deployment
5 (8.3) 32 (53.3) 20 (33.3) 2 (0.33) 1 (0.16)
60

A statistically significant result does not "prove" that the difference observed in poststop law enforcement actions were attributable to race or ethnicity. The result simply indicates that the outcomes observed this reporting period relating to consent requests
and canine deployments were not attributable to chance.
The reader should note that Tables Four and Five compare drivers who are subjected to
consent requests and canine deployments to the drivers who were not subjected to such post-stop activities, by race and ethnicity. The overall sample of 269 drivers
consists of all drivers who were subjected to a critical post-stop interaction, e.g., a consent search request, canine deployment or use of force. A total of 151 drivers were selected as a result of a critical post-stop interaction. In addition, the monitors selected 114 other drivers as part of the sixteenth report's drivers sample. These drivers were selected from Troops B and E based on their status as having had a non-critical poststop interaction performed during their traffic stop, e.g., exit from a vehicle, frisk, probable cause search of a person, probable cause search of a vehicle, or arrest. In effect, then, 56.1 percent of the sixteenth report's drivers sample was selected in response to a given New Jersey State Police action and produced a statewide sample, and 43.9 percent was selected by the monitors, and produced a Troops Band E sample.
To determine whether or not these consent request and canine deployment data are related to race or ethnicity-or are attributable to other factors

a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. The Chi-Square test was run on white versus black and Hispanic drivers only, as inclusion ofother categories generated at least one expected frequency less than "1." See Annex Two, for the data table reporting these data.

S'M~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 17 of 40 PageID: 2005

directly related to the specific characteristics of the stops-requires a qualitative analysis of the interactions between New Jersey State Police troopers and drivers based on the race and ethnicity of drivers subjected to these specific post-stop interactions. The qualitative analyses related to Task 26 are reported in Section 2.2.1. These analyses reflect new processes, not conducted or reported in previous monitors' reports due to the fact that previous reports did not have statistically significant test statistics related to post-stop interactions by race.
2.2.1 Qualitative Analysis of Stop and Interaction Data
Background
The fact that individuals stopped by the New Jersey State Police are treated differently, and that the differences in treatment coalesce around factors of race and ethnicity is not prima facia evidence of race- or ethnicity-based decision making in policing the state of New Jersey. The operative question is why individuals are treated differently.
For example, New Jersey State Police personnel arrested 1.6 times more white drivers than black drivers during the sixteenth reporting period. Table Six depicts arrest data by race and ethnicity. The distribution of arrest is statistically significant, i.e., not attributable to chance (See Annex Two for data tables). In reviewing these data, we find that 68 percent of white drivers stopped by New Jersey State Police personnel were arrested, compared with only 57 percent of black drivers and 37 percent of Hispanics drivers. An analysis of the qualitative differences in the arrests-or more specifically the reason for the arrests-partially illustrates why these differences in arrest rates were observed.
Table Six depicts the results of the qualitative analysis of arrest data, and indicates, not a over-sampling of white drivers, but, in the first tier of post-stop actions, the execution of non-discretionary arrests 24 percent of the time with white drivers' vehicles because they (or a passenger) had outstanding warrants, non-discretionary arrests of 39 percent of the time with black drivers' vehicles because they (or a passenger) had outstanding warrants and non-discretionary arrests of 12 percent of Hispanic drivers' vehicles because they (or a passenger) had outstanding warrants. Taking that fact into consideration, the operative question then becomes "How did New Jersey State Police troopers make decisions in the discretionary aspects of their interactions with drivers?"

It is this area that drivers seem the most vulnerable to the exercise of discretion. Is there a qualitative difference in the way troopers exercise discretion when dealing with drivers of differing races and ethnicities? The qualitative review reveals that white

SM:~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 18 of 40 PageID: 2006

drivers are arrested less frequently for warrant violations, but more frequently for probable cause, usually criminal activity conducted in view of the arresting trooper.

Table Six: Arrest Data for Black and White Drivers 16th Reporting Period12

Race/Ethnicity All Drivers Stopped

Arrest

No Arrest Warrant-Based Arrests

White 106 (39.4 Black 91 (33.8) Hispanic 68 (25.3) Asian Indian 3 (1.1) Other 1 (0.4)
269

72 (67.9) 52 (57.1) 25 (36.8)
0 0 149

34 (28.3) 39 32.5) 43 (35.8) 3 (2.5) 1 (0.8)
120

17 (23.6) 20 (38.5) 3 (12.0)
0 0 40

Probable Cause Based Arrests
55 (76.4) 32 (61.6) 22 (88.0)
0 0 109

The majority of arrests made by New Jersey State Police troopers in the data sampled by the monitors this period were non-discretionary, i.e., arrests for warrants, possession of contraband or overt criminal activity in view of the arresting trooper. Thus, while arrest rates are different, by race, it appears that they are different based on the nature of the interaction and the criminal offenses committed in the troopers' presence, not based on race.
Because rates for consent requests and canine deployments are statistically significant, based on race and ethnicity, a similar qualitative analysis is necessary for these post-stop interactions to determine if race and ethnicity is the operative factor leading to these differences, or if there are other factors contributing to the differences. The following pages identify the model used for the qualitative analysis.

12 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 16.389 with two degrees of freedom, and a p value of 0.00027. The distribution was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. The Chi-Square test was run on white versus black and Hispanic drivers only, as inclusion of other categories generated at least one expected frequency less than "1." See Annex Two, for the data table reporting these data.

~!?!i':!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 19 of 40 PageID: 2007

2.2.2 Theoretical Bases for Analysis of Post-Stop Activity
The "background" analysis, though laborious, is demonstrative of the key component of determining whether race- and ethnicity-based decision making is being employed in a police agency: reviewing the highly discretionary tasks and determining if similarly situated individuals are being similarly treated. Kenneth Culp Davis identified this concept clearly in a 1975 theoretical analysis titled Police Discretion. 13 Noting in the preface, "The central fact is that police falsely pretend to enforce all criminal law... but they are unable to."14 The central question is not whether this is true or not; it is how decisions not to enforce are distributed within and among protected classes. If the answer to that central question is "equally and legally," then the issue of race- and ethnicity based policing is resolved clearly in favor of the law enforcement agency. If the answer to that central question is either "unequally" or "illegally," it is not, and corrective action is essential.
Such a simple and effective concept begs for operationalization: clearly defining the terms used to determine "bias" or "bias-free" policing. The key to operationalization is determining where to look to find the artifacts of biased policing, how to define it, and how to "test" for it. Surprisingly, a model that accomplishes those tasks is relatively easy to conceptualize and test.
2.2.2.1 A Discretionary Model of Policing
Constructing the model of discretionary policing is straightforward:
• Identify routine police tasks subject to potential abuse, e.g., powers of stop, warning, citation, detention, release, frisk, arrest, search, use of force, and seizure;
• Identify and define the levels of discretion associated with each of these critical tasks and their respective sub-elements;
• Identify the critical decision point associated with each level of discretion;
• Define abuse of discretion; and
• Test for abuse of discretion.
Each of these elements is discussed in some detail below.

13 Kenneth Culp Davis, Police Discretion, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1975.

14

"Tb'd.,

p.

···
Ill.

SM~t'inth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 20 of 40 PageID: 2008

Routine Tasks
While policing in general is more complex, the policing activities of interest to the decree are clearly identified: the powers of stop, detention, warning, citation, release, frisk, arrest, search, use of force, and seizure are stipulated as activities subject to the scrutiny of the monitoring process. The model considers these activities outcome variables, i.e., to the extent that individual drivers are treated differently, any disparity in treatment will come within or among these variables. For example, one individual may be stopped and detained for five minutes, another for 50. Some individuals may be stopped and cited, others stopped and warned.
Levels of Discretion15
In the discretionary model applied to the New Jersey State Police for the purposes of determining if the agency's interaction with motorist related to consent requests and canine deployments is based to any significant extent on issues of race or ethnicity, the universe of variables leading to execution of outcome variables (stop, detention, arrest, etc.) are the events commonly referred to as "reason for the stop." These reasons consist of the infractions or events that lead a given driver to come to the attention of law enforcement, events such as speeding, illegal lane change, criminal activity, etc. These events are considered "input variables," in that they are the events that give rise to the use of law enforcement powers. Generally, these events can be classified into three groups, depending on the amount of discretion associated with them: high discretionary, median discretionary, and low discretionary.
Theoretically, some activities will almost always result in a law enforcement response if they are observed by the police, e.g., criminal activity, driving under the influence, reckless driving, etc. These events are classified as low discretion events. Other activities usually will result in a law enforcement response if they are observed by the police, e.g., following too closely, aggressive driving (multiple minor violations), undocumented vehicles (expired registration, no insurance, expired inspection sticker). Finally, a third class of violations will less often result in a law enforcement response if they are observed by the police, e.g., equipment violations (cracked windshield, poorly maintained lamps, illegal lane change, failure to signal lane change, view obstruction,
15 The monitors engaged in multiple, substantial discussions with New Jersey State Police personnel regarding the nature of the "reason for stop" offenses. While there remain some differences in opinion regarding high versus low discretion incidents, the framework presented above is the best available framework obtainable, in the monitors' opinion, to assess the exercise of discretion in studied traffic stops. Further work in this area may require revision of the reason for stop continuum. For example, motorist aids are non-discretionary, and are often dispatched rather than being "on-site" events. Activities at rest stop (rest stop overstays, etc.) are often called in by the rest stop managers, not initiated by troopers.

Sll<t~i':'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 21 of 40 PageID: 2009
etc.). These activities are considered to be highly discretionary. Appendix One contains a categorical list of reasons for law enforcement stops.
Critical Decision Point
The critical decision point when assessing decision-making related to potential abuse of discretion, it can be argued, is the decision point in deciding to take enforcement action on a highly discretionary violations or activity. If action will almost always be taken on low discretionary events, one would expect virtually no margin for abuse of discretion on the basis of race or ethnicity. If action will usually be taken on median discretionary events, one would expect at most marginal abuse of discretion on the basis of race or ethnicity. If discretion will be abused to any significant degree, it will be in areas of enforcement in which high levels of discretion are present.
Defining Abuse of Discretion
Law enforcement discretion is abused when it is used differently in relation to protected classes such as race and ethnicity. For example, if one were to see a higher rate of stops for a given race or ethnicity for high discretionary violations, but not for low discretionary violations, it would support the assumption that discretion was being abused. If this were coupled with a variance in outcome variables (length of detention, search, etc.) a strong case could be made for the presence of an abuse of discretionary powers on the part of the enforcing agent.
Testing for Abuse of Discretion
The test for abuse of discretion, then, becomes somewhat straightforward. If there is no abuse of discretion, there would be no difference in stop rates of drivers sampled this reporting period (by race or ethnicity), for highly discretionary violations. There would also be no difference in outcome variables (stop, detention, warning, citation, release, frisk, arrest, search, use of force, and seizure) by race and ethnicity for these highly discretionary violations. 16
Tables Seven through Twelve reflect the analysis for abuse of discretion by reason for stop.
Table Seven, below, depicts the results of the analysis for all drivers stopped by the New Jersey State Police this reporting period and eventually asked for consent to search the

16 After controlling for intervening variables such as lack of identification, proof of ownership, etc.

91Xt~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 22 of 40 PageID: 2010

vehicle by the reason for the traffic stop17• The results of the Chi -Square analysis are not significant, yielding a test statistic of 1.032 with two degrees of freedom. The test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level
A higher score for each driver class (white, black and Hispanic) indicates less use of discretion, i.e., higher scores demonstrate less of a tendency stop drivers for highly discretionary violations and then request consent to search. The intergroup mean (arithmetical average) is a statistic that allows the inference of the direction of any potential bias, as the Chi-Square statistic does not impute the direction of any bias. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the direction of any potential bias. Thus, the Chi-Square and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observed (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias demonstrated by the data in Table Seven actually favors black drivers, i.e., black drivers stopped and

Table Seven:
Consent Request Stop Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion) 161h Reporting Period18•19

Race/Ethnicity High Discretion Stops (1)

White

10

Black

17

Hispanic

18

Asian Indian

1

Other

1

Median Discretion Stops (2)
5 5 5 0 0

Low Discretion Stops (3)
17 29 15 1 0

Mean
2.22 2.24 1.92
---

eventually asked for consent to search, were stopped for less discretionary reasons than white and Hispanic drivers. Any suggestion that troopers were stopping minority drivers for more discretionary reasons, i.e., abusing their discretion is certainly not supported by the analysis. The "drivers sampled" for this test statistic consisted of all drivers stopped

17 Not all stops had a known reason for the stop that could be used in this analysis. Some were simply
described, as required by the consent decree, as "moving" or "non-moving"
18 A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for white, black
and Hispanic yielded too small a data table to produce a valid test statistic. The statistic of 1.032, with two degrees of freedom is not significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. See Annex Two for data tables. 19 Numbers do not total 134 because not all incidents had a knowable reason for stop. Some were
listed, as required by the decree as "moving" or "non-moving."

S!Xt~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 23 of 40 PageID: 2011

by the New Jersey State Police this reporting period who were asked for consent to search and for whom a reason for the traffic stop was known.
Table Eight, below, depicts the results of the Chi-Square analysis for canine deployment stops by reason for the stop for the sixteenth reporting. The drivers sampled for this table included all drivers stopped who eventually had a drug-detection canine deployed during their stops. The Chi-Square analysis for this table was not significant, yielding a test statistic of 3.263 with two degrees of freedom. The result indicates that the differences observed in the data were attributable to chance. The test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Eight:
Canine Deployment Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion) 16th Reporting Period 20•21

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other

High Discretion Stops (1)
1 13 13

Median Discretion Stops
(2)
0 2 1

Low Discretion Stops (3)
4 14 3 1

Mean
2.60 2.03 1.41
---

A higher score for each driver class (white, black and Hispanic) indicates less use of discretion, i.e., higher scores demonstrate less of a tendency to stop drivers for highly discretionary reasons and then subject them to canine deployments. The intergroup mean (arithmetical average) is a statistic that allows the inference of the direction of any potential bias, as the Chi-Square statistic does not impute the direction of any potential bias. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the direction of any potential bias. Thus, the Chi-Square and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observed (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias favors white drivers, i.e., minority drivers stopped and experiencing

20A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for white, black
and Hispanic yielded too small a data table to produce a valid test statistic. A Chi-Square statistic of 3.263, with two degrees of freedom is not significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. See Annex Two for data tables. 21 Numbers do not total 60 because not all incidents had a knowable reason for stop that could be used
in this analysis. Some reasons for stop were listed, as required by the decree, as "moving" or "nonmoving."

SM~E:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 24 of 40 PageID: 2012

canine deployments, were stopped for more discretionary reasons than white drivers. Fourteen black drivers had canines deployed in conjunction with a denied consent request.
Table Nine, below, depicts the results of the Chi-Square analysis for all motor vehicle stops by reason for the stop. The analysis is not significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that any differences in scores among races and ethnicities are attributable to chance. The results of the Chi-Square analysis yield a test statistic of 4.656 with four degrees of freedom. There is no statistical support for the hypothesis that troopers represented in this sample of stopped drivers are stopping vehicles at a higher rate, or engaging in articulated post-stop activities, based on the race or ethnicity of the drivers. The direction of the analysis favors white drivers.
Table Nine: Sampled Vehicle Stop Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion)
16th Reporting Period22•23

Race/Ethnicity High Discretion

White

32

Black

35

Hispanic

28

Asian Indian

1

Other

1

Median Discretion
17 8
11
1 0

Low Discretion
43 41 24 1 0

Mean
2.12 2.07 1.94
--
--

A higher score for each driver class (white, black and Hispanic) indicates less use of discretion, i.e., higher scores demonstrate less of a tendency to stop drivers of different races or ethnicities for more, or less, discretionary reasons. The intergroup mean (arithmetical average) is a statistic that allows the inference of the direction of any potential bias, as the Chi-Square statistic does not impute the direction of any potential bias. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the direction of any potential bias. Thus, the Chi-Square and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observed (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias actually favors white drivers, i.e., white drivers stopped were stopped for less

22 A Chi-Square statistic of 4.656, with four degrees of freedom is not significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. See Annex Two for data tables. 23 Numbers do not total 269 because not all incidents had a knowable reason for stop. Asian Indian and "Other"classifications were deleted from the Chi-Square table as they generate expected frequencies below "1 ':

~~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 25 of 40 PageID: 2013

discretionary reasons than black and Hispanic drivers. Any suggestion that troopers were stopping minority drivers for more discretionary reasons, i.e., abusing their discretion is certainly not supported by the statistical analysis.

Table Ten, below, depicts the results of the Chi-Square analysis for the reason for consent request. As with the reason for the stop, reason for consent request was classified into three groups: intangible, tangible, and probative. Intangible reasons included observations such as nervousness, failure to make eye contact, uncertainty in answers, and conflicting statements. Tangible reasons included the existence of air fresheners, modifications to vehicle interiors, "boost" cell phones, etc. Probative reasons included artifacts of gang membership (such as tattoos, admitted membership), odor of burnt or raw marijuana in the vehicle, admissions against self-interest, criminal histories related to a tangible crime. The results of the Chi-Square analysis yielded a test statistic of 12.516 with two degrees of freedom. The data are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating a difference in reason for consent request by race and/or ethnicity.

Table Ten:
Reason for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity 16th Reporting Period24

Race/Ethnicitv White Black
Hispanic Asian Indian
Other

Intangible 7 1 5

Tanqible 2 6 24
1

Probative 24 46 12 2

Mean
2.52
2.85
2.17
--
--

A higher score for each driver class (white, black and Hispanic) indicates less use of discretion, i.e., higher scores demonstrate less of a tendency to request consent for less probative reasons for Hispanics than for whites or blacks. The intergroup mean (arithmetical average) is a statistic that allows the inference of the direction of any potential bias, as the Chi-Square statistic does not impute the direction of any potential bias. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the

24 A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for white, black
and Hispanic yielded too small a data table to produce a valid test statistic. A Chi-Square statistic of 12.516, with two degrees of freedom is significant at the 0.05 level. Degrees of freedom is a statistical measure of the level of precision a statistical estimate has. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. See Annex Two for data tables.

9M~E:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 26 of 40 PageID: 2014

direction of any potential bias. Thus, the Chi-Square and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observed (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias actually favors black drivers, i.e., black drivers stopped and eventually asked for
consent to search were asked for less discretionary reasons than white and Hispanic
drivers.
Table Eleven, below, depicts the result of the analysis of the outcome of consent requests, by race and ethnicity. Consent requests were characterized as either appropriate (meeting all requirements of the consent decree) or inappropriate (not meeting consent decree requirements). The results of the Chi-Square analysis are not significant at the 0.05 level, yielding a test statistic of 0.53 with one degree of freedom. Intergroup means indicate that white drivers' consent requests tended to be classified as "inappropriate" more often than black drivers, and Hispanic drivers' consent requests tended to be classified as "inappropriate" more often than white drivers.
The reader should note that allinappropriate consent requests were caught by New Jersey State Police and corrected by supervisory and management processes prior to the time that the monitors selected their traffic stops for review this reporting period.
Table Eleven: Outcome for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity
161h Reporting Period 25•26

;••.RacelEtl'illicitYt I<
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other

r(}priat¢ > J\ppl'ppdate · '

7

29

2

52

11

30

2

1

.· .· ,.
1.81
1.96
1.73
--
--

A higher score for each driver class (white, black and Hispanic) indicates fewer procedural or Constitutional problems, i.e., higher scores demonstrate less of a tendency to improperly use the consent request process available to enforcement personnel. The intergroup mean (arithmetical average) is a statistic that allows the

25 A Chi-Square statistic of 0.53, with one degrees of freedom is not significant at the 0.05 level. Degrees
of freedom is a statistical measure of the level of precision a statistical estimate has. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. See Annex Two for data tables. 26 A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for white, black and Hispanic yielded too small a data table to produce a valid test statistic.

srxt~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 27 of 40 PageID: 2015
inference of the direction of any potential bias, as the Chi-Square statistic does not impute the direction of any potential bias. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the direction of any potential bias. Thus, the ChiSquare and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observed (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias actually favors black drivers, i.e., black drivers stopped and eventually asked for consent to search, were subjected to fewer procedural or Constitutional problems than white and Hispanic drivers.
As a final quality control check on the varying levels of discretion exercised by New Jersey State Police personnel, a review of daytime v. nighttime stop data would be appropriate. If troopers are abusing their discretion by singling out drivers of color, one would expect a higher level discretionary activity during daylight hours, when troopers could readily determine the race or ethnicity of the drivers prior to executing the stop.V
Table Twelve, below, depicts the results of the day- v. night- stop rates for New Jersey State Police troopers during the sixteenth reporting period. If troopers effecting the stops covered in this table were abusing their discretion, one would expect the daytime stops to show a tendency to stop drivers of color for more discretionary infractions (high discretion stops) at a higher rate during daytime hours than nighttime hours, yielding a lower mean for drivers of color than for white drivers. Conversely, the nighttime stops would be expected to show no difference in stop rates vis-a-vis levels of discretion. As Table Twelve indicates, the direction of daytime stops tends to indicate more discretionary stops of minorities than whites (i.e., whites have a higher mean stop score, indicating fewer stops of whites for high discretionary events than for minorities), and the direction of nighttime stops tends to indicate the opposite (i.e., minorities have higher mean stop scores, indicating fewer stops of minorities for high discretion events than whites). A comparison of day- versus night-time stops was not possible, as nighttime stop numbers were too small to allow the comparison.

27 After reviewing nearly three thousand New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops over the past seven
years, the monitors have never observed a member pull along side a suspect vehicle, allowing the
trooper to assess the race or ethnicity of occupants, unless an exigent tactical issue required such action in order to effect the stop. Those exigent tactical issues are exceedingly rare in the monitors' experience.

9fXt~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 28 of 40 PageID: 2016
Table Twelve: Daytime v. Nighttime Stops by Reason for the Stop
161h Reporting Period28

After an in-depth qualitative assessment of the input and outcome variables regarding traffic stops this reporting period, the monitors could find no statistical support suggesting consistent bias in the way various groups of drivers were treated during post-stop law enforcement activities. Only one test proved to be statistically significant (reason for consent request). In this category, black drivers had their consent search requests more appropriately grounded in tangible and probative facts, than white and Hispanic drivers. Although intergroup means are not dispositive of law enforcement actions based on race or ethnicities, the means for stop activities this reporting period indicate that, while black and white drivers in the current sample were equally distributed in findings of treatment, e.g., stopped for less discretionary reasons or asked for consent for less discretionary reasons, Hispanic drivers' means for the current sample of drivers were most consistently impacted by more discretionary decisions on the part of New Jersey State Police troopers.
The qualitative analysis did not reveal the use of race or ethnicity in any consistent manner by New Jersey State troopers in regard to motor vehicle stops or post-stop activity. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

28 The data did not yield a valid statistic, as the cells produced at least 20 percent of expected frequencies that were less than five.

SM~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 29 of 40 PageID: 2017

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 27

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

.2

Phase I

Phase II

Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 {Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in '11 26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with '11'11 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. Supervisory reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in a law enforcement procedures were effected in 179 of 269 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 66.5 percent. 29 The majority of the supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources-quality assurance reviews, OSPA reviews or other non-station sources. Station-level supervisors conducted the majority of initial reviews conducted during the tenth through sixteenth reporting periods, (although a much larger than usual number of problematic stops were caught

29 66.5 percent MVSRs reviewed by the monitoring team had been reviewed by either first line supervisors or subjected to "management review." The majority had received both.

91J(tee'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 30 of 40 PageID: 2018
and corrected at the troop (executive) review level and the OSPA review level this reporting period than during prior reporting periods).
Members of the monitoring team have noted that field supervisors were present in 49.4 percent of monitored activity this reporting period. This constitutes a drop in the level of in-field supervision from last reporting period, which, it was noted, was the highest level of in-field supervision since the inception of the consent decree, seven years ago. Firstand second-line supervisors reviewed video tapes in 84.5 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors this period. 30 This supervisory review rate yielded 88 instances in which New Jersey State Police personnel committed errors related to procedure or the consent decree. In reviewing the same documents and video tapes, the monitors noted 88 errors in procedure related to the consent decree. New Jersey
State Police supervisory personnel noted all of these violations of New Jersey State
Police SOPs and counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations, prior to being notified by the monitoring team of the motor vehicle stops that would be reviewed this period.
It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the decree. As a result of this newly implemented supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 88 decreerelated errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With the current supervisory system, these 88 decree-related errors were noted and corrected in "real time," before the monitors called them to the attention of the State. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
The number of corrected errors this reporting period, at 88, is higher than in any period since the tenth, when 125 procedural of Constitutional errors were noted by the monitoring team. Figure Two depicts the error rates for the last seven reporting periods. The majority of these 88 errors, in the monitors' opinion, are attributable to a problem described in detail in the fifteenth monitors' report: the "drug interdiction" training offered to New Jersey State Police personnel in early 2006 by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation. 31

30 These reviews are now conducted routinely, although the State is moving to a more focused and less
universal method of stop review. All reviews conducted were conducted before the monitors notified the State of which MVS incidents would be selected for by the monitors. 31 The reader is referred to the Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report, section 2.4 for a complete
treatment of the issues related to DHS and DOT drug interdiction training.

91Xt~i:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 31 of 40 PageID: 2019

Figure Two: Procedural or Constitutional Errors, by Reporting Period
140 120 100
80 60 40 20
0
lOth 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th

The majority of the 88 problems encountered this reporting period, and those noted in the last reporting period, remain, in the monitors' opinion, attributable to this early 2006 training. Figure Three, below, depicts the number of consent request activities and drug detection canine deployments, by month, from November 2005 through April 2007.
While the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs began remedial measures to correct the "message" delivered by this training, such efforts take time. Several notable responses were implemented by the New Jersey State Police designed to correct or ameliorate the issues created by the drug interdiction training. In March,

9m!eE:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 32 of 40 PageID: 2020

2006 the Office of State Police Affairs was tasked to develop a special study relating to the spike in consent requests. By May, 2006, the Office of State Police Affairs and the New Jersey State Police developed a field supervisors' checklist for managing consent
Figure Three: Consent Request and Drug Detection Canine
Deployments (2005-2007i2
25

20

15

=+=CRs I

+__.K9 Interqiction

10

Trainipg

5

0

15th

16th

requests in the field. By June 2006, OSPA had worked with legal advisors to develop corrective processes to control many of the issues identified by the monitors during their May site visits related to the "tone and timbre" of the consent requests observed during the site visit. By July, 2006, enhanced troop-level (executive) and OSPA review systems had been implemented. By August, 2006, in-service field supervisor training was modified to address issues raised by the drug interdiction training. By October, 2006 global supervisory and managerial reviews began to note and correct problematic consent requests by field personnel. Figure Four, below, depicts a projected

32 Consent Requests for November 2005 through January 2006 were interpolated from average numbers for the reporting period.

SMI?!e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 33 of 40 PageID: 2021

relationship between management responses to the consent request problems noted in the fifteenth monitors' report and consent requests and drug interdiction canine deployments from November, 2005 through April, 2007.33
Figure Four illustrates a clear and focused process on the part of the OSPA and the New Jersey State Police designed to monitor data, through the use of MAPPS and the process of supervisory and management review of motor vehicle stop reports; identify issues, through analysis by MAPPS and Strategic Initiatives Group analytic reports; craft solutions through consultation with field commanders, legal specialists and others; and implement remedial measures. Such processes take time; however, in the case of the external drug interdiction training, and the issues created by these training programs (noted by the monitors in their fifteenth report), the New Jersey State Police and the OSPA were able to craft meaningful managerial and oversight responses to the problems noted.
Based on the results depicted in Figure Four, those responses appear to have been effective in returning consent request frequencies to "normal" and appear to have begun reducing in-field errors. While the monitors can identify that the frequency of consent requests has returned to normal rates, as observed prior to the external drug interdiction training, they are unable to comment on the quality of the post-December 2006 consent search requests, as those data were collected outside the sixteenth reporting period.
Status
A review of the polices developed, the training provided to date and the implemented MAPPS process indicates that the agency is compliance with the requirements of this task. The State continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been delivered. The ability to identify and address problems generated by the external drug interdiction training indicate a strong ability to monitor and evaluate implementation of motor vehicle stop criteria. The central point of the consent decree is for the New Jersey State Police to identify, analyze and respond to issues related to in-field enforcement. The organization's response to the issues raised by the DIAP and Desert Snow training show a laudable response to identifying the issues generated by the training, analyzing the reasons those issues surfaced, and responding with a supervisory and managerial response that, eventually, resolved those issues.

33 The data available for the sixteenth monitors' report ended in December; however, the monitors' reviewed the number of consent requests for January through April, 2007 to determine the direction of the volume of consent requests by New Jersey State Police troopers.

~t':!i:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 34 of 40 PageID: 2022

Compliance
Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Figure Four:
Consent Requests, Drug Detection Canine Deployments and Managerial Responses (2005-2007?4

34 Consent Requests for November 2005 through January 2006 were interpolated from average numbers for the reporting period. Managerial responses are projections of qualitative initiatives and do not reflect quantitative results or efforts.

~~'!~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 35 of 40 PageID: 2023
25
20
15
~CRs
-IIII-K9 MGT Response
10
5
0

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

Task 28

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 28 stipulates:
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or

SM!'!e!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 36 of 40 PageID: 2024
other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants, which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of 134 law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the sixteenth report,s operational dates. Twenty of these involved consent search requests that were declined. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Thirteen below. Tables Thirteen through Sixteen depict data from the 269 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Driversff depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 269
incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers
in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Fourteen through Seventeen, there were 106 white drivers of the total of 269 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 39.4 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Numberff depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Thirteen depicts 36 consent requests of white drivers, 53 requests of black drivers, 42 requests of Hispanic drivers, and three requests of drivers of "otherff race/ethnicity. The last column, "Percentff depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, who were subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The reader should note that the State has increased substantially the number of consent search requests, to an all-time high of 134 this reporting period. With 134 requests this period, the numbers reported in Table Thirteen become statistically meaningful when reported viz a viz race and ethnicity for all drivers stopped v. drivers requested to consent to search.

Sfl?f~~nth Independent Monitors, Report

Page-36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 37 of 40 PageID: 2025

All of the 134 consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of the consent decree or were caught and corrected by supervisory personnel.35
An error rate of none of 134 consent searches constitutes zero percent, falling within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the consent decree.

Table Thirteen-consent Request Activity

Race/ Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers
106 (39.4) 91 (33.8) 68 (25.3)
4 (1.5) 269

Number of Requests for
Search36 36 53 42 3 134

Percent Consent Request by
Race/ Ethnicity
34.0
58.2 61.8 75.0
--

The data in Table Thirteen indicate higher consent request rates for blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as 2.2). These data, as reported in Table Four, p. 15, are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences are not attributable to chance. 37 A qualitative analysis, triggered because of the statistically significant Chi-Square result, indicates that the results of the consent request processes this reporting period (that yielded statistically significant test data) were more likely than not attributable to the qualitative differences in stop characteristics rather than a racial bias on the part of New Jersey State Police personnel (see Section 2.2, pp. 19-28). There were no statistically significant differences by race or ethnicity in the reasons for stops of vehicles, or the levels of discretion used in making stops and deploying drug detection canines. There was a statistically significant difference by race and ethnicity for the reason for consent requests, with black drivers asked for consent request for less discretionary reasons than white or Hispanic drivers. See Tables Nine through Twelve, pages 20-25.

35 Twenty drivers refused consent requests. 36 Twenty consent search requests were refused. 37 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 23.26 with two degrees of freedom, p<O.OS.
The distribution was statistically significant. The "other" category was omitted as it produced expected frequencies less than "1." Degrees of freedom is a statistical measure of the level of precision a statistical estimate has. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. See Annex Two for data tables.

S!Xf:~e!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 38 of 40 PageID: 2026

The monitors continue noted several significant changes in the consent request processes of the New Jersey State Police this reporting period. The number and tenor of consent requests continues to be of concern this period, and the rate of consent requests jumped more than 42 percent this period, after rising more than 200 percent last period (see Table Three, page 15)38• In addition, the monitors observed several other issues that raised concern about consent request practices at the New Jersey State Police this reporting period. The monitors believe that many of these issues are the direct result of two training programs, designed for commercial vehicle inspection personnel that were also attended by regular troopers in Troops B and D. The federal Department of Transportation and Department of Homeland Security presented to State Police personnel two drug interdiction programs designed for commercial vehicle inspection personnel: The Drug Interdiction Awareness Program (DIAP) and Operation Desert Snow. The monitors reviewed 21 consent requests that were deemed inappropriate this reporting period. All of these included some problems related to reasonable articulable suspicion. All 21 of these problematic consent requests were noted and corrected by supervisory, executive, or OSPA review priorto the monitors noting problems with the stops. The problematic consent requests were not distributed equally among drivers' race and ethnicity. Seven white drivers' consent requests were problematic, while two black drivers' consent request were of concern. Eleven Hispanic drivers had problematic requests, as did one "other" race classification driver (See Table
Eleven, p. 26).

As noted in Section 2.3, above, the New Jersey State Police appears to have addressed the issues giving rise to these problematic consent requests; however, the monitors were unable to judge the full impact of these steps due to the fact that an insufficient number motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitors this period were executed after the remedial steps implemented by the State. The fact that the number of total consent requests appears to have re-attained its normal pre-drug interdiction training level is viewed as positive by the monitors.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

S!Xt~i:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 39 of 40 PageID: 2027

Task 29a stipulates that:
29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data
a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-SS (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99i C-22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99i and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stopi 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the stopi 3. date, time, and location of the stopi 4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it endedi 5. license number/state of stopped vehiclei SA. description of stopped vehiclei 6. the gender and race/ ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if knowni 7. the gender and racefethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrestedi 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation) i SA. specific violations cited or warnedi 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/BOLO])i 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehiclei 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were friskedi 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was grantedi 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehiclei 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurredi 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection caninei 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conductedi

SM~!:inth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-3 Filed 08/31/07 Page 40 of 40 PageID: 2028

14A. the circumstances that prompted a non-consensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges; 17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force; 18. the trooper's race and gender; and 19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time of the stop (on duty only) including squad.
Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the State's compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 269 incidents involving a poststop law enforcement activity of interest to the decree. Use of force, non-consensual searches and deployment of canines received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Sixteen and Seventeen, below.
Use of Force
New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force only once during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed the single report for this use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police.. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process.39 The use of force in this instance was found to be appropriate and appropriately reported.

39 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree.

SM~!:inth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 40 PageID: 2065

Canine Deployments
The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 60 times during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment, and reviewed video tapes of all canine deployments. No reporting problems were noted in any of the 60 deployments, and the video taped incidents reviewed indicated that the written reports accurately reflected actual events. All canine deployments were professionally executed and were executed for legitimate cause.
Table Fourteen depicts data from the 269 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 269
incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers
in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Thirteen and Fourteen, there were 106 white drivers of the total of 269 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 39.4 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Fourteen depicts five canine deployment for white drivers, 32 canine deployments for black drivers, 20 canine deployment for Hispanic drivers, and three canine deployments for drivers of "other" race/ethnicity. The last column, "Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity which were subjected to a given law enforcement procedure. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The data in Table Fourteen indicate higher canine "deployment rates" for blacks and Hispanics. These data are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences are not attributable to chance (See Table Five, p. 16).40 All but nine of the 60 canine deployments were based on reasonable articulable suspicion. Of those nine,
only one was a canine deployment for a vehicle driven by a white driver. Six of the
problematic canine deployments were for Hispanic drivers' vehicle, and one each was for a black driver and "other" race. New Jersey State Police supervisors or managers, or OSPA personnel caught and corrected each of these prior to the monitors' review. A qualitative review of these stops shows no statistically significant test statistics for levels of discretion, reason for stop, or reason for deployment. See Tables Nine through Thirteen, pages 22-26, above.

Table Fourteen: Canine Deployments

°4 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 20.63 with two degrees of freedom, p<O.OS.
The distribution was statistically significant.

SfXt~E:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 40 PageID: 2066

16th Reporting Period

Race/ Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Other Total

Number of Drivers
106 (39.4) 91 (33.8) 68 (25.3)
4 (1.5) 269

Canine Deployments
5 32 20 3

Percent Consent Request by
Race/ Ethnicity 4.7 35.2 29.4 75.0

Non-Consensual Searches

Table Fifteen depicts the results, by race/ethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 269 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. The table depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by race/ethnicity of the 107 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 52 white drivers' vehicles were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 49 subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 49 probable cause searches constitute 80.8 percent of all searches of white drivers vehicles. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
Of the 107 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found no problems that were not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel.

Table Fifteen: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of
Drivers' Vehicles, By Race of Driver 161h Reporting Period

Reason for Search Probable Cause

White #(%) 49 (80.8)

Black Hispanic Other

#(%)

#(%) #(%)

33 (91.7) 17(94.4) 1 (100)

Plain View 2 (3.8)

1 (2.8)

0

0

Proof of Ownership 1 (1.9)

2 (5.6) 1 (5.6)

0

Total

52

36

18

1

SM~t'inth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 40 PageID: 2067

Table Sixteen depicts non-consensual search-of-person activity by race, for probable cause searches and plain view.

Table Sixteen: Probable Cause Searches of Persons, by Race/Ethnicity 161h Reporting Period

Race/Ethnicity of Drivers White Black Hisoanic Other

Number of Drivers 106-(39.4)
91 (33.8) 68 (25.3)
4 (1.5) 269

Probable Cause Searches 49 33 17 1

Percent by Race/ Ethnicitv
46.2 36.3 25.0 25.0

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 88 separate incidents in which constitutional, procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a complete listing of these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 88 of these problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining or other form of
intervention prior to the monitor's noting the behavior. The monitors did note a shift in
the locus of these self-corrections this reporting period, away from on-scene and station-level review to management (Troop) and OSPA review. The State continues in compliance with this task this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.1

Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of

Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

~2 Task 29b

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

,-:- ---,-----

Task 29b stipulates that:
b. The protocols listed in ,29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in , , 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify

9!XI:~E'!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 4 of 40 PageID: 2068

practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CADS processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 30. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.

The electronic CADS records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of individuals subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the decree. All of the records included a CADS incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the individuals occupying the vehicle, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.

The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, exceeded 99 percent, well within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the State's database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as "expeditious" implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

SM~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 5 of 40 PageID: 2069

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31, 32 and 33

Task 29c
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 29c stipulates that:
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and '!MI31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology

The State continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.

Status

Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The State has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures. Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

Task 29e

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29e stipulates that:
e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this

Sfl(t~l:'!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 6 of 40 PageID: 2070

paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the State, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the State, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

I I Task 30

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

lllllliHII
·..

Task 30 stipulates that:

30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor
vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop information enumerated in '!I
29(a) that is transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in '!129(a), and as revised pursuant to '!129(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by

~~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 7 of 40 PageID: 2071

means of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these tasks has been measured under a revised standard for several reporting periods, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. The recent revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs noted above have formed the backbone for supervisory review and control of these processes, and when fully implemented, should further improve agency performance in these areas.

For the past eleven reporting periods, the State has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors' review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 15141 video recordings and documentation from 269 vehicle stops were reviewed this quarter, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CADS records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Of the 269 incidents reviewed by the monitors, only one included an error in call-in or documentation of a motor vehicle stop. An error rate of one incident of 269 constitutes 0.004 percent, within the newly established parameter of >90 percent, and interestingly, within the original requirement of 95 percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

41 Some video taped incidents included more than one post-stop activity of interest to the decree. For example, 45 of the 134 consent requests also included a canine deployment.

SM!e!'!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 8 of 40 PageID: 2072

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 30a stipulates that:

a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent race/ethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 269 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number; 100 percent list the driver's race and gender; 100 percent list a reason for the stop42 and a final disposition. The State is in compliance with this task

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

42 The reason for stop is noted as "moving" or "non-moving," different from the reason for stop categories discussed in Task 26, Section 2.2, above.

~~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 9 of 40 PageID: 2073

Task 30b
Phase I Phase II

9 10 11 12

Task 30b stipulates that:

b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.

Status

The parties and the monitors have agreed that this section (regarding notice prior to search of a vehicle) applies only to probable cause and consent searches, since state police policy requires a search of all vehicles incidental to the effecting of an arrest.43 Of the 100 probable cause search events and 134 consent searches reported (and reviewed by video tape), all but one was called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. Supervisory personnel noted and corrected this omission. This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, within the >94 percent established as the criterion for this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

I 1

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

43 New Jersey case law (State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (2006)) has changed the requirements and practices of "search incidental to arrest" of a motor vehicle. New Jersey State Police policy now precludes searches of vehicles incidental to arrest.

SM~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 10 of 40 PageID: 2074

Task 30c stipulates that:

c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. Of the 151 stops reviewed by video tape, all were found to have clearance codes. Of the 269 stops reviewed by document review, these call-ins were present in the CAD abstract, indicating that they had been made by the trooper and contemporaneously recorded. The State is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

I I Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

H i!f I'!I

SfXt!?~th Independent Monitors' Report

Page-50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 11 of 40 PageID: 2075

Task 30d stipulates that:

d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure (i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.

Methodology

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the consent decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CADS) were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and >99 percent were found to have "CAD Incident Numbers" indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 269 stops reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period, CAD numbers were present in documentation for all video tapes reviewed, and in 100 percent of all hard copy documents reviewed by the monitoring team that required a CAD number.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31

I1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

iiiiiii!il
·..

Task 31 stipulates that:
31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to

SIJ<t~!:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 12 of 40 PageID: 2076

conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A MVSR form was completed accurately in all 134 motor vehicle stop reports that included a consent search request this reporting period. Twenty of the incidents involved consent requests that were denied. All but two of the 134 consent requests were appropriately recorded and executed. Both of these errors were caught and corrected upon supervisory review. This constitutes a 100 percent compliance rate. In addition, the information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all but one case. Supervisors caught and corrected this error.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

I Task 31a-c 1 1 2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

I' iii II

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information : 1. the date and location of the stop;

S!i<t!'!eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 13 of 40 PageID: 2077

2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time for any reason may withdraw consent to search; 5. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived; 6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied: 1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, racejethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search; 3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and, 6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.
Methodology

SM~e!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 14 of 40 PageID: 2078

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for 134 consent requests and 114 consent searches,44 and reviewed video tape recordings of all motor vehicle stops involving consent searches. Supporting documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events depicted on 134 video tapes reviewed (twenty
drivers declined) were assessed in light of the reports generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

All of these the 134 consent request activities required by this section of the consent decree were either appropriately recorded or had errors corrected by supervisory personnel.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of Non-Consensual Searches

Task 32 Phase I

i

Phase II r

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

~

. I

32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and

44 Twenty consent requests were refused.
91Xt:~t:mth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 15 of 40 PageID: 2079

6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.

Of the 100 MVSRs reviewed which entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles,45 members of the monitoring team found problems with one incident in which the troopers failed to call in the search prior to conducting it. This error was noted and corrected by supervisory personnel prior to the monitoring team's review. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

Task 33

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 33 stipulates that:

33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information:
1. the date and location of the stop;

45 Three plain view searches were also conducted this reporting period.

Sfl<tl?eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 16 of 40 PageID: 2080

2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed;
s. whether an alert occurred;
6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, 60 reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found all of the canine deployments to be accurately reported, and canines to have been deployed in conformance with the requirements of procedures and the decree in all but eight stops. Supervisors caught and corrected these nine deployments on less than adequate articulable suspicion prior to the monitoring team's review.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

!li!IIW iiiliil!

SM~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 17 of 40 PageID: 2081

Task 34a stipulates that:

34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.
a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 151 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.

Status

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings, or documentation of in-field mechanical problems, for all events selected for review this period. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c

7 8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.

5fl(t~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 18 of 40 PageID: 2082

c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.

Methodology

In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each incident selected for review this reporting period (see above), members of the
monitoring team pulled for review a sample of 269 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the decree. These included 269 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 151 events assessed by reviewing video tapes.46

Status

While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all consent-decree related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the decree.

Once stops that are not "pure" motor vehicle stops, e.g., motorist's aids and motor vehicle accidents, are removed from the sample, compliance rates for this aspect of task 34c are all within the originally established 95 percent minimum.

A review of the 151 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has effectively resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning "out of tape" issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units (only five of 151 incidents reviewed via video tape resulted in an "out of tape" finding). The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem

46 All 151 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 269 MVSRs reviewed.

SM~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 19 of 40 PageID: 2083

involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 151 stops reviewed via video-tape this period, 19 exhibited some form of audio difficulty, and 13 exhibited some form of video difficulty. These incidents continue to reflect the age and maintenance of the equipment, rather than trooper-error. The State's planned new digital video systems may reduce these numbers even further. Troopers have begun activating their microphones during traffic stops at a much higher rate, with the monitoring team noting no events (of 151 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. This constitutes and error rate of zero percent, within the newly established 90 percent requirement for this task, and interestingly, within the original 95 percent requirement. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to '11'1131-33 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting period indicated that all selected events had their supporting MVSRs reviewed by
supervisory personnel. The monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 99 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR.

Sl'Xt~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 20 of 40 PageID: 2084

A review of 269 hardcopy records of motor vehicle stop activity indicates supervisory personnel reviewed 179 of 269 reports. The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 269 selected stops reviewed this period for evidence of reporting or procedural errors that should have been noted by supervisory personnel. Supervisory personnel, prior to the monitors' review, also reviewed all but 90 tapes reviewed by the monitors. From those 179 events, the monitors noted none that exhibited any form of substantial reporting problem that should have been noted by supervisory review, but were not.

This constitutes and error rate of zero, within the allowable five percent error rate for this task. The quality of supervisory review remains within acceptable standards.
Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36

Phase I Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:
36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

S!Xt~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-60

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 21 of 40 PageID: 2085

During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed 151 supervisors' MVR review reports. The quality of these reports has returned to previous levels if one includes all levels of review, i.e., initial supervisor, station, troop and OSPA. A larger number than usual of supervisory corrections was noted to have occurred this reporting period at the troop and OSPA level. This is undoubtedly attributable to the problems created by the external drug interdiction training and addressed by enhanced supervisory training and troop and OSPA reviews.

The overall error rate for supervisory review of is zero percent, within the acceptable error rate of five percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37
Phase I Phase II

=I 1

2

3

4

.

.

5

6

I

7

8

9

10 11 12

Task 37 stipulates that:
37. After conducting a review pursuant to ,35, ,36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in ,29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.
Methodology

SM~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 22 of 40 PageID: 2086

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

The monitors have observed "course-of-business" records of continual referrals to OPS of actions or omissions by road personnel, although such referrals have become more rare in recent reporting periods. This is, in the monitors' opinions, directly due to the increased levels of routine supervision, which have reduced errors on the part of road personnel. The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task. As with the fifteenth monitors' report, one incident was noted, during the sixteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. An appropriate referral was made.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:
38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews
of referral decisions pursuant to 'II 37 to ensure appropriate
referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.
Methodology
Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor referral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this decree. Training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to "copy" to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.
Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of

Sf)(t~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 23 of 40 PageID: 2087

New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel's review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.

Status

One incident was noted, during the sixteenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. Appropriate referrals were made. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

I I Task 39

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

~· Phase I

Phase II

••••••••••

Task 39 stipulates that:

39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed 133 motor vehicle stop reports that recorded an event at which a New Jersey State Police sergeant was present, constituting field activity in 49.4 percent of all stops selected this period.

Status

Based on the monitors' review of 151 tapes recording incidents at which state police supervisors were present, the monitors noted a substantially higher than usual number of stops in which procedural violations related to the consent decree were made that

srxt~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 24 of 40 PageID: 2088

were not duly noted and corrected by field supervisory personnel on the scene or upon subsequent tape review. Again, the monitors believe this was an artifact of the external drug interdiction training that was provided to road troopers but not always to their supervisors. All problems were eventually caught at management, troop or OSPA review, where appropriate, remedial action was taken with field sergeants who failed to note execution problems by troopers in the field. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

I Task 40

12 3

1I

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I lillllllll Phase II

I

Task 40 stipulates that:
40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").
Methodology
This reporting period, the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all, the monitors performed more than 269 tests of MAPPS system functionality. Each of these tests is reported below, in the analysis of tasks 41-51. In addition to the disaggregated systems tests, the monitors attended and observed a risk management meeting, which uses MAPPS data and information to assess risks to the agency that might require

Sfl<f:~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 25 of 40 PageID: 2089

changes in training, supervision, policy or leadership. The results of these process tests are discussed below, in the analysis oftasks 41-51.

MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the decree. The live data in MAPPS, as of the monitors' sixteenth site visit, are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS. The application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities for conducting long-term analyses continue to be observed for the third consecutive reporting period.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System

I I I Task 41

12 34

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I I! mu
Phase II

I

Task 41 requires that:
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to '1129 and the protocols listed in 'IJ29of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;
b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and

~~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 26 of 40 PageID: 2090

c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being "narrative elements" which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, continue to be found in the MAPPS system. In addition, the five non-primary requirements, identified as "narrative elements" were reasonably available through other systems. The monitors continue to find the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways. The system continues to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items required by subparagraphs "b" and "c" of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers use these systems on a daily basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal MAPPS Data

Task 42

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 42 requires that:
42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be

91Xt~etnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 27 of 40 PageID: 2091

construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts" and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 43 requires that:

43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in
'!129 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, s, 6, 7, s, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in '!129(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in '!129(a)(5A, SA, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in '!129(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through cross-referenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in '!141(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be

srxt~i:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 28 of 40 PageID: 2092

developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in 1J41(b
and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability
to retrieve this descriptive information.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by "count" and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (Sa, 8a, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel are accessing the system on a day-today basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

34 5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:
44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.

SM~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 29 of 40 PageID: 2093

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

The State has identified the "CAD incident number" (CIN) as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the consent decree process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

Task 45

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 45 requires that:

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task.

S!Xt~E:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 30 of 40 PageID: 2094

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

I I I Task 46

12 34

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Jlllliilil

I

Task 46 requires that:

46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by '11'1148-53.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

With implementation of the MAPPS components during the tenth reporting period, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

srxt~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 31 of 40 PageID: 2095

I' I'~ Task 47

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

ftl! 1111111

Task 47 requires that:
47. Consistent with the requirements of ~~48-53 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January, 2004.
For the past five reporting periods, the monitors have been carefully reviewing the use of supervisory review processes regarding instances in which supervisors have noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, noting in the MAPPS the action taken regarding the problems as "No Further Action." The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. The State implemented, during the fourteenth reporting period, a "trooper centric" data query system that deals with this issue in an effective and elegant manner.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

Task 48

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 32 of 40 PageID: 2096

Task 48 requires that:

48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures have been executed. The monitors have reviewed reports generated in response to this section of the decree, and find them to be responsive to the requirements of the decree and to be used effectively as management tools.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

I I I Task 49

12 34

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

11111!11111

I

Task 49 requires that:
49. To the extent reflected in '1143, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations

91Xt~t'!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 33 of 40 PageID: 2097

and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non- moving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for each type of investigation, as delineated in ~73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these has been executed. During the site visit for the sixteenth reporting period, the monitors reviewed MAPPS reports created in response to this section of the decree and found them to be effective management tools. The State remains in compliance with this requirement of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50
Phase I Phase II

6

10 11 12 13 14 15

Task 50 requires that:

S!Xf~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 34 of 40 PageID: 2098

50. To the extent reflected in '1143, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)} and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see '11'1154-55); a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle non-consensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and sub-units.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.
Status
During the thirteenth site visit, MAPPS personnel presented to the monitors detailed documentation regarding benchmarking and trend analysis. The activities related to Task 50 were organized into two separate functions: detailed data analysis using external and internal benchmarking processes, and high-level analysis and decision making regarding issues identified by the analysis by the Risk Management Core Group (RACG), in which key command staff review and discuss MAPPS data reports and take key decisions to move the organization forward regarding motor vehicle stop (and other) critical issues. Data analysis and the RACG meeting process for the New Jersey State Police are now up to date and timely. The monitors have attended recent RACG meetings and find them to be dealing effectively with substantive issues and to be focused on the future inputs and outputs of the RACG process.
The issues of workload, staffing, technology, and information access factors noted during the last site visit have each been addressed. It appears these issues have been resolved and the MAPPS/RACG system is fully supported and functioning at a high level.
Compliance

51XI:~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 35 of 40 PageID: 2099

The State has returned to full compliance in this area.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 50

11 12 13 14 15

Phase I Phase II

Task 51 requires that:
51. To the extent reflected in ~43,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.
Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the decree.

Status

During the course of the fifteenth reporting period, the New Jersey State Police evolved in its use of the MAPPS/RACG process, moving beyond what was required by the decree to exceptional problem-analytic and problem solving processes using MAPPS and portions of the RACG structure. New Jersey State Police noted two emergent issues during the fifteenth reporting period. The first was a peak in the frequency of incidents related to allegations of off-duty misconduct involving Division personnel. The second, as noted earlier, was a significant peak in consent search request incidents. The Office of the Superintendent tasked MAPPS and the Office of Strategic Initiatives to conceptualize, implement, and report a data-centric analytic process to determine the scope of these two issues, identify critical factors related to these issues, and synthesize solutions and recommendations. The central point of the consent decree is for the New Jersey State Police to identify, analyze and respond to issues related to in-field enforcement. The organization's response to the issues raised by the DIAP and Desert Snow training show a laudable response to identifying the issues generated by the training, analyzing the reasons those issues surfaced, and responding with a supervisory and managerial response that, eventually, resolved those issues.

SfXteE:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 36 of 40 PageID: 2100

Compliance
The State has re-attained compliance with this task, issuing all required reports and analyses. The monitors have reviewed staffing and support and find it to be sufficient to maintain a high level of performance.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

During the sixteenth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted 88 instances of supervisory personnel issuing "performance notices" or other interventions for actions taken by division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are carefully reviewing trooper activity and issuing performance notices or other "interventions" when inappropriate behavior occurs. Further, one instance was noted this reporting period which was, appropriately, referred to OPS for investigation. This investigation resulted in a complete and comprehensive review of 100 percent of the involved trooper's traffic stops, reviewing these for any evidence of problematic behavior observed in several of his routinely reviewed traffic stops this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance

SM!'!i:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 37 of 40 PageID: 2101

Phase II: In Compliance

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53
Phase I Phase II

11 12

Task 53 stipulates that:
53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three
misconduct investigations of any kind initiated pursuant to 11
73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.
Status

The State has developed a system of OPS notification of more than two misconduct investigations in a two-year period. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During the tenth reporting period, the State had assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards. Data indicate that these reviews are being meaningfully conducted as required by the decree. Documentary evidence available in MAPPS indicates that supervisory personnel are meeting with troopers who meet the criteria of this task, and, when necessary, discussing any applicable patterns of complaints.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

~ 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

II IIIIII' 11111111!

SM~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 38 of 40 PageID: 2102

Task 54 stipulates that:

54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior
to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the
Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

Methodology

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition with the Court for release from most of the requirements of the consent decree related to OPS. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the monitors discontinued monitoring activities for OPS requirements as of July, 2004 (the twelfth reporting period), with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90).

Task 87, which requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens' complaints within 120 days, was evaluated by reviewing the "120-day Report," an OPS-generated, "normal course of

91Xt~l:'inth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 39 of 40 PageID: 2103

business" report developed to monitor overdue cases and prevent an additional case backlog. Based on the 120-day Report, the State remains in compliance with this task.

Task 90, which requires imposition of appropriate discipline in consultation with MAPPS, was evaluated by reviewing "course of business" documents related to the OPS review of sustained OPS investigations, executive-level decisions regarding discipline, and the existence in MAPPS of records reflecting discipline. The State is judged to be in Phase I and Phase II compliance with the requirements of Task 90.

2.33 Training Assessment

The Academy has attained compliance performance areas as of the fourteenth reporting period. The return on the Division's investment in increased manpower, equipment, and automation at the Academy over the past twelve months is remarkable and is reflected in the findings in this report. The Superintendent and the command staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to, and interest in the training function provided by the New Jersey State Police Academy.

Actions noted during the monitors' sixteenth site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

~2 Task 93

3 4

5

... 9

10 11 12 13 14

Phase I I

·.

Phase II

Task 93 stipulates that:

93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).

SM~i:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-4 Filed 08/31/07 Page 40 of 40 PageID: 2104

Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team have also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
Task 93 enumerates the eight areas of responsibility assigned to the Academy through the consent decree. The following are updates on areas of note:
• As noted in the fifteenth Monitor's Report, the process of measuring field
implementation of training objectives continues to evolve. The Research and
Innovation Unit is using new software to collect and analyze data related to implementation for the other Academy units, which develop and deliver the training. The monitoring team notes that the staff involved in this task for the past two years have gained the knowledge and experience required to more completely comprehend the full scope of this task. The program originally chosen to measure implementation in the field has been determined by Academy staff to lack the capability to fully measure performance implementation. As a result, the Academy staff have developed and presented to the monitoring team a new methodology that will be utilized to track training objectives for all training in the future.
• The Academy staff continues to use evaluation data to update and to refine program procedures, curricula, and training techniques. A new process evaluating training delivery is also under consideration at this time. The Academy has developed and implemented comprehensive processes relating to ensuring quality training for all state troopers, curriculum development for recruit training, training for Academy instructors, training for trooper coaches, and training evaluation, and continues to implement those processes in a professional and effective manner.
• The monitors note that most of the present Academy personnel were not on staff at the Academy during the past seven years while the consent decree processes were being developed and implemented. The orientation of new staff may need to be reviewed to ensure that each person has a clear understanding of the tasks and the processes that must be followed to maintain oversight for the quality of all training within the Division. The Academy is a special unit assignment, and, as such, requires specialized training/orientation to assure that new staff is prepared to assume their duties.

91Xf:~eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 32 PageID: 2033

• The monitoring team was presented with a report stating that six command staff personnel who presented the 30-minute block on Superintendent's new Intelligenceled Policing initiative at the 2006 mandated training had not completed the required ITC course required for all trainers. The oversight was not known until after the completion of the annual in-service. Academy staff provide this information to the monitoring team, acknowledged the oversight, and are instituting a checklist/signoff system to insure that trainer credentials are thoroughly reviewed my Academy staff as well as by division staff before instructors are allowed into the classroom.

The monitoring team pointed out that, in this instance, the information provided by the command staff was not training, but rather an explanation of new program that is being implemented within the Division. However, the Academy realized that a gap existed in the vetting process for instructors, and took measures to close that gap. This is an example of good oversight systems identifying a potential problem, and staff recognizing and rectifying the issue.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

Task 97

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 97 stipulates that:
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.

Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status

9m!l:!i?nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 32 PageID: 2034

The quality of training depends upon the availability of qualified training staff in adequate numbers to fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Academy. This unit has an impact on every member of the organization through the training it provides and the evaluation of how that training is implemented throughout the Division. This is an area of critical importance, and as such, the levels of staffing should continued to be reviewed on a regular basis and with a timely response to the needs that occur.
• The drug interdiction training oversight problem that was presented in the last monitor's report appears to have been resolved through policy changes, intradepartmental education for specialized unit personnel, and clarification from the Superintendent's office with respect to training approval processes to be followed.
• Staffing levels at the Academy continue to be monitored to ensure that they adequately meet the demands placed on the Academy. The monitors note that the organizational chart lists 67 personnel assigned to the Academy--58 sworn, with 4 detachments, and 9 civilians. It appears, at this time, that the Academy is adequately staffed. A recent reorganization of the Academy was completed and appears to be working well. Each unit is managed by a lieutenant with a SFC as an assistant.
• The pool of applicants for trooper coach was smaller than required for the last graduating class of recruits. This is attributed to the fact that many specialist positions are opening up due to retirements and new responsibilities related to homeland security issues. The current requirement is that a trooper have two years of post-Academy road time to qualify as a trooper coach. Due to lack of personnel, this requirement was waived during the last trooper coach recruitment process to allow members who were 2 months short of the full 24 months to apply. Including the time that these troopers had themselves been probationary troopers, their time on the road was actually 5 months short of the requirement. Since the Division knows in advance how many recruits will be graduating on a given date, a better strategy to attract troopers with at least two years of road time should be developed to avoid a repetition of the last cycle. This is a critical program that demands the most experienced troopers to provide guidance to new Academy graduates. This issue is a major concern to the monitoring team as plans for the new recruit classes that will begin in January 2008 call for much larger numbers of probationary troopers to enter the Division than are presently occurring. A plan to address this issue is necessary. In addition, computerization of the records related to this program has not been completed, and is impeding quality oversight. See task 102 for details.
Compliance

srxt!l:e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 32 PageID: 2035

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

Task 98
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The criteria stipulated by this section of the decree are being met, with the exception related to trooper coaches described in Task 97, and are supported by documentation maintained at the Academy and at Human Services Unit. The files are checked to ensure compliance prior to any NJSP personnel acting in the capacity of a trainer.
Status

Academy Personnel

Post Academy

Trooper Coach Personnel

SM~!:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 4 of 32 PageID: 2036

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

~ Task 99

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

. ·.·

Phase II

Task 99 stipulates that:
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status
All Academy and post-Academy instructors, and Trooper Coach personnel meet these requirements. Documentation is on file, and was reviewed by members of the monitoring team. Trooper coaches complete the Instructor Training Course as part of the coach training to better prepare them in their teaching role with the probationary troopers. Coaches who have not coached for a period of two years complete a one day refresher course. In addition, the road sergeants from each troop will be receiving a one-day trooper coach training so that they may provide coaching for probationary
troopers if their regular trooper coach is unavailable (day off, court duty etc.).

srxt~E!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 5 of 32 PageID: 2037

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The Academy continues to provide cultural diversity, ethics and leadership training as part of its integrated training curricula. Training in these areas continues to conform to the seven-step training development, delivery and evaluation process agreed to between the monitors and the State. Future refinements of this annually mandated training that are being considered by the Academy include:

SM~i:inth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 6 of 32 PageID: 2038

1. Identifying the needs of subgroups within the organization (e.g. troopers with less than 18- months on the road, staff in specialized units who are not on the road, command staff) and grouping them together by need for the annual training. 2. Staggering the training throughout the year rather than running 6-8 continuous weeks of training. 3. Providing a general session on the topic and then having breakout groups in different rooms to address the individual application of the training to subgroups.

The next round of annual training on these topics begins in October and will be completed before December 31, 2007.

Compliance

Cultural Diversitv

Ethics

Leadership

Phase I: Phase II:

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:
101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the nondiscrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdictionrelated training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.
Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation

Sfl<t~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 7 of 32 PageID: 2039

processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The Academy continues to provide integrated training curricula that conform to the seven-step training development, delivery and evaluation process agreed to between the monitors and the State.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

~2 Task 102

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

.·.

.·

Task 102 stipulates that:
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.

Methodology

SM~enth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 8 of 32 PageID: 2040

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The Academy personnel tasked with coordinating this program continue to revise and refine their oversight capabilities. The electronic data management system for this program has still not been completed, and this is proving to be an impediment to insuring quality oversight. The basic e-file system that has been in place for a couple of years to allow trooper coach coordinators to e-mail weekly evaluations is not operating properly. Totowa, Hamilton, Bridgeton, and Somerville are among the stations that cannot successfully send files to the Academy.

The monitors routinely observe young troopers in the performance of their duties during their review of videotapes of motor vehicle stops, and these reviews confirm the value of the Trooper Coach process. The SOP governing this program is being revised to include improvements made to the program and to ensure the oversight processes.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 103 stipulates that:
103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and

Sil<t~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 9 of 32 PageID: 2041

procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.
Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Methodology

The monitoring team spoke with the Academy staff responsible for this task and reviewed supporting documentation.

Status

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000, and has maintained that compliance. Revisions to policy for consent decree-related tasks are handled by notification of specific Division personnel at the quarterly Training Committee meetings and through roes. This is a comprehensive oversight process. To be certain that the process is functioning as intended requires a regularly scheduled audit of the documentation at the section level to be sure that all "read and sign documentation" is complete.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 104 stipulates that:
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training

91Xt~!:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 10 of 32 PageID: 2042

Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period.
Status
The Academy has developed a comprehensive process with many access points for identifying the training needs in the organization, and continues to act on identified needs professionally.
It has been determined that the Instructor Training Program will be provided to instructors who provide content-specific training to individual units within the Division that provide specialized services.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance
2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 105 stipulates that:
105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in ~~100 and 101) shall integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.
Methodology

S'!Xt~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 11 of 32 PageID: 2043

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

Training at the academy continues to be developed, delivered and evaluated using the seven-step process developed early on in the consent decree process. Initial training was provided within the first year, as required, and annual in-service training has been offered since inception of the monitoring process. Training continues to be updated based on needs assessments and evaluation processes.

Presently, an 80-hour program is provided for first-line supervisors who have been newly promoted to the rank of sergeant. A 40-hour class is provided to those promoted to sergeant-first class. Plans are underway to break this class into 5 one-day sessions delivered over a number of weeks. This will allow the SFC to implement the knowledge learned in class more efficiently and effectively. Integration of training continues to be a strong focus of the training processes. This program continues to be conducted for supervisors from outside police agencies when requested and is well received.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

=I I Task 106 1 2
Phase I Phase II

3

4

...

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

Task 106 stipulates that:

106. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within seven months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.

9fXI:~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-91

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 12 of 32 PageID: 2044

Methodology

The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.

Status

The Academy continues to provide integrated training curricula that conform to the seven-step training development, delivery and evaluation process agreed to between the monitors and the State.

Captains and Above Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 107 stipulates that:
107. The State shall design and implement post-academy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status

Sfl(t€!e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-92

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 13 of 32 PageID: 2045

Training processes for post-academy training for "newly assigned" troopers were implemented during the seventh reporting period. Evaluation processes related to the "impact in the field" of this training were implemented during the fourteenth reporting period. All instructors external to the Academy complete the Instructor Training Program to insure the delivery of quality training.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

..I I Task 108 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II

Task 108 stipulates that:
108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The New Jersey State Police Academy's Technology Unit continues to implement new platforms included in the new Geo Learning Software. The New Jersey State Police Academy is leading the way in demonstrating how the program can assist personnel in managing their responsibilities at every level in the organization.

9M~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-93

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 14 of 32 PageID: 2046

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 109 stipulates that:
109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.
Methodology
The monitoring team reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The Geo Learning electronic program allows the Academy to provide oversight and management of all training records and trooper coach materials. The exception is the electronic entry of firearms qualification data. An enhancement to the ACTS database that was approved, but has not been implemented, is resulting in a significant impact on manpower related to data management and data entry. The absence of this computer enhancement prevents the regional range-masters from entering registration and prequalification date directly into the computers at their sites. Instead, data cards are completed, batched, and driven to the Academy to be entered by one of the clerical support staff. This process results in delays in availability of current information: data cards have gone missing (multiple hand-offs, transportation etc.); and clerical personnel are making 2000 entries twice a year, when site entry would involve 30 per day at three sites. The lost manhours, the cost of fuel to transport these cards from three regional

SM~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-94

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 15 of 32 PageID: 2047

sites, and the lack of timeliness and security of data entry are considerations for determining why an already approved enhancement has not been implemented.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 110

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.
Methodology
Members of the monitoring team have interviewed the majority of personnel assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs and have discussed with them their assigned duties, have seen samples of the work product they have created in developing the State's responses to the requirements of the decree, and/or have queried them regarding their understanding of their roles in developing the State's response to the decree.
Status

~~!:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-95

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 16 of 32 PageID: 2048

Based on the monitoring team's review of work product, and information obtained during the process of implementing the sixteenth site visit, it is clear to the members of the monitoring team that the State is in compliance with this task. All duties assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs have been completed as of the twelfth site visit, upon final implementation of the MAPPS processes for long-term trend analysis and benchmarking. The office provides coordination with the monitors and the Department of Justice, and the office is headed by a Deputy AG during this reporting period. The office routinely audits the process of managing misconduct investigations, and routinely audits performance on MVSR processes. These audits consist of on-site reviews, basically replicating those engaged in by the monitoring team, with samples of MVSR and MVR recordings reviewed by OSPA personnel. Problems are noted and remedial measures are recommended. Technical assistance and training is provided routinely by the office regarding these matters. The mechanism and duty assignments exist to complete the duties of the office as soon as practicable. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

I I Task 111 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

~ .... Phase I
Phase II

. .

·

.

Task 111 stipulates that:
111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.
Methodology
The monitors have reviewed data provided by the State regarding this task, and find the State continues to be in compliance.

SMie!:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-96

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 17 of 32 PageID: 2049

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

~ Task 112

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

Phase II I

Task 112 stipulates that:

112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by '1162; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.

Methodology

Data regarding task 112 indicate that the State continues to perform this task in a satisfactory manner.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

SMI'!eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-97

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 18 of 32 PageID: 2050

Task 113
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 113 stipulates that:

113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents {including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team observed the personnel from the Office of State Police Affairs during the course of the site visit.

Status

Based on the team's observations, members of the Office of State Police Affairs have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task 114 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I mmw
Phase II mllw
Task 114 stipulates that:

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops {by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions {including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and

Sfxt~e'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-98

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 19 of 32 PageID: 2051

procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.

Methodology

The State has produced its latest "Semi-Annual Public Report of Aggregate Data," in response to this provision of the decree.

Status

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the latest report prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs, and found it to be responsive to the requirements of the decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

I I Task 115 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

nm!i!lll

Task 115 stipulates that:

115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal,

Sfl?l:~~nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-99

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 20 of 32 PageID: 2052

state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed the order from United States District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper, appointing an independent monitoring team on March 30, 2000.
Status
The State is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

Task 118
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and nonprivileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police

SM~!:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-100

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 21 of 32 PageID: 2053

documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.
Methodology

Members of the monitoring team were accorded full and unrestricted access while onsite with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Task 122 stipulates that:
122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every seven months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

S!Xt!'!eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-101

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 22 of 32 PageID: 2054

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed the State's submission filed by the State in response to this task. The report's format has been modified to a more readable and usable format.

Status

The report submitted by the State, in the opinion of the monitors, complies with the requirements of this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:
123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an

SfXI:!I!eJnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-102

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 23 of 32 PageID: 2055

incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested for review numerous documents, records, recordings and other information during the course of the team's site visit during May 2007.

Status

All documents requested by the monitoring team have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

I Task 124 11

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase II J!!liDI!lL

Task 124 stipulates that:

124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State staff, facilities and non-privileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying

91Xt~!'!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-103

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 24 of 32 PageID: 2056

the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team discussed the level of access provided by the State with Department of Justice personnel assigned to this case.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

S!Xt~elnth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-104

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 25 of 32 PageID: 2057

3.0 SUMMARY

The New Jersey State Police appear to have reached a watershed moment during the last two reporting periods. Ample evidence exists to suggest that the agency has become self-monitoring and self-correcting to a degree not often observed in American law enforcement. In January and February 2006, agency training pre-delivery monitoring processes "slipped," allowing unapproved training to be delivered by two outside vendors unfamiliar with the New Jersey State Police consent decree. These two trainings created a serious spike in the number of consent search requests observed during the fifteenth and sixteenth reporting periods. In addition, they created a substantial spike in the number of problematic law enforcement procedures observed by the monitors, jumping from approximately 17 per reporting period to 84 this reporting period.

The response of the New Jersey State Police was anything but typical. In March 2006 the Office of State Police Affairs was tasked to develop a special study relating to the spike in consent requests. By May 2006, the Office of State Police Affairs and the New Jersey State Police developed a field supervisors' checklist for managing consent requests in the field. By June 2006, OSPA had worked with legal advisors to develop corrective processes to control many of the issues identified by the monitors during their May site visits related to the "tone and timbre" of the consent requests observed during the site visit. By July 2006, enhanced troop-level (executive) and OSPA review systems had been implemented. By August 2006, in-service field supervisor training was modified to address issues raised by the drug interdiction training. By October 2006 global supervisory and managerial reviews began to note and correct problematic consent requests by field personnel using a "best practices" remedial policy.

The New Jersey State Police response to the unapproved training depicts an agency that has become self-monitoring and adaptive, able to note, analyze and correct problems with the delivery of field services in real time. The essential characteristic designed into the current crop of consent decrees strives for just that type of selfawareness and adaptivity on the part of American law enforcement agencies. It appears the goal has been attained.

Training

Compliance levels continued to be maintained in training for the sixteenth reporting period. The Academy continues to assess performance in the area of training, and is currently conducting a unit-wide evaluative process to update and refine program procedures, curricula and training techniques. Technological innovations continue to streamline processes and improve efficiency. Workload analysis and planning processes continue to monitor the training environment for potential stressors on staffing levels and plan for adaptation to ebbs and flows in workload. Training certifications are

9fl<t~e\lth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-105

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 26 of 32 PageID: 2058

routinely monitored/ and coordination with field units regarding training topics is routine. As with the agency as a whole/ the Academy appears to have become selfmonitoring and adaptive.
Supervision
Error rates in field supervision jumped during the fifteenth and sixteenth reporting periods/ with on-scene and first-level supervisors missing procedural errors on the part of field personnel/ and relying instead on management and OSPA reviews to catch and correct in-field errors. This is directly attributable to the unapproved provision of two separate training events by vendors unfamiliar with the New Jersey State Police consent decree. As a result of this training/ field personnel began implementing consent search and vehicle stop processes that were at the margins of New Jersey State Police policies and procedures/ and/ when counseled concerning these practices/ often advised their supervisors "that's how we were trained." The New Jersey State Police noted the divergence of training for field supervisors and field personnel/ changed their supervisory in-service training practices/ and1 by August 20071 had updated the field supervisory in-service training to conform to their "best practices" model of supervision. Again1 the agency appears to have become self-monitoring and self adaptive.
MAPPS Development
Full compliance has been reattained regarding MAPPS information system capabilities. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance1 compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup/ and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system/ and all five A of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops have received written benchmarking and data analytic reports. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors1 and delivered to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is currently being used in performance evaluations and positive disciplinary processes/ such as verbal counselings/ performance notices/ and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes/ using MAPPS data/ were commenced during the thirteenth reporting period. The monitors reviewed the operational MAPPS database/ and found it to contain active data from January 11 2004.

The evolution of the New Jersey State Police's use of the MAPPS data system into a proactive problem identification and problem solving system emerged this reporting period. In effect1 the New Jersey State Police have taken the MAPPS system beyond the requirements of the consent decree/ using it for more than a tracking and control device for motor vehicle stops/ use of force/ and complaints/ and instead using it to identify systemic organizational issues and to craft solutions to those issues before they

SMiee'nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-106

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 27 of 32 PageID: 2059
negatively impact the organization in any significant way. In the past year, using MAPPS-based tools, the leadership of the New Jersey State Police identified two issues of concern: a perceived rise in allegations of off-duty misconduct incidents among Division personnel and a significant increase in the number of consent search requests made by Division personnel.
Within six months of noting the potential impact of these two issues, the New Jersey State Police planned, developed and executed two separate data-centric and dataanalytic problem solving actions designed to identify the nature and scope of the problems, assess their impact on the organization, and develop recommendations to deal with the issues in a real-time manner. Elements from the Office of Strategic Initiatives, MAPPS and the Risk Analysis Core Group (RACG) were melded to deal with these two issues.
The faults noted last reporting period in the areas of workload, staffing, technology and information access have now been addressed. MAPPS and RACG are now in full compliance, staffed to a sufficient level with technological capacity and information access regimens suitable for the workload facing MAPPS and RACG.
Inspections, Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review MVSR and MVR elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. As noted above, the quality control process has yielded remarkable improvements for six consecutive periods. OSPA continues to be an important and integral part of the systems improvement process, and continues to offer an important tier of review of state police functions related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
Compliance requirements in all areas are now at 100 percent levels. Policy, training, supervision, inspections and audit, and MAPPS processes are fully staffed, fully functioning, and, in the opinion of the monitors, fully capable of self-monitoring and self-adaptation.

Sfxt~E:!nth Independent Monitors' Report

Page-107

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 28 of 32 PageID: 2060
ANNEX ONE High, Median and Low Discretionary Violations1
High Discretion:
Equipment Violation Exp Registration Failure to Signal Lane Change Following too Closely FTKR Improper U turn MDT Suspended Registration Obstructed View Rest Area Overstay Seatbelt Speeding <10
Median Discretion:
Aggressive Driving FTML Motorist Aid Speeding 10-14 Unsafe Lane Change
Low Discretion:
BOLO Confidential Informant Criminal Activity Directed Stop Fictitious Plates Motor Vehicle Accident Reckless Driving Speeding >14 Suspected DUI Warrants
1 The monitors engaged in multiple, substantial discussions with New Jersey State Police personnel regarding the nature of the "reason for stop" offenses. While there remain some differences in opinion regarding high versus low discretion incidents, the framework presented above is the best available framework obtainable, in the monitors' opinion, to assess the exercise of discretion in studied traffic stops. Further work in this area may require revision of the reason for stop continuum.
156322 vi

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 29 of 32 PageID: 2061

Annex Two Data Tables for Chi-Square Analyses

Table Four: Consent Requests by Race-Ethnicity of Driver, 16th Reporting Period

White

Black

Hispanic

n=

No

70

68

26

134

Consent

Request

Consent

36

53

42

131

Request
N= 2651
:>f= 23.26
df= 22 P= 0.00000893

This test statistic is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Five: Canine Deployments by Race-Ethnicity of Driver, 16th Reporting Period

No Canine
Deployment
Canine Deployment N=2654
:>f= 30.271
df= 2
P= 0.000000027

White 101
5

Black

Hispanic

n=

59

48

208

32

20

57

1 "N" does not equal 269 because four drivers were in the "other" category of race or ethnicity. 2 "Degrees of freedom" refer to the how much about the observed data needs to be known (or can "be free" to vary) before all the observations would be determined. The size of a statistic needed to achieve a particular level of significance is determined by the degrees of freedom. For the chi square statistics reported here, the degrees of freedom translate into the number of cells in a table for which the number of observations needs to be known before all the cells are determined, based on the row and column totals. 3 A "p" level indicates the probability that a statistical relationship happened by chance. The smaller the size of p, the smaller the probability the relationship happened by chance. A p level of 0.05 (or smaller) was chosen by the monitoring team as the level at which statistical significance will be determined, consistent with most research studies. In terms of the chi square statistics reported, a p level of 0.05 indicates that there is only a five-percent probability that the distribution of the data in a particular table happened by chance, and therefore any differences across groups seen in the table are considered statistically significant.
4 "N" does not equal 269 because four drivers were in the "other" category of race or ethnicity.

109

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 30 of 32 PageID: 2062 This test statistic is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Six: Arrest Data for Black and White Drivers 16th Reporting Period

White

Black

Hispanic

n=

No

34

39

43

116

Arrest

Arrest

72

N=265:0

X'= 16.389

52

25

149

df= 2

P= 0.00027

This test statistic is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Seven: Consent Request Stop Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion) 16th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

High

10

Discretion

(1)

37

47

Median

5

10

15

Discretion (2)

Low

17

Direction

(3)

45

62

N=124
X'= 1.032

df= 2

P= 0.0596 This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

5 "N" does not equal 269 because four drivers were in the "other" category of race or ethnicity.
110

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 31 of 32 PageID: 2063

Table Eight: Canine Deployment Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion), 16th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

High

1

26

27

Discretion

(1)

Median

0

3

3

Discretion

(2)

Low

4

18

22

Direction

(3)
N--52)6
X'= 3.263

df= 2

P= 0.1956

This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Nine: Sampled Vehicle Stop Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion), 16th Reporting Period

High Discretion (1)
Median Discretion (2)
Low Direction (3) N--262)b
X'= 4.656
df= 4 P= 0.3244

White 32
17
43

Black

Hispanic

n=

35

28

95

8

11

36

41

24

131

6 Not all stops had a known reason for the stop that could be used in this analysis. Some were simply described, as required by the consent decree, as "moving" or "non-moving"

111

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 92-5 Filed 08/31/07 Page 32 of 32 PageID: 2064

This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Ten: Reason for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity, 16th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

High

7

6

13

Discretion

(1)

Median

2

31

33

Discretion

(2)

Low

24

60

84

Direction

(3)

N=130 (not all consent requests had a known reason for the request, and thus N

does not equal 134).
Y= 12.516

df= 2

P= 0.00191

Table Eleven: Outcome for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity, 16th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

Inappropriate

7

14

21

(1)

Appropriate

29

84

113

(2)

N=134
Y= 0.53

Df= 1

P= 0.4666

112

 
 Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 50 PageID: 2712
Monitors' Seventeenth Report
Long-term Compliance Audit Civil Number 99-5970(MLC)
In the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division State of New Jersey
Submitted by: Public Management Resources
San Antonio, Texas and
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas Newark, New Jersey
April 16, 2009

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 2 of 50 PageID: 2713

Table of Contents

Topic

Page No.

Executive Summary

iv

1 Introduction

1

1. 1 Overall Status Assessment

2

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

2

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

3

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

5

2 Assessment of Compliance

7

2.1 Methodology

7

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-:Ethnicity

in Decision Making

8

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation

of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

30

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search unly

upon Reasonable Suspicion

37

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Stops

41

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

51

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

57

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of

Non-Consensual Searches

61

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting

Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

62

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video

Recording Equipment

64

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation

and Procedures

65

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports 67

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

68

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed

Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

69

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

70

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field 71

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management

Awareness and Personnel Performance System

72

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPS System

73

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal

MAPPS Data

75

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts"

76

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

77

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS

78

Table of Contents

p. i

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 3 of 50 PageID: 2714

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan 2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews 2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data 2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS 2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks 2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends 2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement
Necessary Changes 2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers
with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years 2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New
Jersey Turnpike 2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements 2.33 Training Assessment 2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of
Quality of Training Programs 2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers
to Apply for Academy 2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training
Personnel 2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors 2.38 Compliance with Task 100: Training in Cultural Diversity 2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on
Fourth Amendment Requirements 2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper
Coach Process 2.41 Compliance with Task 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree
to all State Troopers 2.42 Compliance with Task 104: Systems Improvement Processes for
Police Training 2.43 Compliance with Task 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors 2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted
State Troopers 2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training 2.46 Compliance with Task 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS
Pqffim 2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central
Repository for Training Records 2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State
Police Affairs 2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to
Motor Vehicle Stops 2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen
Complaint Processe 2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for
the Office of State Police Affairs
Table of Contents

79 80 81 82 83 85
86
87
89 90 91
91
95
97 98 99
101
102
104
105 106
107 108
1W
110
111
112
113
114
p. ii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 4 of 50 PageID: 2715

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports

of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

114

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

115

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access

for Monitor

116

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports 118

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary

Records

118

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the

Department of Justice

120

3.0 Summary

122

Annex One: High, Median and Low Discretionary Violations

128

Annex Two: Data Tables for Chi-Square Analyses

129

Table of Contents

p. iii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 5 of 50 PageID: 2716

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The seventeenth independent monitors' report documents the continuing evolution of the consent decree with respect to the State Police. The sixteenth report noted that the State Police had become "self-monitoring" and that as agency it possessed the ability to "analyze and correct" problematic law enforcement procedures on a "real time" basis. The report further noted that the goal of the Consent Decree was to encourage the development of law enforcement organizations that were "self-aware" and could adapt to a changing environment. The report concluded that the State Police had achieved that goal.
The evolution of the consent decree process continues with the designation of the Office of State Police Affairs (OSPA) as the agency to monitor and evaluate the efforts of the State Police to comply with the mandates of the consent decree. In the past, independent monitors designated by the Department of Justice were responsible for evaluating the implementation of the consent decree by the State Police. With this report, the torch is passed in that the State of New Jersey begins to establish a mechanism to move from federal oversight of the consent decree to self-regulation. This transition takes shape as OSPA begins to assume the duties and responsibilities of the independent monitors.
Following the completion of the independent monitors' Sixteenth Report on November 1, 2007, the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Police Standards completed its work and issued a final report. To briefly review, the committee was created by Governor Jon Corzine in August of 2006 by Executive Order No. 26. The committee was directed by the governor to recommend whether and under what circumstances the State of New Jersey should join with the Department of Justice in filing a motion with this Court seeking to terminate the consent decree. The committee also was asked to make recommendations concerning the measures necessary to ensure that the practice of racial profiling did not occur in the event that the consent decree is terminated by this Court.
In its final report, the Advisory Committee indicated that the State of New Jersey should join in a motion to terminate the consent decree provided a mechanism was developed to ensure that the progress made by the State Police under the consent decree continues in the months and years ahead. In outlining its view of what needed to be done by the State to terminate the Decree, the Committee specifically recommended that the Office of State Police Affairs be assigned the responsibility to: 1) audit the Office of Professional Standards within the Division of State Police; 2) collect and analyze data with the Division of State Police and assess the adequacy of data collection; 3) review the functions of the Field Operations Section of the Division of State Police; and 4) exercise oversight of the Management Awareness Personal Performance System implemented by the Division of State Police.

Executive Summary

p. iv

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 6 of 50 PageID: 2717

Following the release of committee's final report on December 7, 2007, the independent monitors discussed the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee report with the State of New Jersey. Following those discussions and subsequent consultation with the Department of Justice resulted in a decision that the monitors would assist in preparing the State of New Jersey, the Office of State Police Affairs and the State Police for the termination of the consent decree. It was further agreed that the monitors would work with OSPA to ensure that the office developed the protocol and procedures necessary to effectively evaluate the issues addressed by the consent decree. The monitors also agreed to mentor personnel assigned to the OSPA to ensure that they developed the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to the undertake duties and responsibilities heretofore performed by the monitors.
This report marks the culmination of those efforts. In preparing the seventeenth report, staff assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs reviewed 376 motor vehicle stops including videotape reviews of 272 of the stops, gathered statistical data from those reviews and conducted an analysis of the data to determine whether the law enforcement activity undertaken by the State Police during motor vehicle stops was attributable to race. In addition, the staff evaluated the efforts of management at the State Police to supervise the activities of subordinate troopers through the Management Awareness Personnel Performance System and other mechanisms. Furthermore, the staff performed audits of the internal affairs function and the training function to determine compliance with the consent decree. All these activities were performed in accordance with protocol established by the independent monitors and with their guidance and assistance.
Training
The State Police continue to comply with every consent decree requirement applicable to the training function in the seventeenth reporting period. The New Jersey State Police Academy continues to refine and improve its ability to provide effective and meaningful training. More importantly, the Academy has initiated a process whereby each training program will comport with the strategic mission of the State Police and reflect the best practices of the law enforcement community.
As noted in the sixteenth report, the Academy had initiated an assessment to identify issues within the organization that could be addressed by training programs. With the seventeenth report, the assessment is complete and the State Police have moved to incorporate the findings of the assessment into the development and implementation of training programs.

Executive Summary

p. v

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 7 of 50 PageID: 2718

Previously, training programs and the curricula supporting those programs were developed by instructors based on what the instructors deemed to be important. During the seventeenth reporting period, the Academy discarded this approach to developing training programs. Moving forward training programs and the curricula supporting those programs will be developed based on the organization's strategic plan (intelligence-led policing), best practices identified as relevant to the topic of instruction and any issues identified by the organizational assessment. Instructors developing individual programs will be responsible for integrating the agency's strategic plan, relevant best practices and issues identified by the organizational assessment into the curricula supporting the programs. This process marks a significant improvement in the development of training programs and together with the post-implementation evaluation of training should serve to enhance and improve the training function within the State Police.
In addition, the Academy has taken steps to become the central repository for records concerning all requests by individual troopers to attend training programs, the delivery of training to all troopers whether by the State Police or a third party and the post-delivery evaluation of those programs. In the past, the Academy was not always advised that individual members of the State Police were attending training programs conducted by third party vendors. As a result, the Academy could not maintain "quality control" over the training delivered to members of the State Police. By establishing itself as the central repository for records regarding training requests and mandating the post-delivery evaluation of those programs, the Academy can implement a measure of quality control that ensures members of the State Police do not receive training that is inconsistent with the mission and goals of the organization and the consent decree.
Supervision
Three levels of review are utilized by the State Police to monitor the activities of individual troopers during motor vehicle stops. An initial review of each stop may be conducted within the trooper's immediate chain of command. The initial review and any subsequent reviews may include an examination of all paper documents generated by the incident as well as the video tape created by the mobile video recorder. Ideally, the initial review is conducted by the trooper's immediate supervisor. A second review may be conducted by management within the State Police. The purpose of the second review is to provide an element of quality control to the supervisory reviews conducted within the chain of command. A tertiary review is conducted by staff assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs.
In the past, State Police policy dictated that all incidents in which a law enforcement action was taken following the stop of a motor vehicle would be

Executive Summary

p. vi

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 8 of 50 PageID: 2719

subject to a video tape review. That policy was modified during the fifteenth reporting period to require a mandatory review of all incidents in which there was a request for consent to search a vehicle, a canine deployment or a use of force. All other incidents were not subject to a mandatory review. During this reporting period, 376 incidents were examined for by the Office of State Police Affairs. Of those incidents, OSPA noted a supervisory or management video tape review by the State Police in 300 incidents yielding a rate of review of approximately eighty percent. Those 300 reviews yielded 109 events in which State Police supervisory or management reviews noted errors by the troopers conducting the motor vehicle stop.
Error rates by supervisors and management in this reporting period remained consistent with error rates in previous reporting periods. Of the 376 incidents it reviewed, OSPA found that the State Police failed to identify and remedy errors in 16 of the incidents. This translates into an error rate of a little more than four percent, which satisfies the benchmark established for this process.
Two issues with respect to supervision may require further attention moving forward. First, 45 percent of the initial video tape reviews that were conducted of motor vehicle stops were conducted by someone outside the trooper's immediate chain of command. The independent monitors have previously noted that the initial reviews are most effective when performed by the trooper's immediate supervisor. Shifting the responsibility for these reviews away from the immediate supervisors may dampen the effectiveness of the supervisory process as it moves forward. Second, field supervision of motor vehicle stops reviewed by OSPA fell to 34 percent and continues a trend of decreasing field supervision noted in the sixteenth report. Field supervision of critical incidents remains at very high levels. However, field supervision of non-critical incidents has decreased. Lower levels of field supervision may compromise the ability of the State Police to effectively supervise the law enforcement activities of individual troopers during motor vehicle stops. Both issues will be examined in the next report to determine whether the effectiveness of the supervisory process is being compromised.
A third issue deserves mention for a different reason. During the seventeenth reporting period, the State Police appear to have finally resolved the issues that arose following the delivery of search and seizure training by third party vendors in 2006. The issues raised by the training programs were discussed in detail in the fifteenth report. For the purposes of this report it bears repeating that the programs led to a significant increase in problematic law enforcement activities, particularly consent requests, during motor vehicle stops.
It appears that during the seventeenth reporting period effective supervision of motor vehicle stops together with in-service training programs designed to

Executive Summary

p. vii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 9 of 50 PageID: 2720
address the issues created by the third party training programs have returned consent requests to levels consistent with reporting periods prior to the program. Supervisory and management reviews focused on correcting mistakes by individual troopers during the development of reasonable suspicion during motor vehicle stops. The New Jersey State Police Academy developed in-service training programs designed to address the principles of search and seizure during motor vehicle stops. These responses to an emerging problem provide direct support for the conclusion that the State Police has evolved into an organization that can analyze and correct problematic law enforcement activities on a "real time" basis. The State Police should be lauded for its response to this issue.
MAPPS Development
Full compliance continues regarding MAPPS information system capabilities. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and all five of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops have received written benchmarking and data analytic reports. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and delivered to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is being used in performance evaluations and subsequent supervisory actions including verbal counselings, performance notices and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced during the thirteenth reporting period.
The evolution of the use of the MAPPS data system into a proactive problem identification and problem solving system commenced during the fifteenth reporting period. Initially, MAPPS was intended to provide the State Police with information that focused on motor vehicle stops. During the fifteenth reporting period, the State Police moved beyond that narrow focus in its use of MAPPS to focus on systemic organizational issues and to craft solutions to those issues before they negatively impact the organization in any significant way. During this reporting period, the State Police used MAPPS and its affiliated processes to respond to issues of in-field enforcement and off-duty misconduct. MAPPS developed and now maintains a database on all consent requests (with canine deployments added after the reporting period) from which the Risk Assessment Core Group (RACG) compiles a quarterly report. Work also began during the seventeenth reporting period on developing a new module for MAPPS (and its associated policies), capturing use of force for reporting purposes. And, growing out of one of the issues raised in the fifteenth reporting period, the RACG has

Executive Summary

p. viii

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 10 of 50 PageID: 2721
worked with the Office of Professional Standards to enhance flagging of alleged off-duty misconduct within its database to facilitate further RACG analyses.
With respect to resources and capabilities, the MAPPS and RACG functions are adequately staffed at this point in time to address the workload presented by the consent decree. Both functions possess the technological capacity to generate and analyze data in response to issues posed by the consent decree and the organizational demands of the State Police. In addition, both functions have access to the data and information necessary to execute their responsibilities. Thus both functions remain in compliance with the consent decree.
Inspections. Audit and Oualitv Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review motor vehicle stop reports and video tapes elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. These quality control procedures yielded a consistency in the application of law enforcement procedures throughout the seventeenth reporting period. OSPA continues to provide the State Police with an additional tier of review for law enforcement activities related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
Compliance in all areas has met and continues to meet the requirements established by the Consent Decree. All functions subject to review under the decree including training, supervision, inspections, audits and MAPPS processes are fully staffed and functioning. In the opinion of the OSPA, the State Police continue to function as an organization that is able to "analyze and corr€ct" problematic law enforcement procedures on a "r€al time" basis. This accomplishment is consistent with the goal of the Consent Decree which was to encourage the development of a law enforcement organization that was monitor its activities and adapt to changes in the legal and criminal justice environments.

Executiv€ Summary

p. ix

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 11 of 50 PageID: 2722
Independent Monitors' Seventeenth Report Period Ending December 30, 2007
1 Introduction
This document represents the seventeenth "Independent Monitors' Report" (IMR) assessing the levels of compliance of the State of New Jersey (the State) with the requirements of a Consent Decree (Decree) entered into between the State and the United States Department of Justice on December 30, 1999. This document reflects the findings of the Office of State Police Affairs regarding compliance monitoring for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007.1
With this report, the State of New Jersey and the Office of State Police Affairs assumes the duties and responsibilities previously executed by the independent monitors. More specifically, with this report the Office of State Police Affairs has undertaken the steps necessary to review and assess the efforts of the State Police to maintain compliance with the Consent Decree and to report the results of its assessment and review to the Department of Justice.
The Office of State Police Affairs was tasked with the responsibility of preparing the seventeenth report with the encouragement and consent of the independent monitors and the Department of Justice. Following the release of the sixteenth report and the Report of the Advisory Committee on Police Standards, discussions were held between the independent monitors, the Department of Justice, the State of New Jersey and the Office of State Police Affairs as to the preparation of the seventeenth report. 2 From those discussions, it was agreed that the Office of State Police Affairs would begin to assume the duties formerly performed by the independent monitors including the preparation of the seventeenth report. It was further agreed that the seventeenth reporting period would encompass the 2007 calendar year due to the timing of the sixteenth report which was issued in August of 2007 and the completion of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Police Standards which was released in December of 2007.

1 Throughout this report, the terms "Office of State Police Affairs" and "monitoring team" will

be used interchangeably. The reader should not read either term to include the work of the

independent monitors. 2 In August of 2006, Governor Cor2ine established by executive order the Advisory Committee

on Police Standards. The committee was asked to perform several functions including making

recommendations to the governor concerning whether the State should join the Department of

Justice in moving to terminate the Consent Decree. The committee was also asked to identify

those measures that would ensure that the New Jersey State Police maintain the reforms

implemented under the Consent Decree.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 1

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 12 of 50 PageID: 2723

In addition, it was agreed that the Office of State Police Affairs would prepare a draft of the seventeenth report for the review and signature of the independent monitors. In doing so, it also was agreed that independent monitors would retain final authority with respect to content and analysis contained in the report. The report is organized into three sections, identified below:

•

Introduction;

•

Compliance Assessment; and

•

Summary.

The methodology employed by the Office of State Police Affairs in developing the report, definitions used by monitoring team, key dates for the monitoring process, and operational definitions of "compliance" are described in Section One of the report. Section Two of the report, "Compliance Assessment," includes the findings of the monitoring process implemented by the Office of State Police Affairs and specific examples of compliance and non-compliance observed during the monitoring process. Section Three of the report, "Summary," provides an overall assessment of the State's performance for this reporting period.

1.1 Overall Status Assessment

Two specific dates accrue to deliverables for the Decree: the date of entry of the Decree (December 30, 1999), which times deliverables of the State, and the date of appointments of the independent monitors (March 30, 2000), which times deliverables for the compliance monitoring process.

1.2 Format for Compliance Assessment

The IMR is organized to be congruent with the structure of the Consent Decree. It reports on the State's compliance using the individual requirements of the Decree. For example, the first section, the compliance assessment, deals with the requirements, in paragraph 26 of the Decree, relating to a specific prohibition against using "to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop" (Decree at paragraph 26). The remaining components of the Decree are treated
similarly. Compliance is classified as "Phase I," and "Phase II," with the definitions specified in Section 1.4, below.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 2

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 13 of 50 PageID: 2724

1.3 Compliance Assessment Processes

1.3.1

Structure of the Task Assessment Process

Members of the monitoring team have collected data on-site and have been provided data, pursuant to specific requests, by the New Jersey State Police. All data collected were of one of two types. They were either collected by:

•

Selection of a random or stratified random sample;

•

Selection of all available records of that type.

Under no circumstances were the data selected by the monitoring team based on provision of records of preference by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. In every instance of the selection of random samples, State Police personnel were provided lists requesting specific data, or the samples were drawn directly by members of the monitoring team.

The monitoring team assessed the performance of the New Jersey State Police on each task outlined in the Consent Decree for the calendar year ending December 31, 2007.3 The sixteenth independent monitors' report was submitted to the
court in August of 2007.

All determinations of status for the New Jersey State Police are data based, and were formed by a review of the following types of documents:

•

Official New Jersey State Police documents prepared in the normal course

of business;4 and/or

•

Electronic documents prepared by the State or components of state

government during the normal course of business.

1.3.2 Operational Definition of Compliance

For the purposes of this monitoring process, "compliance" consists of two components: Phase I compliance and Phase II compliance. Phase I compliance is

3 Motor vehicle stop activity was assessed through December 31, 2007, the last available date for complete electronic records for motor vehicle stops in order for the monitoring team to begin reviews in March 2008.
4 For example, members of the monitoring team would not accept for review as documentation of compliance "special reports" prepared by state personnel describing their activities relating to a specific task. Instead, the monitoring team would review records created during the delivery or performance of that task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 3

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 14 of 50 PageID: 2725

viewed as the administrative piece of compliance. It entails the creation of policy, procedure, rule, regulation, directive or command to "comply" as required by the text of the Decree. Phase II compliance deals with the implementation of a specific policy and requires that the policy must, by matter of evidence, be followed in day-to-day operations of the New Jersey State Police. It may entail the provision of training, supervision, audit, inspection, and discipline to achieve the implementation of a specific policy as designed. In commenting on the State's progress (or lack thereof) in achieving Phase II compliance for a specific task, the monitoring team may comment upon the efficacy of training, supervision, audit, inspection and discipline as applicable to that task.

Compliance levels for this monitoring process are reported both through a

narrative description and a graphic description. The narrative describes the

nature of the task requirement being assessed, a description of the methodology

used to assess the task, and a statement of compliance status. It is critical to

note, however, that a finding of non-compliance does not mean the State is

engaging in inappropriate behavior. It simply means the State has not yet

completed its efforts toward compliance. The graphic description depicts

compliance status using a standard bar graph to indicate status in each

compliance area. Each graphic consists of four segments, depicted below. The

first segment depicts each reporting period (four quarterly reports for the first

year and two reports for each following year). The second segment depicts the

time allowed by the Consent Decree to complete the particular task. This time

period is represented by the solid, dark blue bar

. The third and

fourth segments represent the time required to complete the task, and to achieve

Phase I or Phase II compliance. A vertically patterned light blue bar llilllilllll

indicates that compliance was achieved in the time allotted. A diagonally

patterned yellow bar 1 1 indicates that compliance was achieved at a

later date than originally allocated in the Decree, but that the delay, in the

opinion of the monitors, does not seriously affect the State's eventual compliance

with the Decree. A horizontally patterned orange bar

indicates that

compliance was achieved at a later date than originally allocated in the Decree,

and the delay may seriously affect the State's eventual compliance with the

Decree. A solid red bar

indicates expired time which is more than that

allowed by the Decree, and which, in the judgment of the monitors does seriously

threaten the State's successful compliance with the Decree. A task that was not,

or could not be monitored is represented by a hollow bar I I .

1.3.3 Standards for "Compliance"

The parties have agreed to a quantitative standard for "compliance" to be used for assessing compliance for all critical, constitutionally relevant tasks stipulated by the Decree which can be quantified. On tasks for which quantitative data can

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 4

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 15 of 50 PageID: 2726

be collected, e.g., the number of Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) that conform to the requirements of the Decree, a standard of greater than 94 percent compliance is used. This means that at least 95 percent of the reports reviewed conformed to the requirements of the Decree. This standard is widely used in social science, and is adapted by mutual agreement for this project. For tasks not directly related to constitutional issues, e.g., recording of specific motor vehicle stop events, the parties and the monitors have agreed to hold the state to a 90 percent standard.
1.3.4 Compliance with a Hypothetical Task

Task nn
Phase I Phase II

13 14

This graphic is a hypothetical depiction of a task in which the State has been assessed to be in Phase I compliance in the first reporting period, and in which Phase II compliance was attained in the twelfth reporting period, much later than required by the Decree, and thus did seriously threaten the State's successful compliance with the Decree.

1.4 Flow of the Monitoring Process

Compliance audits and monitoring processes typically consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on issues of "policy compliance:" the development of policies, rules, regulations and directives to comply. In many cases, the processes required of the agency are new enough to preclude an early evaluation of Phase II compliance processes designed to ensure day-to-day implementation of the requirements. The second phase focuses on issues of operational compliance and institutionalizing change into the day-to-day operations of the agency.

In preparing previous reports, the independent monitors developed and employed specific methods and practices to determine compliance with the Consent Decree. Because the Consent Decree remains in effect and the independent monitors will review and approve a draft of the seventeenth report prepared by the Office of State Police Affairs before its submission to the federal court, the monitoring team closely adhered to the methods and practices previously implemented by the independent monitors to assess motor vehicle stops including critical incidents (Tasks 26 through 39), Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System (Tasks 40 through 54) and training (Tasks 97 through 109). The following is a brief outline of the methods and practices

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 5

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 16 of 50 PageID: 2727

implemented by the independent monitors in previous reports and utilized by the monitoring team in preparing the seventeenth report:
Motor Vehicle Stops
The Consent Decree mandates that all incidents defined as critical by the State and the independent monitors be reviewed for compliance with the Decree.5 Each review of a critical incident consists of two phases. In the first phase, an examination is conducted of all of the reports prepared as a result of the incident (stop report, arrest report, etc.). In the second phase, the tape produced by the motor vehicle recorder during the stop is examined. The review serves two purposes. First, each review determines whether the actions of the State Police were consistent with federal and State constitutional law. Second, each review determines whether the actions of the State Police were consistent with the provisions of the Consent Decree and specific rules and regulations adopted by the State Police.
The Office of State Police Affairs continued the practices outlined above. A total of 184 reviews of critical incidents were conducted during the preparation of this report. The number of critical reviews is higher than the number of critical incidents reviewed by the independent monitors in previous reports. The higher number of critical incidents for this report is attributable to the fact that this reporting period encompasses entire calendar year rather than the more typical six month reporting period. Some critical incidents included more than one law enforcement activity (e.g., consent request, canine deployment, etc.).
In addition to the incidents outlined above, the independent monitors also examined a sizable number of incidents that were drawn from a larger number of motor vehicle stops in which other significant law enforcement activity took place.6 A review of all reports associated with these stops would be conducted by the independent monitors. In addition, a review of the tapes produced by the motor vehicle recorders during these stops would be conducted for a selected number of stops. For this report, 192 of these more routine motor vehicle stops were chosen for review by the Office of State Police Affairs. The reviews

5 The State and the independent monitors have agreed that the following law enforcement activities constitute critical incidents in the context of a motor vehicle stop: a) a consent to search request is made; b) physical, mechanical or deadly force is used; or c) a canine deployment occurs.

6 The significant law enforcement activities specified by the decree include probable cause arrests, probable cause searches, frisks of the person and the seizure of contraband.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 6

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 17 of 50 PageID: 2728
undertaken by the monitoring team utilized the same practices and statistical analyses implemented by the independent monitors in previous reports.
Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System
The independent monitors would access MAPPS at various times during the review period to ensure that all relevant information was entered into the system. The monitors also examined whether the State Police undertook appropriate risk management activities based on the information contained in MAPPS. The Office of State Police Affairs did the same in the preparation of this report.
Training
The independent monitors utilized a seven step process to evaluate the training function within the Division of State Police. That process included the following components: a) needs assessment; b) curriculum development; c) delivery of the program; d) evaluation of the program; e) revision of the curriculum; f) effectiveness of the program; and g) documentation of training. In conducting its review of the training function, the Office of State Police Affairs utilized the same seven step process.
2 Assessment of Compliance
2.1 Methodology
The monitors assessed the State's compliance using practices agreed upon between the parties and the monitors. "Compliance" was assessed as Phase I or Phase II (see section 1.3.2, above).
The following sections of the sixteenth Monitors' Report contain a detailed assessment of the degree to which the State has complied with the tasks to which it agreed on December 30, 1999. The reporting period for this report deals with actions of the State to comply with the Decree between October 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 7

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 18 of 50 PageID: 2729

2.2 Compliance with Task 26: Prohibition from Using Race-Ethnicity in Decision Making

Task 26
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 26 stipulates that:
26. Except in the "suspect-specific" ("be on the lookout" or "BOLO") situation described below, state troopers shall continue to be prohibited from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or national or ethnic origin of civilian drivers or passengers in deciding which vehicles to subject to any motor vehicle stop and in deciding upon the scope or substance of any enforcement action or procedure in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Where state troopers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for one or more specific suspects who have been identified or described in part by race or national or ethnic origin, state troopers may rely in part on race or national or ethnic origin in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
Methodology
During the seventeenth site visit, members of the Office of State Police (OSPA) monitoring team conducted structured reviews of the operations of sampled New Jersey State Police Road Stations for all troops, with the exception of Troop B. These reviews were conducted of motor vehicle stop operations reported during the dates January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, inclusive (the last month for which electronic data were available)? As part of this review, members of

7 The seventeenth reporting period is the only period in which a full year of data were analyzed,

a fact that led to higher numbers of reported post-stop activities.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 8

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 19 of 50 PageID: 2730

the monitoring team collected and/or reviewed course-of-business data on 376 New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stop incidents. In addition, the team reviewed 272 motor vehicle stop incidents involving law enforcement procedures stipulated in the Decree through mobile video recordings (MVRs), available from cameras mounted in patrol cars and microphones attached to troopers on scene. Supporting documentation was reviewed for each of the motor vehicle stops assessed by the monitoring team. The following paragraphs describe the monitoring team's methodology for data collection and analysis of the structured site visits. These descriptions apply to the assessment of compliance of various tasks required by the Decree, and are critically important in the assessment of tasks 26 through 36.

Data Requests

Prior to beginning reviews in March 2008, the monitoring team requested of the New Jersey State Police electronic and hard copy (non-electronic) data regarding State Police operations. These data requests included the following electronicformat data:

• Electronic data for all motor vehicle stop activity for the troops selected relating to an incident in which personnel engaged in one of the eight articulated post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the Decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or nonconsensual search of a person or vehicle; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force.

• Electronic data for all trooper-initiated motor vehicle stop "communications center call-ins" for the stations selected, including time of completion of the stop and results of the stop.

• The monitoring team also requested copies of documentation created for all consent search requests, canine deployments, and incidents involving use or force by New Jersey State Police personnel statewide, where such events took place in conjunction with a motor vehicle stop, as defined by the Decree. The request covered all these events in 2007.

Based on these data requests, the monitoring team was provided with all motor vehicle stop (MVS) records for Troops A, C, D and E (taken from the State's motor vehicle stop report entry system) referred to by the New Jersey State Police as motor vehicle stop "event" records. Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) System records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 9

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 20 of 50 PageID: 2731

the selected stations from July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. This selection process differed from previous reporting periods. 8

Data reviewed by the monitoring team for the seventeenth site visit included the types of incidents noted in Table One, below.

Table One: Incidents Reviewed by Monitoring Team For Seventeenth Site Visit
(January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007)

Type of ActivitY Selected MVS Incidents MVS Involving Consent Search Requests MVS Involving Canine Deployment MVS Involving Use of Force Probable Cause Searches of Vehicles Probable Cause Searches of Persons

Report Reviews 376 142
55
30
157
61

Tape Reviews~ 272 141
54
30
103
59

Motor Vehicle Stops

Based on the data provided by the New Jersey State Police, the monitoring team selected specific law enforcement activities for further assessment and analysis. The methodology for selecting these law enforcement activities consisted of identifying all post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the Decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search of person or vehicle; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or

8 Past monitoring reports drew sample events for the same time period as for the incidents involving consent requests, canine deployments and uses of force, and, from only two troops on a rotating basis. Because only one monitoring report is being produced for calendar year 2007, all four troops that would have comprised the universe for events in two monitoring periods were sampled. These events were chosen from the latter half of 2007 to insure review of the most recent data possible and to expedite retrieval of motor vehicle recordings.
9 Tape and report reviews total more than 376 due to the fact that a//tapes and most reports reviewed included more than a single class of law enforcement activity.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 10

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 21 of 50 PageID: 2732

chemical force, for each road station assessed. These events were identified using the CAD records provided by the New Jersey State Police.
The overall sample of 376 drivers includes all 184 drivers who were subjected to a critical post-stop interaction, i.e., a consent search request, canine deployment or use of force. In addition, the monitors selected 192 other drivers as part of the seventeenth report's driver sample. These drivers were selected from Troops A, C, D, and E based on their status as having had a non-critical post-stop interaction performed during their traffic stop, e.g., exit from a vehicle, frisk, probable cause search of a person, probable cause search of a vehicle, or arrest. In effect, then, 48.9 percent of the seventeenth report's drivers sample was selected in response to a given New Jersey State Police action and produced a statewide sample, and 51.1 percent was selected by the monitors, and produced a Troops A, C, D, and E sample.
Incidents selected for review by the monitoring team were subjected to three types of assessment:
• Events that were reviewed using reported data, i.e., motor vehicle stops which resulted in post-stop activities of interest to the Decree, and that were reviewed by comparing the electronic data to data included in motor vehicle stop reports and supporting documents (patrol logs, summonses, consent to search reports etc.), referred to as Type I data;
• Events that were reviewed using both reported data and by reviewing recordings of the motor vehicle stop in question, referred to as Type II data; and
• Events that were reviewed simply by viewing video recordings events following a selected motor vehicle stop incident, using a procedure developed to ensure that all events, which should be reported by MVSR, are actually reported, referred to as Type III data.
These records indicated 113 events that resulted in consent search requests were from the stations selected for review this reporting period, and 29 such events were from other units (stations in Troop B or other, non-road station units), for a total of 142 consent search requests. 10 All incidents involving consent search requests were assessed by reviewing New Jersey State Police reports documenting the consent and execution of the search, and by reviewing the available video tape records for those consent requests. All but one consent

10 Drivers declined 32 consent requests during the reporting period.
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 11

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 22 of 50 PageID: 2733

searches conducted was subjected to both documentation and video recording review by the monitoring team. 11
Similarly, the New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 55 times during the reporting period. The monitoring team reviewed reports from 55 of these events, and the monitoring team also reviewed videos from 54 of those events. New Jersey State Police personnel reportedly used force in 30 motor vehicle stop incidents during the reporting period, and the monitoring team reviewed all reports from those incidents. The reader should note that members of the monitoring team reviewed all Motor Vehicle Stop Reports and associated documentation (patrol charts, citations, arrest reports, DUI reports, etc.) for the following New Jersey State Police activities:
• All known consent search requests; • All known uses of force; and • All known deployments of canine units.
Selected motor vehicle stop incidents and procedures were subjected to one (or more) of three types of reviews performed by the monitoring team. The types of reviews used by the monitoring team are described below, and a summation of the types of review performed by station, are depicted in Table Two, below.
Type I Event Reviews
A Type I event review consisted of reviewing all available hard-copy and electronic documentation of an event. For example, an event review could consist of reviewing the motor vehicle stop report, associated records in the patrol log, a supporting consent to search report, and associated summonses or arrest records. Each post-stop event consisting of law enforcement procedure of interest to the Decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force was subjected to a structured analysis using a form developed by the monitoring team. Problems with the reporting process were noted and tallied using this form. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 376 Type I reviews were conducted this period.

11 One consent request (which was denied) was not recorded due to a malfunction of the video recorder. This event also included a canine deployment.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 12

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 23 of 50 PageID: 2734

Type II Event Review
A Type II event review consisted of reviewing the associated video tape for a given motor vehicle stop event, and comparing the actions noted on the tape with the elements reported in the official documents related to the event. These data were collected using a form developed by the monitoring team. These data were shared with the New Jersey State Police, and clarifications were requested and received in instances in which there was doubt about the status of an event or supporting documentation. A total of 272 Type II reviews was conducted this period.

Table Two: Distribution of Monitoring Events

Station
A040 Bridgeton A050 Woodbine A090 Buena Vista AlOO Port Norris A140 Woodstown A160 Atlantic Citv Exp. A310 Bellmawr C020 Bordentown C030 Allenwood C040 Kinqwood C060 Hamilton COSO Red Lion C120 Tuckerton DOlO Cranbury D020 Moorestown D030 Newark E030 Bass River E040 Bloomfield E050 Sayreville Other
Total

Type I Type II Type III Reviews Reviews Reviews

19

14

0

6

0

0

5

3

0

7

5

0

18

13

0

43

17

0

17

11

0

17

10

0

12

12

0

3

1

0

13

4

0

11

9

0

7

4

0

33

28

0

43

36

0

21

19

0

15

10

0

9

8

0

12

11

0

65

57

0

376 272

0

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 13

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 24 of 50 PageID: 2735

Type III Event Review
In order to provide a probability that the monitors would note any events, which should have been reported, based on the requirements of the Decree, but were not reported as required, the monitoring team in the past had developed a protocol that sampled events after a selected event at a road station. For example, if a motor vehicle stop incident, which occurred at 3am, was selected for review, seven events recorded occurring immediately after that were also eligible for review. All events selected for a Type III (video-based) review in the past, had been subjected to a structured review using a form developed by the monitoring team. Based on past performance, eleven consecutive periods in which no unreported events were discovered, no Type III reviews were conducted this reporting period.
Status
The monitors continue to review State Police activity for processes that indicate that relatively minor infractions serve as the only precursory violation resulting in requests for consent searches, requests to exit the vehicle, frisks, or other law enforcement procedures. In past reports, the vast majority of all sampled searches of persons and vehicles conducted by members of the State Police were "non-discretionary," e.g., searches incidental to arrest. Based on revised New Jersey case law, 12 effective the fifteenth reporting period, the search of a vehicle can no longer be conducted as incidental to arrest, leading to a substantial change in the nature of searches of vehicles. "Consent request" now is the number one reason for a search of a vehicle, with 53.6 percent of all sampled searches of vehicles based on a request for consent to search in the monitoring team's review sample. [This rate is calculated as 142 consent requests divided by 265 vehicle searches---an event calculation; some events had more that one type of vehicle search.] Of the 244 searches of persons reviewed this reporting period, 183 were "non-discretionary" searches incidental to arrest.
As with the fifteenth and sixteenth reporting periods, two activities this period were conducted frequently enough to lend themselves to statistical analysis for indications of race- or ethnicity-based decision making on the part of the New Jersey State Police: consent requests (n=142) and canine deployments (n=55). Table Three, below, depicts consent request activity for the last nine reporting periods. Figure One depicts these data graphically. The current reporting period is divided into two six-month groupings to adjust for the full-year reporting period examined for consent requests, making each group equivalent to the

12 State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (2006). Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 14

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 25 of 50 PageID: 2736

length of the 16th reporting period. The data show a continued decrease in the number of consent requests, which peaked in the previous reporting period.

Table Three: Consent Requests for Past Nine Reporting Periods

Reporting Period
9tn 10tn 11tn 12tn 13m 14m 1St" 16tn 1i"a14 1i"b

Consent Requests
9 7 12 34 23 30 94 134 85 57

%
Increase/ (Decrease).
--
(22.2)
71.4 64.7 (26.5) 30.4 213.315 42.5 (36.6) (32.9)

13 During the fifteenth reporting period, the decision in State v. Eckel (185 NJ 523 (2006)) removed "search incidental to arrest" as a legal justification for search of vehicle.

14 The 17'" reporting period is divided into two, six-month periods.
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 15

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 26 of 50 PageID: 2737

160
. 140
~ 120
" g
-.a: 100
c
(I)
c 80
-0
0 0 60
~
(I)
..0
E 40
z " 20
0

Figure One: Consent Search Requests by Reporting Period15
Consent Requests
9th 1oth 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17tha 17thb Period

Data in Table Four depict the total number of drivers by race, who were and were not asked for consent to search in the overall sample of 376, and the percentage of drivers by race (in parentheses) for each group. For example, Table Four depicts a sample of drivers not asked for a consent to search for this period of 234, with 63, or 26.9 percent being white. Similarly, Table Four depicts consent search requests for 72 black drivers, or 50.7 percent of the total of 142 drivers who were askedfor permission to search their vehicles.16 The data in Table Four thus show that the highest proportion of consent requests were of black drivers, (by a factor of as much as more than two times that of white and Hispanic drivers). Black drivers comprised a higher percentage of consent requests in this period compared to the sixteenth period, when they were 39.6 percent of consent requests. The proportion of consent requests made of Hispanic drivers decreased from the previous period when it was more similar to that for black drivers. As in sixteenth report, these data are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences are not attributable to

15 The 17'" reporting period is divided into two, six-month periods. 16 A total of 32 drivers refused consent.
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 16

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 27 of 50 PageID: 2738

chance. 17 A statistically significant result does not "prove" that the differences observed in post-stop law enforcement actions were attributable to race or ethnicity. The result simply indicates that the outcomes observed this reporting period relating to consent requests have a five-percent (or less) probability that they were due to chance.

Table Four: Consent Requests by Race-Ethnicity of Driver 17th Reporting Period

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Total

No Consent Request(%)
63 (26.9 90 (38.5 81 (34.6 0 (0.0 0 (0.0 234 (100.0

Consent
Request (%'
34 (23.9 72 (50.7 33 (23.2
1 (0.7 2 (1.4 142 (100.0

Similarly, as shown in Table Five, black drivers also comprised the highest
proportion of drivers in events involving canine deployments, (by a factor of over
two). Table Five depicts a canine deployment occurred for 30 black drivers, or for
54.5 percent of the total of 55 drivers who had a canine unit deployed for drug detection purposes during their motor vehicle stop. The same table depicts a total sample of drivers in events without a canine deployment for this period of
321, with 132 drivers, or 41.1 percent, being black. Thus, black drivers
predominate among those events with and without a canine deployment. Unlike
the distribution in the sixteenth report, these data are then not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences may be attributable to chance. 18

17 Chi-Square analysis of consent request data yielded a Chi-Square of 7.149 with two degrees of freedom, and a p-value 0.028. The distribution was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. The Chi-Square test was run on white versus black and Hispanic drivers only, as inclusion of other categories generated at least one expected frequency less than "5."
18 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 3.942 with two degrees of freedom, and a p-value of 0.139. The distribution was not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. The ChiSquare test was run on white versus black and Hispanic drivers only, as inclusion of other categories generated at least one expected frequency less than "S." See Annex Two, for the data table reporting these data.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 17

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 28 of 50 PageID: 2739

Table Five: Canine Deployments by Race-Ethnicity of Driver,
1ih Reporting Period

Race/Ethnicity

No Canine

Deployment (%)

White

87 (27.1

Black

132 (41.1

Hispanic

100 (31.2

Asian Indian

1 (0.3

Other

1 (0.3

Total

321 (100.0

Canine Deployment(%)
10 (18.2 30 (54.5 14 (25.5'
0 (0.00 1 (1.8 55 (100.0

The reader should note that Tables Four and Five compare drivers who are subjected to consent requests and canine deployments to the sampled drivers who were not subjected to such post-stop activities, by race and ethnicity and the Chi-square analysis assessed whether or not the comparison was strong enough to be statistically significant. As noted previously, the overall sample of
376 drivers includes all 184 drivers who were subjected to a critical post-stop
interaction, e.g., a consent search request, canine deployment or use of force.
In addition, the monitors selected 192 other drivers as part of the seventeenth
report's driver sample, based on their status as having had a non-critical poststop interaction performed during their traffic stop, e.g., exit from a vehicle, frisk, probable cause search of a person, probable cause search of a vehicle, or arrest.
To examine further whether or not these consent request and canine deployment data are related to race or ethnicity-or are attributable to other factors directly related to the specific characteristics of the
stops-requires a qualitative analysis of the interactions between New
Jersey State Police troopers and drivers based on the race and ethnicity of drivers subjected to these specific post-stop interactions. The qualitative analyses related to Task 26 are reported in Section 2.2.1. These analyses reflect new processes, conducted and reported for the first time in the last monitors' report. Prior reports did not have statistically significant test statistics related to post-stop interactions by race warranting further examination.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 18

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 29 of 50 PageID: 2740
2.2.1 Qualitative Analysis of Stop and Interaction Data
Background
The fact that individuals stopped by the New Jersey State Police are treated differently, and that the differences in treatment coalesce around factors of race and ethnicity is not prima facia evidence of race- or ethnicity-based decision making in policing the state of New Jersey. The operative question is why individuals are treated differently.
For example, in the sample for the seventeenth reporting period, New Jersey State Police personnel arrested 1.3 times more white drivers than black drivers. Table Six depicts arrest data by race and ethnicity. The distribution of arrest by race and ethnicity is statistically significant, i.e., not attributable to chance. (See Annex Two for statistical data tables.) In reviewing these data, we find that 76 percent of white drivers stopped by New Jersey State Police personnel and in this sample were arrested, compared with only 59 percent of black drivers and 57 percent of Hispanics drivers sampled. An analysis of the qualitative differences in the arrests-or more specifically the reason for the arrests-partially illustrates why these differences in arrest rates were observed.
Table Six depicts the results of the qualitative analysis of arrest data, and indicates the execution of non-discretionary arrests 15 percent of the time with white drivers' vehicles because they (or a passenger) had outstanding warrants, non-discretionary arrests 40 percent of the time with black drivers' vehicles because they (or a passenger) had outstanding warrants, and non-discretionary arrests of 19 percent of Hispanic drivers' vehicles because they (or a passenger) had outstanding warrants. Taking that fact into consideration, the operative question then becomes "How did New Jersey State Police troopers make decisions in the discretionary aspects of their interactions with drivers?"
It is in this area that drivers seem the most vulnerable to the exercise of discretion. Is there a qualitative difference in the way troopers exercise discretion when dealing with drivers of differing races and ethnicities? The qualitative review reveals that white and Hispanic drivers are arrested less frequently for warrant violations than black drivers, but more frequently for probable cause, often for drunk driving.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 19

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 30 of 50 PageID: 2741

Table Six: Arrest Data by Race-Ethnicity of Driver, 17th Reporting Period19

Race/ Ethnicity

a. All Drivers Stopped
(%of Total)

b.No Arrest (%of a)
'

c. Arrest (%of a)

White. Black Hispanic Asian Indian
Other Total

97 (25.8) 162 (43.1) 114 (30.3)
1 (0.3)
2 (0.5) 376 (100.0)

23 (23.7) 67 (41.4) 49 (43.0)
1 (100.0)
1 (50.0) 141 (37.5)

74 (76.3) 95 (58.6) 65 (57.0)
0
1 (50.0) 235 (62.5)

d. Warrant-
Based Arrests (%of c) 11 (14.9) 38 (40.0) 12 (18.5) 0
0 61 (26.0)
.

e. Probable Cause-Based
Arrests (%of c)
63 (85.1) 57 (60.0) 53 (81.5)
0 1 (100.0) 174 (74.0)

The majority of arrests made by New Jersey State Police troopers in the data sampled by the monitors this period were non-discretionary. Over one-quarter of the arrests (26 percent) were arrests only for outstanding warrants. Of the probable cause arrests, 94 of the 174 were drunk driving arrests and the remainder were for possession of contraband or overt criminal activity in view of
the arresting trooper. Thus, while arrest rates are different, by race, it appears that they are different based on the nature of the interaction and the criminal offenses committed in the troopers' presence, not based on race.
Because rates for consent requests are statistically significant, based on race and ethnicity, a similar qualitative analysis is necessary for these post-stop interactions to determine if race and ethnicity is the operative factor leading to these differences, or if there are other factors contributing to the differences. Unlike for the sixteenth reporting period, there is no statistically significant relationship between canine deployments and race and ethnicity. Nonetheless, the same analyses are repeated for the current reporting period in regard to canine deployments to assess factors possibly suppressing the effects of race or ethnicity.

19Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 10.377 with two degrees of freedom,

and a p value of 0.006. The distribution was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex

Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values. The Chi-Square test was run on

white versus black and Hispanic drivers only, as inclusion ofother categories generated at

least one expected frequency less than ·~." See Annex Two, for the data table reporting these

data.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 20

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 31 of 50 PageID: 2742

2.2.2 Theoretical Bases for Analysis of Post-Stop
In the sixteenth monitors' report, the details of the theoretical bases for the analysis of post-stop activity were laid out and are only summarized here. The key component of determining whether race- and ethnicity-based decision making is being employed in a police agency revolves around: reviewing the highly discretionary tasks and determining if similarly situated individuals are being similarly treated.
2.2.2.1 A Discretionary Model of Policing
Constructing the model of discretionary policing is straightforward:
• Identify routine police tasks subject to potential abuse, e.g., powers of stop, warning, citation, detention, release, frisk, arrest, search, use of force, and seizure;
The model considers these activities outcome variables, i.e., to the extent that individual drivers are treated differently, any disparity in treatment will come within or among these variables.
• Identify and define the levels of discretion associated with each of these critical tasks and their respective sub-elements;
The universe of variables leading to execution ofoutcome variables (stop, detention, arrest, etc.) are the events commonly referred to as "reason for the stop. " These events are considered ''input variables, "in that they are the events that give rise to the use oflaw enforcement powers and can be classified into three groups, depending on the amount ofdiscretion associated with them. Theoretically, some activities will almost always result in a law enforcement response if they are observed by the police {low discretion); other activities usually will result in a law enforcement response ifthey are observed by the police (median discretion); and, a third class of violations will less often result in a law enforcement response if they are observed by the police (high discretion). Annex One contains a categorical list ofreasons for law enforcement stops. 20

20 The independent monitors previously discussed with New Jersey State Police personnel the

nature of the "reason for stop" offenses. While there remain some differences in opinion

regarding high versus low discretion incidents, the framework presented above is the best

available framework obtainable, in the monitors' opinion, to assess the exercise of discretion in

studied traffic stops. Further work in this area may require revision of the reason for stop

continuum. For example, motorist aids are non-discretionary, and are often dispatched rather

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 21

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 32 of 50 PageID: 2743
• Identify the critical decision point associated with each level of discretion;
The critical decision point is the decision point in deciding to take enforcement action on a highly discretionary violations or activity. If discretion will be abused to any significant degree, it will be in areas ofenforcement in which high levels ofdiscretion are present.
• Define abuse of discretion; and
Law enforcement discretion is abused when it is used differently in relation to protected classes such as race and ethnicity. Ifboth input and outcome variables indicate higher rates for a given race or ethnici~ a strong case could be made for the presence ofan abuse ofdiscretionary powers on the part of the enforcing agent
• Test for abuse of discretion.
If there is no abuse ofdiscretion there would be no difference in stop rates of drivers sampled this reporting period (by race or ethnicity}, for highly discretionary violations. There would also be no difference in outcome variables (stop, detention, warning, citation, release, frisk, arrest search, use offorce, and seizure) by race and ethnicity for these highly discretionary violations. 21
Table Seven, below, depicts the results of the analysis for sampled drivers stopped by the New Jersey State Police this reporting period and eventually asked for consent to search the vehicle by the reason for the traffic stop. The results of the Chi -Square analysis are not significant, yielding a test statistic of 2.889 with two degrees of freedom. The test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

than being "on-site" events. Activities at rest stop (rest stop overstays, etc.) are often called in

by the rest stop managers, not initiated by troopers. 21 After controlling for intervening variables such as lack of identification, proof of ownership,

etc.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 22

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 33 of 50 PageID: 2744

Table Seven:
Consent Request by Race-Ethnicity of Driver and Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion) 17th Reporting Period22

Race/Ethnicity High Discretion Stops (1)

White

16

Black

26

Hispanic

12

Asian Indian

0

Other

1

Total

55

Median Discretion Stops (2)
6
7
6 0 0 19

Low Discretion Stops (3)
12 39 15 1 1 68

Mean
1.88 2.18 2.09
--
--
2.09

Higher scores for each driver group (white, black and Hispanic) indicate less use of discretion, i.e., higher scores demonstrate less of a tendency to stop drivers for highly discretionary violations and then request consent to search. The intragroup mean (arithmetical average) is a statistic that allows the inference of the direction of any potential bias, as the Chi-5quare statistic does not impute the direction of any group differences. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the direction of any potential bias. Thus, the Chi-Square and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observed (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias demonstrated by the data in Table Seven actually favors black drivers, i.e., black drivers stopped and eventually asked for consent to search, were stopped for less discretionary reasons than white and Hispanic drivers. The same pattern was observed in the previous reporting period. Thus, as in the sixteenth report, any suggestion that troopers were stopping minority drivers for more discretionary reasons, i.e., abusing their discretion is not supported by the analysis. The "drivers sampled" for this test statistic consisted of all drivers stopped by the New Jersey State Police this reporting period who were asked for consent to search and for whom a reason for the traffic stop was known.

22 A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for

white, black and Hispanic drivers yielded cell sizes too small to produce a valid test statistic. The

statistic of 2.889, with two degrees of freedom is not significant at the 0.05 level. See Annex Two

for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values, and for statistical data tables.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 23

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 34 of 50 PageID: 2745

Table Eight, below, depicts the results of the Chi-Square analysis for canine deployment stops by reason for the stop for the seventeenth reporting period.
The drivers sampled for this table included all drivers stopped who eventually had
a drug-detection canine deployed during their stops. The Chi-Square analysis for this table was not significant, yielding a test statistic of 0.330 with two degrees of freedom. The result indicates that the differences observed in the data were likely attributable to chance. The test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Eight:
Canine Deployments by Reason for Stop ~Level of Discretion) 1ih Reporting Period2

Race/Ethnicity High Discretion Stops (1)

White

4

Black

14

Hispanic

4

Asian Indian

--

Other

--

Total

22

Median Discretion
Stops (2)
2 4
2
--
--
8

Low Discretion Stops (3)
I
4 12
8
--
1 25

Mean
2.00 1.93 2.29
---
2.05

Again, the Chi-Square and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observed (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias in this reporting period favors Hispanic drivers, with black and white drivers stopped
and subject to canine deployments stopped for more discretionary reasons than
Hispanic drivers. Thirteen black drivers had canines deployed in conjunction with a denied consent request, as did seven white drivers. In the previous reporting period, the difference in stop reason discretion across driver groups was also not statistically significant, but the means indicated bias favoring white drivers. The findings for black drivers are consistent across the periods, indicating somewhat more discretionary reasons for stops among black drivers whose vehicles were later subject to canine deployments.

23A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for

white, black and Hispanic drivers were too small to produce a valid test statistic. A

Chi-Square statistic of 0.330, with two degrees of freedom is not significant at the

0.05 level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values,

and for statistical data tables.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 24

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 35 of 50 PageID: 2746

Table Nine, below, depicts the results of the Chi-Square analysis for all motor
vehicle stops by reason for the stop. The analysis, as in the 16th reporting period, is not significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that any differences in scores
among races and ethnicities are attributable to chance. The results of the Chi-
Square analysis yield a test statistic of 0.635 with four degrees of freedom. There
is no statistically significant support for the hypothesis that troopers represented in this sample of stopped drivers are stopping vehicles at a higher rate, or engaging in articulated post-stop activities, based on the race or ethnicity of the drivers. The direction of the analysis favors white drivers, as did the analysis in the previous reporting period, i.e., white drivers stopped were stopped for less discretionary reasons than black and Hispanic drivers. Any suggestion that troopers were stopping minority drivers for more discretionary reasons, i.e., abusing their discretion is again not supported by the statistical analysis.
Table Nine: Sampled Vehicle Stop Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion)
lih Reporting Period 24•25

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Total

High Discretion 1. Median

(1)

Discretion (2)

32

27

61

41

41

31

0

0

1

0

135

99

Low Discretion
(3) 38 60 42
1 1 142

Mean
2.06
1.99
2.01
---
2.02

Table Ten, below, depicts the results of the Chi-Square analysis for the reason for consent request. As with the reason for the stop, reason for consent request was classified into three groups: intangible, tangible, and probative. Intangible reasons included observations such as nervousness, failure to make eye contact, uncertainty in answers, and conflicting statements. Tangible reasons included the existence of air fresheners, modifications to vehicle interiors, "boost" cell phones, etc. Probative reasons included artifacts of gang membership {such as tattoos, admitted membership), odor of burnt or raw marijuana in the vehicle, admissions

24 A Chi-Square statistic of 0.635, with four degrees of freedom is not significant at the 0.05

level. See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values, and for

statistical data tables. 25 Other race and ethnicity classifications were deleted from the Chi-Square table as

they generate expected frequencies below "5':

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 25

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 36 of 50 PageID: 2747

against self-interest, criminal histories related to a tangible crime. The results of the Chi-Square analysis yielded a test statistic of 3.368 with two degrees of freedom. The data are not significant at the 0.05 level, indicating no statistical difference in reason for consent request by race and/or ethnicity. The statistical outcome was different in the sixteenth reporting period, when the differences in reasons for consent requests by race and ethnicity yielded a statistically significant Chi-Square test.

Table Ten: Reason for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity
17th Reporting Period26

Race/Ethnicity White Black
Hispanic Asian Indian
Other Total

Intanqible (1) 2 4 7 0 0 13

Tangible (2) 3 12 8 0 2 25

Probative (3) 29 56 18 1 0
104

Mean 2.79 2.72 2.33
---
2.64

As with the scores for discretion in the reason for stop, higher scores above for any driver group (white, black and Hispanic) indicate less use of discr€tion. Here, higher scores demonstrate a tendency to request consent for more probative reasons. The intragroup mean (arithmetical average) is a statistic that allows the inference of the direction of any potential racial or ethnic bias, as the Chi-Square statistic does not impute the direction of any group differenc€s. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the direction of any potential bias. Thus, the Chi-Square and the mean, taken together, can be used to determine whether any potential bias was observ€d (based on race and/or ethnicity) and the direction of that potential bias. The direction of any potential bias actually somewhat favors white and black driv€rs, i.e., white and black drivers stopped and eventually asked for consent to search were asked for less discretionary reasons than Hispanic drivers. In the previous reporting period, the direction of any potential bias favored black drivers. Hispanic drivers in both reporting periods were l€ast lik€ly to hav€ consent requested for probative reasons.

26 A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for

white, black and Hispanic yielded cell sizes too small to produce a valid test statistic. A Chi-

Square statistic of 3.368, with two degrees of freedom is not significant at the 0.05 level. See

Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values, and for statistical data

tables.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 26

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 37 of 50 PageID: 2748

Table Eleven, below, depicts the result of the analysis of the outcome of consent requests, by race and ethnicity. Consent requests were characterized as either appropriate (meeting all requirements of the Consent Decree) or inappropriate (not meeting Consent Decree requirements). The results of the Chi-Square
analysis are not significant at the 0.05 level, yielding a test statistic of 1.401
with one degree of freedom. Intragroup means indicate that white drivers' consent requests tended to be classified as "appropriate" more often than nonwhite drivers; black drivers' and Hispanic drivers' consent requests tended to be classified as "inappropriate" more often than those of white drivers.
The reader should note that all but four inappropriate consent request errors were caught by New Jersey State Police and corrected by supervisory and management processes prior to the time that the monitors selected their traffic stops for review this reporting period.
Table Eleven: Outcome for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity
17th Reporting Period 27•28

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Total

Inappropriate
(1) 2 10 6 0 1 19

Appropriate
(2) 32 62 27
1 1 123

Mean
1.94 1.86 1.82
--
-1.87

H@herintragroup mean scores for any driver group (white, black and Hispanic) here indicate fewer procedural or Constitutional problems, i.e., higher scores demonstrate less of a tendency to improperly use the consent request process available to enforcement personnel. While the mean is not dispositive of bias, it does allow the reader to impute the direction of any potential bias. The direction of any potential bias actually favors white drivers, i.e., white drivers stopped and

27 A Chi-Square statistic of 1.401, with one degree of freedom is not significant at the 0.05 level.

See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values, and for statistical data

tables. 28 A Chi-Square analysis was run on white versus non-white drivers, since the data for

white, black and Hispanic yielded cell sizes too small to produce a valid test statistic. Chi-square

statistic reported with Yates' correction for a table with two categories only for both row and

column values.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 27

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 38 of 50 PageID: 2749
eventually asked for consent to search, were subjected to fewer procedural or Constitutional problems than black and Hispanic drivers. In the sixteenth reporting period, black drivers' consent requests were more likely to be classified as "appropriate," and, those of Hispanic drivers were also least likely to be so classified. However, the means in the current reporting period are more similar than in the previous period, indicating less difference between driver groups.
As a final quality control check on the varying levels of discretion exercised by New Jersey State Police personnel, a review of daytime v. nighttime stop data would be appropriate. If troopers are abusing their discretion by singling out drivers of color, one would expect a higher level discretionary activity during daylight hours, when troopers could readily determine the race or ethnicity of the drivers prior to executing the stop.
Table Twelve, below, depicts the daytime and nighttime distributions of consent requests for New Jersey State Police troopers during the seventeenth reporting period, according to the discretion in the initial reason for the stop. If troopers effecting the stops covered in this table were abusing their discretion, one would expect the daytime consent requests to show a tendency to follow stops for more discretionary infractions (high discretion stops) with non-white drivers than nighttime consent requests, yielding a lower mean for drivers of color than for white drivers. Conversely, the nighttime stops would be expected to show no difference in stop rates vis-a-vis levels of discretion. In fact, Table Twelve indicates, the direction of discretion in reasons for daytime stops that led to a consent request tends to indicate more discretionary stops of whites than minorities (i.e., minorities have a higher mean stop score, indicating fewer stops of minorities for high discretionary events than for whites), and the direction of the means for nighttime stops tends to indicate the same pattern. In the sixteenth report, daytime stops showed lower discretion in the reason for stops leading to consent requests of white drivers; night-time patterns were somewhat different, but comparisons were hampered by the relative few number of consent requests at night.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 28

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 39 of 50 PageID: 2750

Table Twelve:
Daytime v. Nighttime Consent Requests by Reason for the Stop, 1ih Reporting Period 29

Daytime Stops

Nighttime Stops

Race/Ethnicity High Median Low Mean High Median Low Mean

Discretion

Discretion

Discretion

Discretion

(1)

(2)

{3)

(1)

{2)

(3)

White

7

3

5

1.87

9

3

7

1.89

Black

12

1

16 2.14 14

6

23 2.21

Hispanic

7

Asian Indian

--

2
--

10 2.15

5

1 -- --

-4- .

5
~-

2.00
--

Other

--

--

-- -- 1 --

1 --

Total

26

6

32 2.09 29

13 . 36 2.09

After the qualitative assessment of the input and outcome variables
regarding traffic stops this reporting period, the monitors could find no statistical support suggesting consistent bias in the way various groups
of drivers were treated during post-stop Jaw enforcement activities. As in the sixteenth report, a statistically significant difference was found in the rate of consent requests in the monitors' sample by race and ethnicity. While the number of consent requests has been declining since their peak in the previous reporting period, there remained
sufficient numbers of requests in the year-sample to produce a valid statistical result and then to pursue further, qualitative analyses to assess if race or ethnicity could lead to bias in trooper decision-making. (The statistically significant difference by race and ethnicity for canine requests found in the last report was not repeated in the current
period.) And, in the sixteenth report, there was also a statistically significant difference in the reasons for the consent requests by race and ethnicity, which was not found in the data reported here. Arrest rates again were significantly different by race and ethnicity. However, further examination here showed little discretion in the
arrests of blacks as many were made because of outstanding warrants and that the probable cause leading to the arrests for all groups often came from evidence of drunk driving. For the full monitors' sample there was no significant difference by race and ethnicity in the level of discretion exercised in the decision to make the stop. When the discretion in the reason for stop was examined in stops leading to

29 The data did not yield a valid Chi-square statistic, as the cells produc€d at least 30 per<:ent

of expected frequencies that were less than five, for white versus nonwhite.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

.Page 29

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 40 of 50 PageID: 2751

consent requests, there also were no statistically significant differences by race and ethnicity. That said, the direction of discretion at various decision points did vary, sometimes showing somewhat more highly discretionary reasons for minorities.

The qualitative analysis did not reveal the use of race or ethnicity in any consistent manner by New Jersey State troopers in regard to motor vehicle stops or post-stop activity. The New Jersey State Police is judged to remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.3 Compliance with Task 27: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of the Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 27 Phase I

~2 3 .

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase II

Task 27 stipulates that:
27. The State Police has adopted a protocol captioned "F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops)," dated December 14, 1999, which establishes criteria to be followed by state troopers in selecting which vehicles to stop for violation of state motor vehicle laws. This protocol includes the
nondiscrimination requirements set forth in 'II
26 and has been approved by the United States in so far as the protocol identifies practices and procedures required by the Decree. The State shall implement this protocol as soon as practicable. The State shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the motor vehicle stop criteria and shall revise the criteria as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with '11'11 26 and 129. Prior to the implementation of any revised criteria, the

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 30

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 41 of 50 PageID: 2752

State shall obtain approval from the United States and the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

Compliance with this task was assessed using the Motor Vehicle Stop Report and video review outlined in section 2.2 above. Video reviews of motor vehicle stops resulting in law enforcement procedures were conducted by State Police supervisors in 300 of 376 motor vehicle stops selected by the monitors this period, constituting a supervisory review rate of 79.8 percent. New Jersey State Police policy for video reviews includes provisions for an initial, standard review, geared to a supervisor in the trooper's chain of command, and for management reviews of the supervisor's assessment. The majority of the initial supervisory reviews conducted in the ninth reporting period were conducted by secondary supervisory sources-quality assurance reviews, reviews by enlisted personnel assigned to OSPA or by other non-station sources. Station-level supervisors conducted the majority of initial reviews conducted during the tenth through sixteenth reporting periods, although a much larger than usual number of problematic stops were caught and corrected at the troop-review level and the OSPA-review level in the sixteenth reporting period than during prior reporting periods. A total of 134 initial supervisory reviews, or about 45 percent, were conducted by non-station sources in the seventeenth reporting period. 30 Thus, many errors caught by supervisory video review in this reporting period were caught by outside sources, and not by the trooper's first-line supervisor.31

Members of the monitoring team noted that field supervisors were present in 34.0 percent of monitored activity this reporting period. This percentage continued a further drop in the level of in-field supervision noted in the last reporting period, which followed the highest level of in-field supervision since the inception of the Consent Decree (in the fifteenth reporting period).

As noted above, supervisors reviewed video tapes in 79.8 percent of all incidents reviewed by the monitors this period.32 This supervisory review rate yielded 109

30 The majority of critical events received both an initial supervisory review and a management review.

31 The monitoring team also noted that only about 10 percent of the 300 events received an
initial supervisory video review from the same supervisors approving the Motor Vehicle Stop Report.

32 These reviews are now conducted routinely, although the State moved to a more focused

and less universal method of stop review in the sixteenth period. All reviews conducted were

conducted before the monitors notified New Jersey State Police of which MVS incidents would be

selected by the monitors.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 31

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 42 of 50 PageID: 2753

events in which New Jersey State Police personnel committed errors related to procedure or the Consent Decree. Supervisors counseled, retrained or otherwise responded to those violations, prior to being notified by the monitoring team of the motor vehicle stops that would be reviewed this period. In reviewing the same documents and video tapes, the monitors noted 120 errors in procedure related to the Consent Decree. New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel noted all but fourteen of these violations. The errors remaining in these fourteen events33 involved:
1. Failure to note lack of reasonable articulable suspicion to warrant consent requests (four events);
2. Failure to note lack of reasonable articulable suspicion for canine deployments (three events);
3. Failure to note a credential search that was improperly conducted and recorded as a probable cause search {one event);
4. Failure to note other lack of probable cause to conduct search (two events), e.g., the presence of EZ wider paper absent other elements;
5. Failure to note problems with a search of a cell phone on a person (one event);
6. Failure to note that a search was not video taped (one event); and,
7. Failure to note frisk of a person not based on reasonable suspicion (four events).
It is clear that the New Jersey State Police have engaged supervisory personnel in their attempts to ensure compliance with the Decree. As a result of its revised supervisory process, the New Jersey State Police have noted and corrected 109 Decree-related errors that the monitoring team would have noted after the fact. With the current supervisory system, these 109 Decree-related errors were noted and corrected before the monitors called them to the attention of the State Police. The supervisory system, did, however, fail to note and correct errors in sixteen events that should have been caught by supervisory review.34 Two errors were in events not subject to prior supervisory video review:

33 Some events had multiple errors that were not caught by supervisory review. 34 Two of these events were reviewed only by the monitoring team and not by supervisory

personnel under the revised policy implemented in the sixteenth reporting period that allows less

than 100-percent review of all motor vehicle stops with post-stop interactions.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 32

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 43 of 50 PageID: 2754
1. Failure to note that a search was not video taped (one event); and,
2. Failure to note discrepancy in reporting occupants and their activity on stop report (one event).
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
The total number of errors this reporting period, at 122, is higher than in any period since the tenth, when 125 procedural or Constitutional errors were noted
by the monitoring team. However, this reporting period is twice the length of
any previous periods. Figure Two depicts the error rates for the last eight reporting periods, with 62 errors in the current reporting period reported for January through June 2007 ("1iha'') and with 60 errors for July through December 2007 ("17thb"). Viewed this way, the number of errors has returned to the levels noted in the thirteenth report. It should be remembered that the monitors' sample for the first six months consists only of events most critical to the Decree, i.e., consent requests, canine requests, and uses of force. Had the monitors' sample included other events for this six-month period, the total errors might have been somewhat higher. For the second six months ("1ihb") when all types of events were sampled, just 39 errors were attributable to critical events.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 33

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 44 of 50 PageID: 2755
Figure Two: Procedural or Constitutional Errors, by Reporting Period35

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

!:

i

Reporting Period

! ~·······

~~

~~~~-------~~-~~-~-~-~

15th

16th 17tha 17thb

Many of the problems encountered this reporting period, and those noted in the last two reporting periods, remain, in the monitors' opinion, attributable to the early 2006 training described in detail in the fifteenth monitors' report: the "drug interdiction" training offered to New Jersey State Police personnel in early 2006
by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). 36

Figure Three, below, depicts the number of consent request activities and drug detection canine deployments, by month, for seventeenth reporting period. Preliminary data through April 2007 were presented in the sixteenth report to show the impact of remedial measures to correct the "message" delivered by this training since 2006Y Such efforts take time, and the New Jersey State Police

35 The 17th reporting period is divided into two, six-month periods. 36 The reader is referred to the Fifteenth Independent Monitors' Report, section 2.4 for a complete treatment of the issues related to DHS and DOT drug interdiction training.
37 The reader is referred to the Sixteenth Independent Monitors' Report, section 2.3 for a complete timeline of the remedial measures undertaken by the New Jersey State Police.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 34

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 45 of 50 PageID: 2756

continued these measures in its 2007 in-service training, which took place in the fall of 2007.

Figure Three: Consent Request and Drug Detection Canine
Deployments by Month,38 Seventeenth Reporting Period
35,----------------------------------------------------,

30

25

20

_- ~-~- i : ~=sl

15

10

·······-·········· /····-- ------

5

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 17th Reporting Period (2007)

The sixteenth report depicted a projected relationship between management
responses to the consent request problems noted in the fifteenth monitors' report and consent requests and drug interdiction canine deployments from November, 2005 through April, 2007.39 Thus, Figure 3 here picks up the trend. January was the month of the highest volume for both consent requests and

38 In the sixteenth report, Figure Three included Consent Requests for November 2005 through January 2006 that were interpolated from average numbers for the reporting period, data from the sixteenth reporting period, as well as preliminary numbers for January through April 2007. The January through April data reported here thus link the figures in this report to the previous reporting period.

39 The data available for the sixteenth monitors' report ended in December; however, the

monitors' reviewed the number of consent requests for January through April, 2007 to determine

the direction of the volume of consent requests by New Jersey State Police troopers.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 35

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 46 of 50 PageID: 2757
canine deployments in 2007, which continued the high volume noted in the previous report for the end of 2006. With the exception of a one-month spike, consent requests and canine deployments post-January 2007 remained well below the levels evidenced coming into the year, suggesting further success of the management responses to the issues raised by the 2006 training.
Thus, the data for the full year of 2007 confirm what the monitors noted in previous report: that the frequency of consent requests has returned to normal rates, consistent with those observed prior to the external drug interdiction training. The monitoring team can now also comment on the quality of the post-December 2006 consent search requests, and here, too, improvement is seen through 2007. For example, in seven of the 30 consent requests in January, problems with the reasonable suspicion leading to the request were noted. Further training on developing reasonable suspicion was incorporated into the annual in-service lesson plan delivered in the last quarter of the year. See comments under Tasks 100 and 101 below. Only three issues with reasonable suspicion were noted for the total of 29 consent requests occurring in the last three months of the year.
Status
A review of the policies developed, the training provided to date and the implemented MAPPS process indicates that the agency is compliance with the requirements of this task. The New Jersey State Police continues to review, independently of the monitors, Motor Vehicle Stop Reports (MVSRs) submitted by Division personnel, and continues to note deficiencies in operationalization of the training provided. Retraining to address these deficiencies has been deliver€d. The central point of the Consent Decree is for the New Jersey State Police to identify, analyze and respond to issues related to in-field enforcement. The organization's continuing response to the issues raised in the last several reports shows the organization is capable of correcting issues that arise from unauthorized training. Sixteen incidents, from among the 376 reviewed, included errors not caught and remedied by field supervisors prior to the monitoring team selecting cases for review this reporting period.
An error rate of 16 of 376 motor vehicle stop incidents, or 4.2 percent, is within the allowable margin of error of five percent. Compliance for this task is defin€d as "greater than 94 percent."

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 36

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 47 of 50 PageID: 2758

Compliance

Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

2.4 Compliance with Task 28: Request for Consent to Search only upon Reasonable Suspicion

Task 28

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 28 stipulates:
28. In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime; that every consent search of a vehicle be based on written consent of the driver or other person authorized to give consent which precedes the search; that the scope of a consent search be limited to the scope of the consent that is given by the driver or other person authorized to give consent; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent has the right to be present during a consent search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupants, which right can only be waived after the driver or other person authorized to give consent is advised of such right; that the driver or other person authorized to give consent who has granted written consent may orally withdraw that consent at any time during the search without giving a reason; and that state troopers immediately must stop a consent search of a
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 37

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 48 of 50 PageID: 2759
vehicle if and when consent is withdrawn (except that a search may continue if permitted on some non-consensual basis).
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
The monitoring team reviewed a total of 142 law enforcement actions involving consent requests conducted during the seventeenth report's operational dates. Thirty-two of these involved consent search requests that were declined. A description of consent request events, by race of driver, is presented in Table Thirteen below.
Tables Thirteen through Seventeen depict data from the 376 incidents reviewed this reporting period by the monitoring team. "Number of Drivers" depicts the number of drivers, by race, in the 376 incidents. The number in parentheses in this column depicts the percentage of drivers in the total sample, by race. Thus, for Tables Thirteen through Seventeen, there were 97 white drivers of the total of 376 drivers involved in motor vehicle stops reviewed by the monitoring team this period, constituting 25.8 percent of all drivers in the sample. The next column, "Number" depicts the number of law enforcement procedures observed in the motor vehicle stops reviewed. For example, Table Thirteen depicts 34 consent requests of white drivers, 72 requests of black drivers, 33 requests of Hispanic drivers, and three requests of drivers in other categories of race{ethnicity. The last column, "Percent" depicts the percent of drivers of a given race or ethnicity, who were subjected to a given law enforcement procedures. This column will not total to 100 percent. The reviews depicted in this table constituted documentation and/or video tape reviews.
The reader should note that the New Jersey State Police has increased substantially the number of consent search requests, with an all-time high of 134 in the previous, six-month reporting period. With 142 requests for this current, year-long reporting period, the numbers reported in Table Thirteen become statistically meaningful when reported vis-a-vis race and ethnicity for all drivers sampled v. drivers requested to consent to search.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 38

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 49 of 50 PageID: 2760

All but 26 of the 142 consent searches were completed in conformance with the requirements of this task.40 Absence of reasonable articulable suspicion accounted for errors in 19 of the problematic consent requests. All but four of these were caught and corrected by supervisory personnel. In addition, eight incidents exhibited problems with notification to the person authorizing consent of the right to refuse consent and to be present during the search (five events), or, with limiting the scope of the search to area for which consent was given (three events). These eight errors were all caught by supervisors prior to the monitoring team's review.
An error rate of four of 142 consent searches constitutes 2.8 percent, falling within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the Consent Decree.

Table Thirteen-consent Request Activity by Race and Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity

a. Number of Drivers
(% ofTotal)

White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Total

97 (25.8 162 (43.1 114 (30.3
1 (0.3 2 (0.5 376 (100.0

b. Number of Requests for
Search41
34 72 33
1 2 142

c. Percent Consent

Request by

Race/Ethnicity

(bas% of a)

35.1

44.4

28.9

i.

100.0

100.0

37.8

The data in Table Thirteen indicate that consent requests constitute 37.8 percent of the incidents in the monitoring team's sample. The highest rate of consent requests was observed for blacks in this reporting period, whereas the data in the previous reporting period showed higher consent request rates for both blacks and Hispanics (by a factor of as much as 2.2). The consent request rates for whites, blacks and Hispanics are much more similar in this reporting period, with the rate of consent requests of Hispanics the lowest of all sampled drivers.42

40 Thirty-two drivers refused consent requests. 41 Thirty-two consent search requests were refused.

42 The reader should note that the consent request rates reported do not reflect the consent

request rates for all stopped drivers, but rather the rates for sampled events. Some variation in

the rates from reporting period to reporting period no doubt reflects the fact that the monitors

always review all consent requests (as well all canine requests and uses of force), but vary the

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 39

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106 Filed 04/16/09 Page 50 of 50 PageID: 2761

These data, as reported in Table Four, in Task 26 above, are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the differences are not attributable to chance.43 A qualitative analysis, triggered because of the statistically significant Chi-Square result, indicates that the results of the consent request processes again in this reporting period were likely attributable to the qualitative differences in stop characteristics rather than a racial bias on the part of New Jersey State Police personnel (see Section 2.2, pp. 7-18). There were no statistically significant differences by race or ethnicity in the reasons for stops of vehicles, or the levels of discretion used in making stops and deploying drug
detection canines. And, in contrast to the previous reporting period, there was
no statistically significant difference by race and ethnicity in the reason for
consent requests. See Tables Nine through Twelve, pages 25-29.
The monitors continue to note several significant changes in the consent request processes of the New Jersey State Police this reporting period. The number and tenor of consent requests continued to be of concern in the previous period, but the rate of consent requests fell during this reporting period, after jumping more than 42 percent in last reporting period. The 42-percent rise followed a rise of more than 200 percent in fifteenth reporting period (see Table Three, page 15). 44 As noted previously, the monitors reviewed 19 consent requests that were deemed inappropriate this reporting period. All of these included some problems related to reasonable articulable suspicion. All but four of these problematic consent requests were noted and corrected by supervisory review priorto the monitors noting problems with the stops. The problematic consent requests were not distributed equally among drivers' race and ethnicity. Two white drivers' consent requests were problematic (5.6 percent of all consent requests of whites), while ten black drivers' consent request were of concern (13.8 percent of all consent requests of blacks). Six Hispanic drivers had problematic requests (18.1 percent of all consent requests of Hispanics), as did one driver in the "other" race classification. (See Table Eleven, p. 27).
As noted in Section 2.3, above, the New Jersey State Police has addressed some of the issues giving rise to these problematic consent requests; however, the

composition (e.g., by troop) of the other sampled events with post-stop interactions each period against which the rates are calculated.

43 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 7.149 with two degrees of
freedom, p<0.05. The distribution was statistically significant. The other categories of race and
ethnicity were omitted as they produced expected frequencies less than "5." See Annex Two for a brief description of degrees of freedom and p-values, and for statistical data tables. 44 The rise in consent requests was at least partially attributable to the loss of the ability to

conduct a search of a motor vehicle as a "search incidental to arrest." See State v. Eckel, 185

N.J. 523 (2006), which eliminated these searches for all New Jersey law enforcement officers.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 40

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 50 PageID: 2762

monitors expect that continuing remedial steps implemented by the New Jersey State Police will further reduce problematic consent requests. Thus, the continuing decrease in the number of total consent requests is viewed as positive by the monitors.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5 Compliance with Task 29a: Recording Requirements for Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 29a

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II
Task 29a stipulates that:

29. Motor Vehicle Stop Data

a. The State has adopted protocols (captioned F-55 (Motor Vehicle Stops) dated 12/14/99; C22 (Activity Reporting System), F-3 (Patrol Procedures), F-7 (Radio Procedures), F-19 (MVR equipment), F-31 (Consent Searches), and a Motor Vehicle Stop Search Report dated 12/21/99; and a Property Report (S.P. 131 (Rev. 1/91)) that require state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways to accurately record in written reports, logs, radio communications, radio recordings and/or video recordings, the following information concerning all motor vehicle stops: 1. name and identification number of trooper(s) who initiated the stop; 2. name and identification number of trooper(s) who actively participated in the
stop; 3. date, time, and location of the stop;

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 41

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 2 of 50 PageID: 2763

4. time at which the stop commenced and at which it ended; 5. license number/state of stopped vehicle; SA. description of stopped vehicle; 6. the gender and race/ethnicity of the driver, and the driver's date of birth if known; 7. the gender and race/ethnicity of any passenger who was requested to exit the vehicle, frisked, searched, requested to consent to a vehicle search, or arrested; 8. whether the driver was issued a summons or warning and the category of violation (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation); SA. specific violations cited or warned; 9. the reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation or non-moving violation, other [probable cause/ BOLO]); 10. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were requested to exit the vehicle; 11. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were frisked; 12. whether consent to search the vehicle was requested and whether consent was granted; 12A. the basis for requesting consent to search the vehicle; 13. whether a drug-detection canine was deployed and whether an alert occurred; 13A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the deployment of a drug-detection canine; 14. whether a non-consensual search of the vehicle was conducted; 14A. the circumstances that prompted a nonconsensual search of the vehicle; 15. whether any contraband or other property was seized; 15A. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; 16. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were arrested, and if so, the specific charges;

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 42

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 3 of 50 PageID: 2764

17. whether the vehicle occupant(s) were subjected to deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force; 17A. a description of the circumstances that prompted the use of force; and a description of any injuries to state troopers and vehicle occupants as a result of the use of force; 18. the trooper's race and gender; and 19. the trooper's specific assignment at the time ofthe stop (on duty only) including squad.
Methodology
See section 2.2 above for a description of the methodology used to assess the New Jersey State Police's compliance with this task.
Status
The review of State Police policies, forms, training, data entry systems, and CAD processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29a. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the State Police training process.
Use of the Motor Vehicle Stop Report was monitored for 376 incidents involving a post-stop law enforcement activity of interest to the Decree. Use of force, deployment of canines and non-consensual searches received special attention from the monitoring team. The results of these reviews are depicted in Tables Fourteen through Seventeen, below.
Use of Force
New Jersey State Police personnel reported using force 30 times during the reporting period. This number is substantially higher than the single incident reported in the previous, albeit six-month, reporting period and translates into a use of force in eight percent of the sampled incidents. Members of the monitoring team reviewed the reports for use of force by personnel from the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found no problems with the reporting process.45 When confirmed by tape review, the use of force in all instances was found to be appropriate and appropriately reported. There were

45 Members of the monitoring team assessed use of force reports and incidents for reasonable

application of force and compliance with elements 17 and 17a of this requirement of the decree.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 43

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 4 of 50 PageID: 2765

16 uses of physical force, eight uses of chemical force and six incidents in which
both chemical force and physical force were used.

Table Fourteen depicts the data for the 376 incidents reviewed this reporting
period by the monitoring team and presents the number and percent of uses of force for each category of drivers' race and ethnicity. The data show that the
greatest number of uses of force (14) occurred in incidents with black drivers; there were 11 incidents in which white drivers (or their occupants) were
subjected to a use of force and five incidents with Hispanic drivers. The number of use-of-force incidents with white drivers, however, yielded the highest
percentage of incidents for any group involving a use of force: 11.3 percent. In contrast, uses of force occurred in 8.6 percent of sampled incidents with black drivers and in 4.4 percent of the incidents with Hispanic drivers.

Table Fourteen: Uses of Force
17th Reporting Period

Race/ Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Total

a. Number of Drivers
(%of Total) 97 (25.8 162 (43.1
115 (30.3 1 (0.3 2 (0.5
376 (100.0

b. Incidents of Use of Force
11 14 5 0 0 30

c. Percent Use of Force by
Race/Ethnicity (bas% of a)
11.3 8.6 4.4
---
8.0

Canine Deployments
The New Jersey State Police deployed drug detection canine units 55 times
during the reporting period. Members of the monitoring team reviewed all available documentation for each canine deployment, and reviewed video tapes of all but one canine deployment.46
The data in Table Fifteen indicate somewhat higher canine "deployment rates" for blacks and Hispanics than for whites. Unlike the distribution in the previous
reporting period, these data are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, {See

46 One video tape was not able to be reviewed because of a video recorder malfunction. See

footnote 11 above.
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 44

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 5 of 50 PageID: 2766

Table Five, p.18)Y The rate for whites in this reporting period is higher than in the previous period, while the rates for blacks and Hispanics have decreased. All but seven of the 55 canine deployments were based on reasonable articulable suspicion. Five of the problematic canine deployments were for Hispanic drivers' vehicles, and two were for vehicles with black drivers. New Jersey State Police supervisors caught and corrected four of these prior to the monitors' review, leaving errors in three that were first caught by the monitors. A qualitative review of these stops shows no statistically significant test statistics for levels of discretion in the reason for stop related to canine deployments. See Tables Nine through Twelve, pages 25-29, above.

Table Fifteen: Canine Deployments 17th Reporting Period

Race/Ethnicity

a. Number of Drivers
(% of Total)

White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Total

97 (25.8 162 (43.1 116 (30.3
1 (0.3 2 (0.5 376 (100.0

b. Canine Deployments
10 30 14 0 1 55

c. Percent Canine
Deployment by Race/ Ethnicity (bas Ofo of a}
10.3 18.5 12.3
--
50.0
14.6

An error rate of three of 55 canine deployments constitutes 5.5 percent, falling just within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks outlined by the Consent Decree.

Non-Consensual Searches

Table Sixteen depicts the results, by race/ethnicity and type of non-consensual vehicle search for the sample of 376 incidents reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period. The table depicts the types of non-consensual searches, by racejethnicity of the 173 incidents involving a non-consensual vehicle search. For example, 57 white drivers' vehicles were subjected to non-consensual searches during this reporting period, with 51 subjected to probable cause searches, etc. Numbers in parentheses reflect the percentage of type of search, by race. For example, the 51 probable cause searches constitute 89.5 percent of all searches

47 Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a Chi-Square of 3.942 with two degrees of freedom,

p>O.OS. The distribution was not statistically significant.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 45

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 6 of 50 PageID: 2767

of white drivers' vehicles. The reviews depicted in this table constituted video tape and/or documentation reviews.

Of the 173 MVSRs reviewed that entailed non-consensual searches of vehicles, members of the monitoring team found three problems that were not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel. An error rate of three of 173 events is 1.8 percent, falling within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for critical tasks.

Table Sixteen: Reasons for Non-Consensual Searches of Vehicles, by Race/Ethnicity of Driver 17th Reporting Period

Race/ Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Other Total

b. Nona. Number of Consensu
Drivers al Vehicle (%of Total) Search
(%of a) 97 (25.8) 57 (58.8)
162 (43.1) 63 (38.9) 114 (30.3) 53 (46.5)

c. Probable Cause
(%of b)
51 (89.5) 57 (90.5) 49 (92.5)

d. Plain View (%of b) 4 (7.0)
1 (1.6)
0

e. Pmofof Ownership
(%of b)
1 (1.8) 1 (1.6) 0

f. Other Reason (%of
b) 1 (1.8)
2 (3.2) 4 (7.5)

1 (0.3) 0

0

0

0

0

2 ( 0.5) 0

0

0

376 (100.0) 17 (46.0) 157 (90.8) 5 (2.9)

0 2 (1.2)

0 7 (5.0)

Table Seventeen depicts non-consensual search-of-person activity by race, specifically for probable cause searches. Five of the 61 searches of a person were conducted by a trooper in the absence of the necessary PC. Members of the monitoring team found one problem that was not first caught and remedied by New Jersey State Police supervisory personnel.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 46

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 7 of 50 PageID: 2768

Table Seventeen: Probable Cause Searches of Persons, by Race/Ethnicity of Driver 17th Reporting Period

Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian
Other Total

a. Number of Drivers
(%of Total) 97 (25.8)
162 (43.1) 114 (30.3)
1 (0.3) 2 (0.5) 376 (100.0)

b. Probable Cause
Searches 18 34 9 0
0 61

c. Percent by Race/Ethnicity (bas% of a)
18.5 21.0 7.9
--
--
16.2

An error rate of one in 61 events is 1.6 percent, again falling within the >94 percent compliance rate agreed to by the parties as the standard for the critical tasks of the Consent Decree.

In all, members of the monitoring team noted 122 separate incidents in which constitutional, procedural, reporting, or review issues were evident (see section 2.3, above, for a complete listing of the errors in these motor vehicle stop incidents). A total of 109 of these problematic incidents were noted and corrected by retraining or other form of intervention prior to the monitor's noting
the behavior. The monitors noted a shift in the locus of these self-corrections in
the sixteenth reporting period, away from on-scene and station-level review to management (Troop) and OSPA-assigned enlisted personnel review. This shift continued in the seventeenth reporting period. The New Jersey State Police continues in compliance with this task for the seventeenth reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 47

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 8 of 50 PageID: 2769

2.5.1 Compliance with Task 29b: Expeditious Implementation of Motor Vehicle Stop Criteria

Task 29b Phase I

~ 2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase II I

Task 29b stipulates that:

b. The protocols listed in 'll29(a)include, inter alia, the procedures set forth in '11'11 30, 31, 32, and 33 and have been approved by the United States insofar as the protocols identify practices and procedures required by this Decree. The State shall implement these protocols as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

The review of State Police policies, forms, training, records systems, data entry systems, and CAD processes indicates that the New Jersey State Police are in Phase I compliance with the requirements of Task 29b. Effective policies and forms requiring compliance with the reporting requirements of the task have been written, disseminated and implemented into the training process. Development of training for supervisors in the process of scrutinizing motor vehicle stop reports and associated documentation, and systems to facilitate that review have been completed.

The records reviewed by the monitors all included the names of drivers subjected to post-stop law enforcement procedures of interest to the Decree, i.e., request for permission to search; conduct of a consensual or non-consensual search; ordering occupants out of a vehicle; frisks of vehicle occupants; deployment of a drug-detection canine; seizure of contraband; arrest of the occupants of the vehicle; or use of deadly, physical, mechanical or chemical force. All of these records included the race of the individual subjected to a post-stop law enforcement procedure of interest to the Decree. All of the records included a

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 48

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 9 of 50 PageID: 2770

CAD incident number. In addition, all had the date of the stop, time of the stop, time the stop cleared, and reason for the stop. All records included the gender and race of the driver, whether a summons or warning was issued (and the category of the violation), and the reason for the motor vehicle stop.

The data analyzed for this reporting period included only those data generated by the electronic reporting process, but including hard-copy output. Accuracy rates for these data, overall, are within the acceptable margin for error for this task. The earliest available electronic data in the New Jersey State Police's database, provided to the monitors, was September 2, 2000. In the opinion of the monitors, this qualifies as "expeditious" implementation.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.2 Compliance with Task 29c: Forms to Support Execution of Tasks 31,32 and 33

Task 29c
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Task 29c stipulates that:
c. The State shall prepare or revise such forms, reports, and logs as may be required to implement this paragraph and '11'11 31, 32, and 33 (and any related forms, reports, and logs, including arrest reports) to eliminate duplication and reduce paperwork.
Methodology
The New Jersey State Police continues to revise forms and policies related to this task, and to provide multiple levels of review and quality control practices related to tasks 31-33.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 49

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 10 of 50 PageID: 2771

Status

Forms to support execution of tasks 31-33 have been developed and disseminated. The New Jersey State Police has finalized automated data entry at road stations. Conformance to the policies supporting these forms is improving. The forms have been developed and disseminated and are being used by agency personnel, and appear to have improved substantially the level of reporting and compliance with stipulated procedures.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.5.3 Compliance with Task 29e: Approval of Revisions to Protocols, Forms, Reports and Logs

Task 29e

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 29e stipulates that:
e. Prior to implementation, of any revised protocols and forms, reports, and logs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (d) of this paragraph, the State shall obtain approval of the United States and the Independent Monitor. The United States and the Independent Monitor shall be deemed to have provided such approval unless they advise the State of any objection to a revised protocol within 30 days of receiving same. The approval requirement of this subparagraph extends to protocols, forms, reports, and logs only insofar as they implement practices and procedures required by this Decree.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 50

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 11 of 50 PageID: 2772

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team have reviewed and approved all protocols and forms provided by the New Jersey State Police, and have been notified in advance of planned changes to those protocols and forms. All changes to protocols and forms have also been approved by the United States.

Status

Implementation of revisions to protocols and/or forms has been held by the New Jersey State Police, pending the approval of the monitors and the United States. No issues were noted relevant to this task for this reporting period. Protocols for the new CAD system, in beta test during this seventeenth reporting period, were reviewed by the monitors.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6 Compliance with Task 30: Communications Center Call-Ins

Task 30

I1 2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

~mmn1

Task 30 stipulates that:

30. Communication Center Call-In's for Motor Vehicle Stops. The primary purpose of the communications center is to monitor officer safety. state troopers utilizing vehicles, both marked and unmarked, for patrols on roadways shall continue to document all motor vehicle stops, inter alia, by calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of each motor vehicle stop. All motor vehicle stop
information enumerated in 'II 29(a) that is
transmitted to the communications center by state troopers pursuant to protocols listed in '1129(a), and as revised pursuant to '1129(d) and (e), shall be recorded by the center by means
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 51

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 12 of 50 PageID: 2773

of the center's Computer Aided Dispatch system or other appropriate means.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task. Compliance with these tasks has been measured under a revised standard for several reporting periods, based on an agreement of the parties and the monitors. The compliance standard for data reporting and recording of traffic stop processes was established at 90 percent.

Status

New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops. Revisions to New Jersey State Police SOPs, implemented several reporting periods ago, have formed the basis for supervisory review and control of these processes.

For the past twelve reporting periods, the New Jersey State Police has been in compliance with this requirement, based on the monitors' review of electronic CAD data. In addition, 27248 video recordings and documentation from 376 vehicle stops were reviewed this period, as were supporting documents, such as CAD abstracts, etc. Compliance with this task was assessed using both the electronic, video, and paper documentation. All data required by paragraphs 29 a, are recorded within the CAD records for vehicle stops, or within associated MVSRs.

Of the 376 incidents reviewed by the monitors, only one included an error in callin or documentation of a motor vehicle stop. An error rate of one incident of 376 constitutes 0.003 percent, within the revised parameter of >90 percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

48 Some video taped incidents included more than one post-stop activity of interest to the

decree. For example, 43 of the 142 consent requests also included a canine deployment.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 52

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 13 of 50 PageID: 2774

2.6.1 Compliance with Task 30a: Notice of Call-In at Beginning of Stop

Task 30a

I 1

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

~ ,, -
""I 'i ~ ; -

Phase II

I

Task 30a stipulates that:

a. The initial call shall be made at the beginning of the stop before the trooper approaches the stopped vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical, in which event the State trooper shall notify the communications center as soon as practicable. The State Police shall continue to require that, in calling in or otherwise notifying the communications center of a motor vehicle stop, state troopers shall provide the communications center with a description of the stopped vehicle and its occupants (including the number of occupants, their apparent racefethnicity, and their apparent gender). Troopers also shall inform the communications center of the reason for the stop, namely, moving violation, non-moving violation, or other.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

Members of the monitoring team also reviewed 272 video tapes of motor vehicle stops to assess the time of the call in. Data indicate that 100 percent of all stops were assigned an incident number and 100 percent list the driver's race and gender; the few call-in errors regarding reason for the stop49 and for completing

49 The reason for stop is noted as "moving" or "non-moving," different from the reason for stop

categories discussed in Task 26, Section 2.2, above, where the discretion in the specific reason

for stop was analyzed.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 53

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 14 of 50 PageID: 2775

the stop were all caught by supervisors prior to the monitors' reviews. The New Jersey State Police is in compliance with this task.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.2 Compliance with Task 30b: Notice Prior to Search

Task 30b
Phase I Phase II

9 10 11

Task 30b stipulates that:
b. state troopers shall notify the communications center prior to conducting a consent search or nonconsensual search of a motor vehicle, unless the circumstances make prior notice unsafe or impractical.
Methodology
See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance with this task.
Status
This section (regarding notice prior to search of a vehicle) applies only to
probable cause and consent searches.5° Of the 158 probable cause search
events and 142 consent searches reported (with 245 of the 300 events reviewed by video tape), twenty-three were not called in to New Jersey State Police communications prior to the initiation of the search. Supervisory personnel noted and corrected all of these omissions. This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, within the >94 percent established as the criterion for this task.

50 New Jersey case law (State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (2006)) has changed the requirements and

practices of "search incidental to arrest" of a motor vehicle. New Jersey State Police policy now

precludes searches of vehicles incidental to arrest.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 54

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 15 of 50 PageID: 2776

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.3 Compliance with Task 30c: Call-Ins Upon Completion of Stop

Task 30c

1 12

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 30c stipulates that:

c. At the conclusion of the stop, before the trooper leaves the scene, the trooper shall notify the communications center that the stop has been concluded, notify the center whether any summons or written warning was issued or custodial arrest was made, communicate any information that is required to be provided by the protocols listed in paragraph 29(a) that was not previously provided, and correct any information previously provided that was inaccurate. If circumstances make it unsafe or impractical to notify the communications center of this information immediately at the conclusion of the stop, the information shall be provided to the communications center as soon as practicable.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and
analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part
of troopers conducting traffic stops. Of the 272 stops reviewed by video tape, all
complete tapes without audio difficulty were found to have clearance codes. Of

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 55

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 16 of 50 PageID: 2777

the 376 stops reviewed by document review, these call-ins were present in the CAD abstract, indicating that they had been made by the trooper and contemporaneously recorded. The New Jersey State Police is in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.6.4 Compliance with Task 30d: CADS Incident Number Notification

Task 30d

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

IH'H :'
I'U>'

Task 30d stipulates that:
d. The communications center shall inform the trooper of an incident number assigned to each motor vehicle stop that involved a motor vehicle procedure (i.e., occupant requested to exit vehicle, occupant frisked, request for consent search, search, drug dog deployed, seizure, arrest or use of force), and troopers shall utilize that incident number to cross reference other documents prepared regarding that stop. Likewise, all motor vehicle stop information recorded by the communication center about a particular motor vehicle stop shall be identified by the unique incident number assigned to that motor vehicle stop.
Methodology
New Jersey State Police SOPs relating to the call-in of motor vehicle stops meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. In addition, training regarding motor vehicle stops is reasonably designed to affect the necessary behavior on the part of troopers conducting traffic stops.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 56

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 17 of 50 PageID: 2778

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) records were also requested by the monitors for all motor vehicle stop activity for the selected stations. A sample of CAD records was reviewed electronically, and all were found to have "CAD Incident Numbers" indicating a CAD incident number. Of the 376 stops reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period, CAD numbers were present in documentation for all video tapes reviewed, and in 100 percent of all hard copy documents reviewed by the monitoring team that required a CAD number.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7 Compliance with Task 31: Reporting Consent to Search Requests

Task 31
Phase I Phase II

=I 1 I 2
I

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 31 stipulates that:

31. Consent Searches of Motor Vehicles. The State Police shall continue to require that whenever a state trooper wishes to conduct or conducts a consensual search of a motor vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle stop, the trooper must complete a "consent to search" form and report. The "consent to search" form shall contain information, which must be presented to the driver, or other person authorized to give consent before a consent search may be commenced. This form shall be prepared in English and Spanish. The "consent to search" report shall contain additional information, which must be documented for State Police records.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 57

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 18 of 50 PageID: 2779

Status

A MVSR form was completed in all142 motor vehicle stop reports that included a consent search request this reporting period. Thirty-two of the incidents involved consent requests that were denied. A "consent to search form" was utilized in all 142 events with a consent request. The information required to be presented to the driver was so presented in all but six cases. Supervisors caught and corrected these errors.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.7.1 Compliance with Tasks 31a-c: Recording Consent to Search Requests

Task31a-c ~ 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I 1\,H HI Phase II

Tasks 31a-c stipulate that:
a. The State Police shall require that all "consent to search" forms include the following information : 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the name and identification number of the trooper making the request for consent to search; 3. the names and identification numbers of any additional troopers who actively participate in the discussion with the driver or passenger(s) concerning the request for consent to search; 4. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to refuse to grant consent to search, and that if the driver or other person authorized to give consent grants consent, the driver or other person authorized to give consent at any time
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 58

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 19 of 50 PageID: 2780

for any reason may withdraw consent to search; 5. a statement informing the driver or other person authorized to give consent of the right to be present during the search at a location consistent with the safety of both the State trooper and the motor vehicle occupant(s) which right may be knowingly waived; 6. check-off boxes to indicate whether consent has been granted, and if consent is granted, the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall check the appropriate box and sign and date the form; and 7. if the driver or other person authorized to give consent refuses consent, the trooper or the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall so note on the form and the driver or other person authorized to give consent shall not be required to sign the form. b. A state trooper who requests permission to conduct a consent search shall document in a written report the following information regardless of whether the request for permission to conduct a search was granted or denied: 1. the name of the driver or other person authorized to give consent to whom the request for consent is directed, and that person's gender, racefethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participate in the search; 3. the circumstances which constituted the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the request for consent; 4. if consent initially is granted and then is withdrawn, the fact that this occurred, and whether the search continued based on probable cause or other non-consensual ground, or was terminated as a result of the withdrawal of consent; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and,
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 59

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 20 of 50 PageID: 2781

6. whether the discussion concerning the request for consent to search and/or any ensuing consent search were recorded using MVR equipment. c. The trooper shall sign and date the form and the report after each is fully completed.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed report information for 142 consent requests and 110 consent searches,51 and reviewed video tape recordings of all but one52 motor vehicle stop involving consent requests. Supporting
documentation for all consent search requests was reviewed, and the events
depicted on 141 video tapes reviewed were assessed in light of the reports
generated by the trooper concerning the event. See section 2.2, above, for a
detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

The monitoring team reviewed 142 consent request activities required by this section of the Consent Decree. Of the 142 consent requests, 13 incidents had had errors corrected by supervisory personnel with regard to recording of information.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

51 Thirty-two consent requests were refused.

52 The tape for one consent request incident was not reviewed due to malfunction of

equipment; the consent request was denied. See footnote 11.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page uO

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 21 of 50 PageID: 2782

2.8 Compliance with Task 32: Recording and Reporting of NonConsensual Searches

Task 32

I1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

HHHI

32. Non-consensual Searches of Motor Vehicles (Excluding Vehicle Searches Begun as a Consent Search). A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during any motor vehicle stop, the trooper conducts a non-consensual search of a motor vehicle (excluding vehicle searches begun as a consent search). The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who actively participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, racetethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances which provided probable cause to conduct the search, or otherwise justified the search; 5. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 6. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
New Jersey State Police SOPs reasonably address the processes of making and recording non-consensual searches, and training provided to road personnel reasonably prepares them to complete these processes in conformance to the requirements of this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 61

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 22 of 50 PageID: 2783

Of the 157 MVSRs reviewed which entailed probable cause searches of vehicles,53 members of the monitoring team found problems with 20 incidents in which the troopers failed to call in the search prior to conducting it. This error was noted and corrected by supervisory personnel prior to the monitoring team's review. All but two incidents in which the monitors found issues with probable cause were addressed prior to the selection of the events for review by the monitors. The monitors also noted eight incidents in which the search was not taped. Supervisory review caught all but two of these errors. One of these two events was not subject to video review prior to that of the monitoring team. An error rate of four in 157 events is 2.5 percent, well within compliance levels for this task. The New Jersey State Police remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.9 Compliance with Task 33: Recording and Reporting Deployment of Drug Detection Canines

Task 33

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

'iH 1iii 1

Task 33 stipulates that:
33. Drug-Detection Canines. A state trooper shall complete a report whenever, during a motor vehicle stop, a drug-detection canine is deployed. The report shall include the following information: 1. the date and location of the stop; 2. the names and identification numbers of all troopers who participated in the incident; 3. the driver's name, gender, race/ethnicity, and, if known, date of birth; 4. a description of the circumstances that prompted the canine to be deployed;

53 Five plain view searches, two ownership searches and seven other non-consensual searches

were also conducted this reporting period.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 62

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 23 of 50 PageID: 2784

5. whether an alert occurred; 6. a description of the type and quantity of any contraband or other property seized; and 7. whether the incident was recorded using MVR equipment.

Methodology

See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.

Status

The policies, forms, training curricula and training processes relative to the deployment of drug detection canines and reporting of these deployments are reasonably designed to guide behavior responsive to Task 33.

Members of the monitoring team monitored, by document review, 55 reported drug detection canine deployments effected by the New Jersey State Police. Members of the monitoring team found 12 of the canine deployments to have been deployed or reported in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of procedures and the Decree. Supervisors caught and corrected four of the seven deployments on less than adequate articulable suspicion prior to the monitoring team's review, as well as the other five deployments with taping errors. An error rate of 3 in 55 events is just within the >94 percent compliance level for this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 63

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 24 of 50 PageID: 2785

2.10 Compliance with Task 34a: Use of Mobile Video Recording Equipment

Task 34a

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 34a stipulates that:

34. Use of Mobile Video/Audio (MVR) Equipment.

a. The State Police shall continue to operate all patrol vehicles engaged in law enforcement activities on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway with MVR equipment. The State shall continue with its plans to install MVR equipment in all vehicles, both marked and unmarked, used for patrols on all other limited access highways in New Jersey (including interstate highways and the Garden state Parkway), and shall complete this installation within 12 months.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team requested to view video tapes for 272 events known to have occurred during the current reporting period.

Status

Members of the monitoring team found evidence of video tape recordings, or documentation of in-field mechanical problems, for all events selected for review this period. The New Jersey State Police remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 64

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 25 of 50 PageID: 2786

2.11 Compliance with Task 34b-c: Training in MVR Operation and Procedures

Task 34b-c

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task. 34b-c stipulates that:
b. The State shall continue to implement procedures that provide that all state troopers operating a vehicle with MVR equipment may operate that vehicle only if they first are trained on the manner in which the MVR equipment shall be tested, maintained, and used. The State shall ensure that all MVR equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.
c. Except when MVR equipment unforeseeably does not function, all motor vehicle stops conducted by State Police vehicles with MVR equipment shall be recorded by these vehicles, using both the video and audio MVR functions. The recording shall begin no later than when a trooper first signals the vehicle to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing motor vehicle stop begun by another law enforcement trooper; and the recording shall continue until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the trooper's participation in the motor vehicle stop ends (the recording shall include requests for consent to search a vehicle, deployments of drug-detection canines, and vehicle searches). If a trooper operating a vehicle with MVR equipment actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the MVR equipment, the trooper shall notify the communications center of the reason the stop
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 65

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 26 of 50 PageID: 2787

was not recorded, which the center shall record in a computerized information system.

Methodology

In addition to verifying the existence of a video tape in each patrol vehicle for each incident selected for review this reporting period (see above), members of the monitoring team pulled for review a sample of 376 post-stop law enforcement actions of interest to the Decree. These included 376 events selected from New Jersey State Police databases, and 272 events assessed by reviewing video tapes. 54

Status

While policies have been implemented requiring video and audio recording of all Decree-related traffic stops, not all stops are recorded in conformance with the Decree.

A review of the 272 video tapes selected by the monitoring team indicates that the agency has effectively resolved problems noted in earlier reports concerning "out of tape" issues and troopers patrolling with inoperative video units (only seven of 272 incidents reviewed via video tape resulted in an "out of tape" finding). The agency has, it appears, achieved general compliance with the requirements of the Decree. A problem, noted for the last few reporting periods, continues this period. This problem involves technical difficulties with audio recordings during motor vehicle stops. Of the 272 stops reviewed via video tape this period, 48 exhibited some form of audio difficulty (a substantial increase over the sixteenth reporting period), and 19 exhibited some form of video difficulty. These incidents may reflect the age and maintenance of the equipment, rather than trooper-error. The New Jersey State Police's planned new digital video systems may reduce these numbers even further. Troopers activate microphones during traffic stops, with the monitoring team noting no events (of 272 reviewed) in which activation was delayed for a reason other than technical difficulties. This constitutes and error rate of zero percent, within the established 90 percent requirement for this task. The New Jersey State Police remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

54 All 272 events reviewed by video-tape were included in the 376 MVSRs reviewed.
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 66

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 27 of 50 PageID: 2788

2.12 Compliance with Task 35: Supervisory Review of Trooper Reports

Task 35

11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 35 stipulates that:
35. The reporting trooper's supervisor shall review each report prepared pursuant to '11'113133 within 14 days of the precipitating incident and, as appropriate, in conjunction with that review, may view any associated MVR tape.
Methodology
See section 2.2, above, for a detailed description of the data collection and analysis processes used to determine compliance levels for this task.
Status
A review of all electronic records of motor vehicle stops, completed during the reporting period indicated that all selected events had their supporting MVSRs reviewed by supervisory personnel. The monitors assessed all electronic records for MVSRs, and determined that greater than 98 percent of all MVSRs received initial supervisory review within 14 days of the event reported in the MVSR. However, only 86 percent of all stop reports are approved within that period.
The monitoring team reviewed all completed MVSRs for the 376 selected stops reviewed this period for evidence of reporting or procedural errors that should have been noted by supervisory personnel. Supervisory personnel, prior to the monitors' review, also reviewed all but 76 tapes reviewed by the monitors. From those 300 events also reviewed by supervisors, the monitors noted none that exhibited any form of substantial reporting problem that should have been noted by supervisory review, but was not.
This constitutes an error rate of zero percent, within the allowable five percent error rate for this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 67

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 28 of 50 PageID: 2789

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.13 Compliance with Task 36: Supervisory Review of MVR Tapes

Task 36

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 36 stipulates that:

36. The State shall adopt a protocol requiring that State Police supervisors review MVR tapes of motor vehicle stops on a random basis. The protocol shall establish the schedule for conducting random reviews and shall specify whether and in what manner the personnel conducting the review shall prepare a written report on each randomized review of an MVR tape. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of the methodology used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

SOP F19 was revised during the reporting period, changing the scheduling of MVR reviews and management reviews. During electronic reviews of Supervisors Review of Motor Vehicle Contact Recordings, members of the monitoring team reviewed 300 supervisors' MVR review reports. The monitors noted above in Section 2.3 that non-station personnel conducted about 45 percent of the initial video reviews. Management reviews were conducted both by station-level, troop-level and OSPA-assigned enlisted personnel. Thus, many supervisory corrections noted in this reporting period occurred at the Troop level or through review by enlisted members assigned to OSPA.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 68

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 29 of 50 PageID: 2790

Fourteen errors were not caught by supervisors among the 300 incidents with MVR reviews. The monitors noted that seven of the fourteen errors were in events initially reviewed by non-station personnel, although if management reviews were conducted, these were done by station personnel. The overall error rate for supervisory video review of 14 errors in 300 reviews is 4.7 percent, within the acceptable error rate of five percent.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.14 Compliance with Task 37: Supervisory Referral to PSB of Observed Inappropriate Trooper Conduct

Task 37

1 I2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

·•!d!!W.I

Phase II

I

Task 37 stipulates that:
37. After conducting a review pursuant to ~35, ~36, or a special MVR review schedule, the personnel conducting the review shall refer for investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau ("PSB") any incident where this review reasonably indicates a possible violation of the provisions of this Decree and the protocols listed in ~29 concerning search or seizure procedures, nondiscrimination requirements, and MVR use requirements, or the provisions of the Decree concerning civilian complaint procedures. Subsequent investigation shall be conducted by either the PSB or the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") as determined by the State. Appropriate personnel shall evaluate all incidents reviewed to determine the need to implement any intervention for the involved trooper.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 69

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 30 of 50 PageID: 2791

Methodology

See Section 2.2, above, for a description of methodologies used to assess compliance for this task.

Status

The monitors have observed "course-of-business" records of continual referrals to OPS of actions or omissions by road personnel, although such referrals have become more rare in recent reporting periods. This is, in the monitors' opinions, directly due to the increased levels of routine supervision, which have reduced errors on the part of road personnel. The New Jersey State Police is judged to remain in compliance with this task. No incidents were noted in this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.15 Compliance with Task 38: Periodic Reviews of Referral Decisions

Task 38

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 38 stipulates that:

38. The State Police and the OAG shall conduct periodic reviews of referral decisions pursuant to , 37 to ensure appropriate referrals are being made. State Police personnel shall be held accountable for their referral decisions.

Methodology

Personnel at the Office of the Attorney General (Office of State Police Affairs) and the New Jersey State Police are aware of the requirement to monitor r€ferral decisions pursuant to paragraph 37 of this Decree. Training for all supervisory personnel included a discussion of the requirement to "copy" to the Office of State Police Affairs any referrals to OPS by supervisory personnel.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

PaQ€ 70

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 31 of 50 PageID: 2792

Referrals have been made to the Office of Professional Standards. Personnel from the OAG are aware of the requirement for periodic audits, and have conducted audits of New Jersey State Police activities during the last reporting period (see section 2.83, below). OSPA has in place an extensive audit process designed to identify and remedy problematic supervisory processes, including problematic referral decisions. Staff from OSPA routinely audit field supervisory personnel's review of field practice, their associated supervisory actions to remedy inappropriate action on the part of law enforcement personnel, and their decisions to (or not to) refer trooper behavior to OPS.

Status

No incidents were noted, during the seventeenth monitoring period that should have been referred to OPS. The New Jersey State Police remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.16 Compliance with Task 39: Regular Supervisory Activity in the Field

I I Task 39

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

~

Phase II

Task 39 stipulates that:

39. The State Police shall require supervisors of patrol squads that exclusively, or almost exclusively, engage in patrols on limited access highways to conduct supervisory activities in the field on a routine basis.

Methodology

Members of the monitoring team reviewed 144 motor vehicle stop reports that recorded an event at which a New Jersey State Police sergeant was present, constituting field activity in 38.3 percent of all 376 stops selected this period,

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 71

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 32 of 50 PageID: 2793

down from 49.4 percent in the sixteenth reporting period and 61.0 percent in the fifteenth report. 55 For events involving a consent request, a canine deployment, or a use of force during this reporting period, there was a supervisory presence in 63.0 percent of these incidents, while a supervisor was present in just 14.6 percent of all other incidents. Thus supervisory presence in the field remains high for critical incidents.

Status

The New Jersey State Police remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.17 Compliance with Task 40: Development of a Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System

Task 40
Phase I Phase II

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Task 40 stipulates that:
40. The State shall develop and implement computerized systems for maintaining and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of the State Police to promote professionalism and civil rights integrity, to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior, and to promote best practices (hereinafter, the "Management Awareness Program" or "MAP").

55 On May 16, 2007, Field Operations issued a memorandum restricting which personnel can be

considered a "supervisor" on scene. Prior to that date, a Trooper I on sc€ne who had completed

the First Line Supervision course in anticipation of promotion to Sergeant could act in a

supervisory capacity. After this date that was no longer true. The change in policy might help

explain the further decline in supervisory rates between the 16'" and 17'" reporting periods.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 72

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 33 of 50 PageID: 2794

Methodology

This reporting period, the monitors assessed the MAPPS information system to ensure that MAPPS is being used appropriately as a personnel management tool. In all, the monitors noted MAPPS system functionalities for the 376 incidents
comprising the monitors' sample described above in Section 2.2., and with
several independent tests. In addition, members of OSPA attended and observed all risk management meetings, which use MAPPS data and information to assess risks to the agency that might require changes in training, supervision, policy or leadership. The results of these process tests are discussed below, in
the analysis of tasks 41-52.

MAPPS has been implemented as an operational system, and as implemented, has all of the individual system capabilities required by the Decree. The live data in MAPPS are the full spectrum of system data anticipated for MAPPS. The application of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the capacities for conducting long-term analyses continue to be observed for the fourth consecutive reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.18 Compliance with Task 41: Data Included in the MAPPS System

I I Task 41 11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

I!, \J,,,

1

Task 41 requires that:
41. The MAP shall consist of the following information:
a. all items of information in connection with all motor vehicle stops that are required to be recorded in a written report, form, or log, or reported to the communications center, pursuant to 4!129 and the protocols listed in 4!129of this Decree, except that duplicate information need not be entered, and
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 73

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 34 of 50 PageID: 2795

information as to whether the incident was recorded with MVR equipment need not be entered if all patrol cars are equipped with MVR unless a patrol car was equipped with MVR equipment that was not functioning;

b. information on civilian compliments and other indicia of positive performance; information on misconduct investigations; reports on use of force associated with motor vehicle stops; on-duty and off-duty criminal arrests and criminal charges; civil suits involving alleged misconduct by state troopers while on duty; civil suits in which a trooper is named as a party involving off-duty conduct that alleges racial bias, physical violence or threats of violence; and

c. implementation of interventions; and training information including the name of the course, date started, date completed and training location for each member receiving training.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status

The monitors have identified 25 specific sets of data required by paragraph 41. Each of the 20 required primary elements, i.e., those not identified as being "narrative elements" which are allowed to be stored outside of MAPPS proper, continue to be found in the MAPPS system. In addition, the five non-primary requirements, identified as "narrative elements" were r~asonably available through other systems. The monitors continue to find the system to be capable of processing the required data in reasonable ways. The system continues to be reasonably user-friendly and usable. All items requir~ by subparagraphs "b" and "c" of paragraph 41 were also included in the operational MAPPS in that the system contained sub-programs designed to handle these requirements. Data for these subsystems have been ported to the MAPPS system, and managers use
these systems on a daily basis.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 74

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 35 of 50 PageID: 2796

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.19 Compliance with Task 42: Annual Access to Troopers' Personal MAPPS Data

Task 42

~3

4

5

6

7

8

9 - 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 42 requires that:
42. All information in MAP on substantiated misconduct investigations, civilian compliments, and other indicia of positive performance which can be attributed to a specific trooper shall be made available to that trooper on an annual basis upon written request. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as granting that trooper access to confidential documents other than those identified in this paragraph, or to any information which cannot be attributed to the trooper requesting the information.

Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status
Policies supporting this requirement have been completed. The monitors have reviewed these policies, and have approved them as written. During the seventeenth reporting period, the monitors reviewed a pending policy change to give troopers routine and direct access to most of their own MAPPS data.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 75

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 36 of 50 PageID: 2797

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.20 Compliance with Task 43: Production of "Counts" and Percentages for Stop Data

Task 43

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 43 requires that:

43. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in '1129 (a) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in 'IJ29(a), the MAP shall have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the above-referenced information and to run reports for different time periods (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) and for individual troopers, squads, and stations. Regarding the motor vehicle stop information identified in 'IJ29(a)(5A, SA, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 17A) and recorded in accordance with the protocols identified in 'IJ29(a), it will be sufficient that the MAP shall have the capability to access (through crossreferenced paper documents or other method) this descriptive information entered on specific incidents and matters. Regarding the information identified in 'IJ41(b and c), to the extent technologically feasible, the MAP shall be developed to have the capability to search and retrieve numerical counts and percentages for any combination of the information and to run reports for different time periods and for individual troopers, squads or stations. To the extent that the MAP shall require textual or
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 76

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 37 of 50 PageID: 2798

narrative descriptions of misconduct allegations or other information identified in '1141(b and c), it will be sufficient that the MAP only have the capability to retrieve this descriptive information.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status

The primary data elements identified in paragraph 29 a (1-19) are manipulable by "count" and percentage, and can be reported by different time periods, as required by this paragraph. MAPPS contains the ability to access (in most cases through other available automated systems) the items identified in paragraph 29a (Sa, Sa, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, and 17a). MAPPS has the capacity to retrieve and report information regarding misconduct investigations/allegations, civilian compliments, civil suits, uses of force, post-stop interactions, criminal arrests and charges and implementation of interventions. Access to these elements is reasonably effective and efficient, in the opinion of the monitors. Management personnel are accessing the system on a day-to-day basis.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.21 Compliance with Task 44: Common Control Numbers

Task 44

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 44 requires that:
44. Where information about a single incident is included within the MAP from more than one document the State shall use a common control number or other means to link the information from different sources so that the user can
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 77

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 38 of 50 PageID: 2799

cross-reference the information and perform analyses.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status

The State has identified the "CAD incident number" (CIN) as the common control number. Use of the CIN has been in effect since early in the Consent Decree process.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.22 Compliance with Task 45: Timely Access to MAPPS Data

I I I Task 45

12 34

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

~~ ·I ill

I

Task 45 requires that:

45. The State shall ensure that information is included within the MAP in an accurate and timely fashion and is maintained in a secure manner.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status

Operational plans for inclusion of MAPPS information have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 78

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 39 of 50 PageID: 2800

Implementation of these procedures has been accomplished, and the system works as designed relative to the requirements of this task. One issue arose in the seventeenth reporting period in which the lack of timely data in MAPPS threatened compliance with Task 53. This issue highlights the need for the New Jersey State Police to maintain routine auditing protocols of MAPPS data and of the source data systems that provide the information available through MAPPS. (See details under Task 53.)

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.23 Compliance with Task 46: Development of a MAPPS Plan

I I I Task 46

12 34

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

I!! ill ill!

I

Task 46 requires that:

46. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days following entry of this Decree, the State shall develop a plan for designing and implementing the MAP including the use of the MAP, a timetable for implementation, and a specification of the information contained in State records pre-dating the implementation of the MAP that can reasonably be incorporated in the MAP. Prior to effectuating the implementation plan, the plan shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor. Within 180 days following the entry of this Decree, the State shall begin conducting the supervisory and management reviews required by 111148-53.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 79

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 40 of 50 PageID: 2801

Status

With implementation of the MAPPS components during the tenth reporting period, the State has effectuated it MAPPS plan.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.24 Compliance with Task 47: Supervisory and Management Reviews

I I I Task 47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

lllih!lil

I

Task 47 requires that:

47. Consistent with the requirements of ~~4853 infra, the State shall develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers, and State Police units and sub-units (e.g., troops, stations, and squads), shall be conducted, and the frequency of such reviews. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the United States and the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these functions began in January 2004.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 80

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 41 of 50 PageID: 2802

For the past six reporting periods, the monitors have been carefully reviewing the use of supervisory review processes regarding instances in which supervisors have noted a problem with a motor vehicle stop, and had created narratives in MAPPS identifying a problem with trooper actions, noting in the MAPPS the action taken regarding the problems as "No Further Action." The monitors discussed this issue in detail with the State, and reviewed MAPPS training documents regarding this process. MAPPS developed and implemented, during the fourteenth reporting period, a "trooper centric" data query system that deals with this issue. The monitoring team continues to note "No Further Action" for motor vehicle stops where problems are noted in narratives and to look for repeated problems that are not addressed. None were found in this reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.25 Compliance with Task 48: Quarterly Reviews of MAPPS Data

~1 I I Task 48

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

m ~1m1

I

Task 48 requires that:

48. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors shall conduct reviews and analyses of data obtained from the MAP and other appropriate sources to ensure that individual troopers and State Police units and sub-units are performing their duties in accord with the provisions of this Decree and associated protocols.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the
requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 81

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 42 of 50 PageID: 2803

Status

Operational plans for use of MAPPS information by supervisory and management personnel have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these procedures has been executed. The monitors have reviewed reports generated in response to this section of the Decree, and find them to be responsive to the requirements of the Decree and to be used effectively as management tools.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.26 Compliance with Task 49: Reporting Capabilities of MAPPS

I I I Task 49

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I

fll!lTiffil

I

Phase II

Task 49 requires that:
49. To the extent reflected in '1143, reports of MAP data shall regularly be prepared regarding individual troopers, stations and squads, for use in reviews as appropriate. The reports shall include the following information:
a. the number of motor vehicle stops, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other), road, squad, and trooper station; and the number of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of a motor vehicle stop, by race/ethnicity, reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, nonmoving violation, other), road, squad and trooper station;
b. data (including racial/ethnic data) on complaints, misconduct investigations (for
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 82

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 43 of 50 PageID: 2804

each type of investigation, as delineated in '1]73), discipline, intervention, and uses of force associated with motor vehicle stops.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status

Operational plans for reporting of MAPPS information within the categories stipulated in this paragraph have been articulated in New Jersey State Police operations instructions and supporting documentation. Implementation of these has been executed. For the seventeenth reporting period, the monitors reviewed MAPPS reports created in response to this section of the Decree and found them to be effective management tools. The State remains in compliance with this requirement of the Decree.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.27 Compliance with Task 50: Comparisons Using Benchmarks

Task 50
Phase I Phase II

6

10 11 12 13 14 15

Task 50 requires that:

50. To the extent reflected in '1]43, analyses of MAP data concerning motor vehicle stops shall include a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages of motor vehicle stops (by reason for the stop (i.e., moving violation, non moving violation, other)) and racial/ethnic percentages of enforcement actions and procedures taken in connection with or during the course of such stops, with a benchmark racial/ethnic percentage if available (see '11'1154-55); a
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 83

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 44 of 50 PageID: 2805

comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for such stops with the racial/ethnic percentages for enforcement actions taken in connection with or the during the course of such stops; a comparison of racial/ethnic percentages for consent searches of vehicles, and requests for consent to search vehicles, with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle consent searches; a comparison of racial/ ethnic percentages for non-consensual searches of motor vehicles with "find" rates by race/ethnicity for motor vehicle nonconsensual searches; evaluations of trends and differences over time; and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and sub-units.
Methodology
See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.
Status
During the thirteenth site visit, MAPPS personnel presented to the monitors detailed documentation regarding benchmarking and trend analysis. The activities related to Task 50 were organized into two separate functions: detailed data analysis using external and internal benchmarking processes, and high-level analysis and decision making regarding issues identified by the analysis by the Risk Management Core Group (RACG), in which key command staff review and discuss MAPPS data reports and take key decisions to move the organization forward regarding motor vehicle stop (and other) critical issues. Data analysis and the RACG meeting process for the New Jersey State Police continue to be up to date and timely. Members of the monitoring team attend RACG meetings and find them to be dealing effectively with substantive issues and to be focused on the future inputs and outputs of the RACG process.
The issues of workload, staffing, technology, and information access factors noted during the fifteenth site visit have each been addressed. The MAPPS/RACG system remains fully supported and functioning at a high level in the seventeenth reporting period.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 84

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 45 of 50 PageID: 2806

Compliance

The State has returned to full compliance in this area.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.28 Compliance with Task 51: Analysis of Trends

Task 50
Phase I Phase II

11 12 13 14 15

Task 51 requires that:
51. To the extent reflected in '1143,analyses of other data generated by the MAP shall include evaluations of trends and differences over time and evaluations of trends and differences between troopers, units, and subunits.

Methodology

See 2.17, above for a description of the methodology used to assess the requirements of this paragraph of the Decree.

Status

The central point of the Consent Decree is for the New Jersey State Police to identify, analyze and respond to issues related to in-field enforcement. During the course of the fifteenth reporting period, the New Jersey State Police evolved in its use of the MAPPS/RACG process, moving beyond what was required by the Decree to more advanced problem-analytic and problem solving processes using MAPPS and portions of the RACG structure. The organization's response to the issues raised in that period showed a strong response to identifying the issues generated by the training, analyzing the reasons those issues surfaced, and responding with a supervisory and managerial response that, eventually, resolved those issues.

During the seventeenth reporting period, the MAPPS/RACG process continued to be asked to respond to issues of in-field enforcement and off-duty misconduct. MAPPS developed and now maintains a database on all consent requests (with

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 85

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 46 of 50 PageID: 2807

canine deployments added after the reporting period) from which the RACG compiles a quarterly report. Work also began during the sevent€enth reporting period on developing a new module for MAPPS (and its associated policies), capturing use of force for reporting purposes. And, growing out of one of the issues raised in the fifteenth reporting period, the RACG has worked with the Office of Professional Standards to enhance flagging of alleged off-duty misconduct within its database to facilitate further RACG analyses. The MAPPS/RACG process also offers support to that office's complaint reduction initiatives.
In addition, as a result of the RACG meeting process and Task 50 reporting, the
RACG worked with Field Operations to enhance the data collection of post-stop interactions recorded in the Motor Vehicle Stop Report. The changes were
implemented in January 2008.
Compliance
The New Jersey State Police re-attained compliance with this task in the sixteenth reporting period, and continued to issue all required reports and analyses in the seventeenth period. OSPA reviewed staffing and support for the seventeenth reporting period and find it to be sufficient to maintain a high level of performance. The support for MAPPS/RACG analytic capabilities within the New Jersey State Police must remain a high priority so that sufficient and appropriately trained civilian and enlisted personnel are able to maintain routine functions at this level---as well to perform an increasing array of new analytic tasks in an organization with escalating data needs to inform its decisions.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.29 Compliance with Task 52: Supervisors to Implement Necessary Changes

Task 52

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 lD 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 52 stipulates that:

52. Each supervisor shall, consistent with his or her authority, implement any appropriate
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 86

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 47 of 50 PageID: 2808

changes or remedial measures regarding traffic enforcement criteria, training, and enforcement practices for particular units or subunits or implement any appropriate intervention for particular troopers; conduct any necessary additional assessment or investigation regarding particular units or subunits or particular troopers; and/or make any appropriate recommendations.

Methodology

During the seventeenth reporting period, members of the monitoring team noted 109 instances of supervisory personnel issuing "performance notices" or taking other interventions for actions taken by division personnel inconsistent with policy or established practice. Evidence exists to support the fact that supervisory personnel are carefully reviewing trooper activity and issuing performance notices or other "interventions" when inappropriate behavior occurs. The monitoring team did note sixteen instances, however, where supervisors failed to take corrective action. In addition, the monitors continued to note the high proportion of corrective action taken by non-station personnel. This trend runs counter to the Consent Decree emphasis on providing first-line supervisors with the tools to manage subordinate troopers in "real time."

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.30 Compliance with Task 53: Supervisory Review of Troopers with More than Two Misconduct Investigations in Two Years

Task 53

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 53 stipulates that:

53. A supervisory review shall be conducted regarding any state trooper who within a period of two years, is the subject of three misconduct investigations of any kind initiated
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 87

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 48 of 50 PageID: 2809

pursuant to ~ 73. Where appropriate, the review may result in intervention being taken. In the event the supervisory review results in intervention, the supervisor shall document the nature, frequency, and duration of the intervention.

Status

The State has developed a system of notifications when a third misconduct investigation occurs in a two-year period. Development of protocols for implementation of this provision have been a primary focus of the State for several reporting periods. During the tenth reporting period, the State had assigned responsibility for this task to the Office of Professional Standards (OPS). Data continue to indicate that these reviews are being meaningfully conducted as required by the Decree by OPS. In the sixteenth reporting period, documentary evidence available in MAPPS indicated that supervisory personnel are meeting with troopers who meet the criteria of this task, and, when necessary, discussing any applicable patterns of complaints.

During the seventeenth reporting period, the protocol for these meetings and their subsequent documentation in MAPPS changed. OSPA's review of the MAPPS system for the seventeenth period uncovered a problem with the interface that should link the OPS reviews to supervisors, and to recording any meetings on these reviews in MAPPS. MAPPS Unit personnel were apprized of the problem. In July 2008, the data for the 2007 OPS meaningful reviews required by this task were entered into the MAPPS system, some for reviews OPS conducted a year earlier; none of the reviews resulted in supervisors being required to meet with subordinates. The failure to maintain timely OPS data as required by Task 45 threatened compliance with this task. However, because no further supervisory action was required by the OPS reviews, the New Jersey State Police remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 88

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 49 of 50 PageID: 2810

2.31 Compliance with Task 54: Drivers Survey of the New Jersey Turnpike

Task 54

~ 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

JI!U,II
!ld!IW

Task 54 stipulates that:

54. To assist in evaluating data reported from the MAP concerning State Police law enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike, the State shall develop (for purposes of implementing this Decree) a protocol for conducting a survey of a sample of persons and vehicles traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike to determine the racial/ethnic percentage of drivers on the Turnpike. As appropriate, the survey may identify different benchmark figures for different portions of the Turnpike. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States. The protocol shall be developed and implemented using a consultant jointly selected by the parties. The survey shall be completed within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree. Both the United States and the State agree that the utility and fairness of the MAP described in this Consent Decree will depend to some degree on the development of accurate and reliable benchmarks that account for all appropriate variables and factors.

Methodology

The State has completed the required traffic survey, and has released the document to the public.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 89

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-1 Filed 04/16/09 Page 50 of 50 PageID: 2811

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.32 Office of Professional Standards Requirements

Based on more than two years of successful performance regarding OPS-related Decree requirements, and the agreement of the parties and the monitors, the Department of Justice joined with the State in a petition to the Court to release OPS from those requirements of the Consent Decree relating to internal investigations. This motion was granted by the Court, and, as such, the independent monitors discontinued monitoring activities for OPS requirements as of July, 2004 (the twelfth reporting period), with the exception of specifically articulated continuing requirements remaining under monitoring activities (i.e., tasks 87 and 90). Nonetheless, the Office of State Police Affairs continues to take specific actions designed to evaluate the receipt, investigation and resolution of misconduct complaints filed against members of the State Police.

Task 87 requires the State, based on the agreement of the parties and the monitors, to complete investigations of citizens' complaints within 120 days of receipt of the complaint. Task 90 requires the State to consider the nature and scope of misconduct committed by an individual trooper before imposing discipline. The State shall also consider the information contained in with respect to each trooper before imposing discipline.

Currently, the Office of State Police Affairs monitors the activities of OPSin two ways. First, the Office of State Police Affairs is responsible for reviewing each substantiated disciplinary investigation conducted by OPS. The purpose of each review is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to move forward with a disciplinary action. This is accomplished by assessing the investigation activities undertaken by OPS. Each review also encompasses an evaluation of the penalty proposed by the State Police for each substantiated investigation. In conducting its review, the Office of State Police Affairs has full access to MAPPS information concerning the trooper's prior disciplinary history and that information is evaluated in conjunction with the quantum of evidence developed by the investigation before disciplinary charges are filed and the target of the investigation is notified of the recommended penalty. Disciplinary matters cannot move forward unless the Office of State Police Affairs is satisfied that there is enough evidence to prove the disciplinary infraction and the recommended penalty is appropriate to the infraction.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 90

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 42 PageID: 2812

Second, the Office of State Police Affairs conducts audits of OPS investigations on a semi-annual basis. The audits encompass a broad range of the complaints including not just substantiated complaints but also unsubstantiated and unfounded complaints. The audits involve a review of all complaints involving racial profiling, disparate treatment, excessive force, illegal or improper searches and domestic violence. In addition to a review of the foregoing complaints, a random sample of all other complaints received by the State Police is selected for review. For each complaint, a complete review of the written investigative file is conducted. Those reviews lead in some instances to a review of all investigative evidence including the audio and video tapes assembled by OPS.

During the reporting period, the Office of State Police Affairs reviewed a total of 239 investigations conducted by OPS. Of that total, 124 investigations consisted of complaints involving racial profiling, disparate treatment, excessive force, illegal or improper searches and domestic violence. The remaining investigations consisted of a random sample of all other complaints investigated by OPS. A review of the written files were conducted for all 239 investigations. An additional review of the file (audio and video tapes, etc.) was conducted in 29 investigations.

2.33 Training Assessment

The New Jersey State Police Academy (hereafter Academy) has attained compliance in all performance areas as of the fourteenth reporting period. The Superintendent and the command staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to, and interest in the training function provided by the Academy.

The seventeenth reporting period for Tasks 93 through 109 consists of the period between April 1, 2007 and May 31, 2008. Actions noted during the monitors' seventeenth site visit are discussed in some detail in the paragraphs below.

2.34 Compliance with Task 93: Development and Evaluation of Quality of Training Programs

I I Task 93

1

2

3

4

5

... 9 10 11 12 13 14

Phase I I Phase II

Task 93 stipulates that:
93. The New Jersey State Police shall continue to: oversee and ensure the quality of all training of state

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 91

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 2 of 42 PageID: 2813
troopers; continue to develop and implement the State Police academy curriculum for training State Police recruits, and provide training for academy instructors; select and train state trooper coaches in coordination with and assistance from State Police supervisors; approve and supervise all post-academy training for state troopers, and develop and implement all post-academy training conducted by the State Police; provide training for State Police instructors who provide post-academy training; and establish procedures for evaluating all training (which shall include an evaluation of instructional content, the quality of instruction, and the implementation by state troopers of the practices and procedures being taught).
Methodology
The Office of State Police Affairs reviewed "normal course of business" records for the academy, and discussed with the Academy staff specific aspects of training development, delivery and documentation processes for the reporting period. The office also reviewed detailed evaluation processes for this requirement of the Decree, and found them to be professionally developed, articulated, and implemented.
Status
The Academy continues to refine its ability to provide effective and meaningful training.
In a departure from its previous methodology for developing training programs, the Academy prepared an organizational needs assessment. The purpose of the assessment was to move the development of training programs away from the piecemeal approach of having individual instructors prepare training courses based on what they perceive as training needs and towards an integrated approach that requires instructor to consider the organization's mission in the development of curriculum. In other words, lesson plans are developed within the parameters of the needs assessment. Data are collected from several sources including Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"), Equal Employment Office/Affirmative Action ("Ef.O/AA") Management Awareness Personnel Performance System ("MAPPS"), the Academy Training Committee and various other committees and focus groups throughout the Division. Course curricula are now being evaluated as a whole, and the instructors are responsible to report how their training course fits the organization's strategic plan.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 92

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 3 of 42 PageID: 2814

In addition, the Academy now serves as the central repository for all training requests and evaluations. A course approval and evaluation process is currently in place based on the organizational needs assessment outlined above. No training will be approved unless it comports with the Division's strategic plan. This new course approval and evaluation process outlines the responsibilities of the Academy staff, instructors and Field Training Officers ("FTO's") in their respective roles as it relates to the seven-step training cycle. The submission and review of lesson plans has been streamlined and S.O.P. C-25 is being modified to reflect this process. The goal is to establish a link between training and overall Division performance with an eye towards maintaining the quality of training and complying with the established training standards.

Quality control is further enhanced through course critiques which have been standardized and are being expanded to capture information on all courses taught throughout the Division, not just those courses taught at the Academy. The purpose of the critique is to determine whether the training elicited the desired behavioral response or had unintended consequences.
The Academy further seeks to determine the long-term impact of training - identifying the goals, setting up measures, collecting data and determining where the data fall on those measures. Any courses deemed to be underperforming receive further evaluation. Metrics That Matters ("MTM") is the analytical software program utilized at the Academy to evaluate and assess training. The outcome can be compared against standardized results available with the software or against other courses that have been delivered throughout the Division. In addition, quantifiable performance measures for the same subject matter can be tracked over time. The Academy staff is currently working with an "MTM" representative to enhance the company's software program to suit the Academy's needs. An examination of the enhanced program will be conducted during the next review period.
In response to a recommendation in the sixteenth Monitors' report, the Academy presented the Commandant with a comprehensive Academy Instructor Certification Course Lesson Plan. The lesson plan includes a review of the most current IMT r.eport with particular attention to those improvements that have been made and those specific tasks that need to be addressed. The lesson plan is directed toward ensuring instructors have a clear understanding of the tasks and the processes that must be followed to maintain oversight for the quality of all training within the Division because those members currently assigned to the Academy as faculty were not present during the years that the Consent Decree process was being developed and implemented. This certification course will be submitted through the proper channels and is anticipated to be approved during the next monitoring period. In addition, an Instructor Observation Form has been incorporated into the MTM database in order to evaluate the instructors on their knowledge of the subject matter, presentation of course materials and demeanor.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 93

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 4 of 42 PageID: 2815

In the past two monitoring periods, the IMT expressed concerns about the drug interdiction training. Those concerns prompted the Academy staff to draft an "Outside Training Protocol" in addition to an "Off-Duty Training Appraisal Report" that will be incorporated into S.O.P. C-25.
In March 2007, the Office of State Police Affairs recommended that the Academy implement a system to track, review and monitor training received by members of the Division from outside agencies. In response, the Academy developed an Off-Duty Training Appraisal Report to track training received by a member who attends training on their own time. It is the Academy's intention to collect course materials from the attendee for review. If an attendee does not complete an Off-Duty Training Appraisal Report and fails to submit the course materials, the training will not be entered into the ACTS or appear in the member's personnel file.
During this monitoring period, the Academy demonstrated its concern as to the type of training received by its membership and its ability to recognize training that may be contrary to the training mandated by the Consent Decree. In February 2008, a request was received by the Academy to review a brief course description relating to a weeklong Criminal Contraband Detection and Recognition Training Seminar presented by a third party vendor who utilized retired and federal law enforcement officials as instructors. Without the benefit of materials that would detail the course content or its targeted goals, the Academy's Commandant, as well as his supervisor, would not sanction this training.
Nevertheless, eight members of the Division attended the seminar. Four troopers assigned to the Commercial Carrier/Safety Inspection Unit attended the course while on-duty; four troopers assigned to Field Operations attended while off-duty. Travel request were submitted and approved only for those four troopers assigned to the Commercial Carrier/Safety Inspection Unit.56 The Field Training Officer was directed to debrief those members who attended while off-duty to make sure that they understand their responsibilities as they relate to the Division's S.O.P.'s and the training r€ceived under the mandates of the Consent Decree.

56 Members of the Commercial Carrier/Safety Inspection Unit are responsible for enforcing federal statutes governing commercial transportation. See, United States Code Title 49. Because the constitutional provisions governing search and seizure for commercial vehicles differs from the constitutional provisions governing search and seizure for privately owned motor vehicles, members of the unit are given the latitude to receive training geared for that type of enforcement, whereas other members of the Division are not.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 94

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 5 of 42 PageID: 2816

At the time this training occurred, the Academy believed that it had no control over what training a member attended, when the training took place during off-duty hours and at personal expense. Consequently, the Office of State Polic€ Affairs provided the Academy with clarification as it relates to the Department of Law & Public Safety policy for the authorization of training and travel. Under the Department policy, att€ndance at a conference or seminar is subject to review and approval by the member's chain of command and the Division's Ethics Officer, even when the training takes place during off-duty hours or the member pays the costs of attending the program so long as attendance is predicated on the member's status as a law enforcement officer and/or the conference or seminar is related to the member's job duties. The Academy has since taken the appropriate steps to implement the Department's policy and proc€dure throughout the Division.

While we firmly believe that the Academy and the executive leadership of the State Police are firmly committed to the training function including the delivery of training that is consistent with the Decree, more must be done. The Academy must continue to be vigilant in its efforts to maintain oversight of the training function. In addition, the executive leadership must continue to support the Academy in its mission to ensure that the members of the State Police receive training that is consistent with the Consent Decree. Because this is the second time members of the State Police have attended a training program delivered by third party vendors that had the potential to cause significant problems for the Division vis-a-vis the requirements set forth by the Decree, the Division will be placed on warning if it happens for a third time.

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.35 Compliance with Task 97: Encourage Superior Troopers to Apply for Academy

Task 97

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 97 stipulates that:
97. The State shall continue to encourage superior troopers to apply for academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 95

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 6 of 42 PageID: 2817
Methodology
See Section 2.34, above for a discussion ofthe methodology for assessing compliance with this task.
Status
In October of 2007, a comprehensive staffing study was issued by the Training Bureau to the command staff based on the current and projected needs subject to the following criteria:
• Current Unit Benchmarks • Training Calendar • Analysis/Impact of November 2006 Training Bureau Re-Organization • Current Staffing Levels • Obligated/Non-Obligated Training Hours • Instructor/Student Ratios
As a result, the Training Bureau requested 12 detachments to supplement their enlisted member staff. Currently, the organizational chart reflects a total of 65 sworn personnel and nine civilians assigned to the Academy. Based on discussions with the Academy staff, it would appear that the training function is adequately staffed at this time.
With respect to the trooper coach program, the Academy is seeking to relax the requirements for candidates seeking to apply for trooper coach assignments. In 2006, it was anticipated that trooper coach candidates would have a minimum of three years experience commencing January 1, 2007, and four years of experience commencing January 1, 2008. This time frame was developed in anticipation of smaller graduating class sizes in the years ahead. With a larger number of probationary troopers expected to graduate in June of 2008 (approx. 160-165), Field Operations requested permission to delay implementation of the requirement of four years of experience to increase the number of trooper coach candidates. According to Academy staff, the trooper coach program will not be adversely impacted by delaying the implementation of the four year requirement.
It would appear that the Academy will be able to gather a full compliment of Trooper Coaches if they remain at the three-year eligibility standard. As previously mentioned, this would require a waiver from what is mandated in S.O.P. F-12. A proposal will be submitted amending the current eligibility requirements from four years to three years in the S.O.P. In the interim, the IMT has granted a waiver of the four-year eligibility requirement for the current Trooper Coach recruiting process in this reporting period.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 96

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 7 of 42 PageID: 2818

Since the last monitoring period, a web-based computerized system to track Trooper Coach assignments and the progress of the probationary troopers has been designed and is being implemented Division-wide. See Task 102 for details.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.36 Compliance with Task 98: Formal Eligibility Criteria for Training Personnel

I I Task 98 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

lilliiTlll1

Task 98 stipulates that:
98. The State shall establish formal eligibility and selection criteria for all academy, post-academy, and trooper coach training positions. These criteria shall apply to all incumbent troopers in these training positions and to all candidates for these training positions, and also shall be used to monitor the performance of persons serving in these positions. The criteria shall address, inter alia, knowledge of State Police policies and procedures, interpersonal and communication skills, cultural and community sensitivity, teaching aptitude, performance as a law enforcement trooper, experience as a trainer, postacademy training received, specialized knowledge, and commitment to police integrity.
Methodology
See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance
with this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 97

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 8 of 42 PageID: 2819

Status

The criteria stipulated by this section of the Consent Decree are being met with the exception of the Trooper Coach eligibility requirements outlined above. All individuals applying for Academy, Post Academy or Trooper Coach positions must undergo a
meaningful review, that includes an examination of the members' work history, to determine whether they have been compliant with the Division's mandates and S.O.P.'s. This review is conducted through the Office of Professional Standards and the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity.

Status

Academy Personnel Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Post Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Trooper Coach Personnel In Compliance In Compliance

2.37 Compliance with Task 99: Training for Academy Instructors

Task 99

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 99 stipulates that:
99. The State Police shall ensure that all troopers serving as an academy or post-academy instructor, or as a trooper coach, receive adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties, including training in adult learning skills, leadership, teaching, and evaluation. All training instructors and trooper coaches shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate on a regular basis, a high level of competence. The State shall document all training instructors' and trooper coaches' proficiency and provide additional training to maintain proficiency.
Methodology
See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 98

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 9 of 42 PageID: 2820

Status

The Academy continues to provide training that requires certification and re-certification in a myriad of disciplines for instructors and continues to provide Trooper Coach training. Two blocks of Trooper Coach training will be conducted in May of 2008. The Academy tracks the dates the training is delivered and those members in attendance. Refresher courses are offered and proficiency is tracked through test scores maintained in the ACTS Database.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

Academy Instructors In Compliance In Compliance

Post-Academy In Compliance In Compliance

Troooer Coaches In Compliance In Compliance

2.38 Compliance with 100: Training in Cultural Diversity

Task 100

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 100 stipulates that:
100. The State Police shall continue to train all recruits and troopers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons having a different sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow troopers, the importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual inservice training covering these topics.
Methodology
See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 99

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 10 of 42 PageID: 2821

Status
Tasks 100 and 101 address training relating to cultural diversity, ethics, leadership and Fourth Amendment requirements The Academy combines training in these areas during the annual In-Service training program. See comments also under Task 101 (status).
The annual In-Service training program was conducted during the months of October, November, and December of 2007. The topics included search and seizure, leadership, cultural awareness and ethics. The 2007 curriculum was based on the organization needs identified in a comprehensive evaluation of the previous (2006) In-Service Training. Information was also gathered from Field Operations, Office of Professional Standards, and included the Superintendent's Strategic Goals (Intelligence LedPolicing). The majority of the training was interactive and scenario based. The scenarios required that the participants utilize skills relating to leadership, cultural awareness, ethics and search and seizure.
The Academy staff offered an example of how training was modified to address an emerging problem. The curriculum was modified to include five scenarios where actors engaged the participants in practical exercises that reflected various enforcement activities captured on videos recorded during motor vehicle stops. Scenarios were developed from the videos with a set of measurable objectives:
• Reduction in elongated critical motor vehicle interactions • Increase in hit rate (evidence seized) on consent searches
• Increase in confidence and understanding of Search & Seizure
• Reduction of Office of Professional Standards Complaints
According to the Academy staff, the training was successful. Preliminary feedback from Field Operations was positive. A marked difference has been seen in the troopers' ability to develop and articulate reasonable suspicion as well as an improvement in the judgment of those first-line supervisors who conduct MVR reviews.
Moving forward, it is recommended that the Academy staff continue to submit a written data collection plan that can be reviewed by supervisory personnel to ensure that the assessment of In-Service training programs is consistent from year to year. The Academy put forward a request to have personnel, preferably civilian, assigned to the Academy for the express purpose of collecting, analyzing and measuring data that would provide continuity and unit stability. Due to budgetary constraints, the proposal was denied.
The Office of State Police Affairs has noted the significant progress made by the

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 100

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 11 of 42 PageID: 2822

Academy in its ability to measure implementation of training and to sustain compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. For these reasons and in an effort to maintain the momentum established by the Academy/ it is recommended that the State Police revisit the proposal to hire an additional civilian staffer to collect and analyze data during the next fiscal year.

Compliance

Cultural Diversity

Ethics

Leadership

Phase I: Phase II:

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

In compliance In compliance

2.39 Compliance with Task 101: Recruit and In-Service Training on Fourth Amendment and Non-Discrimination Requirements

Task 101

10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 101 stipulates that:

101. The State Police shall continue to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements. In addition, the State shall provide training on the non-discrimination requirements of this Decree as part of all academy and in-service patrol-related and drug-interdiction-related training, including training on conducting motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. An attorney designated by the Attorney General's Office shall participate in the development and implementation of this training.

Methodology

See Section 2.341 above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 101

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 12 of 42 PageID: 2823

Status

Tasks 100 and 101 address training relating to cultural diversity, ethics, leadership and Fourth Amendment requirements The Academy combines training in these areas during the annual In-Service. See comments also under Task 100 (status).

The Academy continues to provide recruit and annual in-service training on Fourth Amendment requirements, including training on drug-interdiction, motor vehicle stops and searches and seizures. The Law Enforcement Science Unit is responsible for maintaining and updating lesson plans used in the instruction of recruits when new case law is issued by the courts, revisions are made to S.O.P.'s and/or problems present themselves in Field Operation.

Compliance: In-Service

Recruit

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

2.40 Compliance with Task 102: Training Protocols for the Trooper Coach Process

Task 102

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 102 stipulates that:
102. Before the next recruit class graduates from the State Police academy, the State Police shall adopt a protocol regarding its trooper coach program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting trooper coaches, the training provided to trooper coaches to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary troopers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary troopers to trooper coaches, the substance of the training provided by trooper coaches, and the evaluation of probationary trooper performance by trooper coaches. Prior to implementation, the protocol shall be approved by the Independent Monitor and the United States.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 102

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 13 of 42 PageID: 2824

Methodology

See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

A web-based application system to track Trooper Coach assignments and the progress of the probationary troopers has been designed and is being implemented Divisionwide. The forms currently found in S.O.P. F-12 "Trooper Coach Evaluation Program" are now maintained and retrievable from the database. The program has a flag system -"real time alarms"- so that any necessary remedial training can be delivered to the probationary trooper promptly (e.g., probationary trooper not responding to training or performing unsatisfactorily on the road.)

The database is being populated with information relating to individuals who are interested in becoming Trooper Coaches. It is the Academy's intention to enter historical information on Trooper Coaches who have already been approved and are participating in the program. Other databases linked to this application include those containing information from the Human Resources database and the S.O.P. database.

The Academy continues to revise S.O.P. F-12 governing the Trooper Coach program to include amending the current eligibility requirements from four years to three years and to institute a "Reserve Trooper Coach" program. Reserve Coaches will be required to attend a one-day training program. Thereafter, they will be permitted to substitute for a regularly assigned coach if one is not available on a particular day.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 103

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 14 of 42 PageID: 2825

2.41 Compliance with 103: Provision of Copies of the Decree to all State Troopers

Task 103

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 103 stipulates that:

103. The State Police shall as soon as practicable provide copies and explain the terms of this Decree to all state troopers and employees in order to ensure that they understand the requirements of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. After the State has adopted new policies and procedures in compliance with this Decree, the State shall provide in-service training to every state trooper regarding the new policies and procedures and the relevant provisions of this Decree. The State shall incorporate training on these policies and procedures into recruit training at the State Police Academy.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Methodology

See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance
with this task.

Status

The New Jersey State Police achieved compliance for this task in September 2000. Any
Decree-related information, including the issuance of new orders or recently enacted legislation, is forwarded to its membership through the "Read & Acknowledge Program," an electronic database used to provide notification as well as to receipt acknowledgement from its membership. The administrative officers at the section level are able to monitor member compliance through this program and a check of the database will reveal non-compliant members.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 104

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 15 of 42 PageID: 2826

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.42 Compliance with 104: Systems Improvement Processes for Police Training

Task 104

2

34 5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 104 stipulates that:
104. The State shall establish systems for State Police units, sub-units, and supervisors to provide information and refer particular incidents to the Training Bureau to assist the Training Bureau in evaluating the effectiveness of training and to detect the need for new or further training.
Methodology
See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.
Status
The Academy has completed the 2008 Training Needs Assessment report. Data used to conduct this assessment were collected from various bureaus, committees and training units throughout the Division. Areas in need of improvement were identified in the report, which is used by instructors to develop specific training programs.
Compliance:
Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 105

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 16 of 42 PageID: 2827

2.43 Compliance with 105: Provision of Training for Supervisors

Task 105
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 105 stipulates that:

105. The State Police shall provide all supervisors with mandatory supervisory and leadership training which (in addition to the subjects addressed in ,,100 and 101) shall integrity and prevent misconduct. The State Police shall provide the initial training required by this paragraph within one year from entry of the Decree and thereafter shall provide supervisory training on an annual basis.

Methodology

See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

Supervisory and Leadership Training continues to be delivered and evaluated according to the seven-step training cycle. During the last IMT review, there was discussion of scheduling the 40-hour Sergeant-First Class training as five one-day sessions over the course of several weeks in an effort to allow a more effective implementation of the knowledge gained. As a consequence of logistics, manpower and staffing, the Academy determined that training is more efficient if it is delivered on consecutive days to maintain continuity.

The Academy conducted an evaluation of supervisory related training that has been incorporated in the 2008 Division-Wide Needs Assessment.

Compliance:

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 106

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 17 of 42 PageID: 2828

2.44 Compliance with Task 106: Training for Newly Promoted State Troopers

""'"' II:; 2

3

4

. "

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

Phase I Phase II

Task 106 stipulates that:

106. The State shall design and implement postacademy training programs for all state troopers who are advancing in rank. The State shall require troopers to successfully complete this training, to the extent practicable, before the start of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank, and in no event later than within seven months of the promoted trooper's service in his or her new rank.

Methodology

See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

The Academy continues to provide post-Academy training for those troopers who advance in rank. Since the last IMT visit, there were two Mid-Level Management Courses and two Executive Leadership Courses presented for a total of 110 individuals trained. These courses conform to the seven-step training cycle and are evaluated immediately after presentation and again approximately 45 days after initial presentation in order to measure the impact the training is having in the field.

The Academy monitors whether or not a member, who has advanced in rank, has received the appropriate training no later than seven months in their new position through querying information found in the Human Resources database as well as information on the individual member found in ACTS.

Captains and Above Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Sergeants and Lieutenants Phase I: In Compliance Phase II: In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 107

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 18 of 42 PageID: 2829

2.45 Compliance with Task 107: Provision of Specialized Training

Task 107

8 9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 107 stipulates that:

107. The State shall design and implement postacademy training programs for all state troopers who are newly assigned to a State Police troop, station, or assignment where specialized training is necessary in order to perform the assigned duties.

Methodology

See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

As per the Sixth Report, Task 107 applies to those troopers who returned to patrol from specialized assignment. As previously reported, training processes for post-Academy training for "newly assigned" troopers were implemented during the seventh reporting period. Evaluation processes related to the impact in the field of this training were implemented during the fourteenth reporting period. All instructors external to the Academy complete the Instructor Training Program to insure the delivery of quality training. In addition, an operational guide is issued to instructors and Field Training Officers to assist them in their role of training the newly assigned troopers and troopers are required to keep any certifications they may have up to date. The State Police remain in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 108

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 19 of 42 PageID: 2830

2.46 Compliance with 108: Inclusion of Training Data in MAPPS Program

Task 108
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 108 stipulates that:

108. The State Police shall continue to maintain records documenting all training of state troopers. As part of the MAPPS, the State Police will track all training information, including name of the course, date started, date completed, and training location for each member receiving training. The MAPPS will maintain current and historical training information.

Methodology

See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance
with this task.

Status

Discussions are currently underway to formulate a method by which the data in GeoLearning can be linked to ACTS and MAPPS. The Programming Unit has been tasked with developing such a system and trial runs are currently being conducted. As previously noted in the sixteenth Monitors' report, accessing this information in a global fashion will further assist personnel in managing their responsibilities at every level in the organization.

Compliance

Phase I:
Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 109

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 20 of 42 PageID: 2831

2.47 Compliance with Task 109: Establishment of a Central Repository for Training Records

Task 109

2

34 5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 109 stipulates that:

109. The State Police shall maintain, in a central repository, copies of all academy, post-academy and trooper coach training materials, curricula, and lesson plans.

Methodology

See Section 2.34, above for a discussion of the methodology for assessing compliance with this task.

Status

During the sixteenth Monitor's visit, it was noted that an enhancement to the ACTS database was approved but not implemented resulting in a significant impact on manpower related to data management and data entry for firearms qualification. Since that time, a Firearms Application Program has been developed that is linked to the various Division databases. The program captures all information relating to firearms qualification that was traditionally maintained on data cards and includes qualification scores, types of weapons used, and attendance. This application can be queried in a variety of ways and a historical search can be done on an individual member. The regional command is now able to enter the information from remote sites as qualifications are completed thereby streamlining the process without burdening clerical staff saving man-hours and having information available in real time.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 110

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 21 of 42 PageID: 2832

2.48 Compliance with Task 110: Creation of the Office of State Police Affairs
Task 110
Phase I Phase II

Task 110 stipulates that:
110. The Attorney General of New Jersey shall create an Office of State Police Affairs ("office"). The office shall have the responsibility to ensure implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree and provide coordination with the Independent Monitor and the United States concerning the State Police and matters related to the implementation of the Consent Decree. An Assistant Attorney General shall head the office. The office's responsibilities shall include auditing the manner in which the State receives, investigates, and adjudicates misconduct allegations; auditing the State Police's use of MAP data; and auditing state trooper performance of the motor vehicle stop requirements discussed in the Consent Decree. The office also shall be responsible for providing technical assistance and training regarding these matters. The office shall have such additional responsibilities as may be assigned by the State Attorney General.

Status

As was previously indicated, this report marks the tentative assumption by the State of New Jersey and the Office of State Police Affairs of the duties previously performed by the independent monitors. More specifically, with this report the Office of State Police Affairs has undertaken the steps necessary to review and assess the efforts of the State Police to maintain compliance with the Consent Decree and to report the results of its assessment and review to the independent monitors and the Department of Justice.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 111

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 22 of 42 PageID: 2833

2.49 Compliance with Task 111: Audits of Motorists Subjected to Motor Vehicle Stops

Task 111

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 111 stipulates that:
111. The office shall implement an auditing system for contacting a sample of persons who were the subject of motor vehicle stops and enforcement actions and procedures connected to a motor vehicle stop, to evaluate whether state troopers conducted and documented the incidents in the manner prescribed by State Police rules, regulations, procedures, and directives, and the requirements of this Decree.

Methodology
Twice during the calendar year, the Office of State Police Affairs conducts a survey of motorists who were the subject of motor vehicle stops or other enforcement actions related to a motor vehicle stop. The purpose of the surveys is to determine whether the motor vehicle stops or other enforcement actions were conducted in a manner consistent with State Police rules, regulations and procedures and the requirement of the Decree. The surveys are sent by U.S. mail to randomly selected motorists who return their responses in postage paid return address envelopes. The responses are reviewed by the office and arrangements are made to interview those motorists who indicate a negative interaction with the State Police. Information of note from the reviews and the interviews are made available to the State Police.

Status
The Office of State Police Affairs conducted two motorist surveys during the reporting period. More than two thousand surveys were mailed to affected motorists. Almost five hundred completed surveys were returned to the office for review. From that review, more than two dozen motorists were contacted for additional information and, when appropriate, complaints were forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards for investigation. The State remains in compliance with this task.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 112

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 23 of 42 PageID: 2834

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.50 Compliance with Task 112: Internal Audits of Citizen Complaint Processes

Task112 ~ 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I 1
Phase II I Task 112 stipulates that:

112. The office's audits of the receipt, investigation, and adjudication of misconduct allegations shall include audits of the tapes of the complaint/comment toll-free telephone hotline established by '1162; the use of testers to evaluate whether complaint intake procedures are being followed; audits of audio tape and videotape interviews produced during the course of misconduct investigations; and interviews of a sample of persons who file misconduct complaints, after their complaints are finally adjudicated.

Methodology

Data regarding task 112 indicate that the State Police continues to perform this task in a satisfactory manner. OSPA audits the hotline as part of its semi-annual audits of OPS. For 2007, these audits revealed 110 calls were received on the hotline and OSPA chose 18 calls randomly for review. All were classified correctly and had case files opened.

Status

The State remains in compliance with this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 113

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 24 of 42 PageID: 2835

2.51 Compliance with Task 113: Full and Unrestricted Access for the Office of State Police Affairs

Task 113
Phase I Phase II

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Task 113 stipulates that:

113. The office shall have full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities, and documents (including databases) that the office deems necessary to carry out its functions.

Status

The Office of State Police Affairs had full and unrestricted access to all State Police staff, facilities and documents during the reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.52 Compliance with Task 114: Publication of Semi-Annual Reports of Aggregate Traffic Stop Statistics

Task 114 j1 j 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I
Phase II ..IDI!1!ID1
Task 114 stipulates that:

114. The State Police shall prepare semiannual public reports that include aggregate statistics on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures broken down by State Police station and the race/ethnicity of the civilians involved. These aggregate statistics shall include the number of

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 114

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 25 of 42 PageID: 2836

motor vehicle stops (by reason for motor vehicle stop), enforcement actions (including summonses, warnings, and arrests) and procedures (including requests for consent to search, consent searches, non-consensual searches, and uses of force) taken in connection with or during the course of such stops. The information regarding misconduct investigations shall include, on a statewide basis, the number of external, internal, and total complaints received and sustained by category of violation. The information contained in the reports shall be consistent with the status of State Police record keeping systems, including the status of the MAP computer systems. Other than expressly provided herein, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to confer any additional rights to information collected pursuant to this Decree.

Status

The Office of State Police Affairs filed aggregate data reports with the United States District Court for New Jersey on June 28, 2007, and January 11, 2008, for the reporting period governed by this report. The reports are available for inspection at www.nj.gov/lps/decreehome.htm.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.53 Compliance with Task 115: Appointment of Independent Monitor

Task 115 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

ilHH! ,
mmw

Task 115 stipulates that:

115. Within ninety (90) days after the entry of this Decree, the State and the United States shall together select an Independent Monitor who shall monitor and report on the State's implementation of

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 115

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 26 of 42 PageID: 2837

this Decree. The Monitor shall be acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an Independent Monitor, each party shall submit two names of persons who have experience as a law enforcement officer, as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a federal, state, or county prosecutor or judge along with resumes or curricula vitae and cost proposals to the Court, and the Court shall appoint them Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The State shall bear all costs of the Monitor, subject to approval by the Court.

Status

The State continued to retain the services of Public Management Resources, Inc. and Lite, DePalma, Greenberg and Rivas as independent monitors during the reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.54 Compliance with Task 118: Full and Unrestricted Access for Monitors

Task 118

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 118 stipulates that:
118. The State shall provide the Monitor with full and unrestricted access to all State staff, facilities, and non-privileged documents (including databases) necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Decree. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make the final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 116

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 27 of 42 PageID: 2838

implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the Monitor shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other than as expressly provided herein, with respect to the Independent Monitor, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the Independent Monitor.

Methodology

The independent monitors were accorded full and unrestricted access while on-sit€ with personnel from the New Jersey State Police and the Office of State Police Affairs.

Status

All documents requested by the independent monitors have been provided in a tim,ely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the monitors have been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and assessment.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 117

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 28 of 42 PageID: 2839

2.55 Compliance with Task 122: State to File Routine Progress Reports

Task 122

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 122 stipulates that:

122. Between ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) days following entry of this Consent Decree and every seven months thereafter until this Consent Decree is terminated, the State shall file with the Court and the Monitor, with a copy to the United States, a status report delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Consent Decree.

Status
Status reports were filed by the State with the United States District Court of New Jersey in April and November of the reporting period. The reports set forth the steps taken by the State to comply with the provisions of the Consent Decree. Copies of the reports are available for inspection at www.nj.gov/lps/decreehome.htm.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

2.56 Compliance with Task 123: State to Maintain all Necessary Records

Task 123

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 123 stipulates that:
123. During the term of this Consent Decree, the State shall maintain all records documenting its
Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 118

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 29 of 42 PageID: 2840

compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and all documents required by or developed under this Consent Decree. The State shall maintain all misconduct investigation files for at least ten years from the date of the incident. The State Police shall maintain a troopers' training records and all personally-identifiable information about a trooper included in the MAP, during the trooper's employment with the State Police. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the MAP for statistical purposes. MVR tapes shall be maintained for 90 days after the incidents recorded on a tape, except as follows: any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of an pending misconduct investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding shall be maintained at least until the misconduct investigation or the civil or criminal proceeding is finally resolved. Any MVR tape that records an incident that is the subject of a substantiated misconduct investigation, or an incident that gave rise to any finding of criminal or civil liability, shall be maintained during the employment of the troopers whose conduct is recorded on the tape.

Methodology

Members of the Office of State Police Affairs have requested and reviewed in excess of one thousand documents, records and recordings in preparing this report.

Status

All documents requested from the New Jersey State Police have been provided in a timely and well-organized manner. All data reviewed by the Office of State Police Affairs has been kept in a fashion that allows retention, retrieval and ass€ssment. In addition, the State Police continue to observe the retention schedules set forth in this task.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 119

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 30 of 42 PageID: 2841

2.57 Compliance with Task 124: Unrestricted Access for the Department of Justice

Task 124

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Phase I Phase II

Task 124 stipulates that:
124. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this action, the United States shall have access to any State staff, facilities and nonprivileged documents (including databases)the United States deems necessary to evaluate compliance with this Consent Decree and, within a reasonable time following a request made to the State attorney, shall, unless an objection is raised by the State, be granted such access and receive copies of documents and databases requested by the United States. In the event of an objection, the Court shall make a final determination regarding access. In any instance in which the State objects to access, it must establish that the access sought is not relevant to monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree, or that the information requested is privileged and the interest underlying the privilege cannot be adequately addressed through the entry of a protective order. In any instance in which the State asserts that a document is privileged, it must provide the United States and the Monitor a log describing the document and the privilege asserted. Notwithstanding any claim of privilege, the documents to which the United States shall be provided access include: (1) all State Police documents (or portions thereof) concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree, other than a request for legal advice; and (2) all documents (or portions thereof) prepared by the Office of the Attorney General which contain factual records, factual compilations, or factual analysis concerning compliance with the provisions of this Decree. Other

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 120

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 31 of 42 PageID: 2842

than as expressly provided herein with respect to the United States, this paragraph is not intended, and should not be interpreted to reflect a waiver of any privilege, including those recognized at common law or created by State statute, rule or regulation, which the State may assert against any person or entity other than the United States.

Status

The Office of State Police Affairs was advised by the Department of Justice that the State of New Jersey was in compliance with this task during the reporting period.

Compliance

Phase I: Phase II:

In Compliance In Compliance

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 121

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 32 of 42 PageID: 2843

3.0 Summary
The seventeenth independent monitors' report documents the continuing evolution of the consent decree with respect to the State Police. The sixteenth report noted that the State Police had become "self-monitoring" and that as agency it possessed the ability to "analyze and correct" problematic law enforcement procedures on a "real time" basis. The report further noted that the goal of the Consent Decree was to encourage the development of law enforcement organizations that were "self-aware" and could adapt to a changing environment. The report concluded that the State Police had achieved that goal.
The evolution of the consent decree process continues with the designation of the Office of State Police Affairs (OSPA) as the agency to monitor and evaluate the efforts of the State Police to comply with the mandates of the consent decree. In the past, independent monitors designated by the Department of Justice were responsible for evaluating the implementation of the consent decree by the State Police. With this report, the torch is passed in that the State of New Jersey begins to establish a mechanism to move from federal oversight of the consent decree to self-regulation. This transition takes shape as OSPA begins to assume the duties and responsibilities of the independent monitors.
Following the completion of the independent monitors' Sixteenth Report on November 1, 2007, the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Police Standards completed its work and issued a final report. To briefly review, the committee was created by Governor Jon Corzine in August of 2006 by Executive Order No. 26. The committee was directed by the governor to recommend whether and under what circumstances the State of New Jersey should join with the Department of Justice in filing a motion with this Court seeking to terminate the consent decree. The committee also was asked to make recommendations concerning the measures necessary to ensure that the practice of racial profiling did not occur in the event that the consent decree is terminated by this Court.
In its final report, the Advisory Committee indicated that the State of New Jersey should join in a motion to terminate the consent decree provided a mechanism was developed to ensure that the progress made by the State Police under the consent decree continues in the months and years ahead. In outlining its view of what needed to be done by the State to terminate the Decree, the Committee specifically recommended that the Office of State Police Affairs be assigned the responsibility to: 1) audit the Office of Professional Standards within the Division of State Police; 2) collect and analyze data with the Division of State Police and assess the adequacy of data collection; 3) review the functions of the Field Operations Section of the Division of State Police; and 4) exercise oversight of the Management Awareness Personal Performance System implemented by the Division of State Police.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 122

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 33 of 42 PageID: 2844

Following the release of committee's final report on December 7, 2007, the independent monitors discussed the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee report with the State of New Jersey. Following those discussions and subsequent consultation with the Department of Justice resulted in a decision that the monitors would assist in preparing the State of New Jersey, the Office of State Police Affairs and the State Police for the termination of the consent decree. It was further agreed that the monitors would work with OSPA to ensure that the office developed the protocol and procedures necessary to effectively evaluate the issues addressed by the consent decree. The monitors also agreed to mentor personnel assigned to the OSPA to ensure that they developed the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to the undertake duties and responsibilities heretofore performed by the monitors.
This report marks the culmination of those efforts. In preparing the seventeenth report, staff assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs reviewed 376 motor vehicle stops including videotape reviews of 272 of the stops, gathered statistical data from those reviews and conducted an analysis of the data to {letermine whether the law enforcement activity undertaken by the State Police during motor vehicle stops was attributable to race. In addition, the staff evaluated the efforts of management at the State Police to supervise the activities of subordinate troopers through the Management Awareness Personnel Performance System and other mechanisms. Furthermore, the staff performed audits of the internal affairs function and the training function to determine compliance with the consent decree. All these activities were performed in accordance with protocol established by the independent monitors and with their guidance and assistance.
Training
The State Police continue to comply with every consent decree requirement applicable to the training function in the seventeenth reporting period. The New Jersey State Police Academy continues to refine and improve its ability to provide effective and meaningful training. More importantly, the Academy has initiated a process whereby each training program will comport with the strategic mission of the State Police and reflect the best practices of the law enforcement community.
As noted in the sixteenth report, the Academy had initiated an assessment to identify issues within the organization that could be addressed by training programs. With the seventeenth report, the assessment is complete and the State Police have moved to incorporate the findings of the assessment into the development and implementation of training programs.
Previously, training programs and the curricula supporting those programs were developed by instructors based on what the instructors deemed to be important.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 123

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 34 of 42 PageID: 2845

During the seventeenth reporting period, the Academy discarded this approach to developing training programs. Moving forward training programs and the curricula supporting those programs will be developed based on the organization's strategic plan (intelligence-led policing), best practices identified as relevant to the topic of instruction and any issues identified by the organizational assessment. Instructors developing individual programs will be responsible for integrating the agency's strategic plan, relevant best practices and issues identified by the organizational assessment into the curricula supporting the programs. This process marks a significant improvement in the development of training programs and together with the post-implementation evaluation of training should serve to enhance and improve the training function within the State Police.
In addition, the Academy has taken steps to become the central repository for records concerning all requests by individual troopers to attend training programs, the delivery of training to all troopers whether by the State Police or a third party and the postdelivery evaluation of those programs. In the past, the Academy was not always advised that individual members of the State Police were attending training programs conducted by third party vendors. As a result, the Academy could not maintain "quality control" over the training delivered to members of the State Police. By establishing itself as the central repository for records regarding training requests and mandating the post-delivery evaluation of those programs, the Academy can implement a measure of quality control that ensures members of the State Police do not receive training that is inconsistent with the mission and goals of the organization and the consent decree.
Supervision
Three levels of review are utilized by the State Police to monitor the activities of individual troopers during motor vehicle stops. An initial review of each stop may be conducted within the trooper's immediate chain of command. The initial review and any subsequent reviews may include an examination of all paper documents generated by the incident as well as the video tape created by the mobile video recorder. Ideally, the initial review is conducted by the trooper's immediate supervisor. A second review may be conducted by management within the State Police. The purpose of the second review is to provide an element of quality control to the supervisory reviews conducted within the chain of command. A tertiary review is conducted by staff assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs.
In the past, State Police policy dictated that all incidents in which a law enforcement action was taken following the stop of a motor vehicle would be subject to a video tape review. That policy was modified during the fifteenth reporting period to require a mandatory review of all incidents in which there was a request for consent to search a vehicle, a canine deployment or a use of force. All other incidents were not subject to a mandatory review. During this reporting period, 376 incidents were examined for by

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 124

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 35 of 42 PageID: 2846

the Office of State Police Affairs. Of those incidents, OSPA noted a supe!Visory or management video tape review by the State Police in 300 incidents yielding a rate of review of approximately eighty percent. Those 300 reviews yielded 109 events in which State Police supeiVisory or management reviews noted errors by the troopers conducting the motor vehicle stop.
Error rates by supeiVisors and management in this reporting period remained consistent with error rates in previous reporting periods. Of the 376 incidents it reviewed, OSPA found that the State Police failed to identify and remedy errors in 16 of the incidents. This translates into an error rate of a little more than four percent, which satisfies the benchmark established for this process.
Two issues with respect to supeiVision may require further attention moving forward. First, 45 percent of the initial video tape reviews that were conducted of motor vehicle stops were conducted by someone outside the trooper's immediate chain of command. The independent monitors have previously noted that the initial reviews are most effective when performed by the trooper's immediate supe!Visor. Shifting the responsibility for these reviews away from the immediate supeiVisors may dampen the effectiveness of the supe!Visory process as it moves forward. Second, field supeiVision of motor vehicle stops reviewed by OSPA fell to 34 percent and continues a trend of decreasing field supeiVision noted in the sixteenth report. Field supeiVision of critical incidents remains at very high levels. However, field supeiVision of non-critical incidents has decreased. Lower levels of field supeiVision may compromise the ability of the State Police to effectively supeiVise the law enforcement activities of individual troopers during motor vehicle stops. Both issues will be examined in the next report to determine whether the effectiveness of the supeiVisory process is being -compromised.
A third issue deseiVes mention for a different reason. During the seventeenth reporting period, the State Police appear to have finally resolved the issues that arose following the delivery of search and seizure training by third party vendors in 2006. The issues raised by the training programs were discussed in detail in the fifteenth report. For the purposes of this report it bears repeating that the programs led to a significant increase in problematic law enforcement activities, particularly consent requests, during motor vehicle stops.
It appears that during the seventeenth reporting period effective supe!Vision of motor vehicle stops together with in-seiVice training programs designed to address the fssues created by the third party training programs have returned consent requests to levels consistent with reporting periods prior to the program. Supe!Visory and management reviews focused on correcting mistakes by individual troopers during the development of reasonable suspicion during motor vehicle stops. The New Jersey State Poli-ce Academy developed in-seiVice training programs designed to address the principles of search and seizure during motor vehicle stops. These responses to an emerging

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 125

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 36 of 42 PageID: 2847

problem provide direct support for the conclusion that the State Police has evolved into an organization that can analyze and correct problematic law enforcement activities on a "real time" basis. The State Police should be lauded for its response to this issue.
MAPPS Development
Full compliance continues regarding MAPPS information system capabilities. The system can be used to review trooper and supervisory performance, compare trooper performance to other members of the trooper's workgroup, and to compare performance across work groups. Work has been completed on establishment of appropriate benchmark processes for the MAPPS system, and all five of the New Jersey State Police's five field operations troops have received written benchmarking and data analytic reports. Supporting SOPs and training for operation of MAPPS have been developed and approved by the monitors, and delivered to the field personnel using the system. MAPPS is being used in performance evaluations and subsequent supervisory actions including verbal counselings, performance notices and retraining. High-level risk analysis processes, using MAPPS data, were commenced during the thirteenth reporting period.
The evolution of the use of the MAPPS data system into a proactive problem identification and problem solving system commenced during the fifteenth reporting period. Initially, MAPPS was intended to provide the State Police with information that focused on motor vehicle stops. During the fifteenth reporting period, the State Police moved beyond that narrow focus in its use of MAPPS to focus on systemic organizational issues and to craft solutions to those issues before they negatively impact the organization in any significant way. During this reporting period, the State Police used MAPPS and its affiliated processes to respond to issues of in-field enforcement and off-duty misconduct. MAPPS developed and now maintains a database on all consent requests (with canine deployments added after the reporting period) from which the Risk Assessment Core Group (RACG) compiles a quarterly report. Work also began during the seventeenth reporting period on developing a new module for MAPPS (and its associated policies), capturing use of force for reporting purposes. And, growing out of one of the issues raised in the fifteenth reporting period, the RACG has worked with the Office of Professional Standards to enhance flagging of alleged off-duty misconduct within its database to facilitate further RACG analyses.
With respect to resources and capabilities, the MAPPS and RACG functions are adequately staffed at this point in time to address the workload presented by the consent decree. Both functions possess the technological capacity to generate and analyze data in response to issues posed by the consent decree and the organizational demands of the State Police. In addition, both functions have access to the data and

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 126

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 37 of 42 PageID: 2848
information necessary to execute their responsibilities. Thus both functions remain in compliance with the consent decree.
Inspections. Audit and Quality Control
Inspections and Audit personnel from Field Operations and the Office of State Police Affairs continue to review motor vehicle stop reports and video tapes elements for conformance to the requirements of the consent decree. These quality control procedures yielded a consistency in the application of law enforcement procedures throughout the seventeenth reporting period. OSPA continues to provide the State Police with an additional tier of review for law enforcement activities related to the consent decree.
Overall Compliance Status
Compliance in all areas has met and continues to meet the requirements established by the Consent Decree. All functions subject to review under the decree including training, supervision, inspections, audits and MAPPS processes are fully staffed and functioning. In the opinion of the OSPA, the State Police continue to function as an organization that is able to "analyze and correct" problematic law enforcement procedures on a "real time" basis. This accomplishment is consistent with the goal of the Consent Decree which was to encourage the development of a law enforcement organization that was monitor its activities and adapt to changes in the legal and criminal justice environments.

Seventeenth Independent Monitors' Report

Page 127

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 38 of 42 PageID: 2849

ANNEX ONE High, Median and Low Discretionary Violations1
High Discretion:
Equipment Violation Exp Registration Failure to Signal Lane Change Following too Closely FTKR Improper U turn MDT Suspended Registration Obstructed View Rest Area Overstay Seatbelt Speeding <10
Median Discretion:
Aggressive Driving FTML Motorist Aid Speeding 10-14 Unsafe Lane Change
Low Discretion:
BOLO Confidential Informant Criminal Activity Directed Stop Fictitious Plates Motor Vehicle Accident Reckless Driving Speeding >14 Suspected DUI Warrants

1 The monitors engaged in multiple, substantial discussions with New Jersey State Police personnel regarding the nature of the "reason for stop" offenses. While there remain some differences in opinion regarding high versus low discretion incidents, the framework presented above is the best available framework obtainable, in the monitors' opinion, to assess the exercise of discretion in studied traffic stops. Further work in this area may require revision of the reason for stop continuum.

Annex One

Page 128

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 39 of 42 PageID: 2850

Annex Two Data Tables for Chi-Square Analyses

Table Four: Consent Requests by Race-Ethnicity of Driver, 17th Reporting Period

No Consent Request Consent Request

White 63
34

Black

Hispanic

n=

90

81

234

72

33

139

Total

97

x'= 7.149, df= 22

162

114

p= 0.0283

This test statistic is significant at the 0.05 level.

373 1

Table Five: Canine Deployments by Race-Ethnicity of Driver, lih Reporting Period

No Canine Deployment

White 87

Black

Hispanic

n=

132

100

319

Canine

Deployment

10

30

14

54

Total

97

x'= 3.942, df= 2

p= 0.139

162

114

3734

1 The "Total" does not equal 376 because three drivers were in the other categories of race or
ethnicity. 2 "Degrees of freedom" (df) refer to the how much about the observed data needs to be known
(or can "be free" to vary) before all the observations would be determined. The size of a statistic needed to achieve a particular level of significance ("p") is determined by the degrees of freedom. For the Chi-square statistic, the degrees of freedom translate into the number of cells in a table for which the data distribution needs to be known before all the cells are determined. 3 A "p" level indicates the probability that a statistical relationship could reflect only chance. The smaller the size of p, the smaller the probability the relationship happened by chance. A p level of 0.05 was chosen here as the level at which statistical significance will be determined, consistent with most research studies. If a reported Chi-square statistic reaches a p level of 0.05 (or smaller), there is no more than a five-percent probability that the distribution of the data in that table happened by chance, and therefore any differences across groups seen in the table are considered statistically significant. 4 The "Total" does not equal 376 because three drivers were in the other categories of race or
ethnicity.

Annex Two

Page 129

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 40 of 42 PageID: 2851

This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Six: Arrest Data by Race-Ethnicity of Driver, 17th Reporting Period

No Arrest

White 23

Black 67

Hispanic 49

--
n=
139

Arrest

74

95

65

234

Total

97

162

114

X= 10.377, df= 2

p= 0.006

This test statistic is significant at the 0.05 level.

373 5

Table Seven: Consent Request Stop Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion), 17th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

High

Discretion

16

39

55

(1)

Median

Discretion

6

13

19

(2)

Low

Discretion

12

56

68

(3)

Total

34

108

142

X=2.889, df= 2 p= 0.236

This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

5 The "Total" does not equal 376 because three drivers were in the other categories of race or ethnicity.

Annex Two

Page 130

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 41 of 42 PageID: 2852

Table Eight: Canine Deployment Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion), 17th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

High

Discretion

4

(1)

18

22

Median

Discretion

2

(2)

6

8

Low

Direction

4

(3)

21

25

Total

10

45

55

X'=0.330, df= 2 p= 0.848 This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Nine: Sampled Vehicle Stop Rates by Reason for Stop (Level of Discretion), 17th Reporting Period

White

Black

Hispanic

High

Discretion

32

(1)

61

41

Median

Discretion

27

41

31

(2)

Low

Direction

38

60

42

(3)

Total

97

162

114

X'=0.635, df= 4

p= 0.959

This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

n= 134
99
140 3736

6 The "Total" does not equal 376 because three drivers were in the other categories of race or ethnicity.

Annex Two

Page 131

Case 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Document 106-2 Filed 04/16/09 Page 42 of 42 PageID: 2853

Table Ten: Reason for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity, 17th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

Intangible

(1)

2

11

13

Tangible

(2)

3

22

25

Probative

(3)

29

75

104

Total

34

108

142

X=3.368, df- 2

p= 0.186

This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

Table Eleven: Outcome for Consent Request by Race and Ethnicity, 17th Reporting Period

White

Non-White

n=

Inappropriate

(1)

2

17

19

Appropriate

(2)

32

91

123

Total

34

X (Yates)7= 1.401, df= 1

108

142

p= 0.237

This test statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level.

7 Chi-square statistics reported with Yates' correction for a table with two categories only for both row and column values.

Annex Two

Page 132

 
 J u n e1 9 , 2 0 0 6

To: From:
RE:

AttorneyGeneral,Stateof NewJersey
S a m u e l W a l k e Pr , h . D . Departmenotf CriminaJl ustice Universityof Nebraskaat Omaha
Post-ConsenDt ecreeOversighot f the NewJerseyStatePolice

EXPERTOPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
On December30, 1999the Stateof NewJerseyenteredintoa ConsentDecree withthe U.S.Departmenot f Justiceto settlea suitinvolvingallegationsof raciat profilingby the NewJerseyStatePolice.The ConsentDecreerequiredthe NJSPto implemenat seriesof managemenrteformsdesignedto increasetheaccountabiliotyf NJSPtrooperswithrespectto interactionswithcitizensandwith respect o trafficstops in particular.
The ConsentDecreeinvolvedthe creationof twoformsof oversighftor the NJSP.First,it requiredthe appointmenotf an lndependenMt onitorto ensure compliancewiththe termsof the Decree.Second,it requiredthe creationof an Office of StatePoliceAffairs(OSPA)withinthe Officeof theAttorneyGeneral(OAG)of New Jerseyto provideadditionaloversighTth. eAttorneyGenerahl adestablisheadn OSPA priorto the adventof the ConsentDecreebutin responseto the sameallegationsof racialprofiling.l
TheU.S.JusticeDepartmenits presentlyconsiderinegndingtheConsent Decree.Suchactionraisesthe questionof whetherthe Stateof NewJerseyshould maintainsomeformof permanenet xternaol versighot f theNJSPin the post-Consent Decreeera.
1 Johnl. parmer,Jr.,AttorneyGeneral,andPaulH. Zoubek,First AssistantAttorney GeneralF, inal Reportof theStatePoliceReviewTeam.July2,1999.

2
The purpose of this Expert Opinion is to make a recommendationas to whether fhe Sfafe of New Jersey should maintain some form of permanent external oversight of the NJSP,and if so what form that oversight should take.
This ExpertOpinionis basedon a reviewof all relevantdocumentsrelatedto the ConsentDecreeand its implementationa,longwithinterviewswithkeystakeholders.

I I . I M P L E M E N T I NTGH EC O N S E N TD E C R E E

The NewJerseyStatePolicehasdonean excellenjtob of implementintghe termsof the ConsentDecree.TheThirteenthand mostrecentreportof the IndependenMt onitorconcludetshatthe NJSP hascontinuedto makeremarkable progressin all areasof compliance.n2

The Monitornotedseveralspeciaal chievementosf the NJSP.Afterciting

s"Aigsndirfiacmanaitmticapsrothvee

mentisn trainingwithintheNJSP,it commentedfo, rexamplet,hat positivechangeshavebeenat theTrainingAcademythisperiod,

the changesmadein the processand outcomeof supervisionof trooperswithinthe

NewJerseyStatePolicecontinuesto be evenmoreremarkableF. orthe fifth

c o n s e c u t i v er e p o r t i n gp e r i o d ,e v i d e n c ee x i s t st h a t N e wJ e r s e yS t a t eP o l i c es u p e r v i s o r s

arefullyengagedin the consentdecreecomplianceprocess,reviewing313of the 313

motorvehiclestopeventsreviewedby the monitors."3

The NJSPsuccessfulliymplementeadn earlyinterventiosnystem(ElS),known as MAPPS, as mandatedby the ConsentDecree.4Thespecialsignificanceof this implementatioins explainedin Sectionlll, below.

aboutbTyhtehteoCpoconmsemnatDnedcorfetheea, NndJcSoPmismcoamndmeirfttsaeldtkoamboauint"tgaoininingbgtheeyroenfodtrhmesdbercoruegeh"t in termsof standardsof accountabilityM.saintainingthe reformsis Goal1 in

2ThirteenthReportof theIndependenMt onitor, "l .5 ProgresstowardCompliancei' p. 4. 3l b i d , p . 6 . 4l b t d ,p . 8 . 5Interviewswith NJSPcommandstaff.

SuperintendenJot sephFuentes's2006StrategicPlanforthe NJSP.6
Ihe NJSP is fo be commendedfor successfully implementing the terms of the Consent Decreein a timely fashion.
III.THENJSPIMPLEMENTATIOINN CONTEXT
Theachievemenotf the NJSPin implementintgheConsentDecreeshouldbe placedin the contextof the effortsof otherlawenforcemenat genciesto implement court-orderedconsentdecreesand memorandaof agreemen(tMOA).
UnderSection14141ofthe 1994ViolentCrimeControAl ct,the U.S. Departmenot f Justicehas reachedsettlementswith 20law enforcemenat gencies.T The requirementosf thevariousconsendt ecreesandMOAsareessentiallsyimilarto the NewJerseyConsentDecree.s(SomesettlementshaveinvolvedLettersthatdo not havethe forceof lawand aregenerallyfar morelimitedin scopethanthe consent decreesand MOAs.)In additiont,wo consentdecreesexistas a resultof actionsby stateattorneysgeneral,andtwo existas a resultof privatelitigation.e
Somelawenforcemenat gencieshavesuccessfullyimplementedtheirconsent decreesor MOAswithinthe requiredtimeframe,whileothershavestruggledto meet the requireddeadlinesT. heexamplesrelevantto thisreportarediscussedbelow.
Piftsburgh, PA
The PittsburghP, ennsylvaniaP, oliceDepartmenitn 1997wasthefirstlaw
6Col. JosephR. FuentesS, uperinendenNt,ewJerseyStatePoliceStrategicPlan 2006,p. 3.
7Seetheweb siteof theDOJ SpecialLitigationSection:www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/. 8Thecommonelementsof thevariousconsentdecreesandMOAs include(1) reviseduse of forcepolicies;(2) improvedcitizencomplaintprocess(;3) anearlyinterventionsystem;(4) improvedtrainingrelatedto theabovereforms;(5) a court-appointedindependenmt onitor.See SamuelWalker,TheNew lMorldof PoliceAccountabilfry(ThousandOaks:Sage,2005). eStateAttorneysGeneralbroughtsuitsagainstRiverside,California,andWalkill, New York. Privatesuitsresultedin settlementsin PhiladelphiaP, A, andOakland,CA.

4
enforcemenat gencyto reacha negotiatedconsentdecreewiththe U.S.Departmenot f Justiceas a resultof Section14141litigationT. he keytermsof the decreeare essentialltyhesameas thedecreeinvolvingthe NJSP.Thedepartmenstuccessfully implementedall of thetermsof the ConsentDecreewithinthe requiredtimeperiodand the decreewas endedin the summerof 2002.The successfuilmplementatiohnas been documentedby an lndependenMt onitorandtwoseparateevaluations.lo
SteubenvilleO, H
The SteubenvilleO, hioPoliceDepartmenwt asthe secondlawenforcement agencyto be subject o a consentdecreeunderSection14141.The department successfullyimplementedthe termsof the decreeand it wasendedin the springof 2005.11
LosAngeles,CA
The JusticeDepartmenat ndthe Cityof LosAngelesenteredintoa consent decreeregardingtheLosAngelesPoliceDepartmenint 2001.Thebasicelementsof the consentdecreeareessentiallsyimilarto thoseof the NJSPconsendt ecreeA. s of the springof 2006,thedepartmenhtadfailedto meeta numberof implementation deadlines.lT2he LAPD,for exampleh, adstillnotimplementeTdEAMSll (the equivalenot f the NJSP'sMAPPSsystem)afterfifteenyearsof effortthat beganin 1991 withthe ChristopheCr ommissioRn eport.ln May,2006thefederaljudgeoverseeintghe
'oRobertC. Davis,et aL.F, ederalInterventionin Local Policing: Pittsburgh's Experiencewitha ConsenDt ecree(WashingtonD, C: ThePoliceFoundation,2006).Available at www.ncjrs.gov,NCJ 212980.Seealsotheearlierreport,RobertC. Davis,ChristopherW. Ortiz,Nicole J. HendersonJ, oelMiller, andMichelleK. Massie,TurningNecessityInto Virtue: Pittsburgh'sExperiencewitha FederalConsenDt ecree.Availableat www.vera.org.Samuel Walker,Reportof theConferenceonPolicePatternor PracticeLitigation: A l0-Year AssessmenFt.ebruaryl0-l I, 2005:ExecutiveSummaryA. vailableat www.policeaccountabilitoy.rg.
rr Interview,CharlesReynoldsI,ndependenMt onitor, SteubenvillePoliceDepartrnent ConsenDt ecree.
t2Kroll andAssociatesR, eportof theIndependenMt onitor For TheQuarterEnding December31, 2005.IssuedFebruary15,2006.The deparhnenht adcompliedwith 27 tasks, failedto complywith 11,andtheMonitor "withheld determination"on 2 tasks.Availableat www.lapdonline.org.

caseextendedthe consentdecreefor anotherthreeyears.t3

Cincinnati,OH

TheCityof CincinnatOi, hio,enteredintoa Memorandumof Agreemen(tMOA)

withthe JusticeDepartmenwt ithrespect o the CincinnatPi oliceDepartmentin2002.

The basictermsof the MOAaresimilarto the consentdecreeinvolvingthe NJSP.The

CincinnatPi oliceDepartmenht asfailedto meeta numberof deadlinesspecifiedby the

MOA.ln fact,in early200 PoliceDepartmenwt as in

5"mthaetIenrdiaeblpreeancdhe"onMft tohneitMoOrcoAnacsluadreedsthualtottfhseeCvienrcailinnnsatatinces

of willfulnon-cooperation.Tlahe underlyingconflictshavesincebeenresolvedb, utthe

CPDhasstillnotmetallof therequiredimplementatiodneadlines.ls

WashingtonD, C

The MetropolitaPnoliceDepartmenotf WashingtonD, C enteredintoa Memorandumof Agreemenwt iththeJusticeDepartmenint 2001.Thetermsof the MOAareessentialltyhesameas theConsenDt ecreeinvolvingtheNJSP.Thepolice departmenht as consistentlfyailedto meetdeadlinesspecifiedby the MOA.The IndependenMt onitor eportedin April,2006thatin manyareassubstantiaclompliance
withthe termsof the MOAhadnot beenachieved.l6

Oakland,CA

The OaklandC, aliforniaP, oliceDepartmenetnteredintoa Settlement

13*T.APDFaces3 More Yearsof Scrutiny,"LosAngelesTimes,May 16,2006.Reportof theIndependenCt ommissionto InvestigatetheLosAngelesPoliceDepartmenr(LosAngeles: ChristopherCommission,I 991). Availableat www.parci.nfo.
taSaulGreen,IndependenMt onitors'sEighth QuarterlyReport,January14,2004.Saul Green,IndependenMt onitor's Ninth QuarterlyReport,April l, 2005.Thesettlemenwt ith the City of Cincinnatiincludeda separateCollaborativeAgreementsettlinga suit allegingracial profiling broughtby privateplaintiffs.Availableat www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/.
rsSaulGreen,IndependenMt onitor's ThirteenthQuarterlyReport,May 1,2006.
t6MichaelBromwich,et al.,ICh QuarterlyReportof theIndependenMt onitorfor the MetropolitanPoliceDepartment,4l2T/06A. vailableat www.policemonitor.org.

Agreementin 2003to resolvea pattemor practicesuitbroughtby privateparties.The termsof theAgreemenat re essentiallythe sameas the ConsentDecreeinvolvingthe_ NJSP.Thepolicedepartmenht asfailedto meeta numberof the requireddeadlines.lT
Summary
The recordof the consentdecreesand MOAsin othercitieshighlightsthe specialachievemenotf the NJSP.lt joinsPittsburgahndSteubenvillien having successfullaychievedfullimplementatioTnh. efourotherdepartmentdsiscussedabove have not achievedsuccessfuilmplementation.
Given therecord of other law enforcement agenciesfacing similar requiremenb, the wJSP deseryes special commendation for its achievement in fully implementing the Consent Decreein a timely fashion.
IV.AFTERTHECONSENTDECREE
Thequestionthis ExpertOpinionwas assignedto addressinvolveswhatshould be donewithregardto oversighftollowingthe dissolutionof the ConsentDecree.
A. OVERSIGHTALTERNATIVES
Therearethreebasicalternativeswithregardto the futureof oversighot f the NJSPfollowingtheendof the ConsenDt ecree.
1. No lndependentOversight of the wJSP
Onealternativies to haveno institutionalizeinddependenotversighot f the NJSP followingthe endof the ConsentDecree.Thisapproachwouldreturnfull responsibility for maintaininsgtandardsof accountabiliotyn the NJSPitself.
t7 "No Shortcut o Cop Reform,"OaklandTribune,April2I,2006. SeventhStatus Reportof theIndependenMt onitor.December7,2005.Availableat www.oaklandpolice.com.

The NJSPhasproposedthisalternativea,lthoughwithan importanat ddition. The NJSPproposesto assumefull responsibilitfyor maintainingstandardsof accountabilityb,utalsoto establisha contractuarlelationshipwithan Institutionof higherlearning(specificallyR, utgersUniversityt)o conductregularauditssimilarto thosepreviouslcyonductedby the IndependenMt onitor.ls
2. Oversight of the wJSP by the Office of Sfafe Police Affairs
A secondalternativewouldbe to maintainsomeindependenot versighot f the NJSPthroughthe existingOfficeof StatePoliceAffairsin the Officeof theAttorney General.
TheOSPAhasproposedthisalternativeT.heproposacl allsfor "a modelclose to the currentstructureof OSPA,"withone modificationseparatingthe monitoringand the technicaal ssistance/legalssistanceactivitiesT. he OSPAproposanl otesthatthis approachis consistenwt iththe recommendationosf theAttorneyGeneral's1999Final Reportt,hatthe politicacl limatewoulddemandsomeformof over-sighat,ndthatthe AttorneyGeneralhasstatutoryresponsibilitfyor the StatePolice.le
3. Oversight of fhe IVJSPby a NewAgency
Independenot versighot f the NJSPcouldbe providedthroughthe creationof a newindependenatgencyT. heresponsibilitieosf suchan agencycouldbe broaderor narrowerthanthoseoutlinedin the currentOSPAproposal.Legislationwouldbe requiredto createanysuchagency.2o
t8New JerseyStatePolice,RaisingtheBar: SustoiningExcellenceP, roductivityand Accountabilityin thePost-ConsenDt ecreeEra, March 14,2006.New JerseyStatePolice,Vf/hen theConsenDt ecreeGoesAway:A Five-YearPlanfor ContinuedAuditingof theNewJersey StatePolice.JosephR., FuentesS, uperintendenNt,ewJerseyStatePoliceStrategicPlan 2006.
leDanielG. Giaquinto,Memorandumto PeterC. Harvey,AttorneyGeneral,"Office of StatePoliceAffairs PostConsentDecree,"September14,2005.
20Variousmodelsof oversightaredescribedin SamuelWalker,PoliceAccountability: TheRoleof CitizenOversight(Belmont,CA: Wadsworth,2001)a, ndPoliceAssessment ResourceCenter,Revianof NationalPolice OversightModels(I-osAngeles:PARC,Feb2005). Available at www.parc.info.

B. The Post€onsent DecreeExperienceof Other Law EnforcementAgencies
In choosinga post-ConsenDt ecreealternativefor the NJSP,it is usefulto considerhowotherlawenforcemenat gencieshavehandledthe endof theirconsent decreesor MOAs.
The recordon this issueis extremelylimited,howeverT. o date,onlytwofederal consentdecreeshavebeenended.
Pitftsburgh
The consentdecreeinvolvingthe PittsburghPoliceDepartmenwt as endedin 2002.As notedabove,the departmenst uccessfullcyompliedwithall the termsof the consentdecreein the requiredtimeperiod.The Cityof Pittsburghdid notcreateany newoversighat gencyor procedurerelatedto thetermsof the consentdecree.The CitizensPoliceReviewBoard,an agencythatreviewsindividuaclitizencomplaints againstpoliceofficersd, oescontinuein existence.2r
Recenteventsin Pittsburghraiseseriousquestionsaboutthe viabilityof the reformsin the PittsburghPoliceDepartmentthatwerecreatedas a resultof the consentdecree.Thereis a strongconsensusof opinionthatformerChiefRobert McNeillywasthe keyfactorin the successfuilmplementatioonf the consentdecree.ln November2, 005,however,a newmayorwaselectedin PittsburghT. hisindividuahl ad the supporot f the localpoliceunionwhichhadopposedChiefMcNeillyon numerous issuesrelatedto the consentdecree.ln January2, 005the newmayorfiredChief McNeilly.2
Basedon conversationws ithvariousstakeholderisn Pittsburght,he authorof
2rRobertC. Davis,et al.,FederalInterventionin Local Policing: Pittsburgh's Experiencewith a ConsentDecree(WashingtonD, C: ThePoliceFoundation,2006). Available at www.ncjrs.gov,NCJ 212980.Seealsotheearlierreport:RobertC. Davis,ChristopheWr . Oriiz,Nicole J. HendersonJ, oelMiller, andMichelleK. Massie,TumingNecessityInto Virtue: Pittsburgh'sExperiencewith a FederalConsenDt ecree(NewYork: Vera Institute,2002) Availableat www.vera.org.The CitizensPoliceReviewBoardweb siteis: www.city.pittsburgh.pacl prb/.
22Interview,formerPittsburghPoliceChiefRobertMcNeilly. SamuelWalker,Reportof the ConferenceonPolicePatternor PracticeLitigation: A l0-Year AssessmenFt.ebruaryl0-11, 2005: Executive Summary. Availableat www.policeaccountability.org.

thisExpeft apinion believesthat the futureof consentdecree-relatedaccountabilitv reformsin Piftsburghare uncertainat bestand possiblvin ieopardv.
SteubenvilleO, H The consentdecreebetweenthe JusticeDepartmenat ndthe SteubenvilleO, hio,
PoliceDepartmenet ndedin the springof 2005.No newoversighpt rocedureswere createdfollowingthe endof the consentdecree.23
To date,thereis no evidenceor informedopinionregardingthe statusof accountabilitsytandardsin theSteubenvillPeoliceDepartment.
V. THE CHALLENGEOF SUSTAININGREFORMIN LAWENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
The questionof whetheror notthereshouldbe continuedindependenot versight of the NJSPraisesthe moregeneralissueaboutsustainingaccountability-related reformsin lawenforcemenatgencies.
The historyof policereformis filledwithexamplesof thefailureof departments to sustainimportantreforms.Thisincludesbothaccountability-relateredformsand innovationsin otheraspectsof policing.2Saeveralexamplesrelevanto the NJSPare discussedin the followingsection.
New YorkPoliceDepartment(NYPD)
Followinga majorcorruptionscandailn the late1960s,NewYorkCityPolice CommissionePratrickV. Murphyinstituteda numberanti-corruptiopnrocedurews ithin the NewYorkPoliceDepartmen(tNYPD).Thesereformswerehailedat the timeas an
23InterviewC, harlesReynoldsf,ormerIndependenMt onitor, SteubenvillePolice Departrnent.
2nThis is true,for example,with regardto communitypolicing andproblem-oriented policing.

10
answerto the recurringcorruptionprobtemsin the department.2Yset,in the early1990s anotherscandaleruptedin the NYPD,thisone involvinga combinationof corruption and brutalityT. he MollenCommissioninvestigatintghe departmenftoundthatthe anticorruptionreformsinstitutedby Murphyhadcompletelycollapsed.26
Ihe lesson of the NYPDin the post-Murphy era is that elaborate accountability reforms, including fhose developedin the glare of national and Iocal publicity, can erodeover time if additional safeguardsare not developed.
The Los AngelesPoliceDepartment(LAPD)
The LosAngelesPoliceDepartmen(tLAPD)representsan extremelyimportant exampleof howa lawenforcemenat gencyonceregardedfor its highstandardsof professionalisamllowedthosestandardsto erode.ln the late1950sandearly1960s the LAPDwasgenerallyconsideredto be the mostprofessionallocalpolicedepartment in thecountry.2Y7et,in 1999thedepartmenwt asengulfedby a majorscandal (generallyreferredto as the RampartScandal).2P8artlyas a resultof, but alsobecause of otherproblemsrelatedto the abuseauthorityt,he U.S.Departmenot f Justice broughta patternor practicesuitagainst he LAPD.The suitwas settledwitha consent decreecontainingmostof thesameelementsfoundin the NJSPConsenDt ecree.
In responseto the RampartScandal,the LAPDundertooka comprehensive reviewof its internalproceduresin an effortto discoverwhatwentwrong.Theresulting Boardof lnquiryReportconcludedthatthedepartment'spersonneal nd integrity-related procedureswereessentiallyworthlessl.t concludedf,or example,thatthe standard
25TheKnapp CommissionReporton Police Corruption(New York: GeorgeBraziller, l97q. Thereformsarediscussedin detailandin thecontextof reformeffortsin other departmentsin LawrenceW. ShermanS, candalandReform:ControllingPolice Corruption (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1978).
26Mollen CommissionReport,TheCity of New YorkCommissionto Investigate Allegations of Police Cornrption and theAnti-Corruption Proceduresof thePolice Department, July 1994.Availableat www.parc.info.
'7 [-at Cannon,Official Negligence:How RodneyKing and the RiotsChangedLos Angelesand theLAPD (New York: TimesBooks,1997).SeeCh. 3 on thereputationof the LAPD in the 1950s.
2tLosAngelesPoliceCommissionR, eportof theRampartIndependenRt eview Commission(Los Angeles:PoliceCommission2, 000).

personneel valuationswereworthlessandwidelyregardedas suchby manywithinthe departmentT. he reportcitedoverthirtyintemalintegrityandaccountability-related proceduresb, ut concludedthattheyhadfailedto preventhe RampartScandal.2s
Thelesson of the Rampart Scandalis that even in a departmentwith an established reputation for the highest standardsof integrity and accountability it is possible for those standards to erode to the point of collapse,
The LosAngeles Sheriff'sDepartment
The caseof the LosAngelesSheriff'sDepartmen(tLASD)representsthree particularlyilluminatingexamplesof howaccountabilitryelatedreforrnsaretheatened by the pressureof routinelawenforcemenot perations.
The problemsdiscussedhereare in no way as seriousas the NYPDand LAPD problemsdiscussedabove.Buttheydo illustratetheimpacton accountability mechanismsof normalpressuresthatlawenforcemenat genciesface.Equally importantt,heyillustratethe rolethatexternaloversighct anplayin identifyingproblems at an earlystageandsettingin motioncorrectiveaction.
The firstexampleinvolvesthe LASD'searlyinterventionsystem,the Personnel PerformanceIndex(PPl)(theequivalenot f the NJSPMAPPSsystem).Operationabl y 1997,the PPIwasquicklyregardedas the mostsophisticateEdISin thecountryL. ASD officialswereinvitedto numerousnationalconferencesto describethe PPIandlaw enforcemenat genciesacrossthe countryattemptedto modeltheirsystemsafterit.30ln 2003,however,a reportby the SpecialCounsetlo the LASD,oneof twoformsof oversighftor the departmentf,oundthat it was notfunctioningat full capacityT. here wereproblemswiththe qualityof the databeingenteredintothe system,delaysin data entry,andthefactthatsomecommanderswerenotfamiliarwiththe capabilitiesof the system.Theseproblemswerethe resultof staffingshortagesn, ormalpersonnel reassignmentsa,nda failureto providecontinuitythroughpropertrainingand
teLos AngelesPoliceDeparbnentB, oard of Inqutry into theRampartArea Corruption Incidmt: Public Report.March 1,2000.Availableat www.www.cardinalacademoyr.g/Reports/LAPD.htm.
30SamuelWalker, Earty InterventionSystemfsor Law EnforcementAgencies (WashingtonD, C: Departmenot f Justice2, 003).Availableatwww.ncirs.orsN, CJ201245.

12
orientationof commandofficers.3l
The SpecialCounsel'sreportwas a greatembarrassmentot the LASD,and in responseit tookstepsto corect the problemsT. hisepisodeillustrateshowroutine budgetconstraintsand normalpatternsof personnerl eassignmentcsaneasilyerode an importanat ccountabilitmyechanism.
A secondexampleinvolvesthe CenturyStation,an LAPDprecinctstationin a highcrimeneighborhoodl.n the mid-1990sthe CenturyStationwas involvedin a very highnumberof officer-involvesdhootingsT. he SpecialCounselinvestigatedandfound tnit tne problemswerethe resultof a numberof seriousmanagemenptroblemsT. he ratioof officersto sergeantsa, criticalelementof supervisionf,ar exceededeventhe department'sownstandardT. he stationwas usedas a traininggroundfor new deputiesw, iththe resultthatit hada disproportionatneumberof newdeputies. Sergeantsi,n additionto beingoverloadedwithresponsibilitiesw,erethemselvesyoung and relativelyinexperiencedF.inallyt,he stationhada badreputationwithinthe departmenitnd officersat all ranki soughtto transferout as quicklyas possible.32
ln responseto the SpeciaCl ounsel'sreportt,he LASDtookseveralsteptso correcthe problemsthathadbeenidentifiedA. newcommandewr asassignedto the Stationand he initiateda numberof practicesthat providedmuchclosersupervisionof deputieson the street.As a consequenceo,fficer-involvesdhootingsdeclined dramaticallyE. ventuallyh, owevero, fficer-involvesdhootingsincreasedin the Century Station.A follow-upreviewby the SpecialCounselfoundthat,amongotherissues, manyof the lieutenantsandsergeantshadbeenrewardedfor theiraccomplishments by piomotionor transfer.As a resulttherewas a lackof continuityin the accountability practicesthathad producedthe reductionin shootingincidents.3T3hisepisode illustrateshow routinepersonnerleassignmentcsan resultin the lossof keyleadersin criticalpositionsand the resultinglossof continuityandfocuson a potentiapl roblem areawithina departmentl.t is alsoimportanto notethatthe SpecialCounselhas examinedthe CenturyStationseveraltimesoverthe years,suggestingthatcertain
3tMerrick Bobb,SpecialCounselto theLos AngelesSheriff s Depar&nentS, ixtebnth SemiannuaRl eport(February2003),pp. 58-59.Availableat www.parc.info.
32Merrick Bobb,SpecialCounselto theLos AngelesSheriff s DepartmentN, inth SemiannuaRl eport,June1998.,pp.7-34.MerrickBobb,SpeciaCl ounsetlo theLosAngeles Sheriff s Department,ThirteenthSemiannuaRl eport(December2000),pp. 9-15'Availableat www.parc.info.
33Merrick Bobb,SpecialCounselto theLos AngelesSheriff s DepartmentF, ourteenth SemiannuaRl eport(October2001),pp.79-87.MerrickBobb,SpeciaCl ounsetlo theLos AngelesSheriff s DepartmentF, ifteenthSemiannuaRl eport(July2002),pp. 9-35.Availableat www.parc.info.

criticalareasof policingrequirecontinuedattention.
The thirdexampleinvolvestrainingwithinthe LASD.Commandersin the departmenftullyunderstandthe importanceof continuingtrainingfor officersandthe departmenht asa numberof trainingprogramsthatsupplemenatndexceedthe requirementsof Californiastatelaw.sA reportby the SpecialCounselin 2006, however,foundthatin a numberof areasofficerswerenot receivingeventhe required training.Oneaudit,for example,foundthatpossiblyonlyhalfof the officerswerein compliancewitha state-mandatecdontinuingprofessionaelducationrequirement.3s The reportidentifiedbudgetconstraintsas a majorfactorin the traininglapses.Training takesofficersawayfromtheirnormaldutiesandtheirworkmustbe coveredby their currentunit.TheSpecialCounselfoundthatbecausethe LASDis about1,000officers shortof its authorizedstrength,someunitswereunableor unwillingto releaseofficers for trainingT. hisepisodeillustratetsheimpactof budgetarcyonstraintsw,hicharea routineandrecurringproblemin lawenforcemenatgencieso, n trainingprograms.
Ihe /esson of the LASD examplesis thatwithout the Special Counsel,an externalmonitor with both independenceand significant resources,it is entirely possible that the problems related to the ElS, use of force, and training might have continuedand even worsened.
V I . A N . A L Y S I SA N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
Thefollowingsectionanalyzesthe threealternativefsor post-ConsenDt ecree oversightand makesa recommendatiownithregardto eachone.
A. No IndependenOt versightof the NJSP
As notedabove,the NJSPhasproposedassumingfullresponsibiliftoyr
3oThis observationis basedin parton anauthor'ssitevisit to the LASD aspartof a different researchproject.
' 35Merrick Bobb,SpecialCounselto theLosAngelesPoliceDepartmentT, wenty-First SemiannuaRl eport(March 2006),pp. 1-3,7,17,20-23. Availableat www.parc.info.

t4
maintainingstandardsof accountabilitwy ithinthe agency,withno permanent independenot versighftromoutsidethe NJSP.3T6he NJSPis fullycommittedto maintainingthe reformsarisingfromthe ConsentDecree,as indicatedby thefactthatit is Goal 1 of the Superintendent2's006StrategicPlanfor the NJSP.37
The NJSPproposailncludestwospecificelementsthat providesomemeasure of externalaccountabilityT.hefirstis a planto involveexternalexpertsthrougha contractuarlelationshipwithan institutionof higherlearningto conductauditsof performanceissuessimilarto thoseconductedby the IndependenMt onitor. Specificallys,taffat RutgersUniversitywho arealreadyfamiliarwiththe NJSPwouldbe retainedfor this purpose.Second,the NJSPplansto seekaccreditatiotnhroughthe Commissionon Accreditationfor LawEnforcemenAt gencies(CALEA).
The NJSPproposahl asmerit.The NJSPhasdonean excellenjtob of implementingthe reformsmandatedby the ConsentDecree.Thisachievemenht as beendocumentedby the reportsof the IndependenMt onitorandthe interviewsand reviewof documentsby the authorof this ExpertOpinionT. hisauthoris convincedby tCihtsoetneesrvemidnsetDane"cfcletorheoaerrt"atehnfeodrlnemoastadthneedrs,'cihneiotpihlfienthigrew."NorJdSsP,"ims fouvlliyncgobemymonitdttehdteodceocnrteineu"ainndtghmeaking
Otherconsiderationws eighagainst he NJSPproposalh, owever.Most importantt,he evidencefromotherlawenforcemenat genciesclearlyindicatesthat sustainingreformis a seriouschallengeA. s discussedabove,otheragencieshave,in varyingdegrees,failedto maintaincertainimportantreformsdespitethe commitmenot f top leadersandthe glareof localand nationalmediascrutiny.Particularlnyoteworthyis the extentto whichimportanat ccountability-relateredformscanerodeas a consequencoef routineoperationsin, cludingbudgetconstraintasndnormalpersonnel reassignmenptractices.
The NJSPproposaltoestablisha contractuarlelationshipwithexpertsfrom RutgersUniversityfor the purposeof conductingauditssimilarto thoseconductedby the lndependenMt onitorhassomemerit.lt wouldensurecontinuatioonf an important elementof accountabilitbyy outsideexperts. lt suffers,howeverf,roma problem inherenitn allcontractuarlelationshipTs.hetermsof thecontracwt ouldbe established by the NJSPitself.Additionallyt,hereis a naturaltendencyfora contractingpartyto
36New JerseyStatePolice,RaisingtheBar: SustainingExcellenceP, roductivityand Accountabilityin thePost-ConsenDt ecreeEra, March 14,2006.
37FuentesN, ewJerseyStatePoliceStrategicPlan 2006,p.3.

15
seekto pleasethe contractorin orderto maintainthe relationshipI.n particulatrhismay leadto a tendencyto downplaythe seriousnessof someproblemsthatareidentifiedA. trulyindependenotutsideagencyhasno disincentivetso candorA. ndas withsomeof the examplesfromotheragenciescitedearlierindicatei,t is oftennecessaryto frame criticismsin strongtermsin orderto spurcorrectiveaction.
The proposedrelationshipwiththe PoliceInstituteat RutgersUniversityis presentedin the NJSPproposalas a faitaccompliT. he bestpractice,howeverw, ould be to developa Requestfor Proposals(RFP)andallowa numberof agenciesto submit competingbids.Thereare otheragencieswithconsiderable xperiencein thisspecific areaandin the areaof policeproceduresgenerallyC. ompetitivebiddingwouldbe the bestwayto securethe bestpossibleproposaflor thistask.
Finalfyt,he proposedrelationshipwithRutgersUniversityhasthe possibilityor at leastthe appearanceof a conflictof interestT. he NSPproposacl allsfor a relationship withthe PoliceInstituteat RutgersA. t present,however,Col.JosephR. Fuentes, Superintendenotf the NJSPis a memberof the Boardof Advisorsof the Police lnstitute.3Tshisdualrolecreatesat a minimumtheappearancoef a conflicot f interest.
The proposatlo seekCALEAaccreditationis a worthygoal.lt wouldbringa certaindegreeof externalaccountabilittyo the NJSPandaccreditationstatuswouldbe valuablein termsof publicrelationsT. hereareseriouslimitsto the existingCALEA accreditationprocess,howeverA. s criticshavepointedout,the existingCALEA StandardsforLaw EnforcemenAt genciesareframedin verygeneralterms.3Teypically, they requirethatan agencyhavea writtenpolicyon a particularoperationailssue.With onlya few exceptionsh, owever,the Sfandardsdo notspecifythe precisecontentof the policyin questionT. he limitationsof the CALEAStandardsbecomeimmediately apparentwhenwe comparethemwiththe variousprovisionsof the ConsentDecree involvingthe NJSPandotherlawenforcemenat genciessubjectto DOJpatternor practicelitigationE. xamplesfromthe NJSPincludebutare not limitedto thevery detailedrequirementfsor documentingtrafficstopsandsearchesandthe requirement tchoantsseunptedrevcirseoerssraerveievwetrhyespveidceifoicraencdo,ridninegffseocf et,eascthasbtolisph.aaTo"shteatnedramrsdooffcthaerev"athriaotuthse CALEAaccreditatiosntandardsdo notmatch.
38www.policeinstitute.org.
3eCommissionon Accreditationfor Law EnforcemenAt gencies,StandardsforLaw EnforcemenAt gencies,4eedition(Fairfax,VA: CALEA, 1999).
o0UnitedStatesv. Stateof NewJersey,Secs.29-32,35-39.This criticismis developedin Walker, TheNew Worldof PoliceAccountability,pp.2S-3L

16
One importanftactorthatneedsto be givenconsiderableweightis the issueof continuityof leadershipT. hereis a broadconsensusof opinionamongcurent and past stakeholdersthatthe successof the NJSPin implementingthe ConsentDecreeis due in largepartto the leadershipof the currentSuperintendenltt. is a truismin law enforcementhatleadershipis the crucialfactorT. hereis alsoa consensusof opinion thatthe then-chieof f policein Pittsburghwas largelyresponsiblefor thatdepartment successfullyimplementingitsconsentdecree.aCl onsequentlyo,neof the greatest potentialthreatsto a sustainedcommitmentto accountabilitiyn the NJSPis the possibilittyhatat sometimein thefuturetherecouldbe a Superintendewnthois not fullycommittedto the reformsachievedthroughthe ConsentDecree.
In short,thereare a numberof threatsto the continuityof the accountabilityrelatedreformsthathavebeeninstitutedthroughthe ConsentDecree.Thosethreats include:
(1)Theadventat somefuturetimeof a Superintendewnthois notfully committedto the reforms;
(2) Budgetconstraintsthatmakeit impossiblefor the NJSPto adequatelystaff key positionsrelatedto the reformsand/orto maintainandstrengthencurrenttraining standards;
(3) Normalpersonnerleassignmenptatternsthatremovecommanderswhoare deeplycommittedto the reformsand replacethemwithcommanderswho are less attentiveto thedemandsof accountability.
The bestguaranteeagainsterosionor "slippagei"s for thereto be someformof independenotversighot f the NJSP.
Finallyt,he politicacl ontexot f the NJSPmustbe consideredA.s theformer AttomeyGeneralpointedout in his FinalReport,the publichascometo expect independenotversighot f the NJSP.Failureto maintainsuchoversighwt oulderode publicconfidencein the NJSP.Thisissueis notuniqueto NewJersey.In communities acrossthe country,thereis a growingrecognitionthatindependenot versighits a necessaryandvaluableaspectof the governanceof lawenforcemenat gencies.a2
arSamuelWalker,Reportof theConferenceonPolicePatternor PracticeLitigation: A l}-Year AssessmenFt.ebruaryl0-11, 2005:ExecutiveSummaryA. vailableat www.policeaccountability.org.
o' Thispoint, with the evidenceof trendsacrossthecountry,is arguedin Walker,Police Accountability: TheRole of Citizen OversighrandWalker, TheNew Worldof Police

T7 Forthe abovereasons,
It is not recommended that responsibitityfor accountabititybe returned completely to the NJSP in the posf'Consent Decree period.
B. Oversightof the NJSPby the Officeof StatePoliceAffairs
The Officeof StatePoliceAffairs(OSPA)has proposedcontinuingits rolein providingoversighot f the NJSPon a permanenbt asis.a3
Onthe basisof the issuesdiscussedin thisreport,
It is recommended thatthe Sfafe of New Jersey maintain independent oversight of the NJSP through the Officeof Sfafe Police Affairs.
To summarizepreviousdiscussionss,everalfactorsindicatethe needfor continuingindependenotversighot f the NJSP.
(1)Thereis a substantiahl istoryof lawenforcemenat genciesfailingto sustain importanat ccountability-relateredforms.Thecaseof the LosAngelesSheriff's Departmenth, owever,providesparticularlyrelevantexamplesof thevitalrolethat independenot versightcan playin monitoringa lawenforcemenat gency,identifying problemsc, allingthemto theattentionof thedepartmenatndthe publica, ndmaking appropriaterecommendationsfor correctiveaction.
(2)Continuityof leadershipis a potentiapl roblemin all organizationBs.ygeneral consensusS, uperintendenJtosephFuenteshas playeda criticalrole(somearguethe criticarl ole)in ensuringfullcompliancwe iththe ConsenDt ecree.ln theyearsahead, therewillbe newSuperintendentosf the NJSP.lt is impossibleto predictwhatattitude theywilltaketowardsthe reformsresultingfromthe ConsentDecree.
Accountability. a3Giaquinto,Memorandumto Harvey,"Offrce of StatePoliceAffairs PostConsent
Decree,"Septembe1r 4,2005.

l8
(3) Budgetconstraintsw, hethertheyaregreator small,posea constanthreatto all innovationsin lawenforcementI.n manycases,accountabilitmy easuresareoften the firstvictimof budgetconstraintsR. egrettablym, anypeoplegivea lowerpriorityto whatseemto be mereadministrativfeunctions(suchas the MAPPSsystem)or training comparedwithdeployingofficerson the street,in largepartbecausethat is a highly visibleand politicallysensitiveaspectof lawenforcement.
(4)The caseof the LosAngelesSheriffsDepartmendt iscussedaboveindicates how normalpersonnerleassignmenpt racticescan,howeverinadvertentlyu,ndermine importanat ccountabiliftuynctions.
(5)The politicacl ontextrequiresindependenot versightA. s notedin the former AttorneyGeneral'sFinalReport,the publictodayexpectsindependenot versighot f law enforcemenat nd maintainingthe cunentroleof the OSPAwillserveto enhancepublic confidencein the NJSP.
The oversightroleproposedby the OSPAis strongerin oneveryimportant respecthanthe NJSPproposalT. he NJSPhasproposeddevelopingan ongoing relationshipwith RutgersUniversityto conductauditssimilarto thoseconductedby the pInedrfeopremnadnecneMist souneitsosrp.*eWcihfiieledtinhitshaeppprroopaocshahla.Insceoffnescitd,theerambolmeneitroirt,iint igisslwimitihteindtthoeth"feour corners"of the ConsentDecree.The OSPAproposalb, y contrastw, ouldgivethe OSPA a broadlicenseto monitorany issuewithinthe NJSPthatappearedto meritinquiry. The exampleof the SpecialCounselto the LosAngelesSheriffsDepartmenitllustrates 'tchiteizpeontienntetiraaslcctoiopnesaonf dsuthcehdaabyr-otoa-ddliacyeonpseera.Mtiaonnysodfifafelarewneftnafcotrocrescmaenniamt gpeancctoyf.lfsicseure-s examinedby the LASDSpeciaCl ounseilncluderecruitmenat,ssignmenatndpromotion practicess;exualharassmenitssues;patternsin civillitigationa;ndotherissues.aTshe lessonof otherlawenforcemenat genciesis that underthe pressureof routine operationsnewproblemsdo in fact arise.The OSPAproposails betterdesignedto respondto suchunforseencontingencies.
AdditionalConsiderations: Assistanceto MunicipalLaw EnforcemenAt genciesThroughthe OSPA
* New JerseyStatePolice,VllhentheConsenDt ecreeGoesAway.
o' A summaryof all the issuesexaminedby the SpecialCounselcanbe foundat www.parc.infoa, ndin Walker,TheNew Worldof PoliceAccountability,pp.l4T-148.

t9
The OSPAhasproposedthatits mandatebe expandedto includeproviding assistanceto municipalNewJerseylawenforcemenat gencieswithrespecto civil rightscompliance.oTuhisproposailncludesprovidingtechnicaal ssistancep, rimarily usingthe NJSPreformsas a model,andalsoinvestigatinpgatternor practicecivil rightsviolationsT. he OSPAwouldassistdepartmentsin the developmenotf appropriatepoliciesand procedurest,he developmenot f strongerfront-linesupervision, improvedtraining,improveinternalaffairsinvestigationsa,ndthe developmenotf risk managemenptrocedures.
The OSPAproposanl otesthatthe Officeof theAttorneyGeneralhasstatutory authorityto undertakethis role.Additionallyt,he OSPAhasalreadyprovidedassistance to localagenciesT. he OSPAprovidedtechnicaal ssistanceto the GloucesteCr ounty PoticeChiefsAssociationwithrespecto datacollectionandotheraccountability mechanismsrelatedto achievingbias-freepolicing.Representativeosf the OSPAand the Divisionof CriminaJl usticehavemetwiththe GloucesteCr ountyPoliceChiefson twooccasionsand haveprovidedtechnicaal ssistanceregardinga trafficstopdata collectionpolicy.alTn short,the precedenftor technicaal ssistanceto locallaw enforcemenatgencieshasalreadybeenestablishedM. oreovert,heOSPAhas acquireda substantiabl odyof relevantexperiencethroughits rolewiththe NJSPthat wouldbe of extremevalueto localagencies.
This proposalhastremendousmerit.To the bestof this Expert'sknowledgen, o statein thiscountrycurrentlyprovidesassistanceto locallawenforcemenat gencies with respect o accountabilitpyroceduresS. tate-leverlequirementasrerelatedto the trainingof peaceofficersW. hilesomecommand-leveltrainiinngsomeinstances involvesaccountabilitiyssues,stateassistanceis notdirectedtowardorganizational issuesas proposedby the OSPA.
It is strongly'recommended that thestate of New Jersey adopt the OSPA proposal for providing technical assisfance to municipal law enforcement agencieswith respectto accountabilityissues.
Adoptingthe OSPAproposalw, ouldcatapulthe Stateof NewJerseyto thefront ranksof fawenforcemenpt rofessionalismin the UnitedStates.It wouldimmediately establisha modelthat othersfafeswould seekto follow.
46DanielG. Giaquinto,Memorandumto AnneMilgram,FirstAssistantAttorneyGeneral, March 14,2006.DanielG. Giaquinto,Memorandumto AnneMilgram, FirstAssistantAttorney General,March 30, 2006.
a7Giaquinto,Memorandumto Milgram,March I4,2006,p.4.

20
The proposalwouldbe a great seruiceto thepeopleof the Sfafeof NewJersey. It wouldresultin moreprofessionallawenforcemenat crossthe stateanda consequent reductionin allegationsof abuseof authorityand racialdiscriminationlt. is importanto pointout thatwhilethe NJSPoccupiesa highlyvisiblerole,fhe vastmajorityof contacts between policeand citizensinvolvemunicipalpoliceagencies.Enhanced professionalisammongmunicipaal gencieswouldresultin botha reductionin litigation and a generalimprovemenitn police-communitryelations.
A few commentson the OSPAproposaal re in order.The cunentproposarlefers to the investigatioonf civilrightsissues.The languageof the proposalis ambiguous and needsclarificationl.t is recommendedthatthe roleof the OSPAnot involvethe investigationof locallawenforcemenat genciesi,n the senseof OSPA-initiated investigationPs.articipatiobny localagencies houldbe entirelyvoluntaryI.nshort,the roleof the OSPAshouldbe definedin termsof assistanceand not in termsof threatenedinvestigation.
Giventhe activitiesof the OSPAin the lastfewyears,thereis goodreasonto believethatlocalpolicechiefswillbe interestedin seekingthe assistanceof the OSPA in this regard.The availabilityof OSPAassistancecouldbe readilymarketedthrough existinglawenforcemenpt rofessionaal ssociationsA. dditionallyi,t wouldbe possiblefor mayorsandcitycouncilmembersof NewJerseymunicipalitietso initiatecontactwith OSPAwhentheyareconcernedaboutpoliceissuesin theirareas.
C. Oversightof the NJSPby a NewAgency
Continuinogversighot f the NJSPbe conductedthrougha newindependent agencypresentsa numberof difficultiesC. reatingsuchan agencywouldrequirenew legislationT.heultimatestructureandauthorityof suchan agencyis uncertainC. reating a newagencywouldentailsignificanct osts.Perhapsmostimportantt,he OSPAalready has boththeauthorityto conductoversightt,hroughthe statutoryauthorityof the Office of AttorneyGeneral,and in the lastfew yearshasgainedvaluableexperiencewith respectto thattask.Thetransitionfromthe currentOSPAto anysuchnewagency wouldinvolvea lossof continuityat a criticalmoment.
Providing continuing oversight of the wJSPby creating a new agencyis not recommended.

2l
VII.CONCLUSION
This reportrecommendsthatthe Stateof NewJerseyprovidecontinuing independenot versighot f the NewJerseyStatePolicethroughthe Officeof StatePolice Affairs.
Thereis limitedexperiencewith lawenforcemenat genciesterminatingfederal consentdecrees.Nonethelesst,hereis considerable xperiencerelatedto law enforcemenat genciesand accountabilitryeforms.Thatexperienceclearlyindicates thatagencieshavea difficultimesustainingimportantreformsT. hereis alsoevidence that an independenot versighat gencycan effectivelymonitora lawenforcement agency,identifyemergingproblemsa, nd recommendcorrectiveaction.
The politicacl ontextof lawenforcemenitnvolvesincreasedpublicexpectations of professionalb, ias-freepolicingT. he publicalsoincreasinglbyelievesthat independenotversighits valuableandnecessary
The proposaltohavetheOSPAprovidetechnicaal ssistancteo municipallaw enforcemenat gencieswithregardto civilrightsissueshastremendousmerit.lt hasthe potentialto improvethe qualityof policeseryicesreceivedby all citizensof NewJersey and in particularto reduceracialand ethnictensionsA. proactiveroleby the Stateof NewJerseyin this regardcouldestablishthe stateas a nationaleaderin the areaof policeaccountability.

 
 THE NEW JERSEY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION OF RACIAL PROFILING AND THE NEW
JERSEY STATE POLICE: OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Senator William L. Gormley - Chair Senator James S. Cafiero - Vice-Chair
Senator Garry J. Furnari Senator John A. Girgenti Senator Louis F. Kosco Senator John A. Lynch Senator Robert J. Martin Senator John J. Matheussen Senator Edward T. O'Connor, Jr. Senator Norman M. Robertson Senator Raymond J. Zane
May 31, 2001

OVERVIEW
In October 2000, Senator William L. Gormley, Chairman of the Committee, announced that the Committee would conduct a review of racial profiling, the New Jersey State Police ("NJSP"), and the timing of the indictments in the Hogan and Kenna criminal matters.* In total, approximately 100,000 pages of documentation were reviewed in connection with the Committee's investigation. Joint interviews and depositions were conducted of 35 witnesses and yielded over 4,000 pages of transcript.
The Committee held public hearings on March 19, 20, 27, and 28, and April 2, 3, 9, 10 and 18, 2001 (the "Hearings"). The Committee heard testimony from witnesses identified during the document review, depositions and interviews, and from members of the public and other interested parties.
The Committee's investigation examined many issues, including, but not limited to: organizational and cultural issues in the Department of Law and Public Safety ("LPS") and the NJSP that may have developed, ignored, concealed or fostered racial profiling; actions concerning racial profiling taken by the NJSP and the LPS following the ruling in State v. Soto, 324 NJ Super. 66 (Law Div. 1996), and the State's actions following the Soto ruling; activities within LPS and the NJSP concerning the investigation into racial profiling that was started in late 1996 by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division ("DOJ"); activities within LPS and the NJSP concerning the State Police Review Team and the development of the Interim Report, dated April 20, 1999 and the Final Report, dated July 2, 1999; the circumstances surrounding the Consent Decree entered into with the DOJ on December 30, 1999, the content of the Consent Decree, and the status of those and other reforms.
_______________________________ * Troopers Hogan and Kenna were indicted on April 19, 1999 for falsification of
documents pertaining to motor vehicle stops. A second indictment for the April 23, 1998 shooting of minority motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike was returned on September 7, 1999.

RECOMMENDED REFORMS
As a result of its investigation, the Committee believes that the Consent Decree is critical to the eradication of racial profiling. Additional steps are needed, however, to compliment the provisions of the Consent Decree and to ensure that reforms continue after the Consent Decree expires. A full report of the Committee's investigation and its recommendations will be released shortly and what follows below is a synopsis of the Committee's recommendations.
Suggested Reform No. 1: Consent Searches Attorney General Farmer testified that in 2000, minority motorists continued to be subjected to a disproportionately high number of consent searches, and those searches were far less likely to be based on probable cause and far less likely to result in seizures of contraband than searches of white motorists. Attorney General Farmer acknowledged that consent searches in general yield little in the way of contraband, thus essentially supporting the argument that they are of little utility, but present significant risks. Therefore, the Committee recommends the immediate prohibition of consent searches by Executive Order for motor vehicle stops made in connection with N.J.S.A. Title 39 violations on all highways on which a 65 miles per hour speed limit has been imposed, to wit: NJ Route 18, NJ Route 55, Interstate 78, Interstate 80, Interstate 195, Interstate 287, Interstate 295, Atlantic City Expressway, Garden State Parkway, and the NJ Turnpike. The Executive Order should also provide that if the Office of Attorney General ("OAG") or NJSP seek to reinstate the use of consent searches they must demonstrate to the Committee that sufficient safeguards exist to monitor the use and prevent the abuse of consent searches. The Committee shall then make a recommendation to the Governor on whether the use of consent searches should be reinstated; and, if so, whether additional safeguards are necessary. Part of this suggested reform is driven by the fact that the Computer Aided Dispatch System ("CAD"), the Records Management System ("RMS") and the Management Awareness Personnel Performance System ("MAPPS"), each of which was required by the Consent Decree, have not yet been fully implemented. See Appendix A. These systems, when fully operable, will provide the NJSP and the Office of State Police Affairs ("OSPA") with, among other things, the ability to comprehensively monitor all stops and all activity that occurs subsequent to stops. The Committee expresses its concern that the CAD/RMS is still not fully

implemented after almost three years since it was an integral part of the plan to eliminate racial profiling.
Suggested Reform No. 2: Independent Oversight Of LPS The Committee recommends adopting a permanent and independent review system to handle citizen complaints of misconduct and constitutional and statutory violations, by law enforcement personnel within LPS. The Committee recommends the creation of an Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR") and the creation of a three-member Independent Review Board (the "Board"). 1. The OPR The OPR would be housed in but not of the OAG (to ensure its independence), and would be headed by a Director who would report directly to the Board (see below), the Attorney General, and semi-annually to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees. The Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate would appoint the Director. The OPR would assume the functions of the existing OSPA after the expiration of the Consent Decree, as well as some of the functions of the existing Office of Professional Standards within the NJSP. Like OSPA, OPR would be authorized to investigate trooper misconduct complaints, but would also be authorized to investigate complaints filed against all law enforcement personnel within the LPS. The OPR would determine whether it intends to investigate the complaint itself or refer it to the respective Division of LPS for internal handling. It is anticipated that less serious complaints, or complaints involving administrative violations, would be referred to each respective Division for internal review, leaving OPR the review of the more serious misconduct complaints involving allegations of constitutional violations, such as illegal searches, and statutory violations that rise to a serious level. It is anticipated that the OPR would be allotted a staff of investigators but would have the ability to use investigators from the Division of Criminal Justice (“DCJ”) and the NJSP to conduct investigations in more complex cases. In this case, the Committee recommends that a Division’s investigators not investigate members of their own Division. All personnel subject to a

complaint would be afforded a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, in order to ensure that the individual receives adequate due process. All potential criminal violations would be referred to DCJ for possible criminal prosecution.
2. The Board The Board would oversee the OPR. The Board would have the authority to reopen any misconduct investigation as it deems appropriate. It would consist of three members: a former judge, a former law enforcement officer, and a citizen with knowledge of and experience with civil rights issues. These members would be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and would serve seven-year terms. The initial appointments would be for staggered terms of five years, three years and one year.
Suggested Reform No. 3: Establish Deprivation Of Civil Rights As A Criminal Offense The Committee recommends establishing a third degree crime of official deprivation of civil rights, which would prohibit a public servant from engaging in knowing and willful discriminatory actions against an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, religious principles, age, national origin, ancestry, marital status, affectational or sexual orientation, familial status, handicap, or sex. If the knowing and willful discriminatory actions resulted in bodily injury it would constitute a second degree crime and if the individual committed murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, or aggravated sexual assault in the course of the incident, it would be a crime of the first degree.
4. Additional Suggested Reforms Numerous proposed bills are currently pending in the Legislature, almost all of which were proposed by members of the Black and Latino Caucus, concerning various aspects of racial profiling. Much of the proposed legislation contains provisions similar to mandates in the Consent Decree.
1. Annual Reports With Respect To Trooper Misconduct Complaints

The Committee recommends that the Superintendent of the NJSP compile and submit to the Governor and the Legislature an annual report regarding complaints made by members of the public alleging misconduct by NJSP officers. See Consent Decree, ¶ 43. This reform would make those terms of the Consent Decree permanent by codifying them into statutory law. A bill implementing this reform passed the Senate (38-0) on December 14, 2000, but has not been considered by the Assembly.
2. Maintain Certain NJSP Records For At Least 10 Years The Committee recommends requiring the NJSP to maintain for 10 years all logs concerning activity of patrol units, all tape recordings of radio communications between dispatchers and patrol units, and all videotapes recorded by cameras mounted in patrol vehicles. This reform would expand current NJSP procedures, which requires that all videotapes recorded by patrol cameras must be held intact for not less than 28 months. It would not impact the maintenance of all tape recordings of communications between dispatchers and patrol units that presently are maintained indefinitely. This reform incorporates the substance of S. 851 (James/Turner).
3. Establish “Public Confidence Police Integrity” Telephone Hotline The Committee recommends establishing the "Public Confidence-Police Integrity" telephone hotline to receive and respond to calls concerning allegations or complaints of police misconduct from the public and from police officers who, for reasons of confidentiality or anonymity, are unable to report such allegations of complaints openly or in person to the appropriate law enforcement officials or agencies. The hotline would be operated by the OPS and would require the OPS to notify the newly created OPR of the filing of all misconduct complaints. This reform would make a similar provision in the Consent Decree permanent by codifying it into statutory law. This reform also incorporates the substance of S. 852 (James/Bryant).

4. Create The Offense Of Tampering With Electronic Devices Installed In Police Patrol Cars
The Committee recommends making it a crime of the fourth degree for a law enforcement officer to alter, destroy, conceal, remove or disable a camera or other monitoring device installed in a patrol vehicle, including any videotape or film used in such a device. This reform passed the Senate (40-0) on December 18, 2000, but has not been considered by the Assembly. This reform incorporates the substance of S. 853 (James/Bryant).
5. Require NJSP Applicants To Undergo Psychological Testing For Racial Bias
The Committee recommends requiring the Superintendent of the NJSP to require applicants for NJSP membership to complete a psychological evaluation designed to reveal racial bias or insensitivity. The reform would require that the evaluation be developed and administered by an individual or entity independent of the NJSP. The current selection process consists of a written examination, physical fitness test, background investigation, and an oral interview. Applicants chosen for conditional employment are then required to undergo a medical and psychological examination and are subject to four psychological tests of mental fitness. This reform incorporates the substance of S. 854 (James/Bryant).
6. Require NJSP To File Reports On Motor Vehicle Stops The Committee recommends requiring the NJSP to prepare and file reports on every motor vehicle stop they initiate, and to publicly report those aggregate statistics semiannually. The reform would require the reports to contain detailed information about the stop, including among other things, the grounds for the stop, the characteristics of the individuals stopped (utilizing at least the following categories: sex, race or ethnicity, and age), whether a search was undertaken and if so, the grounds for the search and the results of the search; and whether, as a result of the stop, a warning or summons was given. If anyone was taken into custody or arrested, the report must include the grounds for those actions. This reform would include any and all data collecting requirements set forth in the Consent Decree.

The Consent Decree already requires the NJSP to capture and report stop data. This reform would make those terms of the Consent Decree permanent by codifying them into statutory law. This reform incorporates the substance of S. 857 (Turner/Bryant).
7. Establish Trooper Performance Databases And Early Warning System
The Committee recommends requiring the NJSP to establish a database of information on the performance of individual officers and troopers. The database would include information of motor vehicle stops, pursuits, searches, arrests, the use of force, citizen complaints, disciplinary actions and witnesses. The information would be used to develop a computerized “early warning system” to determine whether a pattern of unacceptable performance or behavior exists for individual officers and troopers. The reform also would require NJSP supervisors, at least quarterly, to conduct reviews and analyses of computerized data and other information, including data on traffic stops and post-stop actions by race and ethnicity.
This reform duplicates some of the provisions of the Consent Decree that establishes MAPPS. This reform would make those terms of the Consent Decree permanent by codifying them into statutory law. This reform incorporates the substance of S. 863 (Bryant/Turner).
8. Require Members Of The NJSP To Undergo Annual Performance Evaluations
The Committee recommends that the Superintendent of the NJSP or his designee annually evaluate each NJSP member's performance. Pursuant to ¶47 of the Consent Decree, the NJSP is required to develop a protocol specifying the manner in which supervisory and management reviews of individual state troopers are to be conducted and the frequency of such reviews. This reform would make that Consent Decree requirement permanent by codifying it into law. This reform incorporates the substance of S. 864 (Bryant/Turner).

9. Speedy Trial Act
The Committee is concerned by the length of time that has passed since the indictment of Troopers Hogan and Kenna. Three years have passed since the Turnpike Shooting and two years have passed since the release of the first indictment.
The ability of the State to convene grand juries began in 1970, however, no procedure was put in place to provide for the speedy resolution of criminal matters. The Committee recommends that the Legislature pass a Speedy Trial Act requiring that criminal cases indicted by State grand juries be tried within 6 months of the indictment, unless good cause is shown. This Act will help promote swift justice.
10. Justification Defense Jury Instruction
The Committee recommends the adoption of a justification defense jury instruction for police officers that use deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent an escape. Such an instruction is used effectively in New York. The New York instruction provides a good example of a reasonable and fair instruction and a similar instruction should be read to grand and petit juries in New Jersey when appropriate. The Honorable Andrew J. Smithson, J.S.C. highlighted the need for such an instruction in his October 31, 2000 decision in State v. Hogan and Kenna, at 23 – 29.
11. Funding
Many of the Committee's recommendations require the provision of funding. If the State is committed to ending racial profiling, resources will be needed to not only support current reforms but also to implement the Committee's proposed new reforms. The Committee recommends that the Legislature provide funding necessary to establish and maintain the OPR and the OSPA, as well as funding for the enhancement of NJSP's training facilities at Sea Girt.

 
  Query  Reports  Utilities  Logout

12BH,CLOSED,SCHEDO

U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH

USA v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al Assigned to: Judge Mary L. Cooper Referred to: Magistrate Judge John J. Hughes Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Date Filed: 12/22/1999 Date Terminated: 12/30/1999 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Movant
KENNETH JOHNSON TERMINATED: 03/19/2008

represented by NINA ROSSI 467 ROUTE 579 PO BOX 597 RINGOES, NJ 08551 (908) 968-0224 Email: ninarossi50@comcast.net TERMINATED: 03/19/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
JOHN VILLAMIL TERMINATED: 03/19/2008

represented by NINA ROSSI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant STANLEY MOLNAR TERMINATED: 03/19/2008
Plaintiff USA

represented by NINA ROSSI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KELLI M. EVANS U.S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION P.O. BOX 66400 WASHINGTON, DC 20035-6400 (202) 514-6261 TERMINATED: 03/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KERRY A. KRENTLER US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20530 (202) 514-1841 Fax: (202) 514-0212 Email: kerry.k.dean@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A. POSNER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION PHB 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, NJ 20530 (202) 307-1388 Fax: (202) 514-0212 TERMINATED: 07/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant STATE OF NEW JERSEY

DANIEL J. GIBBONS OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATORNEY 970 BROAD STREET SUITE 700 NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 645-2828 Email: daniel.gibbons@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BRIAN G. FLANAGAN OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL RJ HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET PO BOX 116 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0116 (609) 292-6116 Fax: (609) 633-8702 Email: brian.flanagan@dol.lps.state.nj.us TERMINATED: 08/26/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL G. GIAQUINTO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY RJ HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX PO BOX 080 TRENTON, NJ 08625 (609) 341-3228 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GREGORY A. SPELLMEYER OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL RJ HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET PO BOX 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625

(609) 984-9504 Fax: (609)777-3120 Email: gregory.spellmeyer@dol.lps.state.nj.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

represented by BRIAN G. FLANAGAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL G. GIAQUINTO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GREGORY A. SPELLMEYER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/23/1999 12/29/1999
12/29/1999

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed FILING FEE $ waived (MS) (Document added 8/30/10 per MLC) (eh). (Entered: 12/23/1999)
2 JOINT APPLICATION for entry of CONSENT DECREE (MS) (Document added 8/30/10 per MLC) (eh). (Entered: 12/23/1999)
SUMMONS issued for STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NJ STATE POLICE (20 Days) (Given to Counsel) (MS) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
3 NOTICE of Allocation and Assignment filed. Magistrate Judge Hughes (Trenton-Cooper) (MS) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
4 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: RIVERA; Minutes of: 12/29/99; The following actions were taken, granting [2-1] Joint application for Consent Decree. (By Judge Mary L. Cooper) (SA) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
5 Consent Decree filed. (Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper) (NM) (SA) (Document added 8/30/10 per MLC)(eh). (Entered: 12/30/1999)

12/30/1999 03/29/2000
04/27/2000 05/12/2000
06/01/2000 06/05/2000
06/27/2000 06/27/2000 10/06/2000 10/27/2000 10/27/2000 12/15/2000 01/10/2001 01/10/2001 04/12/2001 05/02/2001 05/02/2001 07/23/2001

Case closed (SA) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
6 NOTICE of JOINT SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT MONITOR, which include Dr. James D. Giner and Albert Rivas, Esq. (lk) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
7 Progress/Status summary of the Consent Decree (lk) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
8 ORDER that Dr. James D. Ginger and Alberto Rivas, Esq. are appointed as the Independent Monitoring Team (signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper) (NM) (lk) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
Tele-conference held before Judge Mary L. Cooper on 6/1/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
9 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: RIVERA; Minutes of: 6/1/00; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. Ordered status conference set for 10:00 10/13/00. By Judge Mary L. Cooper (eh) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
10 Progress/Status summary of the Consent Decree (lk) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NJ STATE POLICE re: [10-1] (lk) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
12 Monitor's First Report (lk) (Entered: 10/06/2000)
13 Second Progress/Status summary of the Consent Decree (SA) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NJ STATE POLICE re: [13-1] POLICE (SA) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
15 Training Evaluation Report (lk) (Entered: 12/15/2000)
16 Second Semiannual Public Report of Aggregate Data (lk) Modified on 01/16/2001 (Entered: 01/12/2001)
17 Monitor's Second Report (lk) (Entered: 01/12/2001)
18 Monitors' Third Report (lk) (Entered: 04/12/2001)
19 Third progress/status summary, fld. 4/27/01. (lk) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NJ STATE POLICE service Re: [19-1] remark (lk) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
21 Third Semiannual public report of aggregate data (fld. 7/17/01) (lk) (Entered: 07/23/2001)

07/23/2001
07/24/2001 10/30/2001 10/30/2001
01/18/2002 01/28/2002 01/28/2002 05/09/2002
05/09/2002 06/26/2002 06/26/2002 06/28/2002 07/19/2002 10/23/2002 12/27/2002 12/27/2002 01/02/2003

22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NJ STATE POLICE as to STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NJ STATE POLICE Service Re: [21-1] remark (lk) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
23 Monitors' Fourth Report (fld. 7/17/01) (lk) Modified on 07/24/2001 (Entered: 07/24/2001)
24 Fourth Progress and Status Summary by dfts. (ij) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ANTONIA M CARROLL as to STATE OF NEW JERSEY Service Re: [24-1] remark (ij) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
26 Monitors Fifth Report (lk) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
27 Fourth Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregaste Data (lk) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NJ STATE POLICE Service Re: [27-1] remark (lk) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
29 Fifth Progress/Status Summary of the Consent Decree entered into by the USA & The State of NJ re: NJ Div. of State Police (lk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY Service Re: [29-1] remark (lk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
31 Fifth Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregaste Data by defts. (ms) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defts of [31-1] Fifth Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregaste Data. (ms) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
33 LETTER By defts dated 6/28/02. (ms) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
34 Monitors' Sixth Report Long-term Compliance Audit (lk) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
35 Sixth Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregate Data by defts. (DS) Modified on 12/31/2002 (Entered: 10/23/2002)
36 Sixth Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregate Data by defts. (ms) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defts of [36-1] Sixth Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregate Datai. (ms) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
38 Letter Order, extending time to submit 7th report by "IMT" (signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper) (NM) (lk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)

01/14/2003 01/17/2003 03/06/2003 06/27/2003 06/27/2003 07/24/2003 08/21/2003 10/30/2003
11/07/2003 12/29/2003 12/29/2003
01/23/2004
03/30/2004
03/30/2004

39 ORDER extending time to submit IMT Report to 1/17/03. (signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper) (NM) (DS) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
40 Monitor's Seventh Report Long-term Compliance Audit by Public Management Resources (lk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
41 Substitute attorney for USA; Terminated attorney KELLI M. EVANS; Added, MARK A. POSNER (lk) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
42 Seventh Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregate Data by defts (ms) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defts of [42-1] Sixth Semiannual Public Report Of Aggregate Data. (ms) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
44 SCHEDULING ORDER extending time to file eighth report (signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper)(NM) (lk) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
45 Monitors' eighth report (lk) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
46 Letter Order, extending time to file State's Eighth Progress/Status Summary of the Consent Decree (signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper) (NM) (lk) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
47 Eight progress/status summary of the Consent Decree (lk) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
48 Eight Semi-Annual progress/status summary of the Consent Decree. (ms) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defts of [48-1] Eighth Semi-Annual progress/status summary of the Consent Decree. (ms) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
50 MONITORS NINTH REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Continued# 2 Continued# 3 Continued# 4 Continued)(lk, ) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by DANIEL G. GIAQUINTO on behalf of DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY (lk, ) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
52 MOTION for dissolution of the 1999 Consent Decree of certain matter by DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Daniel G. Giaquinto, Esq.# 2 Exhibits Affidavit of Daniel G. Giaquinto, Esq. exhibits to voluminous for system sent to Judge# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(lk, ) (Entered: 04/05/2004)

03/30/2004 03/30/2004
04/06/2004
05/07/2004 05/10/2004 06/25/2004 07/20/2004 11/08/2004 12/20/2004 12/28/2004
04/29/2005 06/28/2005

53 RESPONSE to Motion consenting to 52 MOTION for dissolution of the 1999 Consent Decree of certain matter filed by USA. (lk, ) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY re 52 MOTION for dissolution of the 1999 Consent Decree of certain matter (lk, ) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
55 ORDER granting 52 Motion to dissolve the 1999 Consent Decree excluding certain Paragraphs; and all portions of the Complaint relative to those Paragraphs are Dismissed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 4/6/04. (lk, ) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
56 NOTICE NINTH PROGRESS/STATUS SUMMARY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY (Attachments: # 1 Pages 1-46# 2 Pg. 47-95)(lk, ) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
57 LETTER ORDER extending time to file Ninth Progress/Status Summary of the Consent Decree . Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 4/28/04. (lk, ) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
58 Notice Ninth Semiannual Public Report of Aggregate Data (Attachments: # 1 index# 2 # 3 Exhibits C-G# 4 Exhibit H# 5 Cert of Service# 6 Executive Summary) (DH) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
59 Monitor's Tenth Report (Attachments: # 1 Executive Summary # 2 Table of Contents # 3 Supplement)(DH) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
60 TENTH PROGRESS/STATUS SUMMARY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Actual Report) (ms) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
61 STATUS REPORT Monitors' Eleventh Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
62 Tenth Semiannual Public Report of Aggregate Data (Attachments: # 1 Cover Page, # 2 Table of Contents, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Certificate of Service) (ms) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
63 ELEVENTH PROGRESS/STATUS SUMMARY OF THE CONSENT DECREE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (ms) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
64 Eleventh Semiannual Public Report of Aggregate Data (Attachments: # 1 Table of contents# 2 Executive Summary# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Certificate of Service) (ck ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

07/12/2005 11/02/2005 12/21/2005 12/28/2005
05/03/2006 06/27/2006 07/10/2006 10/27/2006 12/21/2006 01/04/2007

65 STATUS REPORT Monitors' Twelfth Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents# 2 Executive Summary# 3 Independent Monitors' Twelfth Report)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
66 12th PROGRESS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY (Attachments: #1 Report)(DH) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
67 STATUS REPORT Monitors' Thirteenth Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Monitors' Thirteenth Report# 2 Cover Page# 3 Table of Contents)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
68 12th Semiannual Public STATUS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY (Attachments: # 1 table of contents, # 2 executive summary, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Certificate of Service)(DH) Modified on 12/28/2005 (Entered: 12/28/2005)
69 Thirteenth Progress/STATUS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(DH) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
70 STATUS REPORT Monitors' Fourteenth Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Independent Monitors' Fourteenth Report pt. 2# 2 Independent Monitors' 14th report - pt. 3# 3 Independent Monitors' 14th Report - pt. 4)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
71 THIRTEENTH SEMIANNUAL PUBLIC STATUS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY(DH) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/14/2006 (DH, ). (Entered: 07/14/2006)
72 FOURTEENTH PROGRESS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY (Attachments: #(1) Report, #(2) Certificate of Service)(DH) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
73 LETTER ORDER extending time to file 15th Report, Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 12/22/06 (DH) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
74 Fourteenth Semiannual Public STATUS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY

01/17/2007 03/15/2007 04/30/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/06/2007
06/14/2007

DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY (Attachments: #(1) Executive Summary, #(2) index, #(3) Exhibit A, #(4) Exhibit B, #(5) Exhibit C, #(6) Exhibit D, #(7) Exhibit E, #(8) Exhibit F, #(9) Exhibit G, #(10) Exhibit H, #(11) Exhibit I, #(12) Certificate of Service)(DH) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
75 STATUS REPORT Monitors' Fifteenth Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Page# 2 Table of Contents# 3 Executive Summary# 4 Monitors' Fifteenth Report - Part 1# 5 Monitors' Fifteenth Report - Part 2)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
76 12th, 13th, 14th Semiannual STATUS REPORTS by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY (Attachments: # 1 Errata 13th Semiannual Report, # 2 14th Semiannual Report, # 3 Certificate of Service)(DH) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
77 FIFTEENTH PROGRESS/STATUS SUMMARY by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (ms) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
78 MOTION for Leave to Intervene by KENNETH JOHNSON, JOHN VILLAMIL, STANLEY MOLNAR. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Certification of Counsel# 3 Certification # 4 Exhibit to Certification# 5 Exhibit continued)(ck ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents by KENNETH JOHNSON, JOHN VILLAMIL, & STANLEY MOLNAR. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Certification of Counsel# 3 Sealed Exhibits)(ck) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents, 78 MOTION to Intervene. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6W before Magistrate Judge John J. Hughes. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ck, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
80 NOTICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY Clerk's Extension (FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/14/2007)

06/15/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/19/2007 06/19/2007 06/20/2007

CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: This pertains to Document 80 NOTICE filed by BRIAN FLANAGAN, DAG on behalf of the defendants, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and the DIVISION OF STATE POLICE for a Clerk's Extention to respond to a certain Motion to Intervene. Please be advised the Clerk's Office cannot extend said defendants time to respond to the subject Motion, only the Court may grant such a request. It is also noted that MR. FLANAGAN did not add himself as the attorney for the said defendants, the Clerk's Office has done so, specifically in order to advise MR. FLANAGAN of the foregoing information. (ck, ) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
81 NOTICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY re 80 Notice (Other) Extend Time to File Papers (FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
82 NOTICE by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY re 81 Notice (Other), 80 Notice (Other) Letter to Clerk Invoking Automatic Extension Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(5) (FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: This pertains to Documents 81 & 82 NOTICES filed by BRIAN FLANAGAN, DAG on behalf of the defendants, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and the DIVISION OF STATE POLICE for a Clerk's Extention to respond to a certain Motion to Intervene. Please be advised the Clerk's Office cannot extend said defendants time to respond to the subject Motion, only the Court may grant such a request. (ck) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Brian Flanagan# 2 Statement No Brief is Necessary# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79MOTION to restrict public access to documents. Motion Hearing set for 7/16/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6W before Magistrate Judge John J. Hughes. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR

07/02/2007 07/02/2007 07/03/2007
07/05/2007 07/06/2007
07/09/2007 07/13/2007

UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ck, ) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
84 BRIEF in Opposition re 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents filed by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Brian Flanagan# 2 Certificate of Service)(FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
85 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents by USA. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Proposed order# 3 Proof of Service)(GIBBONS, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: DOCUMENT 85 MOTION submitted by KERRY A. KRENTLER, ESQ., but e-filed by DANIEL GIBBONS, ESQ. on 7/2/07 did not contain a proper signature. Only Registered Users are permitted to sign electronically filed documents with an s/. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE DOCUMENT WITH A PROPER ELECTRONIC OR SCANNED SIGNATURE BY 7/6/07. **** 85 MOTION IS TERMINATED*** This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (ck, ) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
86 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Kerry Krentler# 2 Certificate of Service)(GIBBONS, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 86 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents. Motion Hearing set for 8/6/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6W before Magistrate Judge John J. Hughes. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ck ) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
87 NOTICE of Appearance by KERRY A. KRENTLER on behalf of USA (ck) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
88 BRIEF in Opposition re 78 MOTION to Intervene, 79 MOTION to restrict public access to documents filed by USA. (KRENTLER, KERRY) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

07/13/2007 07/13/2007
08/01/2007
08/01/2007 08/03/2007 08/31/2007 09/05/2007 11/01/2007

89 NOTICE by USA Substitution of Counsel (KRENTLER, KERRY) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: This pertains to Document 89 NOTICE by USA Substitution of Counsel filed on 7/13/07 by KERRY KRENTLER, AUSA. Counsel used the incorrect event code. The proper event is Substitution of Attorney found under the heading of OTHER FILINGS - OTHER DOCUMENTS. The Clerks Office has terminated MARK A. POSNER as counsel for the defendant, USA. Counsel is requested to use the proper event codes in the future. This message is for informational purposes and will remain on the docket unless otherwise directed by the Court. (ms) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
90 FIFTEENTH SEMIANNUAL PUBLIC STATUS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (Attachments: # 1 Executive Summary# 2 Table of Contents# 3Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Certificate of Service)(ck, ) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: This pertains to document 90 and similar documents thereto. COUNSEL, BRIAN G. FLANAGAN, as an efiler should be efiling these documents not fowarding the pleadings and disc to the Clerk's Office for filing. (ck) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
91 REPLY to Response to Motion re 78 MOTION to Intervene filed by KENNETH JOHNSON, JOHN VILLAMIL, STANLEY MOLNAR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pleading)(ROSSI, NINA) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
92 STATUS REPORT Monitors' Sixteenth Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents# 2 Executive Summary# 3 Monitors' Sixteenth Report - Part 1# 4 Monitors' Sixteenth Report - Part 2# 5 Monitors' Sixteenth Report - Part 3)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
93 STATUS REPORT Revised Monitors' Sixteenth Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Monitors' 16th Report - Part 2# 2 Monitors' 16th Report - Part 3)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
95 SIXTEENTH STATUS REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (ss, ) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

11/02/2007 12/06/2007
12/12/2007 01/02/2008 01/04/2008 01/14/2008
03/19/2008
04/29/2008 07/02/2008 07/25/2008

94 LETTER ORDER granting certain extension re: filing of reports. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/2/07. (ij, ) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
96 ORDER denying without prejudice 78 MOTION to Intervene; referring to magistrate Judge 79 MOTION to Seal & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the relief Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, & John Villamil in the motion to intervene is not barred. Show Cause Hearing set for 1/23/2008. Show Cause Response due by 1/2/2008. Reponse to the Current Parties of this action due 1/14/08. Reply due 1/22/08. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 12/6/07. (ck) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
97 ORDER dismissing as 79 Motion to release documents from confidentiality & directing that the documents at issue will remain confidential and sealed for adjudication in the NJ Superior Court. Signed by Judge John J. Hughes on 12/11/07. (ck, ) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
98 Letter ORDER extending the filing date of the State's Sixteenth Semiannual Pulic Report of Aggregate Data to 1/11/08. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 1/2/08. (ck, ) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
99 Letter from Brian Flanagan, DAG. (FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
100 SIXTEENTH SEMIANNUAL PUBLIC REPORT OF AGGREGATE DATA by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (Attachments: # 1 executive summary# 2Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 index# 11 Certification of service)(ss, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
101 ORDER in re: 96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the relief Kenneth Johnson, Stanley Molnar, & John Villamil sought in the motion to intervene is not barred; directing said parties have withdrawn their request to intervene and terminating JOHN VILLAMIL, KENNETH JOHNSON and STANLEY MOLNAR.Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 3/18/08. (ms) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
102 SEVENTEENTH PROGRESS REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Cover, # 2 Report, # 3 Appendix A, # 4 Appendix B, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix C, # 7 Certificate of Service)(ij, ) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
103 ORDER granting request of State to file semiannual report on 7/31/2008. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 7/1/2008. (tp ) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
104 SEVENTEENTH SEMIANNUAL PUBLIC REPORT by STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

01/26/2009 04/16/2009 08/12/2009
08/26/2009 08/27/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/31/2009

(Attachments: # 1 continued, # 2 continued, # 3 A, # 4 B, # 5 C, # 6D, # 7 E, # 8 F, # 9 G, # 10 H, # 11 Index)(lk) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
105 EIGHTEENTH SEMIANNUAL PUBLIC REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B thru H, # 2 Certificate of Service)(ij, ) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
106 STATUS REPORT Monitors' Seventeenth Report by STATE OF NEW JERSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3)(RIVAS, ALBERTO) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
107 Nineteenth Semiannual Public Report of Aggregate Data Submitted Pursuant to the Consent Decree Entered into by the United States of America and the State of New Jersey Regarding the New Jersey Division of State Police. (Attachments: # 1 Index, # 2 Executive Summary, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Certificate of Service, # 12 Cover Letter)(mmh) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
108 Substitution of Attorney - Attorney GREGORY A. SPELLMEYER and GREGORY A. SPELLMEYER for STATE OF NEW JERSEY and DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY added. Attorney BRIAN G. FLANAGAN terminated.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(SPELLMEYER, GREGORY) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
109 Joint MOTION for Termination of Consent Decree by USA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (Attachments: # 1 Statement, # 2 Certification, # 3 Certification, #4 Certification, # 5 Text of Proposed Order, # 6 Certificate of Service)(SPELLMEYER, GREGORY) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 109 Joint MOTION for Termination of Consent Decree. Motion set for 9/21/2009 before Judge Mary L. Cooper. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (gxh) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
110 AFFIDAVIT of James Ginger re 109 Joint MOTION for Termination of Consent Decree by USA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. (SPELLMEYER, GREGORY) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
CLERKS QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The Affidavit in Support of Motion 110 filed by Gregory Spellmeyer, Esq. on 08/28/2009 was submitted incorrectly as an Affidavit. FOR FUTURE REFERENCE,

09/21/2009

Counsel is advised that the correct event is AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION found under MOTIONS AND RELATED FILINGS -> RESPONSES AND REPLIES. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (gxh) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
111 ORDER granting 109 Motion teminating Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 9/21/09. (lk) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

03/15/2016 23:34:06

PACER Login:

hs0328:2563377:0

Client Code:

shepard

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:99-cv-05970-MLC-JJH Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 3/15/2016

Billable Pages:

9

Cost:

0.90

 
 NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATURE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

IN RE:

)

)

SENATE JUDICIARY

)

COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION )

HEARINGS

)

TRANSCRIPT OF
ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED TESTIMONY

Place: Office of Legislative Services
State House Annex Trenton, NJ 08625
Date: April 10, 2001
Time: 10:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
SENATOR WILLIAM L. GORMLEY, CHAIRMAN SENATOR JOHN J. MATHEUSSEN SENATOR NORMAN M. ROBERTSON SENATOR JOHN A. GIRGENTI SENATOR RAYMOND J. ZANE SENATOR GARRY J. FURNARI
ALSO PRESENT:
Senate Democratic Staff By: JO ASTRID GLADING, ESQ.
Senate Republican Staff By: CHRISTINE SHIPLEY, ESQ.
Latham and Watkins By: MICHAEL CHERTOFF, ESQ.
SCOTT LOUIS WEBER, ESQ.
Office of Legislative Services By: JOHN TUMULTY, OLS Aide

Transcriber, Patricia A. Kontura J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC. 268 Evergreen Avenue Hamilton, NJ 08619
(609)586-2311 FAX NO. (609)587-3599

2

1

EXHIBITS

2

3

Report on Discriminatory Practices Within the New

4

Jersey State Police, dated August 1999, from the New

5

Jersey Legislative Black and Latino Caucus

6

7

Report Entitled, Plaintiffs’ Proposal for Prospective

8

Systemic Relief

9

10

Copy of a Charge Filed by a Member of a Group of

11

Black Persons Currently Employed by the State Police.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

3

1

SENATOR GORMLEY: I’d ask the members of

2

the Committee to be seated, please.

3

We’d like to call as our first panel

4

witnesses today the members of the Black and Latino

5

Caucus: Assemblyman Joe Charles; Senator Wayne

6

Bryant; Assemblywoman Nia Gill; Assemblyman LeRoy

7

Jones; Assemblywoman Nellie Pou.

8

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: Good morning.

9

SENATOR GORMLEY: Well, this is the first

10

group I didn’t have to explain the red lights to.

11

Assemblyman Charles.

12

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: Yes, sir.

13

SENATOR GORMLEY: We’d appreciate your

14

testimony at this time.

15

ASSEMBLYMAN JOSEPH CHARLES, JR.: Yes. Mr.

16

Chairman, members of the Committee, I’m pleased to be

17

here before you this morning to give testimony on

18

this very important issue to the State of New Jersey,

19

to the citizens of the State of New Jersey that this

20

Committee has undertaken to look into.

21

I have with me on the panel some members of

22

the Black and Latino Caucus who will add to the

23

testimony that I’m about to give to you.

24

It was about two years ago to the day that

25

the Black and Latino Caucus began holding its public

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

4

1

hearings on the issue of racial profiling and the

2

related issue of discriminatory practices within the

3

State Police with regard to employment. It was on

4

April the 13th of 1999 that this Caucus convened the

5

public hearing in Trenton. One week later on April

6

20th, convened another public hearing in Newark. And

7

a week after that, convened a public hearing in

8

Blackwood, New Jersey to take testimony on this

9

issue.

10

The purposes of those hearings two years

11

ago were twofold. Number one, to put a human face on

12

the issue of racial profiling. Up to that time we

13

had been hearing about the statistics that are

14

involved in, that were involved in it, that proved

15

that, in fact, it was happening. Beyond that, we

16

felt that it was important for the citizenry, for the

17

public to know just what the human experience was and

18

who the people were who were being victimized by this

19

unconstitutional practice.

20

I commend the Committee, too, in its work

21

here during its hearings to understand and to be

22

calling forth witnesses who will give it a human

23

dimension. That’s very important, because we’re not

24

dealing with just statistics, we’re dealing with

25

human beings, real men and women and children, who

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

5

1

live in the State of New Jersey and who should be

2

guaranteed in the enjoyment of their constitutional

3

rights.

4

We had those hearings and those hearings

5

stemmed from a number of events. One year prior to

6

that there had been the incident of the shooting on

7

the Turnpike and some members of our Caucus took

8

action immediately following that one year earlier

9

and they’ll testify concerning those things. But we

10

held the hearings. The purposes of the hearings were

11

to identify the issues. We stressed at the outset

12

that it was not our intendment. It was not the

13

purpose of the Black and Latino Caucus to vilify the

14

individual troopers, members of the State Police,

15

rather it was our purpose to determine whether there

16

was an institutional problem that created this

17

unconstitutional practice and if so, what we could do

18

as legislators, as members of this Legislature as

19

elected officials to get at reform to correct these

20

practices if they exist.

21

Our hearings, which consisted of testimony

22

of lay people, of attorneys, of troopers, of expert

23

persons, led to certain inescapable findings. I have

24

before me a report that the Black and Latino Caucus

25

authored in August of 1999. You may have seen it.

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

6

1

You probably have reviewed it in connection with

2

these hearings here, but I would just like to

3

formally introduce it into the record of these

4

proceedings. I have copies which I can present to

5

the members of the hearing.

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: We’ll have it marked and

7

made part of the record.

8

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: I’d like to refer the

9

Committee to the findings of the Caucus, and I think

10

these are findings that from my reading of the

11

accounts of this hearing are reflected in the

12

hearings that this Committee is now conducting. We,

13

as the Black and Latino Caucus, found in August of

14

1999 that racial profiling and employment

15

discrimination is systemic in the State Police. We

16

further found that racial profiling and employment

17

discrimination is condoned, facilitated and rewarded

18

by the hierarchy of the State Police. We also found

19

that the Office of the Attorney General knew or

20

should have known about the severe and pervasive

21

practice and pattern of racial profiling and

22

employment discrimination within the State Police.

23

The institutional policies and practices of

24

the State Police have not materially improved since

25

1975 when the Justice Department found that the State

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

7

1

Police had “No objective and standardized criteria

2

and procedures for assignments, tenure, promotion and

3

discipline to assure that blacks and Spanish-surnamed

4

Americans and women are treated fairly and

5

equitably.”

6

We found that as a result of the failure of

7

the Office of the Attorney General to properly

8

supervise the State Police where issues of race and

9

gender are concerned, the State Police have persisted

10

in violating the civil rights of minority motorists

11

and minority troopers. Minority troopers are

12

discriminated against in the terms and conditions of

13

their employment. We found based upon the evidence

14

produced before us that personnel decisions within

15

the State Police are not based upon measurable

16

objective standards, instead nepotism, favoritism and

17

discrimination play too significant a role.

18

We further found that minority troopers had

19

been punished and penalized for challenging the

20

discriminatory policies and practices of the State

21

Police.

22

And finally we found that substantive and

23

lasting changes will not occur in the external

24

functioning of the State Police, that is in racial

25

profiling of motorists, unless and until there is

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

8

1

fundamental reform of the internal institutional

2

structure. As I stated, we were concerned about

3

change in the institutional structure, legislative

4

changes, that would be made permanent and that would

5

be protective of minorities from the beginning of

6

those institutions until.

7

We made some recommendations and those

8

recommendations were ultimately put into bill forms

9

which are currently pending before the Assembly and

10

also the Senate. Just to capsulize some of the major

11

recommendations. We recommended at that time, at

12

that time we were without a Superintendent, we

13

recommended that the next Superintendent, we have one

14

now, shall be appointed from outside the current

15

ranks of the organization. We felt that the problem

16

was so deeply imbedded that true institutional reform

17

could only occur if there was some outside person

18

unaffected by personal or professional relationships.

19

We further found and recommended that

20

racial profiling should be established as a criminal

21

act classified as a third-degree crime. We also

22

found that there should be established an independent

23

civilian review board with the power of subpoena to

24

compel evidence and testimony.

25

We also recommended that there should be

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

9

1

established an Office of Independent Prosecutor. The

2

intention of tampering with or disabling of road

3

vehicle cameras we recommended be established as a

4

criminal act. And we also recommended that there be

5

established among the laws of the State of New Jersey

6

a Civil Rights Violation Act which resulted in --

7

which would call for criminal penalties.

8

Now, I should say this, that at the

9

beginning of our hearing, and it’s important to note

10

this, in the beginning of our hearings on April of

11

1999, we asked the -- or invited the then Attorney

12

General Mr. Peter Verniero to attend and to give

13

testimony. We asked the then Acting Superintendent

14

of Police, Mr. Fedorko to appear and to testify.

15

Both persons declined our invitations. At our

16

subsequent hearing in April, the third of our

17

hearings, we extended another invitation. Our

18

invitation to the then Attorney General at first was

19

accepted and then at the last minute we got a call

20

that he would not appear for reasons that were not

21

expressed.

22

We tried to get as much information, as

23

much data as we could as we conducted our hearings.

24

In fact, one of the things that we requested prior to

25

the hearings that began in April of 1999 by a letter

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

10

1

we sent to the Attorney General’s Office was all data

2

pertaining to stops by the State Police over the

3

preceding years. We received a responding letter

4

that such data did not exist. We -- in writing. We

5

then proceeded with our hearings and I think we

6

arrived at some conclusions that I stated before. We

7

have over the last several weeks, in the last several

8

weeks, based upon our hearings two years ago and also

9

based upon some of the information that was revealed

10

during your hearings, we have sent a letter to the

11

then Attorney General, a current Justice of the

12

Supreme Court, asking that Justice, then Attorney

13

General, Verniero to resign based upon what we felt

14

was an unconstitutional failure to act in the

15

interest of all of the citizens of the State of New

16

Jersey and for disregard of his constitutional

17

obligations to equally apply the laws of the State of

18

New Jersey and to equally protect all of the people

19

of the State of New Jersey. That’s a position that

20

we arrived at very gravely after a lot of

21

consideration, realizing the consequences of it, the

22

seriousness of it. But we felt that in honor of the

23

constitutional laws of the State of New Jersey and as

24

a duty to the citizens of the State of New Jersey,

25

particularly the minority motorists of the State of

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

11

1

New Jersey who have been victimized, and in the

2

interest of the people of the State of New Jersey who

3

need to have confidence that there is equal justice

4

on the Supreme Court, we felt that such a decision is

5

necessary. More action may be necessary, but for the

6

time being, that is our position.

7

I’ll end my remarks right now by just

8

referring to one of the quotes that we got from an

9

expert in our hearings. And I think this is where

10

we’re at right now. When we had our hearings, our

11

last hearing on April 27th, Professor Fife, in

12

response to the Interim Report that the Attorney

13

General issued, I believe it was on April the 20th of

14

1999, had this remark. He said that “The

15

recommendations in that Interim Report would fail

16

because the Attorney General’s findings and

17

recommendations do not acknowledge or address the

18

systemic nature of racial profiling. The

19

recommendations do not hold accountable any member of

20

the State Police above the level of road trooper and

21

the recommendations do not contain any mechanism to

22

monitor the job performance of supervisory management

23

personnel.” Mr. Fife warned that, “The failure to

24

address this leadership issue is bound to widen the

25

schisms between road troopers and those who lead

Testimony - Assemblyman Charles

12

1

them.” We as the Legislature need to take the proper

2

corrective actions so that the bane, the curse, the

3

unconstitutional practice of racial profiling and

4

further, the unconstitutional discrimination against

5

the troopers of the State of New Jersey, the minority

6

troopers, that it be eliminated.

7

I thank this Committee for the opportunity

8

to testify.

9

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you.

10

Senator Bryant.

11

SENATOR WAYNE BRYANT: Thank you, Mr.

12

Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to place our

13

testimony on the record before the Judiciary

14

Committee.

15

Let me begin by making a brief statement

16

about the manner in which the Senate Judiciary has

17

conducted its investigation into racial profiling

18

within the Division of State Police.

19

I commend the Committee for taking so

20

serious its mission to find the truth. Placing

21

principle above politics is a goal that is often

22

pursued, yet, in the final analysis of critical

23

issues before the Legislature, is seldom achieved.

24

This Committee of Democrats and Republicans

25

found a way to speak in one voice. To ask tough

Testimony - Senator Bryant

13

1

questions; you made the tough decisions. Because of

2

your uncommon valor, New Jersey has made a quantum

3

leap towards eradicating the scourge of racial

4

profiling.

5

Curiously, despite this principled mission,

6

there are some who would discredit the aggressive

7

tactics you have taken to get to the truth. I feel

8

compelled to respond to those who would rather point

9

a finger of guilt at the Legislature than hold

10

accountable those individuals who viewed racial

11

profiling as a problem to manage and not to solve.

12

To be fair, the Legislature, as an

13

institution, subjected itself to much of its own

14

criticism by resisting early efforts to open its eyes

15

to racial profiling.

16

In May of 1998, and again in March of 1999,

17

the Legislative Black and Latino Caucus asked the

18

Senate President DiFrancesco and Assembly Speaker

19

Collins to conduct bipartisan, bicameral public

20

hearings on racial profiling. For the record, Mr.

21

Chairman, those requests were denied.

22

In April of 1999, the Caucus proceeded to

23

conduct its own public hearings. The Caucus

24

requested the normal resources afforded to a

25

legislative committee to conduct its work.

Testimony - Senator Bryant

14

1

Once again, the Legislature’s abject

2

failure to show any leadership on this issue

3

manifested itself with the presiding offices of both

4

Houses denying that request.

5

The Caucus persevered, however, and

6

conducted its own hearings, summarizing its findings

7

and recommendations in the report referred to by

8

Assemblyman Charles.

9

From this report issued in August of 1999,

10

the Caucus drafted a package of 20 bills to end the

11

civil rights violations and discriminatory practices

12

and restore public confidence in the State Police.

13

Our package approached reform from three

14

vantage points: number one, heightened oversight of

15

the State Police; two, administrative changes in the

16

State Police enforcement practices, and; number

17

three, internal reforms to eliminate bias in

18

recruitment, training, hiring and promotion.

19

It is clear to the Black and Latino Caucus

20

if there is no justice inside, you can give no

21

justice outside.

22

In the one and a half years since this

23

package of legislation was introduced, not one bill,

24

not one bill has been posted for either a hearing or

25

consideration by a legislative committee.

Testimony - Senator Bryant

15

1

I am gratified that many of these bills

2

have been assigned to your Committee and I understand

3

that this Committee will act on them in short term.

4

I am troubled, however, that seven of the

5

bills have not been assigned here and, thus, are at

6

risk of dying a slow death in the bill room.

7

Mr. Chairman, these bills have equal

8

standing with other reforms in the goal of righting

9

the wrong of racial profiling.

10

Like the other bills, they were shaped by

11

the experience of victims who came to our hearings

12

and put a human face on racial profiling.

13

These are real reforms to correct real

14

problems that were recounted by real people.

15

We have collected much of this testimony

16

and information prior to this Committee’s

17

consideration of Peter Verniero’s nomination to the

18

New Jersey Supreme Court.

19

Now, two years later, the inquiry that

20

should have happened, is taking place. There is a

21

common theme in the testimony and evidence gathered

22

by this Committee and the abject failure of

23

leadership.

24

We saw, just last week, how our leadership

25

continues to fail us. New Jersey is currently under

Testimony - Senator Bryant

16

1

federal consent decree with the United States

2

Department of Justice.

3

That consent decree requires dozens and

4

dozens of reforms, and provides for two monitors to

5

ensure compliance. We have already paid those

6

monitors more than $365,000 to do their job.

7

One of the single most important mandates

8

under the consent decree is the requirement that the

9

State report the traffic stop activities of State

10

Police every six months, including the racial

11

breakdown of who is pulled over and who is asked to

12

stand at the shoulder of the road while their car is

13

searched.

14

Last week, Attorney General John Farmer

15

came before this Committee and reported that

16

minorities are still being subjected to consent

17

searches at wildly disproportionate rates. He

18

reported they are being searched with less cause than

19

whites. He reported that police are finding far less

20

when they search minorities.

21

The problem, however, is that John Farmer

22

should have been before this Committee in June of

23

last year with his report. And he should have come

24

before this Committee again in January with his next

25

report. That’s what the consent decree requires. He

Testimony - Senator Bryant

17

1

contends that computer systems are not up to speed

2

yet to do the analysis and they had to be done by

3

hand. My colleagues, only 271 searches were

4

analyzed. His analyzation could have been

5

accomplished in three hours with a Radio Shack

6

computer.

7

It is an insult for him to come before this

8

Committee, ten months after he should have disclosed

9

the statistics showing that racial profiling is still

10

a cancer of our roads. And it’s clear that the only

11

reason we have this report now is because this

12

Committee has conducted this long-overdue inquiry.

13

Here we are five years after Judge Francis’

14

decision in Soto...three years after the shooting of

15

four young black men on Exit 7A...two years after the

16

Interim Report...and 15 months after the consent

17

decree. And we still have a failure of leadership.

18

We have a failure of leadership by the Attorney

19

General, by the State Police, and by the federal

20

government.

21

And because we cannot guarantee that our

22

leadership will not fail us again, we need to make

23

fundamental institutional change and reform.

24

It is time, indeed, it is long past due to give

25

citizens a role in monitoring the activities of our

Testimony - Senator Bryant

18

1

State Police.

2

There are other important works before you.

3

The integrity of the Senate’s advice and consent

4

process has been undermined and badly damaged.

5

In his testimony before this Committee two

6

years ago, Caucus Chairman Joe Charles observed that

7

the Attorney General’s admissions and solutions came

8

only in the face of the no longer deniable truth that

9

racial profiling existed and that unconstitutional

10

racial discrimination was systemic in the Division of

11

State Police he supervised.

12

We questioned the Attorney General’s

13

decision to ignore astonishing findings of Judge

14

Francis’ decision in the Soto case.

15

We questioned the Attorney General’s

16

pattern of stonewalling requests for profiling data

17

from the federal civil rights investigators, the news

18

media and yes, indeed, the Black and Latino Caucus

19

itself.

20

We questioned why the Attorney General

21

would downplay it, ignore it, deny it, the

22

significance of the investigation by the United

23

States Justice Department into racial profiling

24

within the State Police.

25

We questioned what might have been going

Testimony - Senator Bryant

19

1

through the mind of the Attorney General when a

2

federal court found in 1998 that State Police

3

Sergeant Vincent Bellaran was the victim of racially

4

hostile and a racially discriminatory work

5

environment.

6

This nominee brought a new meaning to the

7

phrase, “Justice is blind.”

8

He was blind to the profound facts and

9

implications of racial profiling on one-quarter of

10

New Jersey’s population.

11

He was blind to his own responsibility as

12

chief law enforcement officer of New Jersey to

13

guarantee all citizens the right to equal protection

14

under the law, due process and freedom from

15

unreasonable searches and seizures.

16

And perhaps because he was so blinded by

17

his ambition to ascend to the state’s highest court,

18

he gave testimony in May of 1999 that members of this

19

Committee now deem as misleading. He made statements

20

that were false.

21

We cannot turn back the clock of May of

22

1999 and re-vote his confirmation. We cannot undue

23

the damage to civil rights and personal dignity that

24

persists while Attorney General Verniero, the chief

25

law enforcement officer of New Jersey, turned a blind

Testimony - Senator Bryant

20

1

eye to racial profiling.

2

We can right the wrong, however, by

3

insisting on two things. First, we must get this

4

package of racial profiling legislation enacted this

5

year. This Committee and this Legislature must

6

listen to their colleagues of the Black and Latino

7

Caucus.

8

Second, we must vigorously pursue the

9

removal of Justice Verniero from the Supreme Court.

10

Let me say again, that I commend this

11

Committee for asking the tough questions and making

12

the tough decisions.

13

Your call for the Justice’s resignation

14

from the court was a painful but necessary step.

15

It is becoming increasingly clear that it

16

will take additional steps to vacate Justice

17

Verniero’s place on the bench.

18

A failure of New Jersey’s leadership

19

enabled this nominee to rise to the state’s highest

20

court. His continued presence on the court will

21

perpetuate that failure.

22

Let us stay the course of principle, demand

23

nothing less than the highest of ethical standards

24

for Justices on the state’s highest court.

25

The facts, no matter how personal and blunt

Testimony - Senator Bryant

21

1

as they may be, must be stated for the record. The

2

Republican Party rushed a nomination of Attorney

3

General Peter Verniero through this Committee in May

4

of 1999 even though the Supreme Court vacancy did not

5

take effect until September 1999.

6

The Black and Latino Caucus implored this

7

Committee to hold the hearings they’re holding now

8

back in May of 1999.

9

The Republican Senate then compounded this

10

tragedy by hastily confirming Justice Verniero’s

11

nomination to the Supreme Court by just one vote.

12

And at the confirmation I stated this simple truth,

13

when you press the truth to earth, it will surely

14

rise again.

15

This Committee has found the truth and it

16

clearly answers the question we posed. What did

17

Justice Verniero know or should have known and when

18

did he know it. It is clear from the record that the

19

knowledge that Peter Verniero possessed was available

20

and in his possession a year and a half prior to him

21

acting on behalf of the citizens of New Jersey and

22

ending racial profiling.

23

We have now entered a new millennium, a new

24

century and, yes, the eyes of the entire nation are

25

looking at New Jersey to see if there will be one

Testimony - Assemblywoman Gill

22

1

standard of justice and will we right the wrong.

2

If Justice Verniero will not do the right

3

thing by resigning from the Supreme Court, we must,

4

in this Legislature, do more than ask for his

5

resignation or censure him. He must be impeached.

6

The black and Latino community is very

7

aware that both Houses of the Legislature and the

8

Governor’s Office are controlled by the Republican

9

Party. It is the Republican Party that has placed

10

this stain upon our most prestigious court and

11

allowed injustice to prevail. Therefore, this

12

Legislature in the new millennium dare not send a

13

message to the nation that the standard for justice,

14

for the privilege, is one standard. And that the

15

civil rights of citizens of the State of New Jersey

16

who are of color can be denied.

17

This wrong must be righted. Justice

18

Verniero must be impeached.

19

SENATOR GORMLEY: I’ll wait until we get to

20

the witnesses to go over the hearings that we did

21

have two years ago.

22

Assemblywoman Gill.

23

ASSEMBLYWOMAN NIA GILL: Thank you, Mr.

24

Chairman.

25

The Attorney General and the Attorney

Testimony - Assemblywoman Gill

23

1

General’s Office are incapable of monitoring and

2

supervising the New Jersey State Police on issues of

3

racial profiling in discriminatory practices.

4

This is a fact well known by the State

5

Police and amply documented at this hearing by the

6

testimony of Associate Justice Peter Verniero,

7

Attorney General Farmer and New Jersey State Police

8

Superintendent Colonel Carson Dunbar.

9

The statutory obligations of the Attorney

10

General’s Office as the supervisors for the New

11

Jersey State Police creates a symbiotic relationship

12

for interdependence that is inherently in conflict

13

with the Attorney General’s constitutional mandate to

14

uphold and protect the citizens’ constitutional

15

rights that have been violated by the State Police.

16

The Attorney General’s Office has failed to

17

supervise the New Jersey State Police and the New

18

Jersey State Police has been unwilling and unable to

19

supervise itself. Therefore, it should come as no

20

surprise that the recommendations in the Attorney

21

General’s final report and Interim Report have failed

22

to eradicate the systemic nature of racial profiling

23

and discriminatory practices that remain alive and

24

well in the culture of the New Jersey State Police.

25

The recommendations and reforms simply

Testimony - Assemblywoman Gill

24

1

perpetuate the symbiotic relationship between the

2

Attorney General’s Office and the State Police. The

3

State Police monitors itself, and the Attorney

4

General attempts to monitor the State Police.

5

One of the most effective ways to eliminate

6

the inherent conflict between the Attorney General’s

7

responsibility to protect the civil rights of the

8

citizens and supervise and monitor the New Jersey

9

State Police is to establish an Office of the Special

10

Prosecutor, whose jurisdiction shall include the

11

investigation and prosecution of both civil and

12

criminal rights violations involving any member of

13

the New Jersey State Police.

14

Mr. Chairman, as you have already been made

15

aware, the Black and Latino Caucus introduced a

16

legislative package that has been pending for two

17

years. The legislative package of the Black and

18

Latino Caucus acknowledges the systemic nature of

19

racial profiling and addresses its elimination.

20

I would like to take this opportunity to

21

highlight some of the Black and Latino Caucus’

22

initiatives.

23

In order to ensure accountability for each

24

state trooper for his or her actions that result in

25

the disregard of a motorist’s constitutional rights,

Testimony - Assemblywoman Gill

25

1

racial profiling, should be established as both a

2

criminal act and as a cause of action for civil

3

rights criminal prosecution.

4

The creation of a civilian review board

5

would provide the crucial independent monitoring of

6

the New Jersey State Police to ensure compliance with

7

all rules, regulations and procedures promulgated for

8

the elimination and prevention of the systemic

9

patterns and practices of racial profiling and other

10

unconstitutional violations that have become part of

11

the New Jersey State Police culture.

12

Unless and until we are prepared to enact

13

legislation that recognizes that it is not a few bad

14

apples who are responsible for the discriminatory

15

practice of the State Police, then history may well

16

record that these hearings were much to do about

17

nothing.

18

I look forward to working with you and the

19

other members of the Committee to pass legislation to

20

end this shameful practice.

21

Thank you.

22

SENATOR GORMLEY: Assemblyman Jones.

23

ASSEMBLYMAN LEROY J. JONES, JR.: Thank

24

you, Senator Gormley and to the members of the

25

Committee.

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

26

1

Let me just start by saying on behalf of

2

the people that I represent and the countless number

3

of motorists who have been victims of racial

4

profiling, thank you for the opportunity to offer

5

testimony on one of the most pressing matters of this

6

day, racial profiling.

7

Mr. Chairman, and I think members of the

8

Committee, are clearly well aware that racial

9

profiling has been a silent scourge on New Jersey far

10

too long. While never, ever officially sanctioned,

11

testimony and data offered to this Committee has

12

verified that racial profiling was and continues to

13

be a standard operating procedure for some state

14

troopers.

15

Mr. Chairman, you should also recognize,

16

and it’s clear and the record states that through the

17

voice of Chairman Joe Charles, Senator Bryant and

18

Assemblywoman Gill and you’ll hear from Assemblywoman

19

Pou, that the legislative Black and Latino Caucus

20

hearings on racial profiling helped to bring light on

21

the experiences of many, many victimized minority

22

motorists with harassing stops and searches. And as

23

Assemblyman Charles mentioned, that we placed a face

24

on the charge of racial profiling and we sought to

25

identify and isolate those troopers who were guilty

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

27

1

of this cruel and shameful and unconstitutional

2

practice.

3

It’s been said this has been a travesty on

4

m any levels and the membership of the Black and

5

Latino Caucus and the members of the ministerial

6

community, community activists and victims of racial

7

profiling, have cooperated to help end the hostile

8

environment which has existed along New Jersey

9

roadways for quite some time now.

10

Opponents of racial profiling have been

11

frustrated over the lack of reporting about the

12

racial characteristics of motorists subjected to

13

highway stops. New Jersey now recognizes the need

14

for more statistical reporting of troopers’

15

activities and more uniform procedures as it concerns

16

stops, as it concerns searches and the overall

17

conduct of the State Police.

18

Testimony also revealed that the State

19

Police have compiled data which verifies conclusively

20

that racial profiling exists to this day. And we’ve

21

clearly heard testimony from the current Attorney

22

General John Farmer just the other day through this

23

Committee that that is indeed still a fact.

24

Citing the continued lack of statistical

25

information and the State’s repeated denials of the

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

28

1

existence of racial profiling, this Caucus, the Black

2

and Latino Caucus, introduced a comprehensive

3

legislative package designed to combat racial

4

profiling. Chairman Joe Charles has mentioned it.

5

Assemblywoman Gill, Senator Bryant, Assemblywoman Pou

6

will also mention that. So we’re trying to drive

7

home this very issue, that inasmuch as this Committee

8

moves towards reforms, reforms currently sit in the

9

legislative hopper without action.

10

And I can’t help but notice that the dates

11

on this flip chart, and I don’t know the significance

12

of those dates, but they seem to go back to 1996.

13

But let me just share something with you. And

14

Senator Bryant touched on this for a moment. Senator

15

Shirley Turner and the late Senator Wynona Lipman and

16

myself introduced concurrent resolutions back in June

17

of 1998 which essentially call for the creation of a

18

bicameral, bipartisan legislative task force to

19

investigate the use of racial profiling by State

20

Police and the level of minority appointments within

21

the State Police.

22

So clearly, we’re looking at a time line

23

that dates us back three years, almost four months,

24

after the Turnpike shooting, which elevated the whole

25

notion of racial profiling in this state.

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

29

1

So, Mr. Chairman, I am just simply urging

2

you to post our bills on the next agenda of the

3

Senate Judiciary Committee, because as mentioned

4

earlier, our bills will simply help to redress racial

5

profiling by creating statutory prohibitions against

6

this discriminatory practice and address some of the

7

administrative and personnel-related matters unique

8

to the State Police.

9

Our legislative package will foster

10

accountability at all levels of the State Police and

11

moreover, our bills will restore confidence in the

12

State Police amongst the citizens where it has been

13

lost.

14

Mr. Chairman, let me go on to just say that

15

the hearings conducted by the Black and Latino Caucus

16

and the meetings held by this very important

17

Committee, and all resulting actions, I believe, and

18

I believe you all would agree with me, will provide

19

solace to anyone concerned about racial profiling.

20

Statutory mandates against racial profiling

21

and the enhancement of civil rights protections,

22

which will result from the Caucus legislative

23

package, will simply discourage unscrupulous troopers

24

from engaging in this indiscriminate and

25

reprehensible conduct. It was and continues to be

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

30

1

conduct that tarnishes the dignity of the position of

2

state trooper. It diminishes the image of the

3

profession of law enforcement. Drives a wedge between

4

state troopers and the people that they have sworn to

5

protect and serve and undermines the very law that

6

they are mandated to uphold.

7

Mr. Chairman, I want the record to reflect

8

my deep-seated concern as it relates to the internal

9

mechanics of the New Jersey State Police and the

10

hostility which is directed at people of color. In

11

other words, we become, not just the members of the

12

Black and Latino Caucus, but the Legislature, the

13

voice for those that have been voiceless for quite

14

some time.

15

And if I can, let me just shift the

16

testimony to a group of individuals who I believe are

17

courageous, I believe are bold, daring and different.

18

Who have the fearless effort to come before this

19

Committee and moments after this Caucus completes its

20

testimony, and that is the minority troopers that sit

21

behind me. And I certainly apologize for my back

22

while making reference to all of them. During our

23

hearings, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the testimony

24

on troopers engaging in racial profiling, we heard a

25

significant amount of factual accounts of the blatant

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

31

1

discrimination, harassment and nepotism and overtly

2

hateful acts imposed against minority troopers by

3

white troopers and the hierarchy of the State Police.

4

5

The internal challenges facing these bold

6

gentlemen have been dwarfed by much of the debate on

7

racial profiling. And we cannot lose sight of that.

8

Let the record state that in many respects the State

9

Police, the law enforcement apparatus of this state,

10

is dysfunctional and intolerant.

11

Segments of the public have lived through

12

racial profiling and this episode which has been

13

called for people to be mindful and considerate of

14

the men and women who patrol our roads and their

15

families and friends, and that is certainly

16

appropriate. But let me just say on behalf of these

17

gentlemen who have been victimized by state troopers,

18

I call on all people of goodwill to simply consider

19

the plight of troopers facing the challenges on the

20

roadways of New Jersey and in the barracks of the

21

State Police and I simply ask the people of New

22

Jersey to also consider their families and their

23

friends, because these minority troopers who

24

acknowledged the impact on their physical and

25

emotional states during our hearing as a result of

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

32

1

discrimination, exclusion and intolerance, certainly

2

are owed that privilege.

3

Now, Colonel Dunbar has often expressed his

4

view that the morale of the State Police is low, and

5

no one argues that. But according to some troopers

6

whom I’ve spoken with, low morale may just be an

7

improvement over and above where some minority

8

troopers currently find themselves. In many cases,

9

minority troopers are frustrated, they’re angry and

10

they’re dispirited. Some of them can even be

11

described as depressed. The minority troopers I have

12

met, and it’s these gentlemen right here, they do

13

their jobs and they want to continue that vein.

14

However, the troopers that desire to do their jobs

15

are often impeded and limited by the internal forces

16

to which I have previously referenced.

17

Internal chaos, unfairness and hostile

18

environment, which exists within the Agency of the

19

Department of State Police, must end and it must end

20

now.

21

The underlying theme of our hearing was

22

that the external problems of racial profiling simply

23

could not be eliminated until we are able to address

24

the internal difficulties of the State Police as an

25

organization and as an institution.

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

33

1

Mr. Chairman, our bills that you’ve heard a

2

lot about this morning, address internal, as well as

3

external matters, of the State Police. And we must

4

work together to completely change the fabric and the

5

environment of the State Police. New Jersey, I

6

believe, will be better served if we are able to

7

address these internal and external problems unique

8

to the New Jersey State Police.

9

And in closing I would just like to add,

10

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee and people

11

that are here with us today, we talk much about

12

Justice Verniero and the legislative process will

13

obviously address Justice Verniero with the

14

appropriate process at the appropriate time, but we

15

cannot lose sight or allow that to be the smokescreen

16

to move away from addressing the bigger issue, the

17

broader issue and that is the issue of racial

18

profiling and that is repairing the harm that has

19

been placed on every victim, whether they be trooper

20

or citizen. It is our responsibility as legislators

21

to uphold the sacred constitution of this state and

22

to ensure that no man or woman, based on their color,

23

creed or ethnic background, has ever -- is always

24

from harm when traveling the highways and byways of

25

this state.

Testimony - Assemblyman Jones

34

1

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the

2

opportunity and if there’s certainly any questions,

3

I’ll be more than glad to respond.

4

Thank you.

5

SENATOR GORMLEY: Assemblywoman Pou.

6

ASSEMBLYWOMAN NELLIE POU: Thank you, Mr.

7

Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee.

8

I came here to testify in what is now a

9

very different climate than when members of the Black

10

and Latino Caucus sought to shed light on what we had

11

every reason to believe was a serious issue and a

12

serious wrong being perpetrated on citizens of our

13

state, and particularly minority citizens. That is

14

racial profiling by the New Jersey State Police.

15

We sought to raise the issue three years

16

ago in May of 1998 by requesting bicameral

17

legislative hearings into the subject because

18

literally hundreds of our constituents over the years

19

have brought to our attention incidents of stops by

20

the State Police and requests to submit to consent

21

searches which under the circumstances related to us,

22

and in the numbers indicated, could be explained by

23

nothing more than race or ethnicity.

24

We saw this situation as alarming, unfair

25

and disruptive of democratic principles, civil

Testimony - Assemblywoman Pou

35

1

rights, and just as seriously, as respect of all

2

citizens, and particularly minority citizens for law

3

enforcement in general and the New Jersey State

4

Police in particular.

5

We were met at the time with what can only

6

be characterized as a lack of interest, at best, by

7

the leadership of the Legislature and our information

8

was criticized for being unreliable and merely

9

anecdotal while we were denied our request for a

10

legislative hearing which could have brought forth

11

hard evidence.

12

As I said, today we are in a vastly

13

different position. We know, for example, that

14

shortly after Attorney General Verniero took office

15

in 1996 the United States Justice Department advised

16

the State of New Jersey that it was reviewing the

17

matter of alleged racial profiling by the New Jersey

18

State Police.

19

We also know that as early as December

20

1996, then Attorney General Verniero and the then

21

Superintendent of the State Police received

22

statistical information from the New Jersey State

23

Police sources which, under any fair-minded and

24

objective assessment, had to indicate a probability

25

of racial profiling. This was followed in February

Testimony - Assemblywoman Pou

36

1

of 1997 with even more compelling documentation of

2

the problem.

3

Notwithstanding the evidence, Attorney

4

General Verniero not only appealed the Soto case

5

which documented racial profiling in a court of law,

6

but he continued to dig his heels in and resist the

7

efforts of the federal government to get hard

8

evidence of the situation.

9

In addition, Attorney General Verniero’s

10

response to the written request of the Black and

11

Latino Caucus for statistical records, submitted to

12

him on March 8, 1999 with a requested compliance date

13

of March 29th, was that he would “endeavor” to

14

complete his review by April 28th and share the

15

results of his review “whenever completed.”

16

It is significant that Attorney General

17

Verniero’s confirmation was held on April 26th, two

18

days before his projected date for providing our

19

Committee with the requested statistics.

20

At that time Attorney General Verniero told

21

this Committee that the problem of racial profiling

22

had not crystalized in his mind until after the

23

Turnpike shooting of April 1998, although the facts

24

now leaves us with no other conclusion but that he

25

chose to ignore facts brought to his attention by the

Testimony - Assemblywoman Pou

37

1

New Jersey State Police themselves at least a year

2

earlier.

3

Against this background and after hearing

4

now Justice Verniero’s testimony before this

5

Committee recently, I must join the members of this

6

Committee and the New Jersey Acting Governor Donald

7

DiFrancesco in coming to the conclusion that certain

8

things happened which makes it impossible to permit

9

Justice Verniero to continue to serve on the New

10

Jersey Supreme Court. That he knew or should have

11

known that racial profiling existed long before he

12

advised the Judiciary Committee at his confirmation

13

hearing that he knew so; that he purposely withheld

14

vital information from the United States Justice

15

Department and that the affirmative vote on this

16

Committee on his nomination prompted by his less than

17

open and forthright information and that his

18

nomination would in all probability not have been

19

approved had that information been provided then.

20

As to his responses given to this Committee

21

recently regarding his previous knowledge on racial

22

profiling issues and on the degree of his candor in

23

his earlier testimony, you have already reached your

24

own conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree.

25

What comes of this “sad” chapter in New

Testimony - Assemblywoman Pou

38

1

Jersey’s history is not just the removal, hopefully

2

by resignation but enforced if necessary, of Justice

3

Verniero, for that would be far too easy and would do

4

nothing to resolve the underlying evil of racial

5

profiling, but a complete change in our State’s

6

practices, procedures and yes, even in its thinking.

7

Racial profiling as a law enforcement

8

technique is counterproductive as the real statistics

9

show that the stops of minority motorists are grossly

10

disproportionate to the positive results of those

11

stops, but just as tragically such actions call into

12

question the cherished belief that all citizens of

13

this state and nation are equally entitled to the

14

protection of its laws and especially of those who

15

are empowered to enforce its laws and protect its

16

citizens.

17

Justice Verniero would do a great service

18

to the citizens of this State by acknowledging his

19

failures in the performance of his duties as Attorney

20

General and of his responsibilities to be candid and

21

forthright in his responses to this Committee, both

22

in his original testimony at his confirmation hearing

23

and in recent appearance, by resigning his position

24

rather than putting the people of this State through

25

a protracted and acrimonious impeachment process and

Testimony - Assemblywoman Pou

39

1

we, as Legislators of this State, would do a similar

2

service by putting into place a system of

3

recruitment, training, supervision and accountability

4

of our State Police force which would ensure that

5

innocent citizens of this State are free to

6

transverse our highways without harassment and

7

humiliation while leaving the New Jersey State Police

8

free to perform their sworn duties in protecting the

9

honest, law-abiding citizens of this State and to

10

appropriately enforce our criminal laws.

11

All this is possible, but what is required

12

is a fundamental change in our mind-set that criminal

13

activity does not have some basic racial or ethnic

14

component and that those elements are not appropriate

15

triggers for proper enforcement.

16

The fair and appropriate enforcement of our

17

criminal law enhances the safety and well-being of

18

all of our citizens, the discriminatory, racially and

19

ethnically biased implementation of discredited law

20

enforcement “profiles” beings our government and our

21

society as a whole into disrepute and can only lead

22

to a cynicism and disrespect for all of our

23

institutions.

24

I believe it is our responsibility as

25

elected officials to root out such practices and

Senator Girgenti

40

1

those who perpetrate them. To that end, let me just

2

reaffirm the comments that have been said by members

3

of the Black and Latino Caucus who’s before you. We

4

have introduced 20 separate pieces of legislation

5

which address the problem of racial profiling and

6

begins the process of healing and uniting our great

7

State.

8

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the

9

opportunity to testify on this very important matter.

10

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Girgenti.

11

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you very much, Mr.

12

Chairman.

13

I want to thank you for appearing and the

14

presentation was excellent.

15

Just a few questions I have, and I don’t

16

know who would decide the answer. Obviously there’s

17

still much to do.

18

(Interference with Microphone)

19

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Obviously there’s still

20

much to do in solving the problems of the State

21

Police, but would you please comment on the Caucus’

22

feeling on the reforms that have been made to date

23

under the Division’s new leadership. I know since

24

the time that you made the report. Does anyone have

25

any...

Senator Girgenti

41

1

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: Let me say that to my

2

knowledge those reforms have been administrative.

3

They’ve involved record-keeping to, as far as I’m

4

concerned, much of it will depend upon the interest

5

and the commitment of the individual who is in

6

leadership. Thus far, based upon the results that

7

have been testified to by the State Attorney General,

8

they apparently have not been successful.

9

One of the things that we recommended back

10

in August of 1999 and that we again protested to the

11

Superintendent of Police, the current one, was the

12

promotions that were made. There were promotions

13

made in July of 1999, even as we were conducting

14

racial profiling here as a Black and Latino Caucus,

15

that we felt would simply move up and embed in a

16

deeper way the culture that existed in that

17

leadership. Then later on, in April I think it was

18

of last year, we had a huge number of promotions that

19

took place even before reforms were put in place,

20

even before there was some evaluation of the

21

personnel. I think that that had the effect of

22

removing opportunities for minority troopers within

23

the State Police, people who were sensitive and who

24

had been made to pass the standard of fairness and so

25

on.

Senator Girgenti

42

1

So up to now, we are not satisfied as a

2

Caucus with what has taken place. I think until we

3

do the bills and the package that we’ve been

4

discussing, until that’s done, we’ll continue to have

5

the problems. We’ll continue to see minority

6

motorists stopped and searched and disproportionately

7

with the same kinds of inverse results, that is fewer

8

being in possession of contraband than their white

9

counterparts.

10

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you. That led on

11

to my next point, is that has the Caucus examined the

12

role in which consent searches enable the practice of

13

selective prosecution?

14

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GILL: Yes, we have. And, in

15

fact, there is a bill introduced that would only --

16

that would require searches to be conducted only with

17

probable cause. In the testimony before the Black

18

and Latino Caucus, the experts found that where there

19

was areas for discretion, that that discretionary

20

function by the state trooper, either at the roadside

21

or in the administrative capacity, then resulted in

22

the discriminatory practices.

23

So we want to remove that discretion so it

24

doesn’t matter if it’s a good trooper or one of those

25

bad apples that Governor Whitman always referred to,

Senator Girgenti

43

1

that they would be on the same footing. So the

2

legislation is to develop a system and that system

3

would result in the elimination of racial profiling,

4

notwithstanding whoever the individual trooper may

5

be.

6

SENATOR GIRGENTI: So you would -- your

7

position would be you would want to abolish consent

8

searches?

9

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GILL: My position is that I

10

would require probable cause.

11

SENATOR GIRGENTI: I think you touched on

12

this, but just if someone could -- what is the

13

position on the establishment of a civilian review

14

board?

15

SENATOR BRYANT: I think we clearly, and

16

it’s demonstrated, that a civilian review board would

17

only help enhance the ability of I think the

18

community at large to have faith in terms of what is

19

going on in the State Police. That review board,

20

even if it was done in a situation where it might be

21

sun-setted after a period of time, but let me make

22

clear, because maybe some of the things in a short

23

time we have not expressed as well as we can.

24

We heard from troopers, and it’s evident

25

and we must do something in the Legislature about

Senator Girgenti

44

1

this, they’re not permitted, no matter how many times

2

they apply, to take certain courses that leads to

3

promotions because there’s no system that says that

4

who first came got the opportunity to take it, you

5

could be denied five times. They serve in acting

6

positions as Lieutenants and Sergeants and then end

7

up not getting the job. Why? Because the other

8

folks are allowed to take the courses and the things

9

that are pre-qualified of what they start to use and

10

then they’re denied. And so I’ve been asking to do

11

the same thing. Those kinds of practices must be

12

eliminated. And it’s not a science, it doesn’t take

13

rocket science for folks to set up systems so it’s

14

fair for everyone. If I apply to -- go to a

15

particular course, first-come, first-serve. Why

16

shouldn’t I have the opportunity to do it? Should be

17

constantly denied?

18

I think also what we’re failing to realize

19

is this whole issue as I think evolved is that we

20

must be cognizant of what is happening in New Jersey

21

and is happening in the nation. This nation is a

22

nation that is absolutely becoming more diverse. And

23

yet, we seem to be in time warp. The entire census

24

in this State, the entire census, the total

25

population growth in the State of New Jersey was

Senator Girgenti

45

1

Latino, African-American and Asian. One-third of an

2

entire population. And yet in this State, we just

3

had a class, two women, no African-Americans, no

4

Latinos, no Asians. What does that say about New

5

Jersey?

6

Those things we must look to. How do we

7

correct systematically so that it can reflect what

8

New Jersey is? If we don’t, if we don’t, we’re going

9

to erode the whole notion of justice. It is a

10

terrible feeling for African-Americans and Latinos to

11

educate your children that not to ride the main car

12

in the family. If you have a Mercedes, don’t take

13

it, if 18 and 21, because you’re going to be stopped.

14

Think about that. Think about what it’s like to take

15

your teenager and tell them offer no resistance to

16

anyone, even when you’re in the right and don’t

17

question it. You wonder why you’re not hearing from

18

folks. We have told our kids, if they let you go,

19

thank God. Because that’s the way it is. And this

20

is the year 2001 and in New Jersey we still must

21

educate our kids and minority groups that they will

22

not be treated fairly in the State of New Jersey. It

23

is wrong. It must be stopped and we must stop it

24

now.

25

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you.

Senator Furnari

46

1

I just wanted to say in closing. I look

2

forward to working together with the Black and Latino

3

Caucus in putting forth meaningful legislative

4

reforms and recommendations to put an end to this

5

discrimination within the ranks of the State Police

6

and to racial profiling on the highways.

7

I want to thank you for coming and let’s

8

keep up the dialogue between your Caucus, the

9

Committee and the rest or the Legislature so that the

10

reforms we make will be as comprehensive as possible

11

and hopefully will be the last time that we would

12

have to address these needs in this Legislature and

13

bring it to a close.

14

Thank you very much.

15

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Furnari.

16

SENATOR FURNARI: I, too, want to thank the

17

Caucus for coming before us today. I want to thank

18

you for your insight and so early presenting these

19

issues to the Legislature. For your perseverance in

20

moving forward while others seemed not interested in

21

listening. And your leadership in studying the

22

issues and making recommendations.

23

I’m not going to ask many questions on the

24

specifics of the legislative recommendations. I’m

25

going to hold that off until the time when which we

Senator Furnari

47

1

have an opportunity to consider those. I join in

2

Assemblyman Jones’ request that they be posted and I

3

think our Chairman said we would have a chance to

4

consider those along with the rest of the bills that

5

may be coming up.

6

I, though, listened carefully to what

7

Senator Bryant said and what’s been very troubling

8

after we went through this process of hearing what

9

happened in the past, then we got to that part of the

10

hearing where we wanted to hear what’s happened in

11

the past few years, and in the middle of some very

12

good news, there was also some of this basic news

13

that just seems to suggest that we’re falling behind

14

again, and that’s with regard to the failure to

15

comply with the consent order. The 271 searches as

16

you suggested before, could simply be tabulated with

17

a calculator. We don’t need to go into this issue of

18

computers.

19

But, Senator, I’ve often looked to you for

20

advice, is there something that we can do about that?

21

Is that another statement about what’s happening or

22

is it -- is there something meaningful that we can

23

do? You know, you get an order it says do it and it

24

still doesn’t get done and yet there seems to be

25

testimony of, you know, not -- we didn’t do it

Senator Furnari

48

1

intentionally, you know. Is there something -- I’m

2

looking for some comments here.

3

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Senator, we all

4

appreciate the very warm comments of, you know,

5

admiration and the question is very, very simple.

6

The response is move the legislation. That’s what we

7

can do. I mean it’s not necessarily a need to go

8

into the specificity of each and every one of those

9

bills. That is a reform package that’s been based on

10

testimony, that’s been based on study, it’s been

11

based on expert participation. Those bills, inasmuch

12

as they may not be a panacea, those are the very

13

simple tools to begin to deal with the issue of

14

racial profiling. To deal with some of the

15

administrative flaws that exist within the State

16

Police. That becomes, you know, the simple answer.

17

And the thing that -- and not that I want to

18

personalize this, you know, by way of my feelings,

19

but when this Caucus two years ago decided that it

20

was appropriate, just and proper, to begin to gather

21

testimony, none of that was seemingly taken very

22

serious by our own Legislature until this Committee

23

now is empaneled and begins to move forward the very

24

same issue that we did.

25

And sometimes you wonder if it was because

Senator Gormley

49

1

it was African-American and Latino legislators that

2

were talking about a very critical issue, a very ugly

3

issue that nobody paid attention to it.

4

SENATOR GORMLEY: Excuse me.

5

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: But then when --

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: Excuse me for one second.

7

This Committee put a bill in in 1998 under

8

a report of some complaints. It was booted out of

9

this Committee in a non-partisan fashion. We did do

10

hearings on racial profiling in 1999. We might not

11

have gotten all the answers, but at least we can say

12

one thing, when we find out the right answers, we

13

make recommendations.

14

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: These comments are not

15

to be critical Senator, but they are -- they are

16

merely to

17

-- they are merely to draw --

18

SENATOR GORMLEY: But just for the record -

19

-

20

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: They are merely to draw

21

a reference and impact to a very, very critical issue

22

that has been talked about for quite some time. And

23

I happen to be --

24

SENATOR GORMLEY: I just --

25

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: -- the individual in

Senator Gormley

50

1

the Legislature to put that very bill in that you did

2

some time ago.

3

SENATOR GORMLEY: And that was put in -- I

4

remember the first day we had a hearing on it, no one

5

came. There was just no interest --

6

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: And that’s a sad

7

commentary.

8

SENATOR GORMLEY: And no came. But the

9

only thing I wanted to add for the record, is that

10

this Committee did do hearings on racial profiling in

11

1999.

12

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: My point being --

13

SENATOR GORMLEY: Obviously we didn’t get

14

all the answers but I think people at least can

15

reflect on this Committee that when the initial --

16

when the new documents came out -- the documents were

17

unavailable to all of us, in October of last year

18

when they came out, this Committee pursued those

19

documents. It obviously supplemented the information

20

that was provided to us in 1999. But we did conduct

21

those hearings. We were, I thought at the time, as

22

thorough as possible in terms of seeking information.

23

And you’re right, we didn’t get all the information

24

or all the statistics or all the data. But in terms

25

of this Committee, Republican and Democrat alike, if

Senator Gormley

51

1

they look at the hearings that took place in April of

2

1999, and the additional hearings that took place in

3

May of 1999, the right questions were asked, and that

4

is reflective of the recommendation this Committee

5

made last week in terms of the recommendations. And

6

I’m not -- and I don’t -- and I apologize for

7

interrupting, it’s just that I wanted to let people

8

know that we had -- we had made an effort. It was in

9

good faith. You can point to the fact that we

10

weren’t able to get all the facts out, but we, once

11

the supplemental information was provided, we pursued

12

it. And I know this is not a disagreement between

13

the two of us because you’ve been supportive of the

14

bill that we put in, whatever --

15

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Absolutely.

16

SENATOR GORMLEY: -- but just in terms of

17

the Committee, Republican and Democratic alike. They

18

asked -- they asked some pretty good questions. Now,

19

the answers we had some problems since some

20

information has been released, but I think people see

21

that we have followed up on that and I apologize for

22

interrupting again.

23

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Apology accepted,

24

Senator. And I merely want to draw attention to the

25

fact that this body was complete. This body was

Senator Gormley

52

1

thorough. This body introduced a package of

2

legislative remedies that has been languishing in

3

Committee for several years now. We are merely

4

asking that the merits of our worth be moved forward

5

by way of these bills being posted on the next

6

Committee agenda for immediate action.

7

SENATOR GORMLEY: And if I may again about

8

this package of bills, and I refer to my friend

9

Senator Bryant, three of those bills were in this

10

Committee last October before, shall we say, things

11

heated up. Senator Bryant and I were working on what

12

do we do about the civil rights legislation to get it

13

right? We did then -- we were dealing with the issue

14

of the documents and we said before we -- and we

15

talked about this, I said I want to get through the

16

documents before we do the package of bills. We

17

didn’t realize that once I said let’s look at the

18

documents, that there were 100,000 documents, 160

19

hours of depositions and now 60 hours of hearings.

20

But I thought it appropriate to get all the facts on

21

the table before we moved the reform package. I

22

know, Senator Bryant, I know you’ve been ready --

23

we’ve all been ready to do a civil rights bill that

24

obviously encompasses the insidious practice of

25

profiling. And we’ve been ready to do that, but we

Senator Gormley

53

1

had waited to get through the process of getting all

2

the facts on the table. I don’t offer this as an

3

excuse, but that is the procedure that we have

4

adopted and we’ve been very open about it and I know

5

you’re familiar with it and you’re not criticizing

6

the Committee, but for the public that’s listening, I

7

just want them to know that this Committee,

8

irrespective of party, I’m very proud of them because

9

they have dealt in good faith. Could we have made

10

mistakes along the way? Sure, we could have. I wish

11

we had more information in 1999. But this Committee

12

has dealt in good faith.

13

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Mr. Chairman --

14

SENATOR BRYANT: Mr. Chairman, let me try

15

to respond to what Mr. --

16

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Mr. Chairman, if I can

17

--

18

just one last comment, Senator.

19

Certainly, Senator, we recognize that the

20

wheels of justice often turn slow. The point that

21

was attempted to be raised was simply that as we

22

continue to wait for justice to correct itself, that

23

there are many, many motorists of the minority

24

community by way of testimony just last week, that

25

are still being stopped, that are still being

Colloquy

54

1

brutalized, that are still being dehumanized, that

2

are still having their civil rights violated. And we

3

must move swift and expeditiously to correct this

4

wrong.

5

Thank you, Senator.

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you.

7

SENATOR BRYANT: Mr. Chairman, Senator

8

Furnari asked a basic question of what it is that we

9

thought that was important to do at this particular

10

time and I think it’s instructable what this

11

Committee has. What has made this successful for

12

this Committee to get to the truth is its subpoena

13

powers. Its ability to stop folks from giving you

14

half truths as they did in May and they give you the

15

whole truth as they are today.

16

One of the packages talks about an

17

independent prosecutor with subpoena powers. Why is

18

that important? I think it’s hugely important

19

because it is clear from what is even going on now.

20

It is very difficult for the Attorney General, who is

21

empowered with its -- as even admitted, its chief

22

responsibility to protect the rights of the citizens

23

of the State of New Jersey. To also protect the

24

rights of the Division. There’s almost a built-in

25

conflict for them to be defensive of their own

Colloquy

55

1

Division. To have someone independent looking at

2

actual complaints that has subpoena powers to figure

3

out whether those complaints are valid or not valid,

4

such as this Committee has, you will see the truth

5

will be different. You will see folks responding in

6

a much different way. I think it’s a very

7

progressive way of looking at it.

8

I mean in hindsight we can look at things

9

that maybe we shouldn’t have done. We did away with

10

the Public Advocate’s Office -- no longer needed in

11

the State of New Jersey. Wow! One of the major

12

functions of the Public Advocate’s Office was to look

13

at government. Government is not perfect and you

14

need sometimes an inspector of its own Divisions.

15

When we did away with that inspector that many of

16

these complaints had gone to, we might not be where

17

we are today in terms of that.

18

So in essence, this prosecutor is sort of a

19

piece of what the public advocate does. But I think

20

we need someone with independent subpoena power so

21

that they also can constantly get at the truth,

22

because people come before our Committees and it’s no

23

reflection on us, but without subpoena power, they

24

can tell us anything they want. I don’t know whether

25

I thought about it. Did I have it? Whatever. It is

Colloquy

56

1

something different when a person knows that they can

2

be subpoenaed for information, either you have it or

3

you don’t and you better present it.

4

What I’m saying is this what you are

5

investigating is so fundamental to the rights of the

6

average citizen, we need to invest somebody with the

7

ability to make sure those rights are not violated in

8

the future and they must have the power to do it.

9

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you.

10

Assemblyman?

11

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: Yeah. One part of

12

the package is a bill that was initially introduced

13

and I think it would be appropriate as we work on a

14

transition from a problem to a real and permanent

15

solution. I think it’s meritorious to establish a

16

bicameral, bipartisan committee of the Legislature to

17

regularly check on the progress that is being made in

18

bringing the institutional reform to the State

19

Police. It’s not going to be an easy process. We’ve

20

experienced that. We’ve seen that. Although

21

intentions have been expressed as much as a year ago,

22

the delivery has not been there. It’s a difficult

23

problem; in some people’s mind an intractable

24

problem. But it’s one that we have to deal with as a

25

Legislature also. I think sitting as the

Colloquy

57

1

Legislature, a consent-to-search-equal branch of

2

government with the Executive, we might then assert

3

the independence of our branch of government and it

4

might move along better the process of reform that is

5

needed. We could regularly call in troopers,

6

minorities, non-minority troopers, to find out what’s

7

going on within the ranks and provide them some

8

protection. I think one of the problems we have is

9

that a lot of those who are within the ranks, you

10

know, have the fear of what are going to be the

11

consequences. We can’t provide full cover, but

12

perhaps we can provide some sort of comfort for those

13

who could come forward before us as a Committee and

14

testify to what is actually going on. I think that’s

15

a possible solution because right now the oversight

16

or the actual operations in the Executive branch, we

17

as a Legislature need to involve ourselves in it

18

until we are satisfied that this process and this

19

disease has been cured.

20

SENATOR FURNARI: My -- the point of my

21

question was, without going into too much detail,

22

certainly these recommendations require the

23

productions of lots of documents, but so do the

24

consent order and we are, you know, we’re here under

25

a consent order with something that seems to us is as

Senator Zane

58

1

simple as adding up some numbers. We can’t seem to

2

get that done. Is there -- if there are penalties as

3

high as criminal offenses for police officers who

4

fail to do appropriate things on the road, should

5

there also be penalties of significance for the

6

Attorney General’s Office that somehow finds a way to

7

fail to accumulate documents that we need or, you

8

know. I mean, that’s the kind of issues. And I’m

9

not suggesting that we do that, but I’m saying

10

there’s got to be some way that there’s some teeth to

11

what we’re, you know, making something out but other

12

than say let’s all do it. Here’s a consent order

13

that says do it.

14

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: I think they call that

15

impeachment, Senator, really. That’s the process.

16

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay, that was subtle.

17

(Laughter)

18

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Zane?

19

SENATOR ZANE: Mr. Chairman, I would very

20

frankly just like to be very candid about some

21

conversations that have taken place. It was probably

22

-- the intent of the Committee is probably clearer or

23

made clearer by the candid conversations that have

24

taken place in the back. And I want you to know what

25

they have been so that no one suspects any of the

Senator Zane

59

1

motives. I don’t think I could say it much better

2

than Senator Gormley has said it, but I do want to

3

add one thing. Time after time when we have taken a

4

break during these hearings members have expressed, I

5

hope the public isn’t getting the idea that we are

6

here to get Peter Verniero. I hope the public has a

7

clear understanding that what we are here to do is to

8

address this issue of racial profiling and to bring

9

it to an end. And all of the legislation that you

10

have mentioned clearly has been referred to in those

11

candid conversations. Civil rights legislation has

12

been referred to. I mean the feeling to the person

13

in this Committee that this practice one way or

14

another has got to finally be addressed with some

15

real teeth and that that’s the real purpose of this

16

Committee and the function here. It’s not what some

17

have perceived it as. And people have said, if heads

18

must roll, people must be handled a lot more harshly

19

than they have been. Whatever it’s going to take to

20

address the issue. I mean please here today

21

understanding that that is absolutely the intent of

22

this Committee. And again, those very candid

23

conversations that would take place after somebody

24

questioned a witness and walked back and would say,

25

you know, I know I was asking questions, it sounded

Colloquy

60

1

like it had to do with the Attorney General. But I

2

hope people understand that we have thousands of

3

documents to go through to get to and to present to

4

the public what we didn’t know before, but really

5

what we’re doing is addressing that issue. And I

6

just hope that that’s really clear because honestly,

7

that is the intent of this Committee.

8

ASSEMBLYWOMAN POU: Senator?

9

SENATOR GORMLEY: Yes.

10

ASSEMBLYWOMAN POU: I just want to make a

11

comment. I’d like to just refer to the statement

12

that was just made by Senator Zane.

13

I think it’s important, and I’ll refer back

14

to my statement saying that the removal of Justice

15

Verniero would be far too easy if all we did was to

16

just get Justice Verniero out of office and out of

17

the New Jersey Supreme Court. I think it’s important

18

that we take note of the fact that it’s been said

19

here by all members, but it’s clearly important that

20

accountability becomes a primary concern to all of us

21

and that accountability has to start from the very

22

beginning, from the very top to the absolute lowest

23

level position that exists within our State Police

24

institution. It’s important that the problem, while

25

it may have started on the highways and on the roads,

Senator Bryant

61

1

was indeed known and agreed upon or hidden or ignored

2

or whatever word we want to use, that permitted it to

3

continue to go on. So accountability becomes a

4

crucial part from the very, very top administrative

5

position right on down.

6

Thank you.

7

SENATOR BRYANT: Let me just comment that I

8

think it came off loud and clear and your Chairman

9

has all along said he wanted to address the actual

10

issues of how do we structurally do that and I think

11

that’s a very pertinent fact and hopefully it has

12

come across.

13

But I don’t want to lose sight that Justice Verniero,

14

there must be -- his injustice that he did for a year

15

and a half must be righted. You can’t reward it. We

16

can’t have what I call “clean hands” as a

17

Legislature. We’ve put him where he is. We’ve got

18

to remove him if he fails to remove himself. He has

19

to be brought to account for what it is that he did.

20

You can’t to one-quarter of the population that we’ve

21

rewarded a person for perpetrating an injustice on

22

you to the highest court of our state and we did

23

nothing about it. And yet we’re concerned. The

24

first thing they’re going to look at is what did you

25

do about that? Then they will look at what you did

Senator Bryant

62

1

legislatively. But if we’re lax, and let me tell

2

you, we have a way of doing it, time is running. I’m

3

reading all the things in the paper, and don’t

4

believe folks don’t understand it, where you got the

5

May 15th that said if we don’t get the report out on

6

time they can’t do this and therefore -- whoops.

7

There we did, we just lost it. Time went by.

8

Nothing we can do about it. That’s not going to be

9

good enough. We must right the wrong and then show

10

that we are willing to institutionalize some things

11

that would make it better. I sense that’s what the

12

Committee wanted to do. That’s why I started off

13

commending it. As a Committee, you have for once

14

that I rarely see ever in a House where there’s a

15

wrong you are about to make a right out of that wrong

16

and you’ve done it without political wrangling, but

17

really looking at the truth. I think you’ve done

18

great justice for the legislative bodies. But we

19

must make sure that we complete the task. I think

20

that’s all that the Black and Latino Caucus is

21

basically saying and I think that we are

22

understanding that your journey is a beginning, not

23

an end, but a beginning to take what you’ve learned

24

and then start to make sure that we institutionalize

25

those things that need to be necessary and that there

Colloquy

63

1

will be full discussion of these things.

2

SENATOR ZANE: But the question with the

3

documents that has taken place here is proof of how

4

this Committee was stymied with what it attempted to

5

do beginning in April, April 26th of 1999 and even

6

thereafter. And that’s why that process with all of

7

the documents -- I mean had we had -- had we had

8

candor in 1999, we wouldn’t be sitting here today

9

doing what we’re doing.

10

SENATOR BRYANT: You’re absolutely right,

11

Senator, and all I’m saying is but we have the truth

12

now and we have a mechanism to correct it. The

13

question is, we will use it? That’s going to be the

14

test for us.

15

SENATOR GORMLEY: Any questions from

16

members --

17

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GILL: If I may --

18

SENATOR GORMLEY: A question from Senator

19

Matheussen first.

20

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: I don’t want to lose

21

sight of something. Assemblyman Charles, you said

22

something early on that caught my attention and

23

perhaps I didn’t hear it correctly. But you said

24

something that the Caucus had requested certain

25

information from then Attorney General Verniero

Colloquy

64

1

regarding statistics and that he said those

2

statistics did not exist. Did he make that response

3

in writing to you?

4

ASSEMBLYWOMAN POU: Yes.

5

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And do you have a copy

6

of that letter?

7

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: I’m pretty sure we

8

presented it to the -- somebody presented it to the

9

Committee.

10

SENATOR GORMLEY: Hold on one second. Get

11

Jo Glading.

12

We’ll pull it.

13

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Well, to tell you the

14

truth, I don’t need to -- I won’t cross-examine or --

15

I just want to make sure we have it in writing that

16

he, in fact --

17

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: It is, Senator.

18

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Okay. Very good.

19

SENATOR BRYANT: We’ll submit the letter.

20

What it basically says is that the information wasn’t

21

compiled yet, yet it was, as we know now.

22

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: Right.

23

SENATOR GORMLEY: And what was the date of

24

the letter again?

25

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: Dated March the --

Colloquy

65

1

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: March 8th.

2

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: No, this is my

3

letter.

4

ASSEMBLYWOMAN POU: March 29th.

5

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: 3-28-98?

6

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: March the 29th,

7

that’s correct, of 1999.

8

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: I am -- that’s all I

9

had. That’s the only question I really wanted to

10

know and I thank you for your appearances today and I

11

appreciate the work that you did. I saw of it

12

firsthand and I appreciated that work and appreciate

13

your testimony and the report that you’ve produced as

14

a result of that.

15

SENATOR GORMLEY: Excuse me for -- one

16

follow-up to Senator Matheussen’s question.

17

Your response to the letter that you just

18

referred to.

19

SENATOR BRYANT: Mr. Chairman, we want to

20

present that for the record so it’s part of the

21

record.

22

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Precisely how

23

would you characterize the response in retrospect?

24

SENATOR BRYANT: Well, misleading at best

25

and outright falsehood because they actually had the

Colloquy

66

1

statistics in hand.

2

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. That was

3

previously marked as exhibit SJC-8. We have that on

4

the record.

5

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: May I see it?

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: Surely. Let’s let

7

Senator Matheussen look at it. Why don’t we put it

8

up on the screen.

9

Well, we’re not going to put it on the

10

screen. The one person who knows how to work the

11

screen is doing something else right now, but we are

12

--

13

Senator Matheussen is reviewing the document right

14

now.

15

(Pause)

16

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Senator, it’s Page 3.

17

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Yeah, I think I have

18

it.

19

Paragraph 1?

20

ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Paragraph 1.

21

ASSEMBLYWOMAN POU: Right.

22

ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES: Paragraph 1 on Page

23

3.

24

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: I’ll just read it into

25

the record because I think it’s important.

Colloquy

67

1

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay.

2

MS. GLADING: You might want to date it.

3

SENATOR BRYANT: Read our question first

4

because then it --

5

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: The question, and if

6

you have the question in front of you, I don’t have

7

that question --

8

SENATOR GORMLEY: Why don’t we have Senator

9

Bryant will relate the question and you can relate

10

the --

11

SENATOR BRYANT: Our question one was:

12

“The number of stops on New Jersey roadways

13

delineated by date; race, African-Americans, Latino,

14

Asian, white; age; geographic location; reasons for

15

stopping the motorists; and the name of the troopers

16

involved; and the state of registration of the

17

vehicles stopped.”

18

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And in response

19

numbered one on the exhibit found on Page 3 it says:

20

“Regarding traffic stops for the six-year period you

21

have requested. As I am sure you can appreciate,

22

this request would require a massive effort to

23

produce as the State Police does not have this data

24

in easily retrievable form, therefore, I cannot

25

provide this information at this time. As stated

Colloquy

68

1

above, however, the review by my office of State

2

Police practices involves an inquiry in to the issues

3

raised in this request.

4

“As also noted, my office is endeavoring to

5

complete this review by April 28th, 1999 and will

6

share its results with you whenever completed.”

7

Of course, that was the hearing date of

8

April 26th that we’re supposed to get.

9

Okay, thank you.

10

SENATOR BRYANT: And it was also number

11

three. The response to question number three.

12

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Assemblywoman, you

13

wanted to make a comment? I’m sorry, I interrupted

14

you earlier.

15

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GILL: Oh, that’s perfectly

16

all right, Mr. Chairman.

17

My comment just went to the issue with

18

respect to Peter Verniero. I think there are two

19

issues here, they’re interrelated in they’re not

20

mutually exclusive. One, of course, is the dealing

21

with the systemic nature of racial profiling through

22

legislative initiatives and the other with respect to

23

Peter Verniero is his misleading testimony before a

24

Senate Judicial Committee. And I think that the

25

Senate would be well served to raise those issues if

Colloquy

69

1

anyone came before you and gave misleading testimony

2

to be in any position. So that although they’re

3

interrelated, I don’t think that calling for the

4

resignation and impeachment of Peter Verniero is

5

viewed from the public vantage point as ganging up on

6

him or not liking him or in some way getting him.

7

The Senate has a responsibility that its confirmation

8

process will be viewed as one having integrity in

9

that those who come before the Senate to be confirmed

10

must present honest testimony to questions that are

11

asked. And I think if the Senate Judiciary Committee

12

did not ask for the resignation and if the Assembly

13

does not seek the impeachment, we will have done a

14

disservice to the legislative process and to the co-

15

equal position of the branches. The Legislature is

16

to be respected and those who come before the

17

Confirmation Committee in its process must come

18

without misleading statements and information so that

19

your recommendations then carry a stamp of approval.

20

So that I don’t think that the public

21

thinks you’re ganging up or out to get Peter

22

Verniero, but I do think the public understands that

23

you are in the process of upholding the integrity of

24

this House.

25

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Thank you.

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

70

1

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: From the phone calls I

2

received, I would agree with you.

3

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you for your

4

testimony. We’ll take a 30-minute break.

5

(Luncheon break)

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: I’ll ask the Committee

7

members to come back, please.

8

I want to thank all the Senators for

9

immediately responding to my gavel.

10

I would ask the next panel to come up

11

before they’re sworn: Trooper Emblez Longoria;

12

Sergeant Robert Watkins; and Detective Joseph

13

Soulias.

14

For the record, this panel is appearing at

15

the request of the Committee.

16

(Pause)

17

SENATOR GORMLEY: Why don’t we swear you

18

in, okay?

19

Senator Matheussen, please.

20

Okay. We’d ask the three witnesses to

21

please stand. Raise your right hand.

22

E M B L E Z L O N G O R I A, SWORN

23

R O B E R T W A T K I N S, SWORN

24

J O S E P H S O U L I A S, SWORN

25

SENATOR GORMLEY: We would appreciate your

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

71

1

statements at this time. Just identify yourself

2

before you make your statement and make sure the red

3

light is on in front of you.

4

TROOPER EMBLEZ LONGORIA: Good afternoon,

5

Committee. My name is Trooper Emblez Longoria. I’m

6

a 13-year veteran of the New Jersey State Police.

7

First, I would like to thank the Committee

8

for the opportunity to speak today about the issues

9

that have directly affected my career.

10

On February 14th, 1998 I was assigned to

11

the New Jersey Turnpike, Troop D, Cranbury barracks.

12

Upon arrival my Station Commander advised me that

13

“The Fort Dix barracks was not a busy station and

14

that this was. This is where the men produced the

15

big numbers and I expect you to do the same.” He

16

went on to say, “You’re an intelligent guy and I’m

17

sure you’re going to fit in.”

18

Throughout my tour I was repeatedly

19

pressured to go out and make profile stops. In fact,

20

on my very first midnight shift my squad Sergeant

21

told me that he knew I wasn’t happy to be here and

22

maybe if you give them what they want, they’ll think

23

you’re a good guy and leave you alone.

24

He further stated that after 18 months I

25

could put in for a transfer request to get off the

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

72

1

Turnpike. You know, the want the numbers and the

2

only way to keep Caffrey off your back is to give him

3

what he wants. My Sergeant was referring to the

4

Assistant Station Commander who was once in charge of

5

the drug interdiction unit and was also Trooper of

6

the Year.

7

He went on to say he was going to send me

8

out with a junior trooper and that this junior

9

trooper would show me the ropes and teach me how

10

things work out here. Within hours of being on

11

patrol, this trooper parked perpendicular to the

12

roadway and turned on his high beams to illuminate

13

the interior of passing vehicles, thus exposing the

14

race of the drivers.

15

After a few minutes, he pulled out and

16

said, “This looks like a good stop,” as he proceeded

17

to stop the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, he began a

18

methodical search of the young black man and his car.

19

The trooper then said to the driver, “You

20

don’t mind if I look in the trunk.” He then

21

proceeded to search the trunk without filling out a

22

consent to search form.

23

Upon completing his search, he asked the

24

driver to have a seat in his vehicle and after

25

issuing the driver two summonses, the driver was

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

73

1

allowed to leave.

2

Later that evening, the same trooper made a

3

derogatory statement about a black man who was

4

waiting at the tolls looking for change. As the

5

night unfolded, this trooper again made another

6

profile stop by using the right alley light to

7

illuminate the interior of a sports car. Occupying

8

the vehicle were two black males. This trooper

9

remarked, “This might be something,” as he pulled

10

behind them and made the stop. After searching both

11

occupants, as well as the interior of the vehicle,

12

the trooper allowed the motorists to leave without

13

any record. This stop is classified as a ghost stop.

14

As the weeks into my tour progressed, I

15

continued to witness numerous ghost stops, while at

16

the same time being pressured to produce the numbers.

17

Although I was doing my job honestly and

18

compassionately, pressure to produce the numbers,

19

along with the biased atmosphere, continued

20

throughout my tour, thus creating a climate for

21

racial profiling to flourish.

22

I believe this practice was encouraged in

23

order to boost arrest numbers. Moreover, on several

24

occasions, I can overhear troopers in the locker room

25

talking about getting the “Johnnies.” This, of

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

74

1

course, was the code word for black motorists. This

2

was prejudice, not perception.

3

On one occasion the troop Commander for the

4

New Jersey Turnpike was present during these

5

conversations. Also, during this time period Judge

6

Cooper concluded in a federal Title 7 case that the

7

State Police were guilty of racist practices against

8

Sergeant Vincent Bellaran. Ironically, one of the

9

principals named in the Bellaran case was the troop

10

Commander of the New Jersey Turnpike. As you can

11

well imagine, the atmosphere at the Cranbury barracks

12

became tense after this decision.

13

By this time I was openly speaking out

14

against the numbers -- excuse me. I was openly

15

speaking out against the numbers game and was quickly

16

labeled as a complainer. Looking back now, I am

17

relieved I never caved in to the pressure.

18

Fortunately, on April 11th, 1998, I

19

received a transfer to Diesel Emissions Unit and was

20

placed under the supervision of Sergeant Bellaran.

21

On April 23rd, 1998 I had a conversation

22

with Sergeant Bellaran regarding the racially-hostile

23

work environment I was subjected to while working on

24

the New Jersey Turnpike. The next day Sergeant

25

Bellaran advised me of the Turnpike shooting.

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

75

1

It wasn’t long after the federal decision

2

by Judge Cooper that Sergeant Bellaran began to

3

experience heightened supervision and acts of

4

retaliation. Shortly thereafter, some of his friends

5

also became targets of that retaliation. I was one

6

of those friends.

7

By the fall of 1998, I was transferred back

8

to the Fort Dix station where I immediately

9

experienced numerous acts of harassment and

10

intimidation. My mailbox was vandalized in an

11

attempt to silence me from speaking out. That same

12

morning I was called into the station Commander’s

13

office and he said, “I know you had some baggage in

14

the past and if we do something for you, I expect

15

something in return.” I had no baggage.

16

It was also during the fall of 1998 that I

17

learned from several troopers that I was going back

18

to the New Jersey Turnpike, Cranbury station. In

19

fact, I was again approached by the station Commander

20

who advised me that I was going to be transferred to

21

the Turnpike. However, he said, “Don’t believe it

22

until you see it, but your name came up and it should

23

be out on paper soon.”

24

In early 1999, weeks prior to my transfer,

25

my lawyer and I attempted to resolve this matter with

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

76

1

Lieutenant Colonel Michael Fedorko in an attempt to

2

avoid litigation. My lawyer clearly made Lieutenant

3

Colonel Fedorko aware of the racial profiling problem

4

on the New Jersey Turnpike as well as the racist

5

atmosphere in the Division of State Police.

6

Lieutenant Colonel Fedorko refused to take my

7

complaint seriously and allowed my transfer back to

8

the New Jersey Turnpike to stand. Not to mention, I

9

was again being assigned to the same exact station

10

and the same exact squad I had previously complained

11

about. My concerns were that I would not receive

12

backup from other troopers and possibly be injured or

13

worse or that I would be indicted for civil rights

14

violation by virtue of the fact that I was riding

15

with troopers who were profiling.

16

On March 24th, 1999, approximately one

17

month before the release of the Interim Report,

18

Secretary of State Buster Soaries orchestrated a

19

meeting in which several minority troopers were

20

invited to speak with the First Attorney General Paul

21

Zoubek. The agenda for the meeting was racial

22

profiling as well as discriminatory practices within

23

the Division of State Police. Sergeant Bellaran and

24

I attended this meeting.

25

As the meeting began, Sergeant Bellaran and

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

77

1

I were asked by Paul Zoubek to leave because we were

2

involved in litigation. We advised Mr. Zoubek that

3

we had permission from our attorney to speak to him

4

about any issues. In fact, Sergeant Bellaran had

5

brought volumes of documentation outlining the

6

problems within the Division of State Police. Mr.

7

Zoubek said that he still could not meet with us and

8

at this time Sergeant Bellaran and I stepped out of

9

the room.

10

Therefore, despite the Gloucester County

11

decision in which Judge Francis found racial

12

profiling to exist, despite the federal Title 7

13

decision by Judge Cooper proving racism within the

14

outfit, despite one of Attorney General report

15

acknowledging racial profiling is real, not imagined,

16

and the other acknowledging disparate treatment

17

within the State Police, despite a report issued by

18

the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus acknowledging

19

racial profiling and outlining reforms, despite two

20

internal audits conducted by Sergeant Gilbert and

21

Lieutenant Sachetti, and despite the mountain of

22

evidence which points both to the New Jersey State

23

Police as well as the Attorney General’s Office, no

24

one has yet to be removed for racial profiling.

25

Instead, what has continued is a pattern of racial

Testimony - Detective Soulias

78

1

profiling intertwined with racist and sexist behavior

2

as well a continued harassment of those who cry foul.

3

In other words, business as usual.

4

Thank you.

5

DETECTIVE JOSEPH SOULIAS: My name is

6

Joseph Soulias.

7

SENATOR GORMLEY: Make sure the red light

8

is on.

9

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Okay. Thank you, sir.

10

My name is Joseph Soulias. I would like to

11

thank the Committee for allowing me about ten minutes

12

of your time.

13

I am here to testify concerning acts of

14

official misconduct and the violation of New Jersey

15

State Police standard operating procedures.

16

Unfortunately, these acts are not isolated incidents,

17

but are common factors within the State Police.

18

I have been a -- soldier to the State

19

Police for 15 years. I was a general road duty

20

trooper for approximately 12 years. Is it not the

21

road trooper, the backbone of the State Police who is

22

at fault. The lack of supervision and accountability

23

at the highest level within the State Police

24

administration is at fault.

25

In the past three years, I’ve been assigned

Testimony - Detective Soulias

79

1

as a Detective in the Investigative Section. As a

2

Detective in the Investigative Section, I have

3

witnessed and I have knowledge of the falsification

4

of reports and the cover-up of incidents of

5

criminality with the sole purpose to enhance the

6

careers of specific individuals.

7

I will provide two examples of the

8

falsification of reports that I have direct knowledge

9

of. The first example: In January of 1999

10

Detectives Robert Galga and Glen Lubatazi were

11

conducting a surveillance operation in the City of

12

Irvington. Detective Galga was assaulted by unknown

13

Irvington police officers and Detective Lubatazi

14

witnessed the assault. Detective Galga briefed

15

Lieutenant William Newsome, unit Supervisor of

16

Organized Crime, of the altercation and the damage to

17

the State Police undercover vehicle. Lieutenant

18

Newsome immediately went to the Irvington Police

19

Department that evening to conduct an investigation.

20

Lieutenant Newsome ordered Detectives Galga and

21

Lubatazi to type special reports detailing specific

22

facts of the altercation with the unknown Irvington

23

police officers.

24

After Lieutenant Newsome read those

25

reports, Lieutenant Newsome advised Detective Galga

Testimony - Detective Soulias

80

1

that an internal investigation would be initiated.

2

Lieutenant Newsome subsequently advised Detective

3

Galga that Lieutenant Edgar Hess, the Acting Bureau

4

Chief of the Narcotics Organized Crime Bureau, was a

5

personal friend with the Deputy Chief or Chief of the

6

Irvington Police Department.

7

Lieutenant Newsome advised Detective Galga

8

to change the details of his report. Detective Galga

9

completely altered his report as per the direction of

10

Lieutenant Newsome. Detective Galga omitted the

11

physical altercation that occurred and fabricated a

12

scenario to explain the damage to the State Police

13

undercover vehicle.

14

Detective Galga indicated to me that he is

15

personally under investigation for falsifying his

16

signature on a consent to search form and had

17

recently received a five-day suspension for

18

unauthorized use of an undercover State Police

19

vehicle that resulted in an accident.

20

Detective Galga felt pressured to alter the

21

special report by Lieutenant Newsome.

22

I will give you a second example. In

23

December of 1998, Detective David Kushner was

24

assisting the Division of Criminal Justice in

25

Paramus, New Jersey with a criminal investigation.

Testimony - Detective Soulias

81

1

Investigators from the Division of Criminal Justice

2

circumvented the original plan and conducted a high-

3

risk motor vehicle stop. The high-risk motor vehicle

4

stop compromised the personal safety of several

5

civilian personnel that were not affiliated with this

6

investigation. Detective Kushner indicated the two

7

suspects were subsequently physically assaulted by an

8

investigator for the Division of Criminal Justice.

9

Lieutenant William Newsome ordered

10

Detective Kushner to complete a special report,

11

again, detailing the specific facts of the incident.

12

Detective Kushner completed a special report

13

identifying those facts. Those facts were

14

specifically involving the physical contact and their

15

arrest of two suspects. They were subsequently

16

altered, the report was altered again as per the

17

order of Lieutenant William Newsome.

18

After these two examples, I will now advise

19

-- give you my opinion of what the State Police has

20

done. Comprehensive and explicit internal

21

investigations have not been conducted on specific

22

troopers and high-ranking troopers. State Police

23

management in Internal Affairs have not pursued these

24

specific individuals with the same vigorous

25

motivation they have others. I have never received

Testimony - Detective Soulias

82

1

disciplinary action in my career in the New Jersey

2

State Police. After exposing the criminality I

3

directly witnessed by superiors in the State Police,

4

I have now been identified as a traitor and a

5

malcontent. I have been targeted and retaliated

6

against by the State Police. I and five other

7

detectives have taken a bold stance.

8

On February 18th of 2000, we met with at

9

that time Deputy Director Debra Stone, Deputy

10

Director Anthony Kal and Senior Deputy Attorney

11

General Gayl Mazuco of the Attorney General’s Office.

12

We identified specific facts and specific acts of

13

criminality and violations of our own SOP. The

14

Attorney General’s Office indicated that

15

investigations were being initiated immediately and

16

after substantiating our complaints, individuals

17

would be held accountable.

18

Deputy Director Debra Stone specifically

19

stated, and I will quote, “We have indicted Hogan and

20

Kenna for less for what they did.” Debra Stone

21

referred to the Supervisors we identified as arrogant

22

and stupid and as the Irish Mafia. Debra Stone

23

subsequently indicated they, the Attorney General’s

24

Office, would attempt to provide protection for us

25

since we have exposed criminality within the State

Testimony - Detective Soulias

83

1

Police. I personally attempted to contact Debra

2

Stone twice after our initial and only meeting.

3

Debra Stone would not speak with me and I was

4

subsequently directed by her secretary to contact

5

State Police Affairs. The Attorney General’s Office

6

did not provide protection for us, but abandoned us

7

to be retaliated by the New Jersey State Police.

8

Fourteen months have elapsed, the

9

investigation is still pending. The principals of

10

these investigations have been promoted in the

11

interim and some were permitted to retire.

12

Lieutenant William Newsome was promoted to

13

Captain and was permitted to retire. He has

14

presently been hired by the Attorney General’s Office

15

as an investigator. He is still under investigation

16

for the falsification of reports to conceal an

17

assault by the same agency that recently employed

18

him.

19

The six Detectives, four Sergeants and two

20

Detective Ones, have attempted to meet with superiors

21

in the State Police. We have authored and generated

22

special reports requesting to meet with superiors

23

with no response.

24

On four separate occasions we requested to

25

meet with Colonel Dunbar. I specifically requested

Testimony - Detective Soulias

84

1

to meet with the Colonel on two separate occasions.

2

We were advised that we had initiated an

3

investigation with the Attorney General’s Office

4

first and the Colonel would not speak to us. The six

5

of us who took the initiative to address issues and

6

have individuals held accountable have now been

7

targeted. Our careers and our families have been

8

compromised for attempting to do the right thing.

9

State Police superiors identify us as a

10

threat to their autonomous organization that

11

flourishes in cronyism and nepotism. What I ask for

12

and what the 2,700 troopers need is an honest and

13

objective State Police organization.

14

If the State Police is to progress into the

15

future, an independent Monitor with no political

16

affiliation to the State Police is a necessity.

17

I have a relatively short resolution to my

18

issues and I will be completed.

19

The existing Internal Affairs Bureau is a

20

system of intimidation and selective enforcement.

21

They have not conducted investigations with integrity

22

and honesty. Our present Internal Affairs Bureau has

23

not investigated their own sworn members with

24

objectivity. Internal Affairs has been a stepping

25

stone for Detectives that attempt to achieve higher

Testimony - Detective Soulias

85

1

rank and salary. It has been a Bureau of personal

2

agendas and not a Bureau of fact-finding and to

3

identify the truth.

4

In my opinion, a permanent independent

5

federal Monitor is the first step in correcting the

6

injustices. A federal Monitor with no affiliation

7

with the Attorney General’s Office or the New Jersey

8

State Police. A federal Monitor would have specific

9

responsibilities relating to Internal Affairs such as

10

create a Bureau to investigate complaints generated

11

by civilians and sworn State Police personnel. The

12

federal Monitor would be direct Supervisor of

13

Internal Affairs. The Internal Affairs Bureau would

14

consist of federal and civilian investigators. A

15

civilian Review Board to assist in evaluating and

16

discipline of all troopers.

17

In conclusion, I would be derelict if I did

18

not address the existing management of the State

19

Police. In the past 18 months Colonel Dunbar has

20

implemented minimal, if any, significant change

21

within the State Police. Colonel Dunbar has

22

permitted, and even encouraged, the existing good ole

23

boy environment within the State Police.

24

If the New Jersey State Police is to

25

progress into the future with integrity and

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

86

1

objectivity, new management is required. The Colonel

2

must step aside. A civilian management Review Board

3

must supervise and direct this organization into the

4

future.

5

If the State Police is to regain the trust

6

of the public, civilian management is a necessity.

7

Civilian management with no personal agenda of

8

achieving rank, but of enhancing the relationship

9

between the community and the State Police.

10

Thank you.

11

SENATOR GORMLEY: Next witness.

12

SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ROBERT WATKINS: My

13

name is Robert Watkins. I’m Sergeant First Class

14

with just shy of 22 years in the State Police.

15

I would like to thank this Committee for

16

the opportunity to testify at these proceedings. In

17

spite of numerous attempts to voice the following

18

circumstances, this will be the first time in which

19

they are heard.

20

The New Jersey State Police has been a

21

leading law enforcement agency since its inception.

22

A lifelong dream was realized upon my graduation of

23

its Academy in June of 1979.

24

For a period of 17 years, my career

25

consisted of assignments to various road stations

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

87

1

within Troop A, the southern-most troop in the state.

2

For 14 of those years, I was assigned to

3

the busiest stations in the state, Port Norris and

4

Bridgeton, and attained the rank of Sergeant.

5

I have received a service award, 17 letters

6

of accommodations from pervious Colonels and Attorney

7

Generals and numerous letters of appreciation and

8

never have had the smallest of infractions against my

9

record.

10

In June of 1996 I was assigned to the

11

Computer Aided Dispatch Records Management Unit as

12

the unit supervisor. I was also assigned as Project

13

Manager for a newly-purchased $3.2 million Computer

14

Aided Dispatch Records Management system. This

15

purchase was made as a direct result of two years of

16

participated research which identified issues and

17

problems within the Division of State Police. The

18

contract was signed in June of 1996 and was to be

19

completed by June of 1998.

20

I have followed these Senate Judicial

21

hearings and listened to questions obtaining to

22

racial profiling, accountability, identifying

23

problems and steps to rectify these problems. The

24

answers to these questions have been common knowledge

25

by the State Police supervision and the Office of the

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

88

1

Attorney General since 1991. I am somewhat in awe as

2

to the responses I have listened to.

3

Racial profiling is an issue and not only

4

must be addressed immediately but one that could and

5

should have been addressed three years ago. In June

6

of 1996 I was ordered to make sure that the CAD’s RMS

7

system captured racial profiling data accurately for

8

both statistics and analysis. It was explained to

9

supervision the CAD system alone would not have the

10

ability to fully track profiling issues, but with the

11

interface of an RMS system, all data parameters would

12

conclusively provide the necessary information.

13

In order for State Police management to

14

address that issue, one must first determine not only

15

why is racial profiling occurring, but why didn’t

16

management recognize the occurrence? This now leads

17

us to the issue of accountability. Lack of

18

accountability would surely be an inherent cause of

19

the issues of racial profiling, among other issues.

20

The lack of accountability would then raise issues as

21

to a definitive cause, a period of time when the

22

situation magnified. Surely, the State Police did

23

not always lack total accountability, so you must

24

know what happened.

25

One of the things that happened and was

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

89

1

identified in 1991 was the front-line supervision,

2

the road Sergeants, lost span of control. When

3

management loses span of control, chaos can and

4

almost did occur. This was attributed to a

5

distinctive change in the field operations section of

6

the State Police.

7

Prior to 1992, road stations operated in

8

almost the same manner since the State Police

9

inception. Sergeant or senior troopers took the

10

phone calls for service. They assigned jobs. Logged

11

stops. And directly supervised their personnel.

12

They were actively involved in everyday

13

investigations, searches and all activities being

14

conducted by their troopers. This allowed the

15

immediate supervisors the ability to better manage

16

their troopers and be aware of any issues or

17

problems.

18

In November of 1991, due to ‘91 regulations

19

imposed by the federal government, calls could only

20

be answered by trained 911 dispatchers who were

21

certified. An insufficient amount of these

22

dispatchers were employed by the State Police,

23

forcing the Division into a regionalized dispatch

24

scenario. Under the regionalized dispatch, two

25

dispatchers would be at one location dispatching for

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

90

1

three stations and supplemental patrols. All calls,

2

stops, searches, arrests were now called in to these

3

regionalized stations. Supervisors at remote

4

stations lost total accountability and span of

5

control of their people. Supervisors had no idea

6

where they were or what they were doing. If

7

procedures were not being followed, the Supervisor

8

would not know until a complaint was received.

9

It was determined at that time by upper

10

supervision this was an unacceptable way to operate.

11

To complicate the issue of accountability, the

12

dispatchers advised they could not keep track of car

13

stops, calls for service, pending jobs, and that a

14

trooper was going to get hurt due to lack of

15

accountability at their end. This was especially

16

true of the Bridgeton station which was the busiest

17

of the regionalized dispatch centers.

18

This situation was putting both the

19

troopers and the public at risk and an immediate

20

resolve was needed to protect the troopers and the

21

citizens at this particular location.

22

In 1990 I had just finished assisting the

23

Salem County Prosecutor’s Office in procuring a CAD

24

RMS system. This process involved all aspects of

25

procurement and I was ultimately trained in the

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

91

1

implementation of these systems. I advised

2

supervision of the ability of such systems and in

3

January of 1992, the Salem County CAD system was

4

placed in service at the Bridgeton station. Dispatch

5

personnel were now able to efficiently do their job

6

taking motor vehicle stops, handling calls for

7

service and tracking personnel, providing a safer

8

situation. However, this did not aid supervisors at

9

remote locations who still had no accountability of

10

their troopers.

11

In 1991 the State Police supervision

12

advised me that they were in the process of

13

purchasing a CAD system and money was being provided

14

by the Attorney General. I advised supervision that

15

a CAD system, without a Records Management system,

16

would not provide the needed accountability for the

17

Division. After personally justifying the needs of

18

the State Police to personnel from the Attorney

19

General’s Office, additional money was provided for a

20

complete system. The process was handled by the

21

Division of Purchase and Property and took five years

22

to procure.

23

In June of 1996 the State Police, under the

24

authority of the Attorney General’s Office, signed a

25

contract for a CAD RMS system to be fully delivered

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

92

1

by June of 1998. Although I expressed concern to the

2

ability of the vendor to deliver within the proper

3

time frame, I was assured by the Purchase Bureau that

4

retainage and penalties were part of the contract.

5

The contracted system was to provide for

6

the following: An ultimate safety system to protect

7

the lives of troopers and the citizens of the State

8

of New Jersey. To provide total accountability of

9

all State Police personnel. To provide statistical

10

data on both CAD and RMS entries and to provide

11

analytical data on both CAD and RMS information.

12

Racial profiling is just one of the several issues

13

that could have immediately been addressed within

14

this system.

15

The contracted system to date has not been

16

delivered. The contract clearly states that the CAD

17

was to be delivered in nine months, but was delivered

18

in 18 months. The delivered system was below

19

required standards, it was slow, incomplete, failed

20

to have a required backup system in place, and

21

consistently went out of service.

22

Each time the system went down, both the

23

troopers and the public were at risk. The much-

24

needed RMS portion of the project had not even been

25

started. I contacted the buyer, Peg Doyle of the

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

93

1

Purchase Bureau, and recommended enforcement be

2

considered. All my attempts to enforce this contract

3

were resisted.

4

I then learned of meetings being held by the Purchase

5

Bureau and the selected vendor. These meetings were

6

in violation and they were being reported to me by

7

the company’s Project Manager, Mr. Jack -- these

8

contacts and meetings were also involving my

9

supervisors. I confronted the people who were

10

involved in these contract violations and advised

11

them I was in the documented evidence to the Captain,

12

their superior.

13

The day I went to meet with the Captain, I

14

was removed from the Project Manager’s position. I

15

turned in the evidence and the letters verifying the

16

contractual violations, only to be contacted by him

17

the following day and was removed from the unit’s

18

Supervisor’s position. He advised that I did an

19

outstanding job, but the people I turned in evidence

20

against were after my jugular.

21

Three days later, every document and

22

personal belonging of mine was removed from my office

23

at Buena Vista Headquarters without my knowledge.

24

This was an obvious attempt to remove the evidence

25

from my possession.

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

94

1

It was learned later that an initial

2

attempt was made to seize my documentation without

3

anyone’s knowledge. That was captured on an audio

4

tape at the Bridgetown dispatch -- or at the Buena

5

Vista Dispatch Center.

6

Several attempts have been made to bring

7

this to the attention of the Colonel to no avail.

8

Each attempt has resulted in retaliation. A clear

9

message has been sent by State Police supervision.

10

Honor, duty and fidelity, however, along with the

11

support of family and troopers, motivate my pursuit

12

for justice. Troopers deserve the tools to make the

13

reporting process more accurate and simplified.

14

Troopers deserve the tools that provide better

15

accountability. Supervisors deserve the tools that

16

allows them the ability to properly supervise their

17

personnel. Supervisors deserve the tools to allow

18

for automated compilation of monthly statistics.

19

This leads to less time administrating and more time

20

supervising. All these tools were included in the

21

requirements of the CAD RMS system.

22

It is beyond comprehension how a CAD RMS

23

system, which monitors total accountability for both

24

the troopers and the public it serves, has not been

25

completed. Almost three years have passed since the

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

95

1

proposed completion date. To add insult to injury,

2

the State Police not only continues business with

3

this vendor, but has allowed additional purchases of

4

the system for the Turnpike and Parkway at the cost

5

of millions. It has already been determined that a

6

CAD system without an RMS system does not provide

7

total accountability. Obviously, this is reinforced

8

by the inability of the current CAD system to track

9

profiling issues. Even after signing the civil

10

action against these individuals involved, all have

11

received promotions.

12

It is obvious that to these individuals,

13

personal gain outweighs the troopers’ needs. I, too,

14

would have been promoted if I just went with the flow

15

and did not insist on enforcing this contract.

16

However, since the primary purpose of the CAD RMS

17

system is the safety and protection of the public, my

18

integrity outweighs the rank. Failure to implement

19

this system as proposed and unanimously agreed upon

20

by all past supervision, will result in serious

21

injury or death to a trooper or citizen of the State

22

of New Jersey. I will not accept the fact that

23

without a CAD RMS system, someone’s rights could be

24

compromised. The troopers deserve better and the

25

public deserves better.

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

96

1

These systems are vast sources of information.

2

Information to the wrong people can control this

3

power. Power is promotion. I disagree. Information

4

is knowledge. The more knowledge the troopers and

5

the supervisors have access to, the better the

6

organization becomes for both troopers and the

7

public.

8

Accountability must start at the top and

9

the people responsible for not enforcing this much-

10

needed system must be held responsible. They must

11

answer for their negligence.

12

I have heard the issues of morale raised at

13

these hearings. Troopers were advised in 1996 of a

14

CAD RMS system to assist them in their job efforts.

15

Although the troopers are monitored by CAD, RMS was

16

the important feature to aid in their job. Did they

17

get what they were promised? Will we ever get the

18

necessary reporting system to aid in their reports?

19

Why isn’t the State Police getting what they

20

contracted for and so badly need? Doesn’t the public

21

deserve the right to know what the troopers are

22

doing?

23

In addition to that, the promotional system

24

is not on merit but who you are friendly with. The

25

rules and regulations only pertain to certain

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

97

1

troopers. The discipline system is selective. Few

2

make the decisions for thousands. Complaints go

3

unanswered and are circumvented. With all these

4

discrepancies, one message is sent to all: complain

5

and face the wrath of God.

6

In closing, the State Police is literally

7

my family. My father-in-law is a retired trooper.

8

My brother-in-law is a retired trooper. My other

9

brother-in-law is a trooper and I have two nephews

10

that are troopers. The best source of information is

11

from the troopers themselves, although their opinions

12

are never requested. Those who speak out are

13

disgruntled employees and referred to as “pirates.”

14

Some are called worse. I call them troopers.

15

Thank you.

16

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you.

17

Senator Furnari?

18

SENATOR FURNARI: Trooper, just briefly

19

again. Refresh my recollection. What does the CAD

20

system do precisely?

21

SERGEANT WATKINS: A CAD system is a

22

Computer Aided Dispatch system that monitors the

23

accountability and tracks --

24

SENATOR FURNARI: I think you have to press

25

your button. Is it on red?

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

98

1

SERGEANT WATKINS: That’s better.

2

The CAD system is a Computer Aided Dispatch

3

system. It tracks the accountability of what the

4

troopers are doing on the road. It allows the

5

supervisors at the remote stations to visually see on

6

the screen where their people are. Who is on a stop.

7

Who is on a job. And basically be able to get an

8

output at the end of the shift and see their

9

functions during the course of the day.

10

SENATOR FURNARI: And the RMS system is?

11

SERGEANT WATKINS: The RMS confirms what

12

the troopers actually did out on the road. At that

13

point, the trooper comes in, puts his reports

14

directly into a Records Management system that is

15

computer generated and all their statistics are kept

16

where you can get analysis data. In other words, if

17

you have a trooper out on a motor vehicle stop, the

18

only thing that CAD does is tell you that the trooper

19

is making the stop and what race of the individual

20

the trooper is stopping. It doesn’t tell you whether

21

or not that individual was searched, whether he was

22

arrested, or what took place. Records Management is

23

where it comes into play at that point. Between the

24

two systems, they’re what is called interfaced. Now,

25

they can pass this information back and forth and

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

99

1

give you analytical data.

2

SENATOR FURNARI: And you had the

3

opportunity to work on obtaining this for another

4

place before --

5

SERGEANT WATKINS: Salem County.

6

SENATOR FURNARI: Okay. And that was done

7

as a function of the State Police in assisting Salem

8

County?

9

SERGEANT WATKINS: Salem County had an

10

accountability problem within its police departments

11

within the county. The station I was assigned was

12

Bridgeton. We did not actually actively take part in

13

the system initially until we ran into such a

14

problem, but they had asked if I would sit on the

15

committee as far as the curing of the system, to

16

review the systems, to help write the specifications

17

for the system. And ultimately I was trained

18

directly into these systems.

19

SENATOR FURNARI: Now, the State of New

20

Jersey was going to obtain this CAD system without

21

the RMS system initially?

22

SERGEANT WATKINS: Initially, yes.

23

SENATOR FURNARI: Now, who else worked with

24

-- you were designated to be the person in charge of

25

--

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

100

1

SERGEANT WATKINS: No, sir.

2

SENATOR FURNARI: No?

3

SERGEANT WATKINS: No. A committee formed

4

to actually recognize the problems. The committee

5

head was a Lieutenant Colonel. There were two Majors

6

involved, two Captains involved, a Sergeant First

7

Class involved and I was a trooper at that time. So

8

I was the lowest-ranking individual who was involved.

9

SENATOR FURNARI: And that was on the

10

committee for the State Police, not for Salem County?

11

SERGEANT WATKINS: That was for the State

12

Police, correct.

13

SENATOR FURNARI: Okay.

14

SERGEANT WATKINS: The Salem County

15

committee was a police officer from each and every

16

municipality within the county.

17

SENATOR FURNARI: Now, were there a variety

18

of vendors that you looked at?

19

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes, sir.

20

SENATOR FURNARI: And had you had

21

familiarity with the vendors that were used in Salem

22

County?

23

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes.

24

SENATOR FURNARI: And did you know how the

25

system worked in Salem County?

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

101

1

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes. That was

2

ultimately the system that we started using in

3

Bridgeton when we had a serious problem of

4

accountability where we thought a trooper may get

5

hurt out on the road. We borrowed their system in

6

1992 until we were able to procure our own CAD

7

system.

8

SENATOR FURNARI: Now, you say at some

9

point the decision as to the vendor to deliver the

10

system to the State Police was transferred away from

11

this committee? Is that right?

12

SERGEANT WATKINS: I don’t understand that

13

question, sir.

14

SENATOR FURNARI: Well, as I understood

15

your testimony you thought that the vendor was not

16

appropriately delivering the equipment to the State

17

Police.

18

SERGEANT WATKINS: Correct. There was a

19

contract that we actually signed, sealed but never

20

delivered that started in 1996 and was to be fully

21

implemented and completed by 1998.

22

SENATOR FURNARI: Now, are you familiar

23

with the process of how they came up with that

24

vendor?

25

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes. We went through

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

102

1

the normal procuring guidelines outlined by the

2

Division of Purchase and Property.

3

SENATOR FURNARI: Was it a bid process or -

4

-

5

SERGEANT WATKINS: Absolutely. It took

6

five years.

7

SENATOR FURNARI: And the specifications

8

were drawn by?

9

SERGEANT WATKINS: I wrote the

10

specifications for the Computer Aided Dispatch

11

Records Management part of the system.

12

SENATOR FURNARI: Now, how long into the

13

system did it become apparent that the CAD system was

14

not working for the State Police?

15

SERGEANT WATKINS: We were in definite need

16

for the safety issues for the system. So the company

17

-- the bid requirements required that the vendor

18

deliver the CAD system within six months. The

19

responsive bidder that actually got the contract

20

responded that they could do it in nine months. They

21

needed an additional three months. They were the

22

ones that we signed the contract with because, of

23

course, they were lowest bidder.

24

Nine months came and went. Ten months came

25

and went. And we gave them all the opportunities

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

103

1

until finally 18 months later they delivered the CAD

2

system. They hadn’t even started the records, which

3

was totally supposed to be completed within a 24-

4

month time frame. And we realized that the system

5

was very difficult, very large. We were a very

6

distinct -- the way we operate, we didn’t want to

7

really change the way we operate. The specifications

8

were written around that. The biggest problem was

9

once it was delivered, it didn’t work properly. So

10

that compounded the problem that now you need to take

11

action because you have a system that was received in

12

good faith and you’re having such a problem with it.

13

SENATOR FURNARI: Now, you brought this to

14

the attention of your supervisors?

15

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes, sir.

16

SENATOR FURNARI: And you indicated that

17

you don’t think that they took appropriate steps to

18

follow through?

19

SERGEANT WATKINS: There’s politics

20

involved. A unit was established specifically for

21

this project with promotional capabilities. If the

22

project goes away, those promotions go away. The

23

last thing that anyone wanted to do was enforce the

24

contract because of nothing other than promotional

25

reasons, personal gain.

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

104

1

That was not the way I looked at that. I felt that a

2

trooper or a citizen was going to get hurt and we

3

need this thing in the worse way. I felt if we

4

enforced the contract, the company had the resources,

5

even if they had to go out and get another

6

subcontractor. The actual CAD RMS system was written

7

by a subcontractor of who we contracted.

8

SENATOR FURNARI: Well, when you say --

9

when you say politics, you really mean -- let me try

10

to find out what you really meant. You weren’t

11

suggesting that the choice or the selector of the

12

vendor was done on the basis of somebody’s friend or

13

something of that sort?

14

SERGEANT WATKINS: Absolutely not, no.

15

That was a straightforward procurement. We had some

16

questions because the subcontractor to the required -

17

- that answered the contract was so small, whether or

18

not they could deliver a system of this size. Other

19

proposals that we received were able to basically

20

show us what they had and needed modification. The

21

contractor we purchased from had nothing. It had to

22

be written from scratch which we were really

23

concerned as to the time frame.

24

SENATOR FURNARI: And during this period of

25

time, the Attorney General’s Office, it seems to me,

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

105

1

would have been quite anxious -- this was -- correct

2

me if I’m wrong, this was the system by which they

3

were going to provide, you know, collect all of the

4

data that has to deal with the State Police stops.

5

SERGEANT WATKINS: Everything -- everything

6

that the State Police does would have been collected

7

by that system.

8

SENATOR FURNARI: And during this period of

9

time, one would imagine that the Attorney General’s

10

Office would be quite impatient about this system not

11

getting up to snuff.

12

Was there some pressure that was applied by

13

the Attorney General’s Office to get this thing

14

moving through the State Police?

15

SERGEANT WATKINS: I worked with the

16

Attorney General’s Office hand-in-hand during this

17

contract. A representative or an individual by the

18

name of Dean Deakins was involved from the Attorney

19

General’s Office. We had worked in conjunction since

20

I believe 1991 on this. He felt the same way I did.

21

He was the only other person who attempted to enforce

22

this contract with me. He was basically reprimanded,

23

from what he told me, by his superiors and was

24

advised to let the Purchase Bureau handle this and

25

ultimately he no longer participated in this contract

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

106

1

and after that he shortly retired.

2

SENATOR FURNARI: Well, in the Attorney

3

General’s Office there wouldn’t be that politics or

4

promotion associated with a successful activity,

5

would there be?

6

SERGEANT WATKINS: Not that I know of.

7

SENATOR FURNARI: I’m trying to get to, you

8

know, what really -- what’s the reason, it’s

9

institutional, do you think, that this didn’t --

10

wasn’t moved forward? What was the -- what’s your

11

sense as to why --

12

SERGEANT WATKINS: It’s not -- sir, it’s

13

knowledge. You have to understand the State Police

14

promotional system. It’s a chess game.

15

SENATOR FURNARI: Okay. Maybe if I

16

understand it --

17

SERGEANT WATKINS: My position was a

18

promotable position. There was people underneath me

19

that were connected. So basically what happened was

20

I was removed from the position of the Project

21

Manager and as of the unit Supervisor so someone

22

could be put into that position who did not have the

23

knowledge and did not have the ability to do this

24

system. The Major that was directly overseeing this

25

thing, advised people on four different occasions,

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

107

1

with me present, if I was removed from this system,

2

it was not going to be completed. The day after the

3

Major retired is the day that this change took place.

4

They put their friend in the position thinking that I

5

was -- they actually demoted me to be his -- I went

6

from a unit Supervisor to his assistant.

7

Unfortunately due to the guidelines in the State

8

Police, that’s not really a move that can be backed

9

up. They can’t demote me, so a transfer was forced

10

upon them to remove me. And once I was removed, the

11

people who were now involved in the project did not

12

have the knowledge to finish the system. And they’ve

13

kept that to themselves all this time. And that’s

14

why this system is not moving forward at all. And

15

the Major told them it wasn’t going to move forward.

16

I wasn’t the only individual this happened to, there

17

was other individuals who were involved in this

18

project that were very knowledgeable. They either

19

bailed ship or were removed by the new supervision

20

who came in.

21

It was strictly for personal gain.

22

SENATOR FURNARI: Thank you.

23

SERGEANT WATKINS: You’re welcome, sir.

24

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Zane?

25

SENATOR ZANE: Trooper Longoria --

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

108

1

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes, sir.

2

SENATOR ZANE: Am I pronouncing it right?

3

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes, sir.

4

SENATOR GORMLEY: Put on your microphone.

5

SENATOR ZANE: I’m looking at your

6

statement. I just have a few questions from it.

7

On Page 2 in the middle you mention a

8

derogatory statement about a black man. Was it the N

9

word?

10

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well, without getting

11

into that, it was. I just thought I didn’t need to

12

sling any mud in here.

13

SENATOR ZANE: Understood.

14

TROOPER LONGORIA: We all get the point.

15

SENATOR ZANE: Was that the first and only

16

time you ever heard that from troopers?

17

TROOPER LONGORIA: No, it was not the first

18

time. The first time I heard that from troopers was

19

when I was on the trooper coach program assigned to

20

the Edison barracks in 1988.

21

SENATOR ZANE: The ghost stop, is that --

22

that’s not part of training, is it?

23

TROOPER LONGORIA: Absolutely not.

24

SENATOR ZANE: That’s something that is --

25

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s something that

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

109

1

was developed and probably refined out on the toll

2

road. In essence what a ghost stop is is exactly

3

that, it doesn’t exist. There is no accountability

4

for it. I believe Mr. Zoubek in his testimony when

5

he was up here the other day placed ghost stop in the

6

category as -- in the falsification category. Well,

7

that would not be entirely accurate. He almost

8

intertwined it with the race of the driver being

9

changed. Well, that’s a falsification. A ghost stop

10

is exactly what it is. There’s no consent. It never

11

gets called in. It doesn’t go on a patrol log. You

12

kick the motorist in the rear-end and it’s over.

13

SENATOR ZANE: You’re supposed to call in

14

before you stop, am I correct?

15

TROOPER LONGORIA: The procedure is you’re

16

supposed to call the stop in before you stop --

17

before you make it.

18

SENATOR ZANE: In that particular case that

19

you described, had there been something of note, what

20

would have happened then? What would the trooper

21

have done to cover not having called in?

22

TROOPER LONGORIA: I’m sorry, I don’t

23

understand the question.

24

SENATOR ZANE: Well, you’re indicating here

25

that this particular stop I think involved two people

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

110

1

--

2

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes.

3

SENATOR ZANE: -- in the vehicle. At the

4

time that someone was stopped, that’s when the call-

5

in should have been made that I’m stopping such and

6

such a car with tag number blah, blah, blah, am I

7

right?

8

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s correct.

9

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. So none of that was

10

done?

11

TROOPER LONGORIA: No.

12

SENATOR ZANE: And apparently there was

13

some sort of search?

14

TROOPER LONGORIA: There was a search of

15

two black males. It was a small sports car. It

16

didn’t have a trunk, it was kind of the hatchback

17

kind. It was two black males. They were both

18

searched. The interior of the vehicle was searched

19

by this trooper and as he walked away from the

20

vehicle he mumbled something towards me about coming

21

up dry and that was the end of the stop. They were

22

allowed to continue and it was on the -- it was on

23

the southbound portion between Cranbury approaching

24

Moorestown’s area.

25

SENATOR ZANE: The search, how was it

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

111

1

justified, the search?

2

TROOPER LONGORIA: It wasn’t justified.

3

There was no justification for it. As a matter of

4

fact, it was an illegal search.

5

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. Tell me why it was

6

illegal.

7

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well --

8

SENATOR ZANE: I’m not doubting you, but I

9

just want you to tell me why.

10

TROOPER LONGORIA: No. Well, let me

11

explain the whole stop to you. We are driving down

12

the Turnpike and we’re no longer at the inners or the

13

outers. It is a southbound section and a northbound

14

section. This trooper pulled up in the left lane. I

15

believe the vehicle was in the center lane. He

16

activated the alley lights. Alley lights are on top

17

of the overheads and they’ll illuminate inside a

18

vehicle. I was on the passenger side. We saw two

19

black males. He made a comment, this looks like

20

something or this might be something. He pulled

21

behind him, made the stop. The perception being

22

possibly that they were drug carriers. There was a

23

search ensued after that. Both the driver and the

24

occupant and then the interior of the vehicle. After

25

that, he basically kicked him in the ass and that was

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

112

1

it.

2

SENATOR ZANE: No apparent motor vehicle

3

violation?

4

TROOPER LONGORIA: There was no apparent

5

motor vehicle violation.

6

SENATOR ZANE: What would have happened in

7

a situation like that, if you know, based upon your

8

experience had that search revealed something? What

9

would the trooper have to do?

10

TROOPER LONGORIA: If that search would

11

have revealed something, what probably would have

12

happened is those two individuals would have heard

13

their own stop going down while they were handcuffed

14

in the back seat.

15

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. You’re saying they

16

would have heard their own stop going down. You mean

17

it would have been called in?

18

TROOPER LONGORIA: It would have been

19

probably called in, Cranbury, Car one, two, three,

20

whatever, I’ll be stopping. Meanwhile, these two

21

guys are sitting behind you handcuffed under arrest.

22

SENATOR ZANE: Have you ever witnessed

23

that?

24

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes.

25

SENATOR ZANE: You have?

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

113

1

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes.

2

SENATOR ZANE: Throughout these hearings

3

I’ve not heard the term “Johnnies.” You’re saying

4

that this is a code word for black motorists?

5

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s correct. In

6

essence it’s a water-downed word for the N word

7

meaning that you can’t just walk into the station and

8

use the N word, so they developed a code word and one

9

of the words was -- there were others, I mean. I’ve

10

heard, you know, “carload of coal,” but usually

11

“Johnnies” was the main -- while I was there, it was

12

“Johnnies” and this was the code word for stopping

13

“Johnnies.” Let’s get the “Johnnies” coming

14

southbound or northbound looking for a ki. And it

15

was -- it was quite competitive out there at the

16

time. Individuals were probably looking to put a

17

feather in their cap to achieve the Trooper of the

18

Year award and there was also personal bias.

19

SENATOR ZANE: You talked about the troop

20

commander of the New Jersey Turnpike and you talked

21

about the atmosphere at the Cranbury station and you

22

said to us that it became quite tense. You said, “As

23

you can imagine, the atmosphere became quite tense.”

24

What do you mean?

25

TROOPER LONGORIA: Exactly that. There was

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

114

1

a posting at the time when the Bellergal decision was

2

released by Judge Cooper. I’m not sure if it was the

3

Asbury Park Press or the Star Ledger, but it was

4

posted in the radio room. There was comments on the

5

border of it about this decision basically being BS.

6

I’m watering it down. As far as --

7

SENATOR ZANE: And who was that said by?

8

TROOPER LONGORIA: That was said by --

9

SENATOR ZANE: What kind of people?

10

TROOPER LONGORIA: That was said by --

11

SENATOR ZANE: Management or --

12

TROOPER LONGORIA: That was said by a

13

Sergeant at the time. As a matter of fact, I engaged

14

him in a conversation because I thought it was not.

15

And they had a problem swallowing that bitter pill in

16

reference to the decision. They had praise for the

17

Captain at the time. I just happened to be locker

18

number 50. The Captain of the Turnpike, his locker

19

was across from me.

20

SENATOR ZANE: You indicated that when you

21

were transferred back to Fort Dix that you

22

immediately experienced numerous acts of harassment

23

and intimidation. And you gave one example, you said

24

your mailbox was vandalized in an attempt to silence

25

you for speaking out. How do you know that?

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

115

1

TROOPER LONGORIA: When I arrived for duty

2

at the Fort Dix station -- there’s a saying in the

3

State Police that anything that you’re involved in in

4

the past there’s a two-nine made and a two-nine is

5

essentially a phone call that follows you from unit

6

or assignment to assignment and in essence what it is

7

it’s a passing of the torch. When I got to the Fort

8

Dix station, there was derogatory statements put

9

around my mailbox where I received my daily mail and

10

reports. I’m not going to get into them because

11

they’re quite graphic. There was also a pacifier the

12

size of a grapefruit nailed to my mailbox. In

13

essence, stick it in your mouth and shut up and stop

14

talking about what’s going on.

15

There was a lot of individuals that were

16

extremely nervous around me out on the Turnpike and

17

that anxiety continued as I went to other stations.

18

The bottom line is jobs were at stake here.

19

SENATOR ZANE: You indicated that you had

20

been a trooper for how many years?

21

TROOPER LONGORIA: Thirteen, sir.

22

SENATOR ZANE: Thirteen years. Up till

23

1998 had you ever been reprimanded?

24

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes. I was reprimanded,

25

I believe, in 1993. I received what’s called a Blue

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

116

1

Ticket and that was accompanied with a three-day

2

suspension and it was for an off-duty incident. It

3

had nothing to do with the State Police. It had to

4

do with outside employment actually. Some people

5

called it moonlighting.

6

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. Now, you talk in

7

terms in 1998 of attempting to, I guess, negotiate a

8

transfer to someplace other than back to the Cranbury

9

station with Lieutenant Colonel Fedorko, correct?

10

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s correct.

11

SENATOR ZANE: You also mention having had

12

an attorney at that time.

13

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes.

14

SENATOR ZANE: Just for that purpose?

15

TROOPER LONGORIA: No. I retained counsel

16

probably sometime in October of 1999 after I was

17

experiencing more harassment within the Diesel

18

Emissions Unit and I laid everything out to my lawyer

19

and my primary concern was that I was going to be

20

moved. You’ve got to understand, by this time, if

21

you look at my employment history in the back, you

22

can see how many times I’m being moved in a short

23

amount of time. And one of my concerns was that I

24

would be returned back to that hostile work

25

environment and my career would be jeopardized. I

Testimony - Detective Soulias

117

1

retained counsel. My intention was to backdoor this

2

thing and try to work out some kind of resolution

3

with the Lieutenant Colonel. We clearly advised Mr.

4

Fedorko of the situation out there. It was outlined

5

in my complaint. It was on January 21st, 1999 that

6

he signed off, and I have the transfer with me,

7

returning me back to the Turnpike, not only to the

8

same exact station, but the same exact squad.

9

On January 23rd, 1999, I advised him with a

10

notice to sue.

11

SENATOR ZANE: So you currently have an

12

action pending against the State Police?

13

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s correct.

14

Thank you.

15

Trooper is it Solis?

16

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Soulias.

17

SENATOR ZANE: Soulias?

18

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes, sir.

19

Trooper, in the third paragraph of your

20

prepared statement you said, “I have witnessed and

21

have knowledge of a falsification of reports and the

22

coverup of incidents of criminality.” And then you

23

gave two examples.

24

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Correct.

25

SENATOR ZANE: I followed with you while

Testimony - Detective Soulias

118

1

you were reading it. Is the criminality that you’re

2

-- the crime that you’re talking about requiring

3

someone to change the record, change their report?

4

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes.

5

SENATOR ZANE: Did you witness that?

6

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes.

7

SENATOR ZANE: You heard that?

8

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I was there, yes, when

9

they were told.

10

SENATOR ZANE: I’m sorry?

11

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I was there. I was

12

present when they were told to change their reports.

13

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. Did you know what the

14

real facts were?

15

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Both detectives told

16

me, yes.

17

SENATOR ZANE: Prior to?

18

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Prior to.

19

SENATOR ZANE: You indicated in the third

20

paragraph of the second page of your prepared

21

statement you said, “After exposing the criminality I

22

directly witnessed by superiors in the State Police,

23

I have now been identified as a traitor and

24

malcontent.” And then you go on to say, “I have been

25

targeted and retaliated against by the State Police.”

Testimony - Detective Soulias

119

1

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes.

2

SENATOR ZANE: What’s the retaliation

3

against you?

4

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I have several

5

examples. I’ll give you one of the most significant.

6

In May of 2000 they came out with the

7

promotional list, the rankings for promotions,

8

approximately four months after I met with -- or we

9

met with the Attorney General’s Office.

10

SENATOR ZANE: That’s your meeting with

11

Debra Stone?

12

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Debra Stone, yes, thank

13

you. And at that time I had approximately 14 years

14

in the State Police. Fourteen years of outstanding

15

evaluations. No disciplinary action. Always

16

recommended for promotion. Ranked relatively

17

competitively for promotion. I got passed over. I

18

didn’t get passed over by one individual, I got

19

passed over multiple individuals. I didn’t get hurt,

20

I got destroyed on my rankings. I mean, it wasn’t

21

even embarrassing, it was just if it wasn’t so

22

pathetic, it would be comical. I spoke my unit

23

Supervisor, Kim Husba, he specifically tells me that

24

Captain K Hess completed the rankings. I

25

subsequently spoke to Ken Hess. Ken Hess advised me

Testimony - Detective Soulias

120

1

that Kim Husba completed rankings. Till this date,

2

it’s been approximately one year, no one has

3

identified the rankings, how they were completed or

4

who ranked me, to my knowledge.

5

I was told complete a grievance, an

6

internal procedure, so I could be heard; phase one,

7

phase two or phase three. I did that. I completed

8

the grievance and subsequently I got a letter from

9

the Colonel. The Colonel indicates that rankings and

10

promotions are management prerogative and I cannot

11

grieve it and I will not be heard. So you have

12

absolutely no alternative here but to accept it. He

13

didn’t say that, that’s my interpretation.

14

SENATOR ZANE: So the retaliation is not

15

being promoted?

16

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: That’s one, yes.

17

That’s correct.

18

SENATOR ZANE: What else?

19

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I can give you a short

20

version of my personal safety has been compromised.

21

SENATOR ZANE: How?

22

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I’m an undercover

23

Detective in Organized Crime. I was. I did

24

undercover for North Jersey, a unit of eight people.

25

I was the one who did the undercover work. The

Testimony - Detective Soulias

121

1

Colonel came out with policy called ride-along. He

2

wanted every --

3

SENATOR ZANE: What year is this?

4

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Excuse me?

5

SENATOR ZANE: What year is this you’re

6

talking about?

7

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: 2000. And in the ride-

8

along you work four midnights and two holidays with

9

the road personnel. I spent 12 years on the road. I

10

enjoyed it. I have no concerns with that. But there

11

was criteria that if you never worked overtime in

12

your uniform and you work undercover, you would be

13

exempt from the overtime. I specifically work

14

undercover so I don’t work overtime. So I sacrificed

15

financial gain for my family, but I can’t work

16

overtime in uniform and compromise myself. It’s my

17

own personal safety. And I agree on that one aspect

18

with the Colonel, that if you do work overtime, you

19

cannot say now that I’m an undercover Detective, I

20

shouldn’t work the ride-along. No. If you’re going

21

to get paid time and a half, you work the ride-along.

22

In my unit they exempted, I believe, five

23

individuals. Two Captains’ sons and some other

24

individuals. I was advised by Kim Husba I would not

25

be exempt. I spoke to Kim Husba in depth on two

Testimony - Detective Soulias

122

1

separate occasions in April and May of 2000. I

2

explained to Kim Husba that my personal safety is

3

being compromised here. He said, “Everyone’s is.

4

Any Detective who has to work the ride-along is being

5

compromised.” I subsequently find out the other

6

Detectives who worked overtime in uniform, were still

7

exempt from this ride-along, but not Detective

8

Soulias. I worked undercover in March of 2000

9

negotiating the purchase of weapons from a Pagan

10

Motorcycle Outlaw member who we just convicted in

11

federal court. Two months later, I was ordered and

12

mandated to work the ride-along in the same county

13

and the same area that I just worked undercover in

14

which the Pagan Motorcycle Outlaw gang socialized and

15

have the club.

16

SENATOR ZANE: Did you call that to

17

anybody’s attention?

18

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: No -- afterwards, yes,

19

sir. Afterwards. I went to Captain Hess. I typed a

20

report and I initiated a complaint with it. But I

21

did work those four midnights because if I didn’t, I

22

would be charged with being AWOL.

23

SENATOR ZANE: Just one last question for

24

Trooper Longoria.

25

Your list of transfers -- you say you’re

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

123

1

with the State Police 13 years, not yet 13, as a

2

matter of fact, right? It won’t be 13 until July?

3

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well, I went to the

4

Academy in March of ‘88 and I actually graduated in

5

‘88. So ballpark. But it depends what you’re

6

looking at, whether when I went in or when I actually

7

stepped out.

8

SENATOR ZANE: Is -- 13 transfers in that

9

period of time, how would you categorize that? Is

10

that normal?

11

TROOPER LONGORIA: This is not normal.

12

This is absolutely not normal. As you can see, I

13

spent a substantial amount of time at the Flemington

14

Barracks, approximately six years. And it was right

15

about that time that I had an argument with my

16

immediate Supervisor about his behavior that I

17

started being moved around like a pinball.

18

SENATOR ZANE: But in all of this there was

19

only one disciplinary action against you, right?

20

This particular --

21

TROOPER LONGORIA: My disciplinary action

22

was --

23

SENATOR ZANE: It was just one.

24

TROOPER LONGORIA: -- just once. It was --

25

SENATOR ZANE: And that’s all.

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

124

1

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s all. Yes, sir.

2

SENATOR ZANE: To date.

3

TROOPER LONGORIA: To date.

4

SENATOR ZANE: I have no other questions.

5

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay.

6

Senator Matheussen.

7

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Maybe if I could,

8

Trooper Longoria, if I could just pick up where

9

Senator Zane left off. I have some similar

10

questions.

11

What is the norm for people being

12

transferred within the State Police? Because I

13

looked at your 13 years and you’ve done a lot of

14

moving.

15

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s unusual.

16

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: What is the norm?

17

TROOPER LONGORIA: The norm usually you go

18

to one station. You’ll train under the trooper-coach

19

program for approximately two months. You’ll remain

20

there for a total of six months. Then you’ll go to a

21

secondary station which you’ll basically stay there

22

for anywhere from six months to a year or two years,

23

depending. Now, it’s been -- actually in the last

24

few years they’ve been making that three stations, I

25

guess to give the trooper a more diverse experience

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

125

1

at different stations.

2

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Three stations in how

3

much time?

4

TROOPER LONGORIA: Usually three stations

5

within a year and a half or so, ball park. And then

6

after that you basically can, you know, based on

7

seniority and where they need the personnel, you can

8

basically pick and choose where you want to work

9

relatively close to home. I wasn’t relatively close

10

to home in Flemington, but I was relatively happy

11

there. The duty was good. The assignment was good,

12

it was general police. We were handling calls. At

13

Flemington you’re really a cop. You’re going to

14

people’s houses, burglaries and domestic violence, et

15

cetera. You’re serving the public. It’s not really

16

traffic duty there. So I was relatively happy until

17

I had this encounter with this Sergeant who seems to

18

have a problem with all the isms. We had several

19

exchanges and finally I put in for a transfer to

20

leave there. I wanted to be transferred either to

21

Fort Dix or to the Wilburtha station. And, of

22

course, they sent me to Bordentown. While I was at

23

Bordentown, I told them that I would rather stay at

24

Bordentown and get more Interstate experience. Of

25

course, now they move me again and send me to Fort

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

126

1

Dix. While I’m at Fort Dix, I say look, I’ll stay

2

here, I’m only five miles from my house. Actually

3

more like three. And they moved me to Hightstown.

4

From Hightstown they offer me a job down at the

5

Narcotics Unit. They take me down there. They use

6

me because I’m bilingual. I was actively working on

7

cases. An assignment comes out. I put my resume in

8

for the Detective position. Not only don’t I get

9

interviewed, but the Captain’s son gets the job, who

10

happens to be the nephew of the unit Supervisor who

11

had 100 percent minority arrest record while he was

12

out on the Turnpike and meanwhile I get sent to the

13

Turnpike to take his place.

14

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Your statement starts

15

off with talking about profiling as it pertained to

16

Troop D in Cranbury in 1998. You had served in the

17

State Police for a period of maybe ten years prior to

18

that.

19

TROOPER LONGORIA: I was a veteran trooper

20

when I went out to the road.

21

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Any other instances in

22

those first ten years of profilers or racism within

23

the State Police?

24

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes. There was

25

profiling when I went to my very first station. I

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

127

1

was assigned in 1988 during the summer, August 1st,

2

to the Edison barracks which patrolled 287 and 440

3

and the Outer Bridge there. I was assigned to -- I

4

had two trooper coaches, one is your primary, the

5

other one being your alternate. My primary coach was

6

topnotch, a straight shooter. My alternate coach was

7

the opposite. He was racist. He was sexist. And

8

that’s the first time I actually saw profiling,

9

although it wasn’t called profiling then. That term

10

didn’t exist. We were just stopping blacks and

11

Hispanics coming out of Perth Amboy from the Outer

12

Bridge.

13

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And was there a reason

14

for stopping blacks and Hispanics?

15

TROOPER LONGORIA: Sometimes there was,

16

sometimes there was a trivial reason. Sometimes

17

there was no reason, no probable cause.

18

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Was there a reason

19

given about probable cause by your supervisors as to

20

why they were stopping blacks and Hispanics?

21

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes. He advised me that

22

if you dig long enough or if you stop enough cars,

23

you’ll eventually come up with something.

24

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Meaning cars that are

25

driven by Hispanics and blacks?

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

128

1

TROOPER LONGORIA: This one was a dark-

2

skinned Hispanic.

3

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: You said that

4

throughout your tour of duty -- I would presume this

5

is the first paragraph of your statement, throughout

6

your tour of duty at Troop D, you were repeatedly

7

pressured to go out and make profile stops. By whom

8

were you pressured to do that?

9

TROOPER LONGORIA: I was pressured to make

10

profile stops by my immediate supervisor who advised

11

me that this is where the men produced the big

12

numbers and I expect you to do the same. I was also

13

sent out with a junior trooper who was going to teach

14

me how things were, going to teach me the ropes out

15

there. I have to believe, looking back now, that

16

they had no idea I was Hispanic and I probably got to

17

see them with their hair all the way down.

18

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: I was going to ask you

19

that question. Is it possible that you were not

20

viewed as a minority member?

21

TROOPER LONGORIA: I would have to say you

22

would be out of your mind to do that in front of me

23

if you knew I was Hispanic.

24

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: When did you -- I

25

heard Senator Zane ask you before, when did you hire

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

129

1

an attorney?

2

TROOPER LONGORIA: I was consulting with an

3

attorney in October of 1999.

4

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Without revealing --

5

I’m not asking you to reveal anything that’s

6

obviously attorney/client privilege, but can you tell

7

us what was the reason for, in a general sense --

8

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well, I’m here

9

voluntarily and my attorney is not here and I will

10

answer any of your questions, sir. And the reason I

11

went to him is because I was experiencing numerous

12

problems within the Diesel Emissions Unit which was

13

my only truly voluntary transfer. I was experiencing

14

heightened supervision. As a matter of fact, one

15

time I was called on the carpet because my Captain

16

wanted to know why I wasn’t at the site the last

17

seven minutes of the shift. Now, I spend more than

18

seven minutes in the bathroom.

19

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Thank you.

20

Trooper Watkins, you had talked about the

21

fact that you had been in the State Police since

22

1979.

23

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes, sir.

24

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And Senator Furnari

25

obviously asked you some detailed questions that

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

130

1

concerned me about the CAD RMS system, but let me, if

2

I could, direct you to something you didn’t testify

3

much about and that is your experiences as to

4

profiling from ‘79 through ‘96.

5

SERGEANT WATKINS: I think the racial

6

profiling issue has been around us a long time. I

7

mean anybody who does not believe that --

8

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Even though not called

9

racial profiling.

10

SERGEANT WATKINS: Exactly. Anyone that

11

does not believe that is naive.

12

I think one of the bigger problems is why

13

wasn’t it addressed and nothing was done about it.

14

And --

15

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Why?

16

SERGEANT WATKINS: Well, one of the reasons

17

is you have supervision out there, some people who

18

are very accountable for their actions and other

19

supervisors that are condoning what’s going on. So

20

you have to know what supervisors are condoning this

21

and what supervisors aren’t condoning this. And you

22

also have to have the equipment for supervisors to be

23

able to know exactly what their people are. So it

24

doesn’t give them the catch-all that we’re using

25

right now, “I didn’t know anything about it.” And

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

131

1

that was one of the reasons that this project made

2

such an impact because they were finally going to

3

have no excuse not to be able to monitor what was

4

going on. This way supervision is held for

5

accountability and if they have that accountability

6

and know what’s going on and they’re not taking

7

action against the troopers, now we can do something

8

about it. I think racism is world-wide and I think

9

it does exist in the State Police. And the problem,

10

the bigger problem than the racism is when you have

11

people coming forward to supervision and absolutely

12

nothing is done. There was absolutely no outlet in

13

this day and age for a trooper to go. His complaint

14

is not listened to. I have been going on with my

15

particular circumstances and have yet to talk to a

16

supervisor about something as serious as contractual

17

violations on a $7 million project that involves tax-

18

payers’ money.

19

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Trooper Watkins, you

20

don’t appear as a minority member here to me today.

21

I hate to profile, but you don’t appear to be a

22

minority.

23

SERGEANT WATKINS: I am not a minority, no,

24

sir.

25

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: You had said in your

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

132

1

opening statement that you had been assigned for 14

2

years, I believe, as a road trooper. Did you have

3

similar assignments as to Trooper Longoria? Did you

4

look at his statement, the numbers of different

5

barracks and stations that he served in?

6

SERGEANT WATKINS: Sir, I think he’s been

7

around the world more than I have.

8

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: He’s been around the

9

world more than you.

10

SERGEANT WATKINS: I basically have been,

11

during the course of my career, probably transferred,

12

I would say, less than eight times in 22 years.

13

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: You saw that there was

14

an indication of teaching profiling using a

15

spotlight, using stops. Not asking for consent

16

searches. Those stops, as a road trooper for 14

17

years had you either have been instructed to do those

18

things or were you asked or told to do certain

19

things?

20

SERGEANT WATKINS: I was never asked or

21

told. I’ve witnessed that. Yes, that does exist.

22

And more so in the early eighties than it does now.

23

I mean hopefully people are a little bit more

24

conscientious. But I listened to the hearings

25

yesterday on training and training and training and

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

133

1

again, I have to go back to the training. If you

2

don’t have accountability for that training, the

3

training is useless. If you don’t have something in

4

place to monitor what’s going on out there, you can

5

train until you’re blue in the face but you don’t

6

know whether or not they’re conforming to your

7

training. And yes, that did exist. There is such

8

thing as ghost stops out there. That’s nothing new

9

to the State Police.

10

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And you think it

11

existed more in the eighties than it does now?

12

SERGEANT WATKINS: And if I can just add

13

one more thing to that. I listened to the Colonel

14

speak as far as conformity and we have to understand

15

somewhat of the whole picture here. The State Police

16

reporting system is a nightmare. If you ask any

17

trooper what is your worst part of that job, he tells

18

you his reports. One of the things for the record

19

system was that, for instance, a trooper could have

20

eight reports to do on one job. Those reports could

21

have as many as 80 blocks. Forty of those blocks

22

will be the same from report to report, but yet he

23

has to fill out every block. So now if you give him

24

a system as it was designed for the RFP and as it was

25

contracted for, as a trooper does a report, the

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

134

1

information is flowed from one report to the next

2

report and that saves him maybe three hours of

3

reports turned into 45 minutes. Because all the

4

information is flowed from one to the next.

5

Now, we get into the thought, maybe the guy

6

would be a little more willing to do the reports. I

7

mean, not only are ghost stops going on, but I’ve

8

seen jobs that are not fully investigated as they

9

should be just because of the amount of reports. You

10

get young guys on the road out of the Academy,

11

they’re baffled. They are baffled as to what to do.

12

So they’ll make an operations report instead of

13

making what should have been an investigations

14

report, just because of our ridiculous reporting

15

system. And that was the main feature that impacted

16

the troopers and would turn them to be conformists

17

and be more willing to participate in what they

18

should do and what is needed to be done.

19

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: You didn’t answer my

20

question. I don’t know if perhaps you heard me or

21

not.

22

SERGEANT WATKINS: I’m sorry.

23

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: I asked you to, I

24

guess, verify what I thought you had said and that

25

was that racial profiling was as prevalent, if not

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

135

1

more prevalent, in the eighties than it is now?

2

SERGEANT WATKINS: I didn’t -- that’s a

3

question that I can’t answer, Senator. To be honest

4

with you, we have no tools to tell us who is doing

5

what and are we in fact. And I think that is one of

6

the --

7

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: But you witnessed it

8

firsthand back in the eighties?

9

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes, sir.

10

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Trooper Solis?

11

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Soulias.

12

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Soulias. I’m very

13

sorry.

14

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: That’s okay.

15

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: They mess up my last

16

name once in a while too, so I know how you feel

17

about that.

18

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: That’s okay.

19

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: The meeting that you

20

had with Assistant Attorney General Stone, you met

21

with her once.

22

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes.

23

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: With five other

24

troopers?

25

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: That’s correct.

Testimony - Detective Soulias

136

1

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Okay. Was there any

2

reason given that you only got a phone call back from

3

her secretary as to the reason why they would no

4

longer speak to you or meet with you?

5

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I didn’t get a phone

6

call back. I called once. I never got a return

7

call. I called the second time. That time, no, her

8

secretary said that she could not speak to me and

9

State Police Affairs would be handling this

10

investigation. Call them.

11

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Is it because you had

12

filed a grievance that they couldn’t talk to you or

13

was it something you don’t know?

14

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I don’t know. I

15

couldn’t tell you specifically. I can give you an

16

opinion that I had contacted and consulted an

17

attorney and I was in the process of taking civil

18

action at that time.

19

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Was the Attorney

20

General’s Office of the fact that you had contacted

21

an attorney?

22

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes. At that time.

23

When I first met with Debra Stone, none of us had

24

consulted an attorney at that time for these issues.

25

We were strictly there to address to the Attorney

Testimony - Detective Soulias

137

1

General’s Office about criminal corruption and

2

misconduct within their investigation section.

3

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Now, you also

4

indicated that you tried to meet with Colonel Dunbar.

5

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes.

6

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And were you given a

7

reason why you could not meet with Colonel Dunbar?

8

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: No. No specific

9

reason. I called -- I spoke with -- I don’t know his

10

rank, I believe, he’s a Sergeant First Class, Matt

11

Carroll. I spoke with him twice and another

12

Detective Sergeant Beneto Panaro, I spoke with him

13

twice. And no, just the fact that we had went to the

14

Attorney General’s Office and they’re investigating

15

it and he would not speak to us.

16

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Thank you, Trooper.

17

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Thank you.

18

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Thank you all.

19

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Thank you.

20

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Robertson.

21

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr.

22

Chairman.

23

Let me follow up on something that Senator

24

Matheussen -- Matheussen --

25

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: See what I mean?

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

138

1

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Actually that was

2

correct. They always call me Robinson so I know.

3

And this is perhaps something that we

4

should bear in mind as a Committee because it speaks

5

to the experience that two of the three of you had.

6

There is a kind of ethics among attorneys that once

7

an attorney affiliated with one side in a lawsuit

8

knows that someone is represented by counsel, they

9

cannot speak to that person again. And it sort of

10

goes to the question of the extent to which the

11

Attorney General’s Office should be in combination

12

with the State Police because in this case if, in

13

fact, that was the reason, they’re not getting

14

important information that they should have been

15

getting, whether it’s Paul Zoubek, once litigation

16

had been started, or Debra Stone, once she was put on

17

notice that you were represented and the Attorney

18

General’s Office is the attorney for the State of New

19

Jersey on the civil side. So it becomes a sticky

20

situation and that’s maybe something that we ought to

21

keep in mind as we go on.

22

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Well, they should be

23

told that. They should be told that though. It

24

would make it a lot easier.

25

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Oh, yeah, they should

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

139

1

be told that, there’s no question about it.

2

Trooper Longoria, you have a footnote here

3

that says that on February 11th, ‘99 you were placed

4

on EAP leave. Could you explain what that is, EAP

5

leave?

6

TROOPER LONGORIA: On February 11th I, due

7

to the stress that I was under, and I was stressed

8

out knowing that I was going back to that environment

9

and at the time there was even one individual who

10

told me you can’t dodge a bullet twice, and there was

11

also screen savers on the Turnpike with me on them, I

12

went to see the Employee Assistance Program, which is

13

--

14

SENATOR ROBERTSON: I didn’t know what the

15

EAP stood for.

16

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes.

17

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Okay.

18

TROOPER LONGORIA: And I basically laid it

19

out on the table for the individual who I talked to

20

and she was blown off her seat. She immediately

21

placed me on extended sick leave.

22

SENATOR ROBERTSON: You had talked about

23

your difference of opinion with others with respect

24

to the Bellaran case. During the course of that

25

litigation while the litigation was still pending

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

140

1

before the decision, did you know Sergeant Bellaran?

2

TROOPER LONGORIA: I only expressed my

3

opinion with one Sergeant there, okay?

4

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Right.

5

TROOPER LONGORIA: And then I was speaking

6

out openly. I knew Sergeant Bellaran briefly. He

7

was my supervisor for several months at Hightstown

8

and then I got sent down to Camden to work with the

9

Narcotics and Organized Crime Bureau. And I didn’t

10

see Sergeant Bellaran again until the Diesel

11

Emissions Unit and by then he was being hammered so

12

bad that he himself went out on stress leave and

13

there goes the story.

14

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Taking a looking -- and

15

I suppose you’ve been following the hearings here?

16

TROOPER LONGORIA: I’ve been here every

17

day, sir.

18

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And you’ve heard us ask

19

different witnesses, you know, what are the two or

20

three things that you think should be done. I’m

21

talking about specific steps, not in general, though

22

we have to deal with the organizational thing, but

23

specifically because we’re ultimately going to be in

24

that position. What are the two or three things that

25

you think as a practical matter can be done to begin

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

141

1

to address some of the things that you’ve seen?

2

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well, I think, number

3

one, the Attorney General’s Office and the State

4

Police have to be divorced. The Superintendent

5

should probably report directly to the Governor. And

6

the reason I say that, the Governor will have

7

firsthand information. Nothing gets filtered. That

8

ship belongs to the Colonel and if it springs a hole,

9

it’s his fault. So he’s reporting or she is

10

reporting directly to the Governor and maybe once a

11

week or once a month basically I believe the CIA has

12

those briefing with the President and you do it in

13

that fashion and you keep him updated. The State

14

Police should probably function in the same way.

15

Here it is, Governor, this is what’s going on. These

16

are our problems. These re our goals, et cetera, et

17

cetera. This is what we’re looking to accomplish in

18

the next year.

19

The other recommendation would be a

20

civilian review board and it would consist of retired

21

law enforcement. Members of a civil rights

22

organization, of course. A professor, a law

23

professor. Maybe a retired Judge. A professional

24

prosecutor who is independent of the State Police and

25

the Attorney General’s Office. And they would have

Testimony - Detective Soulias

142

1

oversight of the Internal Affairs Bureau within the

2

State Police. They would let IAB handle internal

3

matters such as troopers running over their walkie-

4

talkies or losing their hats, stuff like that. And

5

when it came to criminal matters or civil rights

6

violations, this would be the team that would

7

implemented and come in. You would also need a

8

psychologist, I believe, on that board and, of

9

course, an odd number of members.

10

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Anything else offhand?

11

TROOPER LONGORIA: No, sir.

12

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Now, Detective, you

13

heard the testimony today with respect to what the

14

trooper witnessed out of Cranbury and some other

15

areas. Now, you were road trooper I believe you said

16

for 12 years?

17

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes.

18

SENATOR ROBERTSON: What was your

19

experience with respect to being asked to produce

20

numbers?

21

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: The State Police has

22

always pushed numbers. You are evaluated by your

23

summonses, your drunks, referred to as DWI’s. It

24

wasn’t a question of integrity, it was just produce

25

the numbers. And the quality of work was numbers.

Testimony - Detective Soulias

143

1

And that’s how you were judged.

2

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Does that include

3

arrests?

4

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes, absolutely.

5

SENATOR ROBERTSON: In your opinion based

6

upon your road experience, what in those directives

7

from leadership do you think led to -- well, let me

8

back up.

9

Do you think that those directives from

10

leadership led to instances of racial profiling?

11

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes, absolutely.

12

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And why is that?

13

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Because with the New

14

Jersey State Police they focused on the road trooper,

15

Trooper of the Year. You want to be someone that’s

16

looked at and respected. And to become Trooper of

17

the Year, it was strictly statistics. Lockups, DWI’s

18

and summonses. And if you wanted to make Detective

19

or if you wanted to be respected by your peers or

20

supervisors, it was numbers. You had to produce

21

numbers. It wasn’t the quality of your arrests. It

22

wasn’t if you did it with integrity or honesty. I

23

would also like to indicate that it’s the supervisors

24

and the managers within the State Police that should

25

truly be held responsible as the road trooper out on

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

144

1

the road because they encourage troopers to go out

2

and produce numbers. And by ignoring what they did,

3

with the troopers did, they’re condoning it. And

4

every person who is a supervisor, a Sergeant First

5

Class, a Lieutenant or a Captain, was first a road

6

trooper. So he worked his way through the chain.

7

And he knows what occurs on the road and he has an

8

obligation and responsibility to the public. So they

9

should be held accountable as much as Justice

10

Verniero and as much as any other road trooper, they

11

should be held accountable.

12

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And, Sergeant Watkins,

13

you talked a few times about the problem of ghost

14

stops and obviously for anybody who’s trying to piece

15

together any sort of statistical picture, having

16

things exist outside the system is always going to be

17

a real problem. Do you have any thoughts on how to

18

avoid ghost stops?

19

SERGEANT WATKINS: I think the amount of

20

ghost stops have definitely reduced. One of the

21

things for ghost stops again go back to what the

22

Detective just stated, numbers. If you have or are

23

requesting a certain amount of numbers, the troopers

24

are out there going crazy trying to find these

25

numbers and they may go through the course of a night

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

145

1

stopping 20 cars. I mean that’s just unheard of.

2

That is ridiculous. The more they stop, the more

3

they have to document, the more they have to call in,

4

the more reports they have to do. So all of a

5

sudden, they start to turn into ghost stops.

6

I think the accountability, as far as what

7

it was years back, is much better, but it’s still not

8

there and there’s still nothing to monitor that it be

9

there.

10

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And -- but do you have

11

any ideas what could be put into place to avoid the

12

incidents of ghost stops?

13

SERGEANT WATKINS: Absolutely not. Because

14

the trooper is out there by himself and that’s where

15

it comes down to responsibility. There is no way to

16

know whether or not that trooper is doing it and all

17

you can do is enforce the fact. But one of the

18

things that’s going to stop it is when they take

19

enforcement action against the people that are doing

20

it. You can’t slap a guy in the -- there was

21

absolutely no reason to justify why a trooper would

22

stop a car, have the camera off or not call that stop

23

in. For his own safety. I was a road Sergeant. If

24

I caught one of my people doing that, I mean they

25

just knew that they would seriously

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

146

1

-- I would bring them up on charges. This guy could

2

be laying on the side of the road dead and I would

3

not be aware of that because he didn’t call in the

4

stop. I mean he has responsibility to his family

5

even if you impress it at that level.

6

SENATOR ROBERTSON: How many did you bring

7

up on charges?

8

SERGEANT WATKINS: I never had anyone even

9

think about that. I have a set of standards that I

10

have to live by and not only did I not allow that,

11

racial profiling, harassment, anything -- there was a

12

fine line there. The troopers knew what to do when

13

they worked for me. How to do the job. And they

14

respected me for that. And they did the job and I

15

never had any problem. A few things here and there,

16

nothing major. I know one thing I told them -- when

17

I got a new guy, I explained the rules and

18

regulations directly to him. And as a supervisor,

19

got that point across and let him know what was going

20

to happen if that occurred. It didn’t occur. The

21

problem is some supervisors are allowing that to

22

occur.

23

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Thank you.

24

Trooper, what are your thoughts with

25

respect to consent searches? That’s been the thing

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

147

1

that everybody has talked about as contributing to

2

racial profiling.

3

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well, quite frankly, I

4

think the consent search is probably an endangered

5

species right now. I heard something the other day

6

about actually putting numbers on there so they can

7

be tracked almost the way we would track summonses

8

and warnings. That’s probably a good idea because,

9

therefore, when a trooper goes to whatever station

10

he’s assigned to, he would sign out X amount of

11

consent searches and he would be responsible for

12

those. If he were to lose them, he would be

13

disciplined for those just the way you were

14

disciplined if you lose a summons. That would be a

15

way of tracking them. The problem I have with the

16

consent search is the way we almost hand them out

17

like candy to minorities and we try to sell them and

18

that’s a bitter pill for me to swallow.

19

SENATOR ROBERTSON: What do you mean by

20

“sell them”?

21

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well, Mr. Farmer

22

explained that there was a lower burden of proof with

23

respect to minorities as far as getting them to sign

24

one versus white motorists where the burden of proof

25

was actually probable cause.

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

148

1

SENATOR ROBERTSON: By “sell them” you mean

2

convince them to agree to a search, is that what

3

you’re saying?

4

TROOPER LONGORIA: Exactly. I mean I have

5

a consent form right here and I’ll give it to the

6

Committee. As a matter of fact, they come in Spanish

7

and English. And if you were to read this to someone

8

who had a bomb, a machine gun in their trunk, they’d

9

have to be out of their mind to sign this. I mean

10

who would sign this? In essence, you’re giving them

11

permission to go in your trunk and arrest you.

12

SENATOR ROBERTSON: It does happen though.

13

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s what I hear.

14

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And I’m sure you’ve run

15

into a lot of really stupid criminals, but the

16

question really is, do you think that the consent

17

search as a police tool, given its problems, should

18

be allowed to continue?

19

TROOPER LONGORIA: I think if it were

20

numbered, sequential numbers where it could be

21

tracked and closely monitored, I think it would stand

22

a better chance than it does today. It almost seems

23

like today it’s being selectively enforced.

24

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Detective, what are

25

your thoughts on that?

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

149

1

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I think in the purest -

2

- in the purest aspect, a consent-to-search form was

3

a very good tool when used correctly with honesty and

4

integrity. But with most issues with the State

5

Police, it becomes a malignant cancer which they

6

abuse. And I think the fact is unfortunately the

7

consent search has been abused and it’s been abused

8

to such a degree I don’t know if you can ever truly

9

convert back and use it for the sole purpose it was

10

meant to be used for.

11

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Okay. Sergeant, what

12

do you think?

13

SERGEANT WATKINS: Sir, one thing I have to

14

bring out, the sequential numbering system was

15

involved in this project for these type of reports

16

that was going to be issued by dispatch. Now, it

17

doesn’t go away. They’re locked into a number. If

18

the report is not there at the end of the month,

19

they’re responsible for it. And I have somewhat of a

20

split decision. If the consent searches are used

21

wisely, they are a good tool. But they’re not used

22

wisely. I know that in my career on the street, I

23

could probably count on one hand how many times I use

24

the consent search. I probably -- I’d be surprised

25

if there’s one or two involved. Ninety-nine percent

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

150

1

of the time you have probable cause or enough -- if

2

you need to get into the vehicle, there is probable

3

cause as far as a visual, you see something, you

4

smell something, people, believe it or not, leave

5

things sometimes in the wide open, that you have the

6

ability to get into the car. At times I have also

7

seen where there’s circumstances where you honestly

8

believe there’s something in the vehicle. I have had

9

this occasion on one time where I know I issued a

10

consent to search. I walked up and the person was

11

just beyond nervousness. Not a very routine car

12

stop. He might as well just handed me what he had in

13

the car. I didn’t have probable cause basically

14

other than his nervousness and at that time I had

15

over 12 years experience. I got him out of the

16

vehicle. Did get a consent search and there was

17

almost three pounds of marijuana right behind his

18

seat. So I mean that’s just one circumstance.

19

The problem is they are abused. We have to

20

face that fact. They’re abused and there has to be a

21

way either a supervisor to go to that stop if they’re

22

going to be continued and he be the one who oversees

23

and is responsible if they are used. They just can’t

24

be given out as the Trooper said, “like candy.” The

25

system definitely needs modification.

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

151

1

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Sir, I would like to

2

indicate one thing. Initially, with the consent

3

search, you needed reasonable suspicion. And that’s

4

quite subjective. And I think unfortunately troopers

5

have interpreted reasonable suspicion as whenever

6

they want to use a consent search and it has become

7

like a toll ticket on the Turnpike. And that’s how

8

they’re handed out and it’s been abused.

9

SENATOR ROBERTSON: In those instances,

10

Trooper, with consent searches, you’re talking about

11

how someone might find themselves in the back of a

12

car having their pull-over called in while they’re

13

sitting there. What would be done, if anything, with

14

the consent search form at that point? Would they be

15

asked to sign a consent search form or would probable

16

cause be fabricated or what?

17

TROOPER LONGORIA: I’d rather not speculate

18

on that because now I don’t have any direct knowledge

19

on how exactly they would work that in. I’ve heard

20

how they would do it, but I’d rather leave it at

21

that.

22

SENATOR ROBERTSON: You mean you’ve heard

23

of the technique and I assume you can’t remember

24

where you heard it --

25

TROOPER LONGORIA: Well, no, I can remember

Testimony - Detective Soulias

152

1

where I heard it.

2

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And the thing that

3

you’re alluding to now, has that been reported to

4

anybody at any point along the line?

5

TROOPER LONGORIA: It really wouldn’t

6

matter because those troopers are fired. They’re no

7

longer with the organization. But there was talk of

8

actually having people sign off on the consent form

9

as being a tool stating that we didn’t remove

10

anything from your car and this is basically a

11

release. Cute little techniques like that. Or

12

things like mixing the paperwork in with the other

13

paperwork at the station and having them sign off

14

that way.

15

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And Detective, when you

16

talked in your statement about the incidents

17

involving Detectives who were asked to change their

18

report, have those Detectives themselves given

19

testimony with respect to this?

20

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: No, they haven’t given

21

testimony, no.

22

SENATOR ROBERTSON: If they were sitting

23

here, would they tell the same story that you told or

24

are they backing off from that and --

25

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: No. They would tell,

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

153

1

yes, similar -- Detective Lubatazi specifically?

2

Yes, absolutely. Detective Galga? I don’t know.

3

They’ve been interviewed by State Police Affairs.

4

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And you just don’t know

5

what the status of the case is?

6

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Correct. It’s still

7

pending.

8

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Okay. I have no

9

further questions.

10

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Girgenti.

11

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

12

Most of the questions I was going to ask

13

have been asked already but there are just a few

14

that, if I may, I’d like to.

15

Sergeant Watkins, I was looking at your

16

statement and maybe you can explain this a little

17

bit. You said what happened was identified in 1991

18

was that front-line supervision, road sergeants lost

19

span of control and when a man is going to lose span

20

of control, chaos can and almost did occur. Would

21

you expound on that a little bit? Explain what was

22

going on? Is this -- do you attribute this to

23

increased profiling or --

24

SERGEANT WATKINS: I attribute this to a

25

heightened amount that may have been going on. You

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

154

1

have supervisors that are condoning what’s going on,

2

but you have good supervisors in the State Police,

3

immediate supervisors, sergeants, that won’t condone

4

that. I know, I was there. I would not condone

5

that. But now you have a situation where you monitor

6

what your people are doing on the road and that’s

7

taken away from you. You don’t know who they’re

8

stopping. If they’re doing searches. You don’t have

9

any idea where they’re at or their accountability.

10

So now, being one of the people who could actually

11

monitor a problem, you no longer have control of that

12

problem to even monitor.

13

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Okay. So then the other

14

thing that I know Senator Furnari spoke about it a

15

little bit, the area we’re on, I believe it was on

16

Page -- I think it’s your fourth page, you’re saying

17

that you’re going into this whole situation, you were

18

advised that you did an outstanding job but the --

19

“But the people I turned in the evidence against were

20

after my jugular. Three days later every document

21

without -- personal belongings of mine were removed

22

from my office at Buena Vista headquarters without my

23

knowledge and this was an obvious attempt to remove

24

the evidence from my possession. It was learned that

25

an initial attempt was made to seize my documentation

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

155

1

without anyone’s knowledge. How did you find this

2

out or who told you about this situation?

3

SERGEANT WATKINS: I took some vacation

4

time off because of what was being done to me. One

5

of the young ladies, a trooper who works for me,

6

called me at home on a Monday and asked if I had been

7

in the office over the weekend, everything was

8

missing. I proceeded to the office and everything

9

was gone. Nine years of documentation. Everything.

10

My personal belongings. And I have to make a note to

11

that. There was documentation stored at Division

12

headquarters also, including my personal notes.

13

There was -- the contract called for repository. So

14

there was no reason to get into my office. While I

15

was in my office a sergeant came to me and said that

16

he had received a very subversive phone call. He

17

stated that someone had called down, asked where my

18

office was located. Who had keys for the office. If

19

there was combinations on the doors and basically

20

stated how can I get in and out of that office

21

without anybody knowing I was there. I found that

22

hard to believe and he came back to me and told me

23

that mysteriously that got transferred over to a 911

24

dispatch line and was recorded. So I had the ability

25

to listen to that tape.

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

156

1

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Was that -- would you

2

say that was standard operating procedure on

3

something like that? Do they just go in and go

4

through your belongings and everything without your -

5

-

6

SERGEANT WATKINS: I would call that a

7

breaking and entering, Senator, to be honest with

8

you.

9

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And what did you do with

10

that at that time after that occurred? Who did you

11

go to with it?

12

SERGEANT WATKINS: I immediately told my

13

supervisor because that was about the third thing

14

that they had done to me just totally off the wall.

15

And he advised me that the people now in charge had

16

come to him with a game plan and he didn’t agree with

17

it, and they were going to be held responsible for

18

their actions, but he had to let them do what he felt

19

-- or what they felt they needed to do. No reason

20

was given. I never got any return of the

21

documentation. It was definitely to suppress any

22

information I had that would aid in this contract.

23

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you.

24

SERGEANT WATKINS: Thank you, sir.

25

SENATOR ZANE: Yeah. Just one last --

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

157

1

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Just one --

2

SENATOR GORMLEY: One more question and

3

then --

4

SENATOR ZANE: Oh, I’m sorry.

5

SENATOR GIRGENTI: That’s all right.

6

Yeah, I just -- for Trooper Longoria.

7

TROOPER LONGORIA: Yes, sir.

8

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Just very quickly. I

9

know that you kind of touched on this already. You

10

were talking about -- I think Senator Zane spoke to

11

you about it, you were a target of retaliation. That

12

was mentioned. I’ve heard that throughout from

13

different people and you -- and I believe you gave

14

some examples of retaliation. Was that -- did you

15

feel that was the way things operated? Is that

16

something that you’ve had to fear as an individual or

17

-- that relationship with Sergeant Bellaran, for

18

instance, you would be a target?

19

TROOPER LONGORIA: I think anyone who cries

20

foul in this organization as to fear retaliation

21

because it’s very real. Whether it be having your

22

weapon taken from you. Whether it be transfers.

23

Whether it be derogatory material placed in your

24

mailbox. Whether it be getting a cold shoulder. It

25

was to the point where people were very uncomfortable

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

158

1

around me and I’m sure you know the feeling when you

2

walk into a room and there’s a full-blown

3

conversation and you walk into that room and then

4

it’s dead silence. They knew I wasn’t a player.

5

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And you felt that your

6

relationship with Sergeant Bellaran was one of the

7

reasons that you were a target?

8

TROOPER LONGORIA: That was absolutely one

9

of the reasons. When I was on the Diesel Emissions

10

Unit they were inquiring to see who was friends with

11

Vincent Bellaran and at the time I took the bait and

12

they had a pink envelope for me to deliver to his

13

house. I did deliver that to his house and when he

14

opened it up he said, “They got you.” He opened it

15

up. He says, “I’ve had this letter before, this is

16

nothing.”

17

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Just finally, in your

18

statement on Page 5 you say, “My lawyer clearly made

19

Lieutenant Colonel Fedorko aware of the racial

20

profiling problem on the New Jersey Turnpike as well

21

as the racist atmosphere within the Division and

22

Lieutenant Colonel Fedorko refused to take my

23

complaints seriously and allowed my transfer back to

24

the New Jersey Turnpike to stand.” You were again

25

being assigned to the same exact station. You

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

159

1

believe this was a form of punishment?

2

TROOPER LONGORIA: It was absolutely a form

3

of punishment. It was retaliatory. A way to

4

discredit me and keep in mind once I got out onto

5

that roadway, I could be taken care of. There’s

6

enough SOP’s to sink the Titanic in this

7

organization. So if they want to jam you up, they

8

will jam you up. I wasn’t going to let that happen

9

to me. I wasn’t going to let myself be hurt out

10

there. And I wasn’t going to be involved in that

11

kind of activity.

12

SENATOR GIRGENTI: So this, in your

13

opinion, was definitely just a strict retaliation.

14

This wasn’t a common occurrence to be moved back into

15

this type of position from where you were? There was

16

no other rationale for that move except the fact that

17

you felt you were being penalized or punished?

18

TROOPER LONGORIA: That’s correct.

19

However, this was a pattern of the ongoing

20

retaliation and the heightened supervision and the

21

multiple transfers and I advised you earlier that I

22

was denied a Detective slot within the Narcotics Unit

23

and keep in mind that I wasn’t even interviewed for

24

the position after I submitted to it and I submitted

25

a resume for it. Not only that, I was given a

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

160

1

commendation from my acting supervisor who says I was

2

doing a fabulous job. Then they had the gall to call

3

me back again for a second assignment and I took the

4

bait and volunteered again and when I was down there

5

another position opened up within the Intelligence

6

Bureau which was comparable to that job. I didn’t

7

get an interview for that job either and I was sent

8

back to the road.

9

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Okay. Thank you very

10

much.

11

Thank you.

12

SENATOR GORMLEY: Any other questions?

13

SENATOR ZANE: Yes.

14

SENATOR GORMLEY: One more question,

15

Senator Zane?

16

SENATOR ZANE: Yeah. I would like to ask

17

just one last question of each one of you.

18

We’ve heard -- we heard yesterday in

19

testimony from a State trooper about troopers

20

carrying tools to enter vehicles. Were you all

21

present and heard that?

22

TROOPER LONGORIA: I was present, yes, sir.

23

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. In your years with

24

the State Police, have you seen troopers that are

25

actually carrying tools to enter cars as was

Testimony - Trooper Longoria

161

1

described yesterday?

2

TROOPER LONGORIA: I only saw tools being

3

carried at the -- at my very first station which was

4

Edison back in 1998 -- excuse me, 1988 and during my

5

tour of the New Jersey Turnpike there was

6

screwdrivers and other things I noticed in briefcases

7

in the briefing room. One of the things that would

8

be missing from the station from time to time were

9

the door wedges that were used to hold the doors open

10

and they would be used to actually put between the

11

glass and the door which would expand the window and

12

you’d be able to shine a flashlight and look in there

13

to see if there was any contraband.

14

So in answer to your question, yes.

15

SENATOR ZANE: Trooper -- or Detective,

16

yourself?

17

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes. It wasn’t

18

uncommon to see a screwdriver or a socket set inside

19

a briefcase.

20

SENATOR ZANE: But did you know what it was

21

going to be used for?

22

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Yes.

23

SENATOR ZANE: What?

24

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: When they search a

25

vehicle they could use that to remove panels for

Testimony - Detective Soulias

162

1

concealment.

2

SENATOR ZANE: You wouldn’t know though, or

3

did you know whether or not it was only used with a

4

consent search?

5

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: I wouldn’t know that.

6

SENATOR ZANE: Wouldn’t know one way or

7

another?

8

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: No, I wouldn’t know.

9

SENATOR ZANE: Trooper, would you?

10

TROOPER LONGORIA: No, sir. While I was

11

out there I did see some hoods up during some of the

12

ghost stops. I did see some hubcaps off. But I

13

can’t tell you if they used tools or a consent search

14

was being used at the time.

15

SENATOR ZANE: Trooper, yourself?

16

Did you hear the testimony yesterday?

17

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes, sir, I did.

18

SENATOR ZANE: Do you have any comment on

19

it?

20

SERGEANT WATKINS: Well, yes. I’ve seen

21

troopers carry tools before, screwdrivers and stuff,

22

to aid in searches. Not as prevalent probably as

23

other individuals. Most of my assignments were

24

actually general police stations. I wasn’t on

25

Turnpikes, highways and stuff like that. But it was

Testimony - Sergeant Watkins

163

1

common practice for the people on those toll roads to

2

do that.

3

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: If evidence or

4

contraband --

5

SENATOR ZANE: But would you know whether

6

or not they were consent searches or not that they

7

were used in? Would you know one way or another?

8

SERGEANT WATKINS: No, sir, I would not.

9

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. So they may have been

10

used legitimately?

11

SERGEANT WATKINS: Yes.

12

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. And you don’t know of

13

any examples of anybody using them illegally, is that

14

correct?

15

SERGEANT WATKINS: No, sir, I do not.

16

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: No, sir.

17

TROOPER LONGORIA: I wouldn’t know. Like I

18

said, I just -- only what I can tell you.

19

SENATOR ZANE: Okay. Thank you.

20

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you for your

21

testimony.

22

SERGEANT WATKINS: Thank you, sir.

23

TROOPER LONGORIA: Thank you.

24

DETECTIVE SOULIAS: Thank you.

25

SENATOR GORMLEY: The next witness will be

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

164

1

Colonel Dunbar.

2

Colonel, you’ve been previously sworn.

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes, sir.

4

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Given the

5

additional testimony we’ve had, we’d appreciate

6

whatever additional comments, and maybe there’s some

7

questions from the Committee, you might like to make

8

at this time.

9

C A R S O N D U N B A R, PREVIOUSLY SWORN

10

COLONEL CARSON DUNBAR: I didn’t hear you,

11

Senator.

12

SENATOR GORMLEY: Given the additional

13

testimony we’ve had since you’ve last testified, we’d

14

afford you the opportunity to make any additional

15

statements you might like to make at this time and

16

then we’d open it to questions from the Committee.

17

COLONEL DUNBAR: I don’t have any prepared

18

remarks. I just want to clarify a couple of things,

19

Senator. In listening -- I mean today I’ve had

20

somewhat of a luxury in the sense that I was able to

21

be here and listen to some of the testimony and one

22

of the things that comes up is the fact that of the

23

timing sequence in that a lot of the things that I’ve

24

heard go back, they go back extended periods of

25

times. I’ve seen questions asked of people that I

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

165

1

really don’t know how they’re capable of answering

2

the questions. For example, the last panel, at least

3

one of the members of the panel has not even worked

4

one day under my tenure. They’ve been on sick leave

5

for an extended period of time. So the procedures

6

that they’re talking about, they certainly haven’t

7

gone through the training. They haven’t gone through

8

the issues that are involved. I’m sure that they

9

have gotten information from associates and so on. I

10

think it’s very important to keep a note the things

11

that have occurred. As I’ve mentioned to you before,

12

the history of this whole thing goes back to --

13

probably can go back to the seventies and certainly

14

there is a problem across the board. Some of the

15

things, for example, today, you know, I listened to

16

Senator Bryant talk about the issues of the -- he

17

specifically talked about the classes graduating. He

18

said there were two classes that graduated so far

19

that had two women. The reality was that there were,

20

in fact, two classes, one of 37, one of 36. The one

21

of 37 had six Hispanics and one woman. The one of --

22

the next class had four African-American and two

23

Hispanics and one Asian, which comes up to between

24

20, 25 percent per class.

25

There was another issue that talked about -

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

166

1

- mention was made about the morale, that I said

2

morale was low and I think what my statements have

3

been is that I’ve often had to respond to issues of

4

the morale being low and what I’ve consistently said,

5

I’m more interested in trying to correct issues than

6

worry specifically about morale. In the previous

7

panel there was reference made I believe by Detective

8

Soulias about the fact that he had asked to speak

9

with me. I have an organization of almost 3,000 --

10

or 4,000 people and I get a lot of requests to come

11

and speak with me and it’s not uncommon that unless

12

there’s a specific reason that I would meet with

13

individuals. Now, in the case of Detective Soulias,

14

what occurred was he went as he indicated to the

15

Attorney General’s Office -- it was actually the

16

Division of Criminal Justice, with complaints about

17

criminal -- possible criminal irregularities. And

18

that case was subsequently transferred to the Office

19

of State Police Affairs within the Attorney General’s

20

Office and an investigation was being conducted. I

21

did not believe it appropriate to interfere with an

22

investigation that was being conducted that would and

23

could touch on senior personnel within the Division.

24

I believe that the investigation is going forward. I

25

think that the allegations that he’s made are being

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

167

1

looked at. But, you know, he’s quite correct, I

2

chose not to meet with him and there were a number of

3

individuals who also made a similar request.

4

One of the things I think that has to come

5

out here is that there are a number of individuals --

6

well, first of all, personnel issues are not very

7

easy. Since I’ve been in the State Police there are

8

issues that come up with promotions. There have been

9

some things that -- and I talked about this in my

10

opening statement before, where personnel practices

11

in some ways are almost more problematic than the

12

racial profiling itself. You know, I can give you an

13

instance of an individual who filed a grievance

14

against the State Police and it went out to an

15

arbitrator and, in fact, the arbitrator found in

16

favor of the individual. And this pre-dated my

17

arrival. And what had happened was is this

18

individual was recommended -- was rated four times --

19

or three times and he was rated either number four --

20

number three or number four on this promotion. The

21

fourth time that this happened they, in fact -- in

22

fact, ten people were promoted and this individual

23

now ended up being number 11. The individual

24

inquired as to why he was number 11 and he was told

25

it was the performance appraisal. Well, he never got

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

168

1

a performance appraisal that had anything negative in

2

it. Subsequently, he did receive a performance

3

appraisal in which there was negative information in

4

it and that was the basis for his non-promotion and

5

subsequently he was transferred to a station down in

6

South Jersey. I would submit that that was

7

inappropriate and in that particular case, we went

8

back and we addressed it and that individual was

9

retroactively promoted.

10

I had another situation where we -- and I

11

just give these as examples. Where we have an

12

individual -- well, we received a letter that this

13

individual was not going about his duties the way he

14

was supposed to. The individual was not reporting --

15

was not going to the work site. In fact, his

16

neighbor, in the letter to the State Police,

17

indicated, you know, why was this guy never going to

18

work? We went out, we found out that the fact -- we

19

found out, in fact, that that individual was not

20

going to work on a regular basis. He was not going

21

where he was supposed to be and disciplinary action

22

was taken in that case and he was moved.

23

Subsequently, that individual has filed a suit

24

against us, you know, alleging wrongdoing.

25

There are a number of personnel issues that

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

169

1

are coming out in these hearings. And I would submit

2

that those personnel issues are very problematic and

3

are very difficult to deal with. I also find myself

4

-- and, quite frankly, this hearing to some degree is

5

a blessing because it gives me some opportunity to

6

bring some of that information forward.

7

I have said all along that we face some

8

lawsuits. I think we have 40 or 50 lawsuits

9

internally and in those lawsuits there is no doubt in

10

my mind that we’re going to be found as an

11

organization at fault. There are some things that

12

occurred in the past that just, quite frankly, aren’t

13

going to make it and I think when we go to court, in

14

those cases that we go to court, it’s going to be

15

very problematic.

16

There are some cases that I would not be

17

opposed to addressing, but because they’re in a

18

group, I don’t -- I’m not going to capitulate in that

19

type of a setting.

20

But there are issues, and I’ve said it all

21

along, there are issues within the State Police that

22

are personnel related. There are things that have

23

occurred -- and I know yesterday Sergeant Bellaran

24

testified and I think actually Judge Cooper kind of

25

actually put it in perspective when she -- in her

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

170

1

decision -- let me just...on Page 8 -- on Page 8 of

2

the Bellaran decision she stated, “Unfortunately,

3

there were egregious behaviors on each side at

4

various times. In sum, our analysis of evidence

5

reveal that each party bear the share of

6

responsibility for the sequence of negative events

7

which took place in the relevant time period.” And

8

what’s said there is that there was wrongdoing on

9

both parties’ parts. Unfortunately, when you have

10

some management issues or you have some managers that

11

take some actions that are inappropriate, the agency

12

gets left holding the bag. And those are the type of

13

things that we’re trying to address.

14

But what’s also unfortunate is I don’t

15

think that -- the people that I’ve heard speak so

16

far, rightfully or wrongfully, have pending civil

17

action for the most part against us as an

18

organization. I don’t know how objective they are.

19

You know, I can’t deny that there are problems and

20

I’ve said that all along. But I don’t know whether

21

it’s quite as one-sided as the picture has been

22

painted. And as I said when I spoke before, you

23

know, this is no short-term project. You know,

24

people are looking at the end of a quarter and a half

25

of a football game for absolute answers and this was

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

171

1

a -- these problems that we face, both internally and

2

externally, are problems that go back -- really, you

3

could go back to 1961 when Paul Mackinaw was the

4

first African-American trooper hired and, you know,

5

Mr. Mackinaw went through quite a bit and, you know,

6

quite frankly, it wasn’t the easiest thing in the

7

world when I became a trooper. And I pre-date most

8

of the individuals that have testified.

9

But the flip side of this is also the fact

10

that there is a certain amount of litigation taking

11

place through testimony and some of the issues that

12

we’re talking about here, some of the testimony, the

13

place that that’s going to be addressed I think

14

specifically will be in a court of law or in those

15

cases where there is no defense, through -- and in a

16

court of law I think all the facts can come out and

17

can paint a more accurate picture than has been

18

painted here.

19

I’m prepared to answer any additional

20

questions that you have.

21

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Zane.

22

SENATOR ZANE: Yeah. Just so the record is

23

clear. This morning I heard on the combination

24

TV/Radio show that you were being summoned to return

25

to our Committee because we were going to probe you

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

172

1

as a racial profiler. And I just want to make it

2

very clear why I asked yesterday for you to return.

3

You and I had a conversation by phone the day before

4

or over the weekend, I guess, early part of the

5

weekend, and you indicated at that time that there

6

were several issues that you had addressed that you

7

would like to address even further and you thought

8

there would be other questions from the Committee.

9

Correct?

10

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes. But I said that I

11

was surprised that --

12

SENATOR ZANE: That you weren’t asked more

13

questions.

14

COLONEL DUNBAR: Correct.

15

SENATOR ZANE: Yeah. And I mentioned that

16

to Senator Robertson and he indicated he had a

17

similar conversation with you. So no one brought you

18

back here

19

-- when I asked Senator Gormley --

20

COLONEL DUNBAR: I was not -- I was not

21

summoned back here at all. Listen, you know, one of

22

the things --

23

SENATOR ZANE: I just don’t want -- I just

24

don’t want that out in the media that you’re back

25

here --

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

173

1

COLONEL DUNBAR: No, no. One of the things

2

I think that’s important --

3

SENATOR ZANE: -- because we think that you

4

are a profiler. Let me get to one of the things we

5

talked about. You wanted to talk more about the

6

Troop D audit, am I correct?

7

COLONEL DUNBAR: Right.

8

SENATOR ZANE: Would you tell us what you

9

wanted to tell us that you didn’t get to say the

10

other day?

11

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, if you want to ask

12

me questions about it, I’ll be more than happy to try

13

to address --

14

SENATOR ZANE: Well, I said -- I said to

15

you the other day, if you wanted to give me the

16

questions or give me an idea of what you wanted, I’d

17

be more than glad to do it. You were uncomfortable

18

with that. I would like to know -- I don’t know how

19

else to ask it other than whatever it was about the

20

Troop D audit that you felt needed further

21

clarification, I’d like you to clarify that for us.

22

COLONEL DUNBAR: There’s been a lot of --

23

there’s been a lot of questions about the Troop D

24

audit. In fact, you know, when I took this job, you

25

know, I assumed that the Troop D audit was going to

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

174

1

be this very, very negative document and by the

2

standards of what I’ve seen, it is not as bad as some

3

people would paint it to be. I mean it’s very

4

negative in the sense that it goes back to something

5

really -- it’s not as bad in the sense that it’s very

6

similar to other things that I’ve seen and that is,

7

you know, lack of appropriate reporting. There have

8

been questions that were asked, for example, about

9

the ten -- the ten cases. Two of which were

10

indicted. One -- one I sent back or asked to be sent

11

back to have the Division of Criminal Justice take a

12

look at it because of concerns that I had and my

13

understanding is that that’s in the process of being

14

sent back and there is not sufficient information

15

there for any type of criminal action. And also in

16

that particular case, the individual that’s involved

17

has been on long-term sick leave and we have not had

18

an opportunity to interview him. Three other

19

individuals I reviewed their cases. The cases are

20

complete and charges have been brought against those

21

individuals. And the remaining cases, there are --

22

it’s not a fun turn in the State Police, but those

23

cases were delayed because of the fact that we have

24

spin-off investigations where other people were

25

identified having involvement with those individuals

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

175

1

so they need to be interviewed.

2

In addition, the other cases that are left,

3

they range the gamut from cases where you have some

4

individuals who just did not call in some stops. You

5

have some individuals who have had errors in

6

reporting. You have some individuals whose patrol

7

charts don’t reflect what’s on the radio logs in the

8

station. A lot of administrative errors that in

9

themselves, you know, are a problem because they’re

10

official documents, but by themselves they don’t

11

prove a whole bunch. I mean I would submit that in

12

most of those cases some kind of disciplinary action

13

is going to be taken, but certainly not the same type

14

that were found in the ten cases that were referred

15

to before.

16

Another thing which is it goes along on the

17

same lines, and I think I need to stress this again,

18

I always get asked this question about racial

19

profiling and the cases that involve racial profiling

20

and I’ve said, and I continue to say, that one of the

21

big problems with racial profiling itself is you have

22

to be able to prove the intent of the individual.

23

You know, if this -- I think, Senator Zane, you or

24

Senator Robertson asked me the question, “What could

25

the Legislature do?” If you want to give me the

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

176

1

power to just summarily fire 20 people, I think I

2

could change things erratically, but the --

3

SENATOR ZANE: How do you mean?

4

COLONEL DUNBAR: Just summarily -- in other

5

words, where I could just walk up to somebody and say

6

you’re fired. No union grievances. No regulations.

7

No due course. That I’m dissatisfied with your

8

service. You know, like if you’re in private

9

industry, I don’t like the way that you’ve done

10

things. But that’s not the system --

11

SENATOR ZANE: How would that change things

12

if you had the power?

13

COLONEL DUNBAR: How do we change --

14

because first of all, what would happen would be that

15

whatever we do would not be drawn -- a long, drawn-

16

out process where I could really do what I think has

17

to, you know, do -- let me see how I can phrase this.

18

There are, you know, for example, I can think of one

19

individual right off the top who is extremely

20

disruptive. Does not want to work. Presents some

21

unique personnel challenges to the State Police. I

22

think that in that particular case, if you could

23

eliminate that particular individual, I think a

24

message would be sent to everybody else that this is

25

what happens.

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

177

1

SENATOR ZANE: Do you suspect that person

2

of being a profiler?

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, this person,

4

probably not, because he doesn’t do any work at all.

5

(Laughter)

6

COLONEL DUNBAR: You know, that’s the

7

reality of it. But this particular person doesn’t do

8

anything and, you know, because he doesn’t, you know,

9

there’s just -- there is no track record. But I --

10

SENATOR ZANE: Would the 20 -- let me just

11

interrupt you for one second. But would the 20 be

12

something at random that you have particular people

13

among the 4,000 or would it be management?

14

COLONEL DUNBAR: It could be --

15

SENATOR ZANE: Would it be management at a

16

certain level?

17

COLONEL DUNBAR: It could be -- it could be

18

anybody. And just for the record, since I’ve taken

19

this job, I’ve recommended discipline pretty much all

20

the way up the ranks, because I reviewed cases of

21

people that are here now and gone and I’ve

22

recommended discipline all the way up the ranks.

23

Now, in some cases because people have gone, I can’t,

24

you know, there’s no discipline that I can take, but

25

it’s there. There has been some discussion before

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

178

1

about having a monitor to -- a federal monitor to

2

review Internal Affairs or to oversee Internal

3

Affairs. We have a federal monitor now and, you

4

know, I certainly would have no objection to that

5

federal monitor briefing this Committee as to what

6

they’re finding in our Internal Affairs cases and I

7

would submit that the cases that I’ve seen had been

8

handled appropriately. They’re handled fairly.

9

They’re handled appropriately. And there is a

10

different standard than there was. There’s no doubt

11

in my mind about that.

12

We’re mixing a lot of things that I think

13

that occurred prior to my tenure with what has

14

happened now. But I also don’t want to lose the

15

point that I said before about racial profiling and

16

disciplinary action. Look, when you -- when you take

17

an action, it has to be based on something. It has

18

to be defendable. Every decision that I make can be

19

reviewed by an arbitrator or it can be reviewed by

20

the Appellate Division. So there has to be some rule

21

of law or some

22

-- and we operate under a preponderance of evidence.

23

If an individual tells you that they did not do

24

something, if you don’t have the proof or the

25

preponderance of evidence to show that they did that,

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

179

1

you’re very hard-pressed to prove that. On the other

2

hand, a lot of times where you suspect a problem, you

3

find a corresponding issue of individuals who have

4

not followed or have violated policy. And if that’s

5

the case, that’s what you -- that’s what you end up

6

finding the person guilty of. And people are looking

7

specifically for a finding of racial profiling.

8

Unless you have strong documented evidence or

9

testimony thereto, or a history, it’s very difficult

10

to do that.

11

SENATOR ZANE: You indicated that there are

12

about 40 to 50 suits internally, is that correct?

13

COLONEL DUNBAR: Um-hmm.

14

SENATOR ZANE: And by that did you mean

15

that there are 40 to 50 employees within the State

16

Police that have brought suit against the State

17

Police?

18

COLONEL DUNBAR: At least, right.

19

SENATOR ZANE: And how many of those suits

20

are related one way or another to racial profiling?

21

COLONEL DUNBAR: Not so much racial

22

profiling. There’s issues of race, sex -- sexual

23

discrimination, harassment.

24

SENATOR ZANE: Civil rights then.

25

COLONEL DUNBAR: Most of them.

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

180

1

SENATOR ZANE: Most of them.

2

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes.

3

SENATOR ZANE: Related to civil rights.

4

COLONEL DUNBAR: And, you know, we talked

5

about promotions before. The issue was brought up

6

about promotions. It’s interesting to me that, you

7

know, I’m being sued on both ends. I’m being sued by

8

white males who say the only way you can get promoted

9

is if you’re a female or a minority and I’m being

10

sued by minorities for the opposite. So to me that

11

kind of strikes a balance that, you know, nobody’s

12

really happy and, you know --

13

SENATOR ZANE: Do you have any idea how

14

many suits have been brought by motorists?

15

COLONEL DUNBAR: By motorists. No, I

16

don’t, but there’s quite a few.

17

SENATOR ZANE: More than 40 or 50?

18

COLONEL DUNBAR: You know, Senator, I don’t

19

know the answer to that but I would not be surprised.

20

I mean there’s -- I know there’s been movements to

21

have class action suits and so on which would

22

certainly include a lot more cases like that. As I

23

mentioned in my testimony before, in the Internal

24

Affairs arena, out of 560, 580 cases, probably 420

25

are from outside the organization.

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

181

1

SENATOR ZANE: Just one last question on

2

the Troop D audit. That audit was never completed,

3

was it?

4

COLONEL DUNBAR: It what sense?

5

SENATOR ZANE: It was never completed.

6

COLONEL DUNBAR: You mean what you’re

7

saying is that it was halted --

8

SENATOR ZANE: Correct.

9

COLONEL DUNBAR: -- back in May of I guess

10

‘98 or ‘99? Yeah.

11

SENATOR ZANE: Correct. By the Attorney

12

General’s Office or from within the State Police.

13

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, my information is

14

the same as yours, that the decision was made to not

15

to go any further.

16

SENATOR ZANE: Was there anything else that

17

you wanted to add to that?

18

COLONEL DUNBAR: No.

19

SENATOR ZANE: I really don’t have any

20

other questions.

21

SENATOR GORMLEY: Senator Robertson.

22

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr.

23

Chairman.

24

Good afternoon, Superintendent.

25

Are there any opportunities for average

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

182

1

troopers to be able to speak off the record with any

2

form of independent body?

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes, there is.

4

SENATOR ROBERTSON: So that management can

5

assess what’s going on out there on a no-name basis?

6

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes, there is. When I

7

took the job, one of the things that I did was I

8

created the Office of Ombudsman. And the Office of

9

Ombudsman has an office down the hall from mine.

10

It’s an office that you can call and what we try to

11

do is we try to find out what people -- what we say

12

is we can’t promise you the answer that you want, but

13

we’ll get you an answer. And in some cases, in a

14

number of cases now, the Ombudsman can directly go to

15

another command and find out why something happened.

16

What caused something to take place. In the case of

17

the Soulias matter, he came to me and he said that,

18

you know, there was a request to come and talk to you

19

and I did some checking and I found out there were

20

cases being worked by the Attorney General’s Office

21

and I said, you know, call back and just advised him

22

that I’m not interested in talking to him because

23

there is an investigation that is ongoing. But there

24

have been some cases in which information has been

25

brought to the Ombudsman and I’ve elected to speak to

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

183

1

individuals. There are other cases where I don’t

2

think it’s appropriate, I don’t think it’s good

3

management, and I don’t. But at least I know what

4

the concerns are and what the issues are.

5

SENATOR ROBERTSON: When a trooper leaves

6

the Department, is an exit interview done?

7

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes, it is.

8

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Are there questions on

9

the exit interview that deal with the issue of racial

10

profiling?

11

COLONEL DUNBAR: I don’t believe so. I’m

12

pretty sure there aren’t.

13

SENATOR ROBERTSON: How do you assess being

14

in upper management, in upper leadership, how do you

15

assess what is going on out on the side of the road?

16

COLONEL DUNBAR: You know, I think -- I

17

think things have changed. I think that things have

18

gotten a lot tighter. The -- you know, Sergeant

19

Watkins talked about the CAD system and they talked

20

about, you know, people not calling stuff in and so

21

on, I know when I arrived that was still going on. I

22

know when I arrived there were people still playing

23

with the -- not turning on the overhead lights. And,

24

you know, you can -- you can actually activate the

25

camera in a car without turning on the overhead

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

184

1

lights. You can activate it manually for security

2

reasons, you know, you don’t have to have the

3

overheads on. There were people, for example, when I

4

first came on --

5

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Well, not to interrupt

6

you, but how do you assess what’s going on?

7

COLONEL DUNBAR: How do I assess --

8

SENATOR ROBERTSON: As the Colonel, how do

9

you -- what information do you rely on to give you an

10

idea of what’s going on out there?

11

COLONEL DUNBAR: I take a look at -- I look

12

at every complaint that comes in. I look at -- I

13

talk to people. I look at every complaint that comes

14

in. I look at what I see happen. You can -- you can

15

get a feel for what’s going on. The fact that a lot

16

of people are not necessarily happy that things have

17

been tightened up. Another big thing is that radio

18

traffic, I spend an average of three hours a day in a

19

car, if not more, and that entire time I listen to

20

radio traffic and I could tell you that there is a

21

significant change on radio traffic now than when I

22

first came in. That the calls are going in. The

23

race of individuals are being called in as is

24

appropriate. It’s not all uncommon that if a radio

25

call goes out and there is not a response, for

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

185

1

example, to an alarm or something, where I’ll call

2

the station or I’ll call Field Operations and find

3

out why was there no response that took place. So

4

that that three hours a day of monitoring the radios

5

gives me some assurance that things are being

6

followed.

7

SENATOR ROBERTSON: I read in the paper, I

8

guess it was in yesterday’s paper, there were reports

9

about the extent to which New Jersey had not complied

10

with certain time lines in the federal consent decree

11

in terms of producing reports. Could you explain

12

that and explain why we couldn’t make those time

13

lines?

14

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, you know, I think if

15

you read that whole article the federal Monitor, Mr.

16

Ginger, said pointedly that they have gotten

17

everything that they want. We are one year -- well,

18

we’re about one year and three months into a five-

19

year monitorship. The numbers that I saw were that

20

we’re in 92 percent compliance with phase one and 54

21

percent compliance with phase two. And we have to go

22

with phase two compliance. Now, if you look at the

23

fact that we’re one month -- one year and three

24

months into the monitorship, that we’re that far

25

ahead, I don’t think that is a bad record. We have

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

186

1

complied, I believe, with everything -- not only with

2

the rule, but also with the spirit of the Monitor.

3

There was some discussion before about, you know,

4

outside prosecutors and whatever. I’ve opened up the

5

doors completely to the Office of State Police

6

Affairs. They have the same access that I have to

7

almost everything that we have in the Attorney

8

General’s Office and plus when a Monitor comes in, we

9

don’t tell them what to look for, they go out and

10

they look at it. You know, somebody talked before

11

about -- one of the people that testified before

12

talked about, you know, you got to be a leader, you

13

got to do this, you got to, you know -- well, the

14

reality of it is is that the way we’re going to get

15

back our credibility is by having basically

16

independent people look at what we do and verify that

17

we are, in fact, doing that. And that’s what’s

18

happening.

19

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Well, with the consent

20

search data, for instance, I think that was one of

21

the areas that the reports had not yet been completed

22

and yet we heard from Attorney General Farmer last

23

week that there were approximately 271 consent

24

searches done on the Turnpike last year. Why

25

couldn’t 271 searches be cross-tabulated, number one,

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

187

1

in a timely fashion for the Department of Justice?

2

And, number two, at any time prior to the initiation

3

of these hearings and --

4

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, I guess the question

5

I have is that I don’t know where the Department of

6

Justice has asked for that data and didn’t get it. I

7

mean that’s, you know --

8

SENATOR ROBERTSON: So that may not be the

9

data that they were referring to.

10

COLONEL DUNBAR: No. And one thing is that

11

what they’re asking, in fact, again, Mr. Ginger is

12

the person who gets most of the documentation and he,

13

in fact, has gotten the documentation that he’s

14

wanted.

15

SENATOR ROBERTSON: You indicated before,

16

“If you gave me the power to summarily fire 20

17

people, you could make changes.” Now, when you say

18

that --

19

COLONEL DUNBAR: No, no. What I -- I think

20

what I said, and if I didn’t say it correctly then I

21

stand corrected, you know, I could make changes a lot

22

quicker than changes that are taking place now.

23

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Sure. And I understand

24

generally what you mean, but I do want to program

25

this a little bit. When you say that and you say 20

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

188

1

people, are you saying it in sort of a general

2

management sense or are you saying, I’ve identified

3

somewhere in the area of 20 troublesome people that -

4

-

5

COLONEL DUNBAR: No.

6

SENATOR ROBERTSON: -- may be at the heart

7

of something systemic here within the Department?

8

COLONEL DUNBAR: I believe if I had that

9

ability, I would never have to fire 20 people. I

10

think by the time I got to eight or nine, that the

11

problems would kind of dissipate.

12

You know, this whole thing, like I said, is

13

very interesting to me in a sense that we have built

14

into our systems so many protections. I mean to be a

15

manager can be very frustrating. You know, it’s

16

interesting to watch what people that sit here what

17

they think can be done and I think even to some

18

degree what the Committee thinks can be done. The

19

reality of the real world is that the real world is

20

it’s a bureaucracy. Everything you do has to be

21

justified. You’ve got, you know, cross your T’s, dot

22

your I’s. And that’s why -- that’s why I say that if

23

I didn’t have any of that and I could just say this

24

is what’s going to happen, it would be, you know, a

25

lot different. It just would be much more simple.

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

189

1

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Well, we had an

2

interesting dialogue the last time that you were here

3

and we were talking about why some of the consent

4

search numbers looked the way they did. The find

5

rates versus the suspicion rate and so forth. And

6

you talked about the problems of perceptions and I

7

agree with that because it’s been my experience in

8

dealing with troopers that they’re good people and

9

that they want to do their job and that they try to

10

do the best job that they can and the job for which

11

they were trained, but I will also note that we’re

12

being told by folks that there is something systemic

13

within the Department. That there is a deep-seated,

14

for lack of a better word, I’ll say racism. That

15

there’s a deep-seated race consciousness/racism

16

within the Department that needs somehow to be dealt

17

with that goes beyond what numbers suggest. And

18

while we can talk about how to approach the question

19

of the numbers, how do you think we should be

20

approaching the question of the deep-seated -- if, in

21

fact, you feel that that’s there?

22

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well --

23

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And maybe that should

24

be the first question, do you feel that that’s there?

25

COLONEL DUNBAR: I think -- I think that

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

190

1

there are problems. There’s no doubt in my mind.

2

That’s why I said, when I said to you before that I

3

think that some of the civil suits that we have

4

internally we’re going to lose. You know, I just

5

can’t defend, you know, some of the actions that took

6

place. For example, in the year -- in the 1990s, and

7

this comes out of the Bellaran suit, in the 1990s to

8

have people testify that a station was referred to as

9

Coon Town or Coonfield, is just not defendable. Even

10

during my tenure I can tell you that people have --

11

people have made comments that just are not

12

acceptable. And if those comments come from a

13

management official, it’s even more not acceptable.

14

Because then it just kind of really skews things

15

tremendously. If you think that there’s anything

16

here in the State Police that, you know, that isn’t

17

in society, that isn’t in other law enforcement

18

agencies, I think you’re mistaken. But what happens

19

is -- you know, one of the --

20

SENATOR ROBERTSON: But nobody -- but

21

nobody else in society has the right to pull me over.

22

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, in a sense -- well,

23

you know, is, you know, listen, whether you’re being

24

pulled over or whether you’re being discriminated in

25

some other matter, I mean it doesn’t really make that

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

191

1

much difference. At least it doesn’t to me. You

2

know, what the difficult part about this is, and I’ve

3

heard comments about consent decrees and consent

4

searches and adding numerical data to them and you

5

know what the bottom line is? The bottom line is is

6

that if we can’t be assured of the integrity of the

7

people that are working that, you know, we can keep

8

building systems and building systems and building

9

systems, but the numbers alone, for example, the

10

number in consent forms alone is not going to be a

11

sure-fire way of resolving consent search issues. I

12

mean at some point the integrity of the individual as

13

a group, the integrity of the organization, and as

14

somebody once put it, is that we’re spending a lot of

15

time just teaching people just to do the right

16

things.

17

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Well, I think that’s

18

what some of the previous witnesses have been saying

19

as well.

20

You talked before about it wouldn’t take

21

actually 20 terminations before you’d make your

22

point. When you got up to six or eight people would

23

start getting the message. You also mentioned that

24

we’re involved in a number of lawsuits, some of which

25

you think we’re going to lose. Do you foresee that

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

192

1

any action is going to be taken personnel-wise with

2

respect to those who might be behind --

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, it is being taken,

4

one. If you look at a lot of the lawsuits that we

5

have, if you look at the names, they are all people

6

that have gone. Some people are still around. You

7

know, that’s why I said that just because a person

8

files a lawsuit, doesn’t mean that there is, in fact,

9

a --

10

SENATOR ROBERTSON: I’m talking about the

11

ones you think you’re going to lose.

12

COLONEL DUNBAR: About the ones we’re going

13

to -- well, fortunately --

14

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And I’m not asking you

15

to identify them.

16

COLONEL DUNBAR: -- or --I mean they’re

17

public documents, but fortunately or unfortunately

18

most of the people in those documents are gone.

19

SENATOR ROBERTSON: And finally, when you

20

talk about Internal Affairs investigations and

21

complaints that are made, whether it’s by the

22

troopers or by members of the public -- gee, this is

23

a hard question to be able to answer, I’m sure, but

24

give me an idea of the typical time line we keep

25

hearing from folks who say that, you know, that --

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

193

1

COLONEL DUNBAR: A long time. A long time.

2

SENATOR ROBERTSON: Why is that?

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: It’s a number of issues.

4

One is is that -- and again, it goes back to

5

procedures. You know, we have a very cumbersome -- a

6

complaint comes in, you identify the principals that

7

are involved. You go out and you do your

8

investigations. Your investigations have to be all

9

typed up. Once they’re typed up, then a

10

determination is made whether there’s -- the

11

allegations are substantiated or not substantiated.

12

Then generally I review the case. Then it goes back

13

for legal sufficiency. Then if there’s legal

14

sufficiency, we present the charges. The person has

15

an opportunity to file discovery and look at the

16

file, look at the information. If they choose to go

17

to a hearing, we then have a hearing date. And

18

sometimes we’re doing the investigations or spin-offs

19

and we have to go out and find other people and

20

interview those individuals. I mean they become

21

long, drawn-out processes.

22

But, Senator, I would also note to you that

23

the time frame here isn’t really that much different

24

in other law enforcement agencies. I mean these end

25

up becoming complex investigations. And the more

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

194

1

complex, the longer it takes. I’ve seen cases since

2

-- I’ve adjudicated cases that started in 1996, 1997

3

during my time, and I came November of ‘99.

4

SENATOR ROBERTSON: I have no other

5

questions.

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Senator Girgenti.

7

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

8

Just a few questions, Colonel.

9

I think one of the major results we’d like

10

to achieve by these hearings, you know, that we’ve

11

heard is an end to court battles involving our

12

troopers. Are you attempting to settle matters such

13

as Bellaran, or are you just relying on court

14

decisions?

15

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, Bellaran -- Bellaran

16

is pretty much settled. The other -- there are some

17

cases, in fact, that we have -- we have settled. But

18

what I’m hit, for example, with a nine or $10 million

19

lawsuit and I don’t believe that there’s

20

justification on all of the parties, I have a problem

21

with that. I have just -- you know, you talk about,

22

you know, troopers being hit with suits and so on. I

23

think part of my responsibility is to look at it and

24

I’ve indicated to the Attorney General’s Office in

25

some of those cases I would like very much to settle

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

195

1

the cases and just get it over with. But I’m not

2

going to just write blank checks to people or

3

recommend that we write blank checks to people where

4

I think that there’s some wrongdoing.

5

SENATOR GIRGENTI: We have trends that we

6

continue to see on the Turnpike which must be ended

7

in the short term. Now, I know we need, as you

8

discussed, an overhaul of the culture in the State

9

Police. I think you stated that prior in your prior

10

testimony. But judging by what we’ve seen and heard,

11

something must be done to assure that the

12

constitutional rights of motorists must be protected

13

today. Do you know feel that this is possible or do

14

you feel that this can be done? Because it seems

15

like this is an ongoing problem and --

16

COLONEL DUNBAR: You know, again, I think

17

what you have to do is you have to take a look at

18

where we were and where we are today and I would

19

submit we’re a lot better off today than we were

20

before. That things are, in fact, getting better. I

21

don’t know, Senator, what your expectations were.

22

That your expectations were that we would just, you

23

know, come in and just say okay, we think it’s fine.

24

That’s just not the real world.

25

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Well, no, but are we

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

196

1

seeing improvement? I mean --

2

COLONEL DUNBAR: I believe we are.

3

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And what demonstrates

4

that?

5

COLONEL DUNBAR: What demonstrates that?

6

As I mentioned to you before, in monitoring what

7

people are doing, one of the things that -- I think

8

one of the solid things is that when the Monitor was

9

here the last time, they went to stations and

10

randomly pulled videotapes. They randomly pulled

11

reports and they were pretty much pleased with what

12

they found. Are there still problems out there? I

13

think absolutely. But I also believe that, you know,

14

just like you’re hearing from a group of individuals

15

that have all decided to take some kind of litigation

16

against the State Police, I don’t believe they speak

17

for the entire organization. I think that they’re --

18

I think that once again the solid majority are the

19

people out there doing their work every single day.

20

They probably never even really engage in some of

21

these practices, and they’re the ones that are being

22

overlooked.

23

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Have you -- I know you

24

have been following these hearings. We had testimony

25

yesterday from a couple who went to file a complaint

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

197

1

against a trooper and they testified that they were

2

given a Post-It Note to write their complaint on at

3

the barracks desk. Eventually after objecting to the

4

Post-It Note, they were given a legal pad. This

5

isn’t a normal procedure, is it? I mean --

6

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, in fact, that

7

particular case led me, Senator, to personally

8

creating the three-part form which is now mandatorily

9

placed in every State Police facility, along with a

10

public poster that tells you what our 1-800 line

11

number is. That same form has to be carried by

12

troopers. We designed a little brochure to tell you

13

what your rights are, that has your telephone number

14

on it. Out of that particular case and the fact that

15

that person went into a station and did not --

16

allegedly was not given paper and pen, that is now on

17

our inspection list and whenever we go to a station,

18

not only our stations, but every State Police

19

facility has to have those forms and they’re both in

20

English and Spanish so that we don’t run into that

21

kind of a problem. And it says right on there that

22

you could either give -- turn the form in or you can

23

send the form. You keep a copy and if nobody

24

contacts you within ten days, it tells you where to

25

call. So hopefully that issue will no longer be a

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

198

1

problem.

2

SENATOR GIRGENTI: But it took -- I mean it

3

just was implemented recently and to that point in

4

time there was really --

5

COLONEL DUNBAR: That was -- that was

6

implemented within about a month or two -- maybe

7

three months after my -- that incident you’re talking

8

about I think happened maybe three -- three years

9

ago. See, that’s one of the things that I think is -

10

- I can’t dispute a lot of those things that happened

11

--

12

SENATOR GIRGENTI: No, I understand.

13

COLONEL DUNBAR: -- but, you know, I don’t

14

want to say they didn’t happen on my watch, but they

15

didn’t happen on my watch. I have enough that I’m

16

responsible for.

17

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Well, in you sense you

18

said that as a result of that, under your directions

19

there was a positive change here in terms of the

20

future.

21

COLONEL DUNBAR: I think there have been a

22

lot of positive changes similar to that that -- you

23

know, if you take a look at availability, as I’ve

24

said, we’ve gone from 233 -- 238 Internal Affairs

25

complaints in 1998 to almost 600 last year.

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

199

1

SENATOR GIRGENTI: So now the procedure on

2

a complaint, once received, how is that handled now?

3

It’s -- you have this form that you’re using and --

4

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, it depends on where

5

the -- the complaint can be called in to the 1-800

6

number which didn’t exist before. It can be -- it

7

can be called in to Internal Affairs off of a -- you

8

know, without a 1-800 number. All of those calls are

9

tape recorded now which didn’t happen before. If an

10

individual walks into a station and wants to make a

11

complaint, they’re supposed to be given that form.

12

They keep a copy of the form so that there’s no

13

question that somebody, you know, did not

14

appropriately do that. And I think there’s been

15

three or four cases in which I’ve issued disciplinary

16

action for people not taking complaints the way

17

they’re supposed to take in a station.

18

SENATOR GIRGENTI: What would be the

19

disciplinary action?

20

COLONEL DUNBAR: It could be anything from

21

a written warning, to a letter of reprimand, to a

22

suspension. It would depend on what happens. It

23

depends on whether it’s poor judgment or whether the

24

person was trying to conceal the fact that somebody

25

filed a complaint. I can think of one right off the

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

200

1

top of my head which is a good and it’s a negative.

2

It was -- it was a person went in and filed a

3

complaint and the Sergeant did not take the

4

complaint. However, the assistant station commander

5

came in and did a review of all the activity that had

6

taken place off of the computer system and saw that

7

somebody came in and filed a complaint and it was not

8

forwarded and that person took corrective action.

9

That’s what you want to have happen. That if

10

somebody misses it, the next line supervisor picks it

11

up and carries it forward. And that to me was a

12

very, very positive thing to see happen.

13

SENATOR GIRGENTI: All right. Now, also in

14

the testimony yesterday we were -- we saw a

15

videotape. I don’t know if you’re familiar with

16

that.

17

COLONEL DUNBAR: I didn’t see that.

18

SENATOR GIRGENTI: All right. I don’t know

19

if you’re aware of it, it was a trooper actually

20

positioned the -- positioned the person in front of

21

the camera --

22

COLONEL DUNBAR: Right.

23

SENATOR GIRGENTI: -- so that, you know,

24

they couldn’t see what was being done by the car.

25

What happens on something like this now? If

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

201

1

something like this occurs, does this come to your

2

attention? What is the procedure?

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: There’s a couple of --

4

look, there are no -- there are no absolutes. The

5

supervisors have to do a certain amount of checks,

6

random checks of videotapes. There is a problem with

7

that. And one of the problems with that is that the

8

supervisor -- if the supervisor’s own perception of

9

what should be is kind of skewed, you could run into

10

a problem. And we’ve had that problem. But the

11

supervisor is supposed to do a random check. When a

12

Monitor comes in, they do a random check. When the

13

inspection people come in from Division headquarters,

14

they do a random check. You could escape, because of

15

the number -- I can’t have, you know, 1,700 troopers

16

out on the road and 1,700 people watching the tapes.

17

So we do it based on a random basis.

18

Now, the other thing that happens is

19

whenever we get a complaint, the first thing we look

20

for is a videocamera. And we get the videotape and

21

then we examine that tape and then we go from there.

22

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And I take it in a

23

situation similar to that if that came to your

24

attention you would look for a pattern, if this was

25

done --

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

202

1

COLONEL DUNBAR: Well, it depends on -- it

2

depends on -- first of all, I’d have to establish

3

what he did was wrong and I’d have to take a look at

4

the totality of what occurred.

5

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Well, how much do you

6

personally get involved in something like this?

7

COLONEL DUNBAR: How much do I --

8

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Yeah. I mean there’s so

9

many incidents. Does the --

10

COLONEL DUNBAR: Whenever there’s -- so far

11

-- so far, painfully so, to whatever Internal Affairs

12

-- if there’s an Internal Affairs investigation that

13

goes to the part of -- or the investigation is

14

conducted, we either do not substantiate or

15

substantiate the allegation, I look at it.

16

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And my final question,

17

and we heard from in the past the AG and I think you

18

may have said it, we used the terminology that there

19

are a few bad apples and I think you were talking

20

about a certain number that you would like to see off

21

the picture or out of the picture, yet we heard from

22

the Black and Latino Caucus today and we’ve heard

23

from a number of troopers that testified before us,

24

that this is a systemic-wide problem. Your feelings

25

on it, would you label it just a few individuals or

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

203

1

is this a systemic problem that’s beyond a few and

2

it’s the whole culture here that has to be changed?

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: You know, I think I’ve

4

said all along that the biggest challenge that I have

5

is changing culture. And, you know, again, Senator,

6

what you’re saying is degrees of what people do. And

7

I tend to look at things in the sense of it’s easy to

8

deal with somebody who sets out to violate people’s

9

rights. It’s a little bit more difficult if somebody

10

is doing something and they don’t know what they’re

11

doing or they don’t understand what they’re doing.

12

It’s a cultural -- it’s a cultural thing within law

13

enforcement. You know, I know there’s been a lot of

14

discussion about consent decrees -- I mean not

15

consent -- about consent searches. And, you know, if

16

the people of the State say we don’t have consent --

17

we don’t have consent searches, I don’t really have a

18

lot of heartburn with that. But as a law enforcement

19

official, I know we’ve lost a tool and, you know, and

20

I use this as an example. If someone is stopped on

21

the Turnpike or on an Interstate and they’re doing

22

85, 90 miles an hour and the trooper walks up and the

23

trooper is suspicious or he has reasonable suspicion

24

or whatever but he does not have the basis of

25

probable cause and he doesn’t make an inquiry, and

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

204

1

then later on that vehicle is found to be involved in

2

a bombing or something like that, are we then going

3

to be asked to explain ourselves, why we didn’t go

4

further? You know, those are decisions really that I

5

think are not simplistic issues. I sincerely believe

6

that if you don’t have the courage to walk away when

7

you don’t have reasonable suspicion or probable

8

cause, that you’re doing the wrong thing and that’s

9

the thing that I’ve preached day-in and day-out since

10

I’ve been here.

11

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Okay. Thank you,

12

Colonel.

13

SENATOR GORMLEY: We’ll --

14

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Mr. Chairman, I just

15

have one quick question.

16

Colonel, thank you for coming back. I had

17

a question for you. A lot of disturbing testimony in

18

the last two days regarding racism, if you would, and

19

racial profiling within the State Police. You were a

20

trooper for four years, I believe?

21

COLONEL DUNBAR: Um-hmm. Yes.

22

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Give us the time

23

frame, if you would.

24

COLONEL DUNBAR: ‘73 to ‘77.

25

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And in those years was

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

205

1

there evidence that -- you were a road trooper, were

2

you not?

3

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes.

4

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Was there evidence of

5

profiling going on back in those days?

6

COLONEL DUNBAR: In fact, there were quite

7

a few articles in the paper at that time. That time

8

it included long-haired individuals. I mean that was

9

the primary target at that time.

10

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: So necessarily it

11

wasn’t racial profiling, it was profiling of a

12

different kind.

13

COLONEL DUNBAR: Yes, it was.

14

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And that was being

15

practiced and were your supervisors instructing you

16

on how to go about doing it?

17

COLONEL DUNBAR: No. In fact --

18

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: How did you learn the

19

practice then?

20

COLONEL DUNBAR: Pardon me?

21

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: How did you learn the

22

practice?

23

COLONEL DUNBAR: How did I learn the

24

practice? I didn’t practice it.

25

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Well, how did you

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

206

1

learn of it though?

2

COLONEL DUNBAR: You know, there were

3

individuals who had inordinate amount of arrests and

4

the people that they arrested appeared to be very

5

similar in clothing or how they conducted themselves.

6

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And racism?

7

COLONEL DUNBAR: You know -- you know, I

8

could tell you my own personal stories. You know

9

racism is an ugly thing in our society, it’s there.

10

It was there when I got there. And I don’t think

11

it’s left yet.

12

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: But it’s also

13

prevalent throughout our entire society not --

14

COLONEL DUNBAR: Absolutely. I mean

15

that’s --

16

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: It’s not just systemic

17

from the State Police.

18

COLONEL DUNBAR: No, no. And it’s not.

19

And, you know, and again, I think that the thing that

20

-- the sad part about this is that there are a number

21

of people that really just go out and do the job.

22

You know, even back when I was a trooper, some of

23

these guys that, you know, some of these people that

24

-- they were not anybody’s heros. You know, they

25

were people that, you know, you didn’t want to work

Testimony - Colonel Dunbar

207

1

with. You had questions about. But again, it did

2

not involve the vast majority of the people.

3

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: And you believe that’s

4

still the same case today, is it not?

5

COLONEL DUNBAR: I think -- I think that --

6

I think right now I think that the bulk of the

7

troopers are trying to do the job the way it should

8

be done. But when you have -- we have twenty-six,

9

2,700 -- 2,600 people right now. You get a real

10

cross-section of people and as hard as I’ve tried,

11

you know, I just had to take another personal action

12

I think earlier this week on an issue that took

13

place. And it shouldn’t take place but it did. And,

14

you know, but the bottom line is is that I think

15

people are going to understand that things are

16

changed. My hope is that through this process we can

17

acknowledge what’s there -- let me just mention some

18

other thing, too. You know, we talked about

19

promotions, for example. This is really a two-way

20

street and I mentioned before that I’m being sued by

21

both white males, minorities and females on the same

22

topic. Look, if there’s ten people in a squad and

23

five of them are all doing the same job, they’re very

24

similar, chances are four are going to be

25

disappointed. You can’t promote everybody who wants

Colloquy

208

1

to get promoted. This is part of the problem that we

2

face. And then when you promote somebody, you have a

3

problem.

4

When I came to the State Police I think

5

there were four minority Lieutenants and now that

6

number has probably doubled or tripled and these are

7

actual people who are acting. There was one minority

8

Captain and, you know, we have, I think, five or six

9

people that are sitting in acting positions. As we

10

become more diverse in our upper ranks, as we become

11

more diverse in our overall ranks, perceptions that

12

people have will change. But I’ll tell you, if you

13

believe that all of the things can just evaporate --

14

I mean just be eliminated across the board, it just

15

isn’t going to happen that way.

16

SENATOR MATHEUSSEN: Thank you, Colonel.

17

No further questions.

18

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you for your

19

testimony.

20

We’ll take a break.

21

(Off the record)

22

SENATOR GORMLEY: Ask the Committee members

23

to step back in, please.

24

(Pause)

25

SENATOR GORMLEY: The next -- the next

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

209

1

three witnesses are Renee Steinhagen, Sergeant Yusuf

2

El-Amin, Trooper Gregory Sanders.

3

Step up to the microphones, please.

4

Just have a seat. You’ll be sworn in a

5

little bit, but I want -- obviously want some of the

6

Senators to get back in the room.

7

(Pause)

8

SENATOR GORMLEY: Will the members of the

9

Committee -- I’d appreciate them coming back to their

10

seats.

11

I’d ask you if you’d please stand to be

12

sworn. Please stand. Raise your right hand.

13

R E N E E S T E I N H A G E N, SWORN

14

Y U S U F E L - A M I N, SWORN

15

G R E G O R Y S A N D E R S, SWORN

16

SENATOR GORMLEY: Be seated.

17

According to the list I’ve been given -- by

18

the way, make sure a red light is on. I know that’s

19

the inverse of logic, but we do it that way here.

20

The first witness will be Renee Steinhagen,

21

Esq.

22

MS. RENEE STEINHAGEN: Thank you very much.

23

Good afternoon. My name is Renee Steinhagen. I’m

24

the Executive Director of the Public Interest Law

25

Center of New Jersey. I’m currently co-counsel for

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

210

1

the NAACP in its efforts to enforce the consent

2

decree it entered into with the New Jersey State

3

Police in June 2000 regarding the State Police’s

4

recruitment, hiring and selection procedures.

5

I have also had the pleasure to represent

6

for several years 14 black state troopers in their

7

challenge to several State Police personnel

8

practices, including promotions, specialist

9

assignments, police training opportunities and

10

discipline.

11

I currently represent these troopers with

12

the law office of Linda Kenney and the law of

13

Cochran, Neufeld and Scheck.

14

It is these men who I believe are the

15

unacknowledged heros in today’s efforts to bring

16

attention to and as a result to change the

17

institutional practices of the New Jersey State

18

Police and its lawyer, the New Jersey Attorney

19

General with respect to the State Police’s policies

20

and practices of racial profiling and discrimination.

21

Let me introduce some of these gentlemen to

22

whom you will be hearing from directly and all of

23

whom will be available to answer any specific

24

questions you may have.

25

(Men stand for introduction)

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

211

1

MS. STEINHAGEN: Trooper Victor Cooper;

2

Glen Johnson; Trooper Roger Johnson; Trooper Darrell

3

Beard; Trooper Sam Davids; and Trooper James Smith;

4

and Trooper Paul Singler.

5

I have represented these men since 1993,

6

one of them since 1991, and I have been involved in

7

their effort to get various government officials to

8

listen to, honestly investigate and effectively

9

remedy their claims concerning endemic racism within

10

the State Police. A racism that has existed,

11

continues to exist and will exist until you are

12

willing to enact far-reaching institutional reforms.

13

Contrary to what Superintendent Dunbar has

14

said, the fact that these men are currently in

15

litigation does not distract from their message here

16

for you today. For these men did not first begin in

17

litigation, but began by trying to get their message

18

heard within the State Police and in effect the State

19

Police and the Attorney General’s unwillingness to

20

respond is what pushed them into litigation.

21

As you are aware, New Jersey’s government

22

has begrudgingly recognized, albeit only in the past

23

two years, through the Attorney General’s Interim and

24

Final Reports, that racial profiling and

25

discrimination have been routinely practiced by the

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

212

1

State Police.

2

The Final Report acknowledges that

3

racially-selective promotional and discipline systems

4

prevail within the ranks of the State Police and

5

numerous awards and positive messages have been given

6

to state troopers who engage in racial profiling and

7

who serve as internal enforcers of those practices.

8

For example, in 1988 The Phantom who

9

visited black troopers in Newark station who refused

10

to profile. Something that you can hear from in more

11

specificity from my clients.

12

In 1999 the law to discipline who rule in

13

Troop A.

14

It’s my conviction, as it’s been for many

15

years, that if we’re serious about ending racial

16

profiling, we must be equally serious about reforming

17

the structure of the State Police. For it’s the

18

organizational structure of the State Police, its

19

prevailing culture and the specific personnel who

20

have served in the higher ranks of the State Police

21

which have created, facilitated and condoned a

22

racially-charged environment within the force. An

23

environment that is responsible for perpetrating

24

racial profiling on the public and racial

25

discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

213

1

on its minority members.

2

We hope that you, your colleagues in the

3

Legislature and all concerned citizens will join us

4

on this journey to justice which I and my clients

5

began many years ago. A journey that must lead to

6

institutional reform if it’s going to lead to

7

justice.

8

I hope to convince you that there are

9

primarily two problems that you as legislators must

10

deal with to effectively eradicate racial profiling.

11

The first is the attitude held by many state troopers

12

at all levels of the hierarchy that police

13

enforcement is the preserve of one race and

14

criminality the monopoly of the other.

15

As W.E.B. DeBoise once said, “It has not

16

been a question of crime, but rather one of color,

17

that settles a man’s conviction on almost any

18

charge.” And in this case of the State Police also

19

whether a trooper receives or does not receive a

20

promotion.

21

It is this attitude that I believe lies at

22

the heart of the crisis facing New Jersey citizens

23

and government today.

24

The second problem rests with the apparent

25

inability or unwillingness of the Attorney General’s

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

214

1

Office to respond independently to claims of racial

2

bias in the State Police. Whether the investigation

3

is initially undertaken by the State Police’s

4

Internal Affairs Bureau, IAB, or is conducted within

5

the Division of Law and Public Safety within the

6

Attorney General’s Office. Both IAB and the Division

7

seem to view themselves as adversaries to minority

8

complainants and protectors of the status quo despite

9

their greater obligation to the public.

10

My perspective has evolved over the past

11

ten years based on a number of incidents and

12

interactions with various state officials. I can

13

only relate a few of those events with you today due

14

to time limitations, but I and my clients are

15

available for further questioning if you desire.

16

As you can see, all my clients are black.

17

In approximately 1995 I was riding in the rear

18

passenger seat with Trooper Arnie Abrams and Roger

19

Johnson in the front. We were riding in a luxury

20

Saab heading south on the New Jersey Turnpike when we

21

were stopped by a white trooper. It was clear to all

22

of us at the time that we had been profiled. I

23

remained silent. Trooper Abrams and Johnson were

24

polite and the trooper who stopped us ceased any

25

questioning once Trooper Johnson showed him his State

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

215

1

Police credentials. Now, this incident didn’t come

2

as much of a surprise to me because I had been

3

stopped previously by a white trooper while being the

4

sole white passenger in a car with several black men.

5

Some years earlier I had been the passenger with two

6

other black state troopers and a third black

7

passenger when we, too, were stopped for no

8

ostensible reason.

9

Now, several times in 1992 I accompanied

10

Trooper Samuel Davis and occasionally Trooper Darrell

11

Beard during their interview with then Assistant

12

Attorney General Patricia Luizzi and Captain Juan

13

Mattos, then Affirmative Action Office of the New

14

Jersey State Police. Ms. Luizzi was purportedly

15

investigating a comprehensive complaint that Trooper

16

Davis had lodged against the State Police in December

17

1991 regarding the State Police’s racially

18

discriminatory practices. After questioning that

19

occurred for over one year, the Attorney General’s

20

Office turned its investigation over to IAB, which

21

eventually found Trooper Davis’ complaint unfounded.

22

Now this, too, came as no surprise because

23

one complaint after another that my clients filed

24

over the years with the EEO/AA Office of the State

25

Police were found unsubstantiated. In this case,

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

216

1

however, to my surprise, the State Police, seemingly

2

sanctioned by the Attorney General’s Office,

3

initiated a complaint against Trooper Davis for

4

lying. An internal complaint that went nowhere but

5

we believe was intended to send a message to Trooper

6

Davis and any other trooper who dared to speak out.

7

In April 1993 several of the troopers here

8

today filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal

9

Employment Opportunity Commission against the State

10

Police alleging discrimination in promotions,

11

educational opportunities, specialist assignments and

12

discipline. I have a copy of that EEOC charge that

13

I’d like to add to my testimony.

14

The immediate reaction from the State

15

Police and the Attorney General’s Office was that

16

these troopers were trouble-makers, not the racially

17

discriminatory practices of the State Police.

18

I have attached as exhibits to my testimony

19

a number of newspaper articles and other documents

20

which quote then Colonel Justin Dintino and

21

characterize him as angry with my clients, skeptical

22

of the authenticity of the racially-offensive posters

23

they said they had received and adamant that the

24

black troopers who had stepped forward were nothing

25

more than “disgruntled employees.”

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

217

1

Colonel Dintino and other State Police

2

spokesmen were equally confident that there was no

3

discrimination against minority members of the public

4

nor minority members within the State Police. To

5

show how institutionalized and long-standing the

6

practice of protecting the State Police is, then

7

Attorney General Robert Del Tufo rejected the

8

validity of my clients’ complaints about the racially

9

discriminatory practices of the State Police and

10

indicated that they were out for their own selfish

11

interests, not those of the minority community of

12

which they are a part. In fact, Colonel Dintino

13

wrote in the New Jersey State Police Triangle, the

14

State Police’s official newsletter, that the handful

15

of black troopers who contend that “Racism and

16

discriminatory practices are condoned at the highest

17

levels of the State Police are simply and succinctly

18

put wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

19

Therefore, in 1993 the State Police and the Attorney

20

General had notice of racially-biased practices and

21

to suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd.

22

Now, after the troopers filed their charge

23

of discrimination with the EEOC and testified three

24

months later in a Congressional Subcommittee about

25

their allegations of racial discrimination, anyone

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

218

1

who was associated with them became branded a

2

troublemaker. The 13 EEOC complainants, as the State

3

Police pejoratively referred to them, were often

4

called traitors and their subsequent attempts to

5

secure relief by filing complaints with the EEO/AA

6

Office were left unanswered.

7

Each of the men here today has a story as

8

to how his individual complaint was mishandled, not

9

diligently pursued and in effect predetermined. Now,

10

we might ask why I say predetermined. But again, in

11

1993 Colonel Dintino issued a Superintendent’s letter

12

in which he declared that the allegations made by my

13

clients misrepresented the law enforcement practices

14

of the New Jersey State Police. This, I assert, was

15

the conclusion that had to be affirmed each time my

16

clients spoke out about the racial injustices they

17

experienced.

18

We now know, and I believe you can conclude

19

from the testimony you have heard before you, that

20

the gentlemen seated behind me did not misrepresent

21

the law enforcement practices of the State Police,

22

rather they were absolutely correct.

23

What has concerned me as I’ve listened to

24

these hearings over the last several weeks is the

25

attempt of members of the Attorney General’s Office,

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

219

1

until we heard from someone like Paul Zoubek, to

2

claim that they knew nothing about the allegations

3

made by the gentlemen seated behind me.

4

As a result of the EEOC charge of

5

discrimination and our testimony before a

6

Congressional Subcommittee in July 1993, my clients

7

were approached by the Department of Justice, a woman

8

named Patricia Glenn, to resolve their complaints of

9

racial discrimination against the State Police in

10

mediation.

11

In mid-August of 1993, several of the

12

troopers and myself participated in the mediation

13

session with then Assistant Attorney General

14

Alexander Waugh and Deputy Attorney General Sally

15

Fields. In this meeting, which lasted several hours,

16

my clients complained about racial discriminatory

17

practices in the State Police and requested the

18

participation of former Trooper Anthony Reed, a black

19

trooper who had not been re-enlisted. Anthony Reed

20

was an outspoken opponent to racial profiling who is

21

admired by my clients as much as he was hated by the

22

State Police. The State Police refused to permit

23

Anthony Reed to participate in the mediation and so

24

the session ended with no resolution of any issues

25

and no institutional reform on the horizon.

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

220

1

Nevertheless, later that month Assistant

2

Attorney General Waugh had a meeting with the trooper

3

commanders regarding the black troopers’ allegations

4

of racial profiling and a hostile work environment.

5

This is the meeting that generated Assistant Attorney

6

General Waugh’s memo to acting Attorney General Fred

7

DeVesa, which in turn led to the infamous remark, “If

8

it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

9

Over the next four years several

10

significant things happened. In or about October

11

1995, Sergeant James Smith orally complained about

12

racial profiling to Lieutenant Gilbert, the station

13

commander in Moorestown station, not Sergeant Thomas

14

Gilbert.

15

Pursuant to the order of chain-of-command,

16

Lieutenant Gilbert requested that Sergeant Smith put

17

his concerns in a Special Report.

18

In January of 1996 Sergeant Smith filed a

19

Special Report delineating the concern of several

20

minority troopers at that station, including troopers

21

Darrell Beard and Victor Cooper, that their

22

colleagues were engaged in racial profiling.

23

In this way, IAB was made aware of these

24

troopers’ concerns. However, then Chief of IAB,

25

Captain R.E. Touw and Lieutenant Hinkle of the Staff

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

221

1

Inspection Unit, previously assistant station

2

commander at Newark station during the time that

3

several black troopers were the victims of hazing by

4

The Phantom failed to follow normal procedure by

5

declining to investigate the matters set forth in

6

Sergeant Smith’s Special. What I mean specifically,

7

they failed to question further the troopers listed

8

therein to determine the factual basis of their

9

concerns. Instead, as we see in one of the documents

10

that I’ve attached, there was an attempt -- an

11

explicit decision not to interview those troopers

12

further, but wait later on whether they were going to

13

testify at the trials of Troopers Kenna and Hogan,

14

and then bring them up on charges under a certain

15

Article 5 which would be for failure to report a

16

criminal act or misconduct at the time. That was not

17

the procedure. A trooper files a Special. Someone

18

from IAB usually comes and interviews that trooper as

19

to the basis of those allegations.

20

My clients and the other minority troopers

21

who were part of Sergeant Smith’s Special were never

22

questioned and had no knowledge that there was any

23

investigation regarding their concerns.

24

Captain Silver, then troop commander of

25

Troop D, the Turnpike, subsequently accepted IAB’s

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

222

1

conclusion that racial profiling and racial

2

discrimination were just a perception, nothing more.

3

This conclusion of perception was adopted

4

by the Attorney General in his Final Report in May

5

1999. Again, perhaps this conclusion was also

6

predetermined insofar as both Trooper Beard and

7

Cooper had orally complained about racial profiling

8

to SFC Sachetti, then assistant station commander at

9

Moorestown station, who investigated the concerns

10

outlined in Sergeant Smith’s Special Report upon his

11

transfer to IAB. I ask you, how can the State Police

12

assign to IAB a trooper who allowed racial profiling

13

to occur under his supervision. Isn’t IAB supposed

14

to have the institutional independence and integrity

15

to investigate bad policing?

16

In February 1996, IAB referred to

17

Moorestown station as a racial powder keg but

18

intimated that the black troopers who complained

19

about racial profiling were at fault. Also, once the

20

black troopers made their complaint, some were

21

transferred soon thereafter out of Moorestown

22

station.

23

It is my understanding that eventually all

24

the black troopers appearing on the Smith Special

25

Report were transferred from that station.

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

223

1

Now, transfer is one form of retaliation

2

that all of the troopers that I represent have

3

experienced since they have filed their charge of

4

discrimination in April 1993. You heard Trooper

5

Longoria’s experience regarding transfers.

6

Other types of retaliatory actions have

7

been far more egregious. For example, one of the

8

troopers sitting behind me today was directly told

9

that the State Police had at one time operated a

10

special unit that was set up specifically to

11

investigate each of the EEOC complainants. The

12

troopers’ personnel files disappeared from their

13

respective road stations and were sent to

14

headquarters in Trenton.

15

Again, the complainants are subject to

16

scrutiny, not their complaints.

17

Now, in June 1997, the men I represent,

18

then with the firm of Lowenstein, Sandler, filed a

19

complaint in the State court stating claims under

20

Title 7 and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

21

An answer was filed by Peter Verniero’s office by

22

Deputy Attorney General Sally Fields in which the

23

State denied racial profiling and discrimination.

24

To date, the State’s answer has not been

25

amended. In fact, it’s very clear that the State, at

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

224

1

least with respect to pending and settled lawsuits,

2

continues until this day to deny racially

3

discriminatory practices. The recent consent order

4

signed by Peter Verniero’s office regarding racial

5

profiling explicitly denies the existence of racial

6

profiling, whereas the consent order signed by the

7

Attorney General with respect to the State Police’s

8

recruitment in hiring practices, similarly denies

9

racial discrimination.

10

Whenever a trooper is identified as

11

opposing racial profiling or racially discriminatory

12

practices, he or she has reason to fear micro-

13

supervision, surveillance, retaliation and

14

discipline.

15

On March 25th, 1999, I sent a copy of the

16

January 1996 Sergeant Smith’s Special Report to

17

Steven Rosenbaum, the Chief of the Civil Rights

18

Division of the Department of Justice in connection

19

with an incident regarding Trooper Victor Cooper, who

20

had been referenced in the Special. Trooper Cooper

21

had been falsely accused of videotaping a white

22

trooper on a stop and the union was calling for the

23

State Police to take care of that “cowardly black

24

trooper.” Specifically, union minutes that were

25

posted on bulletin boards throughout the State Police

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

225

1

read in part: “The State Police should not now or

2

ever cater to the requests, demands or whims of the

3

Black Ministers Council. We are not politicians and

4

if you want to be one, then turn in your weapon and

5

badge. The situation involving the cowardly black

6

trooper videotaping the white trooper on a stop

7

better be handled with harsh discipline as he

8

compromised the trooper’s safety and failed to follow

9

SOP.”

10

It appears that I was the first person to

11

transmit the Smith’s Special Report to the Department

12

of Justice, because that Special, we have now

13

learned, had been withheld.

14

The 13 black troopers sitting before you

15

today have been speaking out about institutional

16

racisms for several years. In fact, it was their

17

desire to talk about the relationship between racial

18

profiling and racial employment discrimination within

19

the force, undeniably a matter of great public

20

concern that motivated their challenge to the

21

constitutionality of Section 19 of the State Police

22

Rules and Regulations governing a trooper’s right to

23

speak.

24

After a court battle, Judge Parrillo, a

25

Superior Court Judge in the Chancery Division in

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

226

1

Trenton, found the State Police’s regulation

2

unconstitutional and permitted my clients to speak

3

out in the private capacity about matters of racial

4

discrimination. No other state trooper took this

5

initiative which was needed to bring the

6

organizational infrastructure that supports racial

7

profiling to the public’s attention.

8

In the summer of 1999, I testified before

9

the Black and Latino Minority Caucus of this

10

Legislature. This was my third time testifying about

11

allegations of racial discrimination within the State

12

Police. As noted previously, my first time was in

13

July 1993 when several troopers and myself talked

14

about racial discrimination before a Congressional

15

Subcommittee in Washington, D.C.

16

My second time was in June 1994 at hearings

17

held by Congressman Major Owens in Brooklyn, New York

18

in which the racially discriminatory police practices

19

were also the focus of the hearings.

20

Unlike the previous two legislative

21

committees before which I had appeared, the Minority

22

Caucus issued a report supporting the claims of my

23

clients. This since has become common knowledge

24

among state troopers that Superintendent Dunbar took

25

this report and waved it in front of a number of

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

227

1

troopers telling them to read it “if you want to know

2

what the enemy is thinking.”

3

Two summers ago Trooper John Perry attended

4

an in-service training in which the leadership

5

qualities of Adolph Hitler were discussed and

6

admired. A complaint was field by Trooper Perry with

7

the EEO/AA Office about this matter, another matter

8

that has yet to be effectively addressed.

9

In October 1999, as reported in a New

10

Jersey monthly article in the spring of 2000 by Bob

11

Henley, Beyond Black and White, Lieutenant Colonel

12

Dunlop, then the number two man behind Superintendent

13

Dunbar, gave a speech to a group of State Police

14

retirees in Atlantic City in which he not only

15

disputed the contents of the AG’s report, but ignored

16

them entirely. Instead, he blamed the problems of

17

the State Police on the media and what he described

18

as weak-spined politicians.

19

He further declared that the traditions of

20

the New Jersey State Police must be preserved in face

21

of the allegations of racial discrimination,

22

allegations that he pronounced as untrue. Now, I ask

23

you, as part of our journey to justice to send a

24

message to all persons in the State Police and the

25

Attorney General’s Office. For as the Senate of the

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

228

1

United States stated in its report on the Equal

2

Employment Opportunities Enforcement Act of 1971,

3

“The exclusion of minorities from effective

4

participation in government, including law

5

enforcement agencies, not only promotes ignorance of

6

minority problems in that particular community, but

7

also creates mistrust, alienation and all too often

8

hostility towards the entire process of government.”

9

Mistrust, alienation and hostility are the attitudes

10

of New Jersey citizens, black and white, toward the

11

New Jersey State Police today. It is therefore not

12

enough to determine Attorney General Peter Verniero

13

made misrepresentations to this body during his

14

confirmation hearings, it is equally necessary to

15

determine whether the State Police continues to

16

misrepresent itself to the public when it proclaims

17

itself an equal opportunity employer.

18

I therefore implore you to heed the message

19

of my clients and to take further action. You

20

cannot, as a matter of public policy and moral

21

principle, end your hearings and simply move on.

22

In order for you to protect the public from

23

the racially discriminatory attitudes that are

24

endemic to the State Police, you must compel the

25

State Police to adopt objective personnel systems

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

229

1

that are designed to protect minority troopers and

2

anyone else who opposes racial discriminatory

3

practices from the discrimination, mistreatment and

4

prejudice of those persons who identify themselves as

5

law enforcement officers and who are thus obligated

6

to protect the entire public, not just their own.

7

I thank you very much.

8

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you.

9

TROOPER YUSUF EL-AMIN: Good afternoon,

10

Senators. My name is Yusuf El-Amin. I have been a

11

member of the New Jersey State Police for the last 22

12

years, with 17 years as a road trooper; the last

13

three being a squad sergeant.

14

You are here to investigate racial

15

profiling, the practice of singling out minorities

16

for selective enforcement. Myself and others here

17

today can tell you about being profiled within the

18

State Police, because as a minority who has been

19

stationed at Edison station, Troop C; New Brunswick

20

station in Troop D; Wilburtha station in West

21

Trenton, Troop C; and Bordentown station in Troop C,

22

I know the practices of the State Police. I’ll

23

share a letter with you that I wrote. It reads, “On

24

April 1st, 1988 I read an article in the Star Ledger

25

regarding race bias in road stops among New Jersey

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

230

1

state troopers. For many years I have been disturbed

2

by this bias that unfortunately exists among state

3

troopers. I wish that there was something that I

4

could do about it, but the fear of reprisals prevents

5

many of us from speaking out. Some of the biases I

6

have noted over the years among many troopers around

7

Central Jersey, and mainly on the New Jersey

8

Turnpike, were stops of young blacks and Hispanic men

9

between the ages of 18 and 35, who were going and

10

coming from New York. It is assumed that they are

11

most likely to carry drugs.

12

“While working on the Turnpike I noted that

13

a majority of the road stops were black and Hispanic

14

occupants. Some troopers only stop black and

15

Hispanics. This I know because race identification

16

is radioed in when making a motor vehicle stop and

17

criminal check. In many of these stops, a violation

18

may not have occurred, but if drugs or a weapon is

19

found, a violation can be fabricated.

20

“After a stop is made, a search is usually

21

performed with or without cause. On the Turnpike,

22

white motorists are usually only stopped for speeding

23

and issued a ticket and occasionally have their

24

driver’s record checked on computer. Blacks and

25

Hispanics are usually given a driver’s records check

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

231

1

and a national crime information check as requested

2

by the trooper.

3

“Black men with North and South Carolina

4

plates are most likely thought to be carrying guns.

5

Young black and Hispanic men driving certain luxury

6

cars or expensive cars are assumed to have stolen

7

them, so these types are usually stopped and checked.

8

“Racially-mixed couples and racially-mixed

9

young men together are usually stopped and thought to

10

probably be dealing in drugs. Whenever blacks and

11

Hispanics are stopped numbering more than two in a

12

vehicle, another patrol car is commonly dispatched as

13

a backup. However, when whites are stopped numbering

14

the same number, never is another patrol car

15

dispatched.

16

“While stationed on the Turnpike almost

17

daily I saw blacks and Hispanics being arrested.

18

Rarely did I ever see whites arrested. Arrest

19

records could verify this. When blacks were arrested

20

they were treated with the most harshest attitude.

21

Whites are treated more politely.

22

“I have never known any training material

23

that suggested any of these methods I mentioned. I

24

have heard instructors at training sessions state

25

that when Hispanics with Florida plates are seen

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

232

1

heading north, to start looking for a violation to

2

stop them because they may be carrying drugs. I have

3

heard instructors suggest that -- are drug users and

4

they are identified by dread-lock hairdos. So now

5

troopers stop everyone with dread-locks.

6

“Most of these biases are techniques that

7

are passed along from trooper to trooper, and the

8

cycle continues.

9

“For Colonel Pagano to deny any racial

10

motivation exists in motor vehicle stops, shows he

11

does not know what’s going on in the State Police.

12

Minority troopers don’t speak out on these bias

13

issues because of the five-year probation system and

14

fear of not being selected for specialist jobs or

15

promotions within the State Police. There’s no Civil

16

Service protection.

17

“Discrimination is always hard to prove in

18

these type of situations. Overcoming institutional

19

discrimination is hard, is hard enough, without

20

bringing more hardship on oneself by speaking out

21

individually. However, collectively and through the

22

legal methods you are pursuing, I’m sure we can make

23

some needed changes.” Signed “An inside view.”

24

What may surprise you is that I wrote this

25

13 years ago and sent it to a newspaper and the NAACP

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

233

1

in North Jersey.

2

The State of New Jersey has had this

3

statement as part of my litigation since I and

4

several other black troopers filed our EEOC charge in

5

1993. Let me give you my perspective on the case.

6

Racial profiling is racial prejudice by

7

members of the State Police. But, gentlemen, unless

8

you prevent profiling within the State Police by

9

white troopers against minorities, you will not be

10

successful in ending racial profiling against

11

minority citizens.

12

I think it was best said when an outspoken

13

politician told the New Jersey Black Issues

14

Convention in 1993 that “If the Governor cannot

15

protect black cops, how can he possibly protect

16

blacks who live in the state?”

17

I know troopers where it seems that all of

18

their arrests and stops seem to be of only

19

minorities. This is especially suspect when the

20

driving population of an interstate highway is mostly

21

white. Something we have been trying to tell

22

everyone for nearly over a decade.

23

I’ve heard a trooper on the way to

24

sensitivity training while in the squad room in New

25

Brunswick station say, “I have nothing against

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

234

1

minorities, 90 percent of my stops are minorities.”

2

This trooper attained the Detective rank shortly

3

after this statement which was made in 1987 and he’s

4

still on the force.

5

I see the same mental state and bias that

6

allows racial profiling of minority citizens on the

7

outside give rise to the racially hostile work

8

environment on the inside. I’ve attached to my

9

statement some of the most degrading racial

10

stereotyping that I have experienced when troopers

11

posted on bulletin boards where I worked offensive

12

posters. I don’t think I need to repeat them, as

13

they are so degrading, that you can see for yourself.

14

Many were directed directly at me, a black man. I

15

can only assume that others have received such

16

treatment and that it still exists today, even if in

17

more mild, subtle terms.

18

Colonel Dunbar, who is a minority, may not

19

know that screen savers at some troop stations make

20

fun of him by calling “Dumbar” and attack him in

21

other ways. I have never seen this done to a white

22

Superintendent or any other white ranking officer.

23

Just recently the cartoon I had posted at

24

the end of my exhibits appeared at my station showing

25

Colonel Dunbar as a parasitic slug. I am always

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

235

1

fearful of retaliation. If they can treat the

2

Superintendent like this, what about me? And if they

3

can treat me like this, what about minority citizens

4

riding on our roadways?

5

In 1986 I wrote a letter to Internal

6

Affairs about the racist practices at the then Edison

7

station. I sent it anonymously hoping there would be

8

a remedy. There was not. It read: “To Whom It May

9

Concern: The purpose of this letter is to let it be

10

known that an unfair practice is going on at the

11

Edison station. Since being assigned to the station

12

as commander of the station, Lieutenant Yarasavage

13

has exhibited his racist tendencies. It is well

14

known that he is the one who selects the trooper from

15

his station to be sent to the toll road other than

16

volunteers. It is evident that his selection process

17

is based on race.

18

“At the time of his assignment at the

19

Edison station, which was about September of 1985,

20

there were five black troopers at that station out of

21

40. At this present time only one remains. Out of

22

six troopers who were involuntarily sent to the

23

Turnpike, one to the Parkway, four were black. It is

24

obvious that Lieutenant Yarasavage wants an all-white

25

station.

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

236

1

“It is appalling to know that these

2

practices are allowed to happen as they threaten the

3

relations of black and white troopers alike. In

4

fact, the Lieutenant uses the threat of transfer to

5

put fear in others at this station.

6

“The selection process at Edison station

7

needs to be reviewed and definitely needs to be taken

8

out of the hands of this demonstrated racist.

9

“This situation has been discussed by all

10

those black troopers that have been affected.”

11

This letter went unsigned because of

12

possible reprisals and was signed “Troopers against

13

discrimination in the State Police.”

14

However, the Attorney General has had this

15

letter at least since we filed our lawsuit. In 1990

16

I wrote to the recently-appointed EEO Affirmative

17

Action Officer, Captain Valcocean Littles, about the

18

inability of minorities to advance in the State

19

Police. “We recently received an invitation

20

announcement to attend a promotional affair. We

21

congratulate all those newly promoted for their

22

achievements. However, many of us don’t feel quite

23

ready to celebrate our few achievements when our

24

Division is still lagging far behind in considering

25

African-American troopers for promotions and

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

237

1

specialist positions.

2

“Although there has been a few promoted in

3

certain Division headquarters areas, there have been

4

virtually no African-American troopers promoted on

5

the troop level, which makes up well over half the

6

force. There have never been, nor are there any

7

African-American station commanders, assistant

8

commanders or station Detectives. There have never

9

been nor presently are there any African-American

10

troopers in administrative positions in any trooper

11

headquarters, including the Turnpike and Parkway.

12

There are no African-American troopers in Detective

13

positions on troop level. There are very few

14

specialists, except for the short-term jobs and weigh

15

teams and CBI teams. There are little or no squad

16

Sergeants in all of these stations. Only two were in

17

Troop C and one in Troop B. And none in Troop A, D,

18

E, et cetera. It appears obvious that these troop

19

commanders and their administrations feel that

20

African-Americans are not capable of any leadership

21

or administrative positions. They do their best to

22

discredit and discriminate against us.

23

“It appears that they are intent on keeping

24

these positions for themselves and their favorites.

25

It is well known that many of these selections are

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

238

1

not based on qualifications or seniority, but on

2

favoritism and personal connections.

3

“I’ve spoke to many other troopers who have

4

expressed these same feelings and believe that change

5

is long overdue.

6

“Again, we extend our sincerest

7

congratulations to all of those who have been

8

promoted. We hope that you all will be inspired and

9

reminded to use your new leadership positions to help

10

in doing something to make this situation better than

11

it presently is.

12

“Sincerely yours, Trooper Yusuf El-Amin.”

13

And nothing has changed.

14

In 1997, after 18 years in the State

15

Police, a total of 20, including my motor vehicle

16

time, when white troopers are promoted much sooner, I

17

was finally promoted to Sergeant. I know as a

18

Sergeant the State Police has the capability of

19

properly training troopers and properly supervising

20

young recruits and troopers on our squads not to

21

profile. I personally check all tickets, summonses,

22

patrol charts and monitor radio stops to ensure that

23

all my members of my squad do not profile. Yet I

24

suspect there are sergeants who don’t do that. It is

25

very clear that Trooper Hogan and Kenna’s Sergeant

Testimony - Trooper El-Amin

239

1

did not take the strong steps necessary to supervise

2

them. And the practice still goes on today. A

3

sergeant whom I believe condones profiling was just

4

transferred to supervise patrol units on the New

5

Jersey Turnpike. Because of reprisals and unless

6

troopers like us who want to do the right thing can

7

be protected, I certainly won’t mention his name in

8

public.

9

This has been my journey to justice. As I

10

sit here today I still feel fearful of retaliation,

11

but I am old enough that I hope that in the waning

12

stages of my career with the New Jersey State Police

13

I can survive this time and make a difference. I am

14

52 years old and I hope to help make changes so that

15

when young minorities come into the State Police,

16

that they will be treated fairly and that all

17

citizens who travel in New Jersey will be protected.

18

I am hoping that by the time I retire, with the help

19

of the reforms that I know will be suggested by this

20

Committee, we can say, as has been said many times, I

21

am not where I want to be, but it’s better than it

22

was yesterday. And hopefully in the future, it will

23

be even better.

24

I’m here to answer any questions you have

25

and I thank you for your time.

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

240

1

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you.

2

Trooper, we’d appreciate your testimony

3

now.

4

TROOPER GREGORY SANDERS: Good afternoon,

5

Senators. My name is Gregory Sanders. I have been a

6

New Jersey state trooper since 1987. I was stationed

7

on the road for 11 years, with most of the time

8

having been served at the New Jersey Turnpike’s

9

Newark station. I am presently assigned to the State

10

Governmental Security Bureau located here in the

11

State House. I have been temporarily detached to

12

recruiting.

13

President Lincoln, while at Gettysburg,

14

stated, “The world will little note nor long remember

15

what we say here, but can never forget what they did

16

here.” “But can never forget what they did here.”

17

It is important that this Committee understands that

18

the State of New Jersey is on trial in the court of

19

world opinion. The recommendations that will be made

20

here will become the official record in history. As

21

you walk with the 13 on our journey to justice, we

22

remind you of the words of Dr. King when he said,

23

“Sometimes in life you’re going to have to take a

24

stance. Politics will ask the question, is it

25

popular? Expedience will ask the question, is it

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

241

1

safe? But conscious will always ask the question, is

2

it right? Sometimes we have to take a stance that is

3

neither popular nor safe, but because it’s right.”

4

When I started in the New Jersey State

5

Police, I could not believe and did not want to

6

believe that there was racial discrimination within

7

the ranks which manifested itself as racial profiling

8

to the public. But after seven years stationed in

9

Newark station, I watched, I saw, I became a

10

believer.

11

As a young African-American trooper, the

12

senior African-American troopers told me and other

13

African-American troopers, no matter what happens,

14

keep your mouth shut until you have five years on the

15

job. If you speak before then, they will cut your

16

throat with Title 53. Title 53, as it was explained

17

to me, gives the Superintendent the ability to

18

terminate a trooper with less than five years on the

19

job without having to give a reason for termination.

20

So we watched as Title 53 was disparately applied to

21

men of color. It sent a chilling message to all,

22

“There but for the grace of God go I.” “There but

23

for the grace of God go I.”

24

State Police then and now controls the rank

25

and file on the basis of fear, intimidation and

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

242

1

retaliation. So we were and are afraid. We knew at

2

anytime we, too, could be fired without just cause.

3

Without just cause.

4

In 1989 Joe Collum, an investigative

5

reporter at WOR-TV did an award-winning investigative

6

report which aired entitled Without Just Cause. The

7

report illustrated the practice of racial profiling

8

on the northern end of the New Jersey Turnpike. It

9

was during this period that I became identified as an

10

ACLU spy and operative. As this Committee is aware,

11

an African-American who claimed to be a trooper

12

appeared silhouetted in that report and stated that

13

profiling on the Turnpike was pervasive. I affirm to

14

this Committee that it was not me on that program.

15

At that time I was more concerned about Title 53.

16

However, everyone in my troop speculated as to the

17

identity of this rat. During former Trooper Kenneth

18

Ruff’s trial in Mercer County, I discovered for the

19

first time why none of my later complaints had been

20

taken seriously. Lieutenant Maggio testified that he

21

believed I was the person who appeared as the

22

silhouetted black figure because I was one of only

23

two blacks in the State Police who allegedly could

24

use or know what the word “pervasive” meant.

25

This trial was in 1996. The Joe Collum

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

243

1

investigative report was in 1989. Now I know why

2

when I complained about racial issues to Lieutenant

3

Maggio over the years, he thought I was a rat. I

4

complained about the police practices of some of my

5

colleagues to my supervisor Sal Maggio, nothing was

6

done. This complaint was made around 1990 prior to

7

the meeting of a group of black troopers had with the

8

then Affirmative Action Officer Valcocean Littles.

9

At that meeting I, along with Glen Johnson, Tony

10

Reed, Kenneth Ruff, Sam Davis, Darrell Beard and

11

other black troopers, complained about racial

12

practices at the Newark station. I know troopers who

13

I am fearful to name who I believe racially profiled

14

and were notorious in the combination of their

15

treatment of minority motorists and minority

16

troopers. Items were consistently posted on bulletin

17

boards that were racially offensive. I would take

18

these items down, and because of my actions, I became

19

identified as one not to be trusted by the State

20

Police. I have tried over the years the best way

21

that I could to change the State Police from within.

22

As I was trying, I became subject to the most

23

egregious of incidents.

24

In 1993 at the Newark station, watermelon

25

was put in my locker. The name “rat” was written by

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

244

1

my name on one of the State Police personnel work

2

schedules. I reported this incident to my

3

supervisor, Sergeant Jack Westhall, as well as I

4

noted to you previously, Lieutenant Sal Maggio, who

5

at this time was the Deputy Troop Commander.

6

Instead of taking action against racial

7

profiling and racial discrimination, I was personally

8

attached for lodging a complaint and requesting

9

change dealing with racial prejudice.

10

After I reported this incident, it came

11

back to my supervisors for investigation instead of

12

investigation by the EEO/AA Office and the Attorney

13

General’s Office. I was told that if I made a formal

14

complaint again on this matter, that it would reflect

15

adversely on me rather than the persons who put the

16

watermelon in my locker. Nothing was done until I

17

appeared before a Congressional Subcommittee and

18

testified about the incident. But even until this

19

day, no discipline has been issued against anyone.

20

I have been told that a reason why there

21

was no discipline is because merely putting a

22

watermelon and writing the word “rat” on a black

23

trooper’s locker cannot in any way be identified with

24

race.

25

I think we all know that the association of

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

245

1

blacks with watermelons has a pejorative negative

2

connotation. If a trooper can do this to another

3

minority trooper and supervisors will take no action,

4

you can understand why no one has done anything about

5

racial profiling and why the practice still exists.

6

Keeping and promoting persons who have

7

either profiled or condoned profiling and other

8

racially-hostile practices will not change the system

9

and it should come as no surprise that the latest

10

profiling numbers released are worse than prior to

11

the entry of a consent order.

12

Prior to the watermelon incident, I had

13

already become identified as being in a bad way, an

14

ACLU spy and operative. When my personal car needed

15

repair, I had rented a Dodge Aries K. I was on the

16

Turnpike and had stopped at the Vince Lombardi

17

service area and saw a couple of troopers that I

18

knew. The Doge Aries K, because it was a rental car,

19

had Pennsylvania license plates. The next day I was

20

called into my supervisor’s office, Salvatore Maggio,

21

and was berated. He accused me of working for the

22

ACLU to spy on the troopers by running an undercover

23

car with out-of-state plates and attempting to get

24

stopped by white troopers.

25

In 1991 when I applied for a specialist’s

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

246

1

position, Sergeant First Class Haden went around

2

interrogating troopers referring to me as one of the

3

“Newark black radicals.” Every time I applied for a

4

specialist’s job -- a specialist’s position is one of

5

the many positions that exist in the New Jersey State

6

Police that does not entail work on the road. It was

7

intimated, and sometimes it was stated directly, that

8

since I did not participate in the Division’s

9

criminal program and had been branded a black

10

radical, I did not get the job. Each time I applied

11

for a specialist’s position that would enable me to

12

serve as a crime scene investigator or arson

13

investigator, I was informed that the position had

14

gone to another road trooper even though I have a

15

degree in arson investigation from John Jay College

16

of Criminal Justice in New York and have two national

17

certifications by a national group as both a fire

18

investigator and a fire investigations instructor.

19

In or about 1989 or 1990 when I was working

20

with former Trooper Tony Reed, who was black, we

21

stopped to back up two white troopers who had stopped

22

a black family. We actually watched the troopers,

23

both for backup reasons and to ensure that there was

24

no mistreatment of the minorities stopped. When we

25

got back to the station, there was an incident

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

247

1

witnessed by Trooper Beard wherein there was almost a

2

fistfight because the white troopers accused us of

3

being there so we could tell the black motorists how

4

to file a complaint against the State Police for

5

racial profiling. Senators, this was 1990.

6

So as you can see, again, I was branded as

7

a trooper opposed to racial profiling. If holding

8

this position is a barrier for advancement and reward

9

in the State Police, the culture and practices of the

10

State Police will never change. The reason why black

11

troopers who do not profile have not been able to

12

advance and white troopers who profile do advance, is

13

clearly demonstrated also by the following experience

14

I had. Then Captain Michael Fedorko, later an acting

15

Superintendent, was Captain in a forensic area. I

16

applied for a job within his Bureau. The job again

17

was given to a white trooper who did not have the

18

degrees and certifications that I had. I complained

19

directly to then Assistant Attorney General Fred

20

DeVesa and EEO/AA Officer Valerie Holman of the

21

Department of Law and Public Safety. The

22

investigation against the State Police was given back

23

to the State Police to investigate. Then Captain

24

Fedorko told the investigators while my education was

25

commendable, the trooper who got the job had shown a

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

248

1

greater interest in the criminal program than myself

2

and was well-rounded.

3

The “criminal program” were code words for

4

racial profiling practices perpetrated on the public

5

by the State Police. In fact, in my first evaluation

6

after I went to the EEOC in April of 1993, I was told

7

that I was not rated well because I was not a

8

participant in the Division’s criminal program. It

9

was at that time I first learned what the phrase

10

meant. My supervisor, Jack Westhall, explained to

11

me, “You know what the rest of the squad was doing

12

and you need to be doing it.” My response were words

13

to the effect, I see them stopping black motorists

14

all the time. How many blacks do I have to lock up?

15

Later Sergeant Westhall removed the

16

notation from the evaluation that appeared in my

17

personnel file, but I have kept a copy of the

18

original evaluation.

19

In 1993 I questioned the practice of white

20

troopers who were profiled and it still exists today

21

as we sit here.

22

In December 2000, Superintendent Dunbar

23

told the recruiters, of which I was one, to take

24

initiative to get people to volunteer their time on

25

causes that will give credit to the State Police. I

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

249

1

got several black troopers to volunteer their time in

2

order to have their photograph taken at the

3

Governor’s mansion with a recruiting troop car, which

4

later appeared in a security management magazine,

5

because we all had received certain international

6

security credentials. Surely, a credit to the New

7

Jersey State Police.

8

I later discovered that I was under

9

investigation for misuse of resources and only

10

learned that something was wrong when I received what

11

is called a PN, performance notice, for my actions.

12

I also found out the PN had been downgraded from

13

major discipline pursuant to Colonel Dunbar’s orders,

14

all occurring without anyone ever interviewing me

15

about this matter.

16

Just before this last incident in December

17

of 2000, I was working at the Troop D Turnpike

18

Administration Building. I was assigned to take

19

fingerprints of applicants. I was assigned a troop

20

car for this post. While there, a young woman, who

21

was a fingerprint technician, stated that she had

22

just tried to file a complaint against a road trooper

23

for abusive language. The woman happens to be black.

24

I attempted to get a form for her. I was asked why

25

am I giving her forms when she should be coming to

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

250

1

the station to file a complaint? I found this

2

strange because all around us there are posters

3

telling supervisors that forms for

4

complaints/compliments should be available for

5

mailing because it is intimidating for the typical

6

black person to file a complaint against the State

7

Police at a station. When I looked around, I

8

discovered that the Troop D station, in which I was

9

temporarily working, had no complaint forms.

10

Remember, I was not stationed there, but was only

11

there for the day.

12

I went to the troop car that I had been

13

given for the assignment, which was not my normal

14

troop car, and discovered that the forms were not

15

there either. I told the civilian that I would have

16

to get forms for her the next day. Before I did, she

17

called troop headquarters and stated that I had not

18

yet gotten the form to her. Apparently, again,

19

without my knowledge, an investigation was started

20

against me. Another one of these secret

21

investigations that black troopers know so well.

22

Because I did not have the form to give her, although

23

persons at the Troop D headquarters who did not have

24

the forms and thus were not following the new

25

complaint practice procedure, discipline did not flow

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

251

1

to them. Instead, an attempt at discipline and

2

investigation was directed to me.

3

So you can see the hostile culture still

4

exists. When we try to bring up these incidents,

5

ordinary reaction is well, this is water under the

6

bridge; but it is not. These are practices that have

7

now been shown to have been sanctioned at the highest

8

levels of government.

9

Attached to my statement are several

10

documents that you may be surprised are still

11

circulating around the police station today. The

12

first was recently faxed to Trooper Victor Cooper and

13

he has been told that it was posted on the State

14

Police bulletin board at Bridgeton station. A State

15

Police trooper is grabbing the neck of a minority and

16

it states, “Help wanted. Small black man for mud

17

flap. Must be flexible and willing to travel.” And

18

at Totowa station where Sergeant Paul Singler and

19

Sergeant Roger Johnson were stationed, their ten

20

percent logo showing a New Jersey trooper as being

21

one of the ten percent bad apples that Superintendent

22

Dunbar refers to as responsible for profiling is

23

printed on T-shirts and hanging in the station.

24

(Trooper holds up article and T-shirt)

25

This logo is also used at the State Police

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

252

1

trooper Yahoo website. As you can clearly see, this

2

journey to justice is an ordeal that is real, not

3

imagined. It is up to this body to take the bold

4

steps to end the practice of racial profiling that

5

has plagued our society for years and to end the

6

discriminatory and retaliatory practices of the State

7

Police that I have endured for years.

8

In 1968 President Johnson commissioned a

9

study on civil disorders as a result of the race

10

riots. It was called the Kerner Commission. An

11

excerpt from the report states: “The police are not

12

merely a spark factor. To some Negroes, police have

13

come to symbolize white power, white racism and white

14

repression. And the fact is that many police do

15

reflect and express these white attitudes. The

16

atmosphere of hostility and cynicism is reinforced by

17

a widespread belief among Negroes in the existence of

18

police brutality and in a double standard of justice

19

and protection. One for Negroes, one for whites.”

20

We know that the current polls that have

21

been taken indicate this to be true today. W.E.B.

22

DeBoise stated, “The problem of the 20th Century will

23

be that of the color line.” Nearly a century later,

24

it appears it has become the problem of the 21st

25

Century.

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

253

1

In conclusion, we the 13 request that you

2

join us on our journey to justice. We want you to

3

know that this body has the ability to take the bold

4

steps and do what your moral conscience knows to be

5

right. Not because it’s popular or safe, but because

6

it’s right. A journey to justice wherein minorities

7

and blacks have been telling everyone, yet no one was

8

listening, that racial profiling and bias within the

9

New Jersey State Police is a serious, serious

10

problem.

11

Thank you.

12

SENATOR GORMLEY: Mr. Chertoff.

13

MR. CHERTOFF: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

14

Ms. Steinhagen, I have a couple questions

15

for you.

16

Now, I guess in -- you filed a complaint

17

with the EEOC on behalf of several of your clients in

18

1993?

19

MS. STEINHAGEN: That’s correct.

20

MR. CHERTOFF: You have to put the little -

21

-

22

SENATOR GORMLEY: The red light on again.

23

MS. STEINHAGEN: Oh, I forgot, sorry.

24

Yeah, that is correct.

25

MR. CHERTOFF: And then I think you said in

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

254

1

your testimony that in June of 1997 you filed a

2

complaint in state court.

3

MS. STEINHAGEN: That’s correct.

4

MR. CHERTOFF: And what were the

5

allegations of that complaint?

6

MS. STEINHAGEN: The same. We alleged in

7

the EEOC charge -- each of the men filed what I

8

called a systemic complaint, meaning that it did not

9

rest on individual factual grounds. It was written

10

as if this could be the basis for a class action

11

lawsuit challenging several of the discipline systems

12

-- several of the personnel systems in the State

13

Police. The lawsuit that was ultimately filed rested

14

on individuals’ claims. Several of the plaintiffs

15

had standing for challenging different of those

16

personnel systems.

17

MR. CHERTOFF: Did some of the claims in

18

the June 1997 case allege that a minority trooper was

19

disciplined in retaliation for supporting the

20

allegation of profiling?

21

MS. STEINHAGEN: That is correct but --

22

MR. CHERTOFF: And what was the factual

23

allegation?

24

MS. STEINHAGEN: Well, there were two. One

25

is in general as you can hear many of the -- several

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

255

1

of the troopers became identified as the black -- the

2

Newark radicals, which was due to their opposition to

3

racial profiling in Newark. The more specific, there

4

were allegations regarding Darrell Beard and Victor

5

Cooper regarding their participation on Sergeant

6

Smith’s Special Report.

7

MR. CHERTOFF: Okay. Now, I want to

8

understand this because you attached to your

9

testimony pages that are very familiar I think to

10

many people now, which I’m going to put up on the --

11

I guess it’s no longer in business -- anyway, there’s

12

an exhibit, June 29 -- a July 29, 1997 document, CW-

13

18, which encloses a copy of a report entitled Patrol

14

Issues Concerns at Moorestown Station. Now, you’ve

15

attached that to your report, right?

16

MS. STEINHAGEN: Yes, we attached it to our

17

report since it seems to have been generated on the

18

basis of Sergeant Smith’s original Special.

19

MR. CHERTOFF: How did you get this?

20

MS. STEINHAGEN: How did we get this?

21

MR. CHERTOFF: Yeah.

22

MS. STEINHAGEN: Through the disclosure of

23

the Attorney General through the public process.

24

MR. CHERTOFF: Okay. You didn’t have this,

25

in other words, in 1997 when you filed the complaint?

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

256

1

MS. STEINHAGEN: No. When we filed in

2

1997, according to the men, they knew nothing about

3

what happened. We had no knowledge that anything was

4

done. They were sitting in the station waiting to be

5

interviewed by IAB as to the factual basis of their

6

allegations and no one came.

7

MR. CHERTOFF: So in other words, in July

8

1997 -- I want to put this up and show you. In July

9

1997, when you -- I’m sorry, June 1997 when you filed

10

the Title 7 case, one of the allegations was that two

11

of the troopers who had been interviewed by Sergeant

12

Smith in late 1995 or early 1996 had been retaliated

13

against.

14

MS. STEINHAGEN: That’s correct.

15

MR. CHERTOFF: And you were dealing with

16

someone from the Division of Law named Sally Fields?

17

MS. STEINHAGEN: Yes. I had been dealing

18

with Sally Fields since I initially met her in

19

mediation in August 1993.

20

MR. CHERTOFF: And you had also been

21

dealing with Alex Waugh in the mediation, right?

22

MS. STEINHAGEN: I dealt with Alex Waugh in

23

the mediation and that was the last time I dealt with

24

Mr. Waugh directly.

25

MR. CHERTOFF: So how many meetings did you

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

257

1

have with Mr. Waugh?

2

MS. STEINHAGEN: One.

3

MR. CHERTOFF: Okay. And -- all right. So

4

in June of 1997 you submit a -- what I put up is

5

actually a copy of a document which we’ve seen

6

previously which was transmitted which attaches not

7

only Sergeant Smith’s report, but the actual analysis

8

of patrol issues concerns at Moorestown station which

9

you didn’t have at the time.

10

MS. STEINHAGEN: I did not have that at the

11

time.

12

MR. CHERTOFF: All right. And it makes

13

reference here to -- excuse me. It should be noted

14

the recent suit against State Police by minority

15

troopers alleges that a minority trooper was

16

disciplined in retaliation for supporting the

17

allegation that there’s profiling.

18

MS. STEINHAGEN: Yes.

19

MR. CHERTOFF: Okay. And that --

20

MS. STEINHAGEN: This memo is specifically

21

referring to Victor Cooper.

22

MR. CHERTOFF: All right. Now, whatever

23

happened, by the way, to that litigation?

24

MS. STEINHAGEN: The litigation --

25

MR. CHERTOFF: Yeah.

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

258

1

MS. STEINHAGEN: -- or Victor Cooper’s --

2

MR. CHERTOFF: Well, Victor Cooper’s

3

specific allegation. How did that wind up getting

4

resolved?

5

MS. STEINHAGEN: Well, we attached here the

6

grievance, the fourth stage of the grievance and I

7

think Victor -- it was upheld and I think if you want

8

more specifics as to who would participate in the

9

grievances, it’s my understanding that Victor took it

10

all the way out and Thomas Gilbert was actually

11

called in at one point to testify. If you’d like

12

more details as to who appeared at every single one

13

of the grievance stages, I think Victor can answer

14

that.

15

MR. CHERTOFF: Okay. But -- and this was

16

also the subject of the Title 7 case as well?

17

MS. STEINHAGEN: That is part of Victor’s

18

particular claim.

19

MR. CHERTOFF: And where is the status of

20

that case right now, the Title 7 --

21

MS. STEINHAGEN: In discovery.

22

MR. CHERTOFF: All right. So at the time

23

you didn’t get -- you didn’t have the patrol issues

24

analysis that was prepared by Lieutenant Hinkle, you

25

didn’t have that in ‘97, right?

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

259

1

MS. STEINHAGEN: We did not have -- any of

2

this we did not receive it pursuant to our discovery

3

as well. We perceived it now -- oh, received it, I’m

4

sorry, we received it as a result of the State’s

5

release of 90,000 documents to the public.

6

MR. CHERTOFF: Okay. So let me ask you

7

now, because you’ve kind of anticipated my next

8

question.

9

Did you have -- in 1997, was discovery

10

underway?

11

MS. STEINHAGEN: Not in 1997. There was an

12

-- it was -- the State immediately transferred our

13

lawsuit to federal’s court. So pursuant to the new

14

rules in federal court, there was an initial

15

voluntary disclosure. The State Police merely

16

disclosed people’s personnel files and this material

17

was not included in those personnel files.

18

MR. CHERTOFF: When did it get transferred

19

to federal court?

20

MS. STEINHAGEN: It would have to be --

21

they have to move with 45 days. They immediately --

22

because it was a Title 7 claim, the State immediately

23

removed it to federal court.

24

MR. CHERTOFF: So that everybody knows what

25

a voluntary disclosure is, that’s a rule that

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

260

1

basically says in a lot of cases in civil discovery

2

each side has the obligation voluntarily to disclose

3

things that are relevant, right?

4

MS. STEINHAGEN: That is correct and I

5

would presume seeing July 29th, given -- I believe we

6

filed like June 11th, that we must have been in

7

federal court or going to be in federal court within

8

another two weeks.

9

MR. CHERTOFF: So then is it fair to say

10

that sometime later in ‘97, as you understand the

11

rules, there would have been some obligation to make

12

a determination by the State as to whether this

13

report would have to be turned over to you in

14

discovery?

15

MS. STEINHAGEN: That is correct.

16

MR. CHERTOFF: And you didn’t get that,

17

right?

18

MS. STEINHAGEN: We did not get that.

19

MR. CHERTOFF: All right. And I take it

20

then that --

21

MS. STEINHAGEN: By the way, we still -- we

22

did not get that when we even had more specific

23

requests later on in discovery.

24

MR. CHERTOFF: And did you have specific

25

requests that were aimed at what had happened with

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

261

1

respect to Victor Cooper’s original complaint?

2

MS. STEINHAGEN: There is definitely more

3

specific requests as to anything that deals with any

4

of the individual men, either their internal EEO/AA

5

complaints and clearly regarding the Sergeant Smith

6

Special.

7

MR. CHERTOFF: And when did you make those

8

discovery requests?

9

MS. STEINHAGEN: I’ll tell you, this is a

10

little difficult because we were put in federal

11

court, put into mediation again and several months

12

lapsed and then we were -- eventually after they

13

moved to dismiss all of our state law claims under

14

LAD, we were back in state court. At that point we

15

submitted discovery requests and that must have been

16

approximately in -- late 1998 or early 1999.

17

MR. CHERTOFF: And then you didn’t get this

18

document in response to that?

19

MS. STEINHAGEN: I will repeat. I nearly

20

got it after the public disclosure, up to 90,000

21

documents.

22

MR. CHERTOFF: And that would be, I guess,

23

in the year 2000, right, in 2000?

24

MS. STEINHAGEN: That’s correct.

25

MR. CHERTOFF: Now, with respect to the

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

262

1

memo, it goes on to say, “The discipline” -- what was

2

the discipline in question?

3

MS. STEINHAGEN: It was -- it was a blue

4

ticket that Trooper Cooper had received for allegedly

5

lowering the speed on a summons and doing something

6

with his lights. You’re going to have to ask --

7

putting his lights on at the wrong time.

8

I think that’s -- that was the initial PN.

9

MR. CHERTOFF: All right. And then did you

10

-- did there come a point in time before everything

11

got released in the summer or the fall of 2000, did

12

there come a point in time that you learned that

13

there was a lengthy delay between the close of the

14

investigation and the issuance of the discipline?

15

MS. STEINHAGEN: Did I learn?

16

MR. CHERTOFF: Yeah.

17

MS. STEINHAGEN: Well, I knew that from Mr.

18

Cooper.

19

MR. CHERTOFF: Was that one of the issues

20

that you raised in your case or one of the questions

21

that you raised in your claim?

22

MS. STEINHAGEN: This was in pleading. It

23

was one of the issues that Mr. Cooper raised in his

24

grievance and would be more specifically raised in

25

our litigation.

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

263

1

MR. CHERTOFF: Now, you actually had

2

mediation on this issue in 1998?

3

MS. STEINHAGEN: Well, we had mediation on

4

the whole complaint that was filed.

5

MR. CHERTOFF: And was part of the

6

mediation of this issue involving Victor Cooper’s

7

discipline?

8

MS. STEINHAGEN: I have to admit we never

9

got to that specific, but there was -- there was

10

clearly, everything was on the table, each one of the

11

troopers’ claims, and there was quite a bit of

12

discussion about what was happening regarding the

13

Sergeant Smith memo. You have to understand, while

14

in mediation not one of the men who was listed on the

15

Special had ever heard anything about the Special,

16

including Sergeant Smith.

17

It went into the air. From their point of view, they

18

filed a Special and they never heard anything again.

19

MR. CHERTOFF: Did Deputy Attorney General

20

Fields ever tell you to whom she reported?

21

MS. STEINHAGEN: No, I -- I think Deputy

22

Attorney General Sally Fields was within a unit that

23

solely dealt with State Police matters. She never

24

told me explicitly who she reported to. I would

25

believe that there had to be some reporting on civil

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

264

1

matters to current Supreme Court Justice Jayne

2

LaVecchia now was Assistant Attorney General at the

3

time.

4

MR. CHERTOFF: Now, how is it that you came

5

to submit -- you said you submitted the -- let me

6

withdraw the question.

7

You had the Smith report because obviously

8

Sergeant Smith himself had it, right?

9

MS. STEINHAGEN: That’s correct.

10

MR. CHERTOFF: And you said there came a

11

time you submitted it to the Department of Justice to

12

Mr. Rosenbaum in I believe January 1999, correct?

13

MS. STEINHAGEN: On March 25th, 1999.

14

MR. CHERTOFF: And how did you become --

15

what caused you at that time to submit it?

16

MS. STEINHAGEN: The allegation of Trooper

17

Cooper that he was videotaping white troopers and the

18

union -- well, the minutes that were being posted on

19

all the troop stations that made him fear for his

20

life. And he was now going off the road. I was aware

21

of the investigation. And I’ll be candid here. I’m

22

co-counsel with David Rose in the NAACP case who used

23

to be the Chief of Employment Litigation in the

24

Department of Justice for 20 years, and he was on

25

talking terms with Steven and he told me to -- gave

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

265

1

me Steven’s phone number.

2

MR. CHERTOFF: Well, let me ask you this

3

now, this is my final question. When did you become

4

aware of the fact that there was a Department of

5

Justice investigation into racial profiling by the

6

State Police?

7

MS. STEINHAGEN: I believe at the time

8

where it became public knowledge, around the shooting

9

of the Turnpike.

10

MR. CHERTOFF: I don’t think it was public

11

then. If it helps, I think it became public

12

knowledge or was announced by the Department sometime

13

in February or March of 1999.

14

MS. STEINHAGEN: It was announced in March

15

of 1999?

16

MR. CHERTOFF: Yeah. Putting aside the

17

date, did you have advance word or did you learn

18

about it only when it was publicly announced?

19

MS. STEINHAGEN: That is correct. I had no

20

inside knowledge that there was an ongoing

21

investigation regarding profiling.

22

MR. CHERTOFF: And so during the period of

23

time that you were involved in litigation until you

24

contacted Mr. Rosenbaum, no one at the Department of

25

Justice, Civil Rights Division, ever reached out to

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

266

1

you, for example, to interview your clients, right?

2

MS. STEINHAGEN: No.

3

MR. CHERTOFF: And that’s because as far as

4

you know, they didn’t know your clients were out

5

there with anything to say, right?

6

MS. STEINHAGEN: No, I won’t say that.

7

MR. CHERTOFF: Well, how would they have

8

known that your clients had something to say?

9

MS. STEINHAGEN: They had the Special.

10

MR. CHERTOFF: I beg --

11

MS. STEINHAGEN: They had the Special in

12

their hand -- oh, you mean -- you’re talking about

13

the --

14

MR. CHERTOFF: Yeah, let me make sure --

15

MS. STEINHAGEN: -- AG or the Department of

16

Justice?

17

MR. CHERTOFF: Let me make sure I’m clear.

18

I want to get -- I’m talking about the U.S.

19

Department of Justice.

20

MS. STEINHAGEN: Oh, the U.S. Department of

21

Justice.

22

MR. CHERTOFF: Until --

23

MS. STEINHAGEN: That’s correct.

24

MR. CHERTOFF: Okay. So until you became

25

aware of the investigation and submitted the Smith

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

267

1

report to the Department of Justice, you had had no

2

contact with the U.S. Department of Justice, right?

3

MS. STEINHAGEN: I did not personally.

4

MR. CHERTOFF: And that’s because the U.S.

5

Department of Justice, as far as you know, had no

6

notice of the fact that you represented people who

7

had information about profiling?

8

MS. STEINHAGEN: That’s is correct. As

9

what’s come out in this hearing that the Smith

10

Special was withheld.

11

MR. CHERTOFF: And you’d agree with me, I

12

suppose -- it’s probably the kind of question you can

13

predict the answer to, but you’d agree with me, I

14

suppose, that if the U.S. Department of Justice had

15

had, for example, the Smith report or the subsequent

16

analysis back in 1997, you would have expected that

17

they would have reached out for you to talk to your

18

clients, correct?

19

MS. STEINHAGEN: I would have expected the

20

Department of Justice, as I expected the New Jersey

21

State Police, as I expected IAB, as I expected the

22

Attorney General.

23

MR. CHERTOFF: And am I correct, if the

24

U.S.

25

-- if the Civil Rights Division had asked, for

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

268

1

example, to interview your clients, you would have,

2

you know, permitted them to be interviewed on this

3

subject?

4

MS. STEINHAGEN: Yes.

5

MR. CHERTOFF: I have nothing further.

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you.

7

Senator Girgenti.

8

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

9

Just a couple questions.

10

What is the present status of these

11

troopers’ complaints?

12

MS. STEINHAGEN: We’re in the process of

13

discovery. There are some individual complaints that

14

we haven’t gone into detail that, you know, for

15

instance Trooper Sanders can talk more about this,

16

but he filed an EEO/AA complaint over two summers ago

17

regarding The Phantom who was appearing on the State

18

Police computer screens. The Phantom has since been

19

shut down but --

20

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Yeah, that was my next

21

question. What was --

22

MS. STEINHAGEN: -- Trooper Sanders

23

continually gets these requests for 45 days more to

24

investigate and it’s gone unsaid.

25

Trooper Perry’s complaint regarding the

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

269

1

training where there was serious discussion about the

2

admirable qualities, leadership qualities of Adolph

3

Hitler, has yet to been answered.

4

So individual complaints the men have been

5

filing, while the litigation has still been filed,

6

but each time going internally to get some sort of

7

relief, have typically either been found

8

unsubstantiated or have been left unresolved.

9

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Maybe -- what was or is

10

The Phantom?

11

TROOPER SANDERS: The Phantom is basically

12

-- I don’t know who it is, that’s why they call him

13

The Phantom, however, The Phantom is described

14

vividly by the current Troop D Turnpike commander in

15

the book Behind the Badge. The Phantom, as he was

16

explained to us in the Academy, just appeared

17

mysteriously and keeps everyone in line. So The

18

Phantom was the cloaked individual or people who

19

committed acts or atrocities against people who

20

complained against the Division.

21

SENATOR GIRGENTI: What kind of acts?

22

TROOPER SANDERS: We had -- I’ve had

23

several types of acts committed against me. Car

24

tires flattened. Uniforms destroyed in the locker.

25

Equipment stolen. Hats, hat badges, shoes. Constant

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

270

1

harassment in the workplace.

2

The other -- also, at the time after the

3

Turnpike shooting, The Phantom appeared by way of an

4

e-mail or website or something of that nature. And

5

The Phantom, who we believe the State Police know

6

that person to be, used to commit acts or make

7

threats against us on that website or imply threats.

8

I made a complaint to the Attorney General’s Office

9

under the reformed State Police. And the Attorney

10

General’s Office then started to give these 45-day

11

extension letters. The same letters that we got

12

before the reforms.

13

So you never got to the bottom of The

14

Phantom complaint, and to this day --

15

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Was there ever any

16

investigation of it?

17

TROOPER SANDERS: From what I am told,

18

there’s an investigation pending. Every 45 days I

19

get a letter for the past two years asking for my

20

acknowledge that the investigation is continuing and

21

we’re looking into it. It’s the same way it was four

22

years ago.

23

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And what is the Lords of

24

Discipline?

25

TROOPER SANDERS: The Lords of Discipline -

Testimony - Trooper Sanders

271

1

- again, I’m from North Jersey, but what I am told is

2

a group that operated in South Jersey in the southern

3

part of the state, that pretty much performed the

4

same acts that The Phantom did in other areas.

5

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Maybe, Ms. Steinhagen.

6

What rationale did the State Police police offer as

7

to why Trooper Anthony Reed wasn’t allowed to

8

participate in the mediation?

9

MS. STEINHAGEN: He’s not a trooper.

10

There’s quite a history with Anthony Reed. He was

11

one of the minority troopers who was not re-enlisted

12

and he filed an EEOC charge and he had been out on a

13

disability and he resolved his EEOC charge by getting

14

a retirement, a disability retirement. Anthony had

15

filed a Special in 1989, it’s our understanding,

16

protesting explicitly profiling. He was vocal. He

17

was a leader. He was articulate. They had a flat-

18

out answer, there’s no way that Anthony Reed is going

19

to participate in this. Anthony Reed has nothing to

20

say. He’s no longer a trooper. There’s a further

21

story involving Trooper Arnie Abrams here where the

22

State Police went out and

23

-- Arnie can explain this more, but stopped Tony

24

Reed on the road and gave him about five summonses --

25

five summonses and when the trooper came back to the

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

272

1

station there was some discussion and Trooper Arnie

2

Abrams overhead this trooper say, “I finally got

3

Tony.” And what followed then was a series of during

4

the Municipal Court hearing where several of the

5

hierarchy in Newark station appeared to witness Arnie

6

Abrams testify as to the statement that he heard this

7

trooper say and then Arnie was brought up on charges.

8

Those charges eventually were dropped after we filed

9

an EEOC charge about them and after I think there was

10

some concern that there really was wrongdoing on the

11

part of the State Police.

12

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And just finally, just

13

looking through the attachments that you had on your

14

statement originally. No, Ms. Steinhagen. Where did

15

you -- these minutes that you have, these are --

16

MS. STEINHAGEN: The minutes from the

17

union?

18

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Right. Are they --

19

MS. STEINHAGEN: They were posted all over

20

the station. Victor Cooper -- I don’t even know if

21

Victor gave them to me or someone -- one other

22

trooper. They were all over in every station.

23

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Is this something that

24

was sanctioned? Like who wrote them? Was this the

25

union --

Testimony - Ms. Steinhagen

273

1

MS. STEINHAGEN: We believe that it was --

2

these were portrayed as the minutes of a union

3

meeting that was held. They were stuck in the same

4

place where minutes of union meetings are held.

5

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Because they’re pretty

6

inflammatory. Unbelievable some of the statements.

7

MS. STEINHAGEN: Well, I find this ten

8

percent T-shirt a little inflammatory as well. You

9

know, you sort of take -- Colonel Dunbar says there

10

are only ten percent of the troopers are profiling

11

and then you have troopers using that as their

12

rallying cry, that they’re now one of the ten

13

percenters.

14

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And these were posted in

15

all the barracks?

16

MS. STEINHAGEN: The union minute meetings?

17

Yes.

18

SENATOR GIRGENTI: And just one final

19

thing.

20

The logo that’s used at the state trooper Yahoo

21

website, what is it and who --

22

MS. STEINHAGEN: It’s this.

23

(Ms. Steinhagen holds up T-shirt)

24

SENATOR GIRGENTI: No, what’s the website?

25

TROOPER SANDERS: I don’t subscribe to the

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

274

1

website. I’m sure someone else might know. I think

2

it’s Trooperyahoo.com or Yahootrooper.com.

3

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Is it sanctioned?

4

TROOPER SANDERS: I don’t know if it’s

5

officially sanctioned.

6

SENATOR GIRGENTI: Okay. Thank you.

7

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you for your

8

testimony.

9

MS. STEINHAGEN: Thank you for the

10

opportunity to speak with you.

11

SENATOR GORMLEY: The next witness is

12

Trooper Mark Stephens.

13

(Pause)

14

SENATOR GORMLEY: Would you please stand

15

and be sworn.

16

M A R K S T E P H E N S, SWORN

17

SENATOR GORMLEY: Be seated.

18

Again, just for the record, the Committee

19

asked this witness to appear today and we’d

20

appreciate your testimony at this time.

21

TROOPER MARK STEPHENS: Thank you, sir.

22

SENATOR GORMLEY: Make sure the red light

23

is on.

24

TROOPER STEPHENS: Okay, I’ll proceed with

25

my opening statement.

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

275

1

SENATOR GORMLEY: Go ahead.

2

TROOPER STEPHENS: A brief history of my

3

service. I’m a graduate of the 112th State Police

4

Academy, which was on February 10th, 1989. I wish to

5

give this Committee an example of my experience as it

6

pertains to racial profiling and discrimination

7

within the ranks of the New Jersey State Police up to

8

and including the Office of the Attorney General.

9

On or about 1990, I was assigned to the

10

Troop C, Flemington station. On a particular day, my

11

squad supervisor advised me that a senior trooper

12

would accompany me from the Drug Interdiction

13

Training Unit. Shortly thereafter, I was introduced

14

to a particular trooper who advised me that we would

15

carry out our patrolling duties in his assigned State

16

Police marked vehicle. He proceeded to take me on

17

U.S. Route 202 in the area near the Pennsylvania toll

18

bridge. He parked his vehicle perpendicular to the

19

flow of traffic which enabled us to visually monitor

20

the operators of vehicles that passed by.

21

The trooper then spent a significant amount

22

of time going over recent case law as it pertained to

23

arrest, search and seizure. He then focused in on

24

encouraging me to look for a U-Haul or related rental

25

trucks that were being operated by Hispanic,

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

276

1

Columbian and Mexican males for purposes of stopping

2

and searching, anticipating drug seizure.

3

He emphasized that upon observing a vehicle

4

driven by one of the listed members of specific

5

minority ethnic background, a stop should be

6

initiated. Shortly thereafter, a large yellow rental

7

box truck being operated by what appeared to be an

8

Hispanic male, passed by our location. The trooper

9

pulled out and initiated a stop of the vehicle. He

10

advised the driver that he was being stopped for

11

weaving back and forth on the roadway and

12

subsequently convinced the driver to allow him to

13

search the truck.

14

The search met with negative results and

15

the driver was issued a written warning.

16

On or about February 15th, 1993, I was

17

transferred to the New Jersey Turnpike, Moorestown

18

station. I was immediately introduced to the

19

practice known as racial profiling by senior troopers

20

in the Moorestown station. Specifically, and during

21

one particular daytime shift, I was approached by a

22

group of senior troopers and advised to meet them at

23

Interchange Number 1, which is adjacent to the

24

Delaware Memorial Bridge. Upon arriving at

25

Interchange Number 1, I was advised to remove my name

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

277

1

tag for purposes of preventing identification and

2

then to “watch how it’s done.” I observed a group of

3

troopers, approximately there were four of them, sit

4

perpendicular to the toll plaza and pick out vehicles

5

that contained minority occupants, namely black and

6

Latino, for purposes of stopping and searching.

7

I observed that the stops were not based on

8

any initial observation of a motor vehicle violation

9

or warranting crime. I further observed that the

10

stops were not being properly called in as is

11

required by State Police SOP, standard operating

12

procedure. In most cases the troopers were

13

conducting full-blown searches of the vehicles and

14

respective occupants.

15

I immediately removed myself from the

16

location and continued patrol of my assigned area of

17

responsibility.

18

As time went on into the year of 1993, it

19

was clear that the practice of racial profiling was

20

very much alive among troopers at the Moorestown

21

station. The aforementioned actions conducted at

22

Interchange 1 were commonplace, especially on power

23

or flex days, which are days with double the

24

manpower.

25

The practice of racial profiling, however,

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

278

1

spread much farther than Interchange Number 1.

2

Between 1993 and 1999 I observed scores of troopers

3

engaged at what I believe to be the racist practice.

4

I can recount numerous occasions where which I pulled

5

up on a trooper with a vehicle stopped and one or

6

more minorities spewed out on the shoulder of the

7

roadway while a search was taking place. My

8

suspicions were initially aroused due to the fact

9

that I knew the stop had not yet been called in to

10

the dispatcher or operator.

11

As time went on, I became more acquainted

12

with certain troopers and their methods of operation.

13

Most troopers who profiled, always profiled, and

14

became easily predictable in their actions. Examples

15

of which: certain southern portions of the Turnpike

16

they would consistently work in or around and their

17

radio habits. The consensus was that the farther

18

south you patrolled, the better, in that it was

19

easier to pick and choose the vehicles you would want

20

to stop because the traffic was lighter, thus

21

allowing a better view of occupants.

22

In 1994 I filed a discrimination complaint

23

in the State Police Office of Affirmative Action as a

24

result of incidents I encountered that were a direct

25

result of racist actions of certain members of the

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

279

1

rank and file. As a result, I was immediately

2

ostracized from the majority of the rank and file.

3

Those that profiled and/or committed acts that could

4

potentially reek with improper race-related

5

overtones, began to distance themselves from me as

6

much as possible. I experienced several situations

7

where I would pull up on a trooper who had a vehicle

8

stopped and one or more minority occupants out of the

9

vehicle while a search was taking place. The stop

10

hadn’t been called in and upon noticing my presence,

11

the trooper would compromise his safety by waving me

12

off. Shortly thereafter, I would hear the stop being

13

called in and a subsequent request for backup from

14

someone other than myself.

15

These actions continued as time progressed.

16

Bad situations became worse. My stance against

17

profiling and discrimination was widely known, which

18

ultimately led to a particular trooper advising me

19

that he did not wish to ride with me during two-man

20

patrols which were conducted over the midnight shift.

21

Throughout my many negative experiences, I

22

continually heard the all too-common phrase, “It’s

23

not about black and white, but rather blue and gold”

24

from members in management within the Moorestown

25

station.

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

280

1

If that statement ever had any validity, then why is

2

it that even today after all that has happened, it is

3

so difficult for minority troopers and white troopers

4

to demonstrate mutual respect for obvious dissimilar

5

experiences within the organization they both call

6

home for employment.

7

It seems to me that members of the Division

8

of State Police, along with members of the Office of

9

the Attorney General, both past and present, want

10

you, and when I say “you”, I mean members of this

11

Committee, the citizens of the State of New Jersey

12

and the United States Justice Department to believe

13

that everything that can or could have possibly be

14

done to investigate, address and cure racial

15

profiling and discrimination within the rank and

16

file, is being done.

17

I present to you today that everything that

18

could have or can be done regarding this severe

19

problem, has not and is not being done. We must

20

understand that profiling is just one manifestation

21

of an abiding and deeply imbedded form of racism

22

within the State Police.

23

In addressing the issue of racial

24

profiling, it would be careless of us to only concern

25

ourselves with a single symptom rather than the

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

281

1

totality of the disease. Profiling exists in a

2

culture which mistreatment of minorities is

3

encouraged and tolerated by the highest levels of

4

management within the Division.

5

When confronted with the potential evidence

6

of racial profiling and racism within the rank and

7

file, members of the Division of State Police, along

8

with the Office of the Attorney General, have always

9

been quick to run for cover and defend the

10

institution.

11

Complaints brought forth have always been

12

handled in the safe confines of their own secret

13

groups. This is evidence in what we all now have

14

learned as a result of the releasing of the many

15

documents we have been able to review. Those within

16

the rank and file who have complained or reported

17

instances of racial profiling and discrimination,

18

have been the victims of extreme retaliation to the

19

highest degree. Character assassination, heightened

20

supervision, demeaning deployment of details and

21

duties, poor working conditions or environments,

22

denial of specialist assignment or promotion, and in

23

some cases termination, are all examples of the

24

retaliation that I and many of my colleagues have

25

been subjected to.

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

282

1

In fact, at this time I would like to take

2

the opportunity to put on the record that I expect to

3

be retaliated against by the Division of State Police

4

for testifying before this Committee today. In fact,

5

fear of retaliation as it has been witnessed, has

6

always been one of the main reasons why scores of

7

troubled troopers don’t complain. The State Police

8

has never implemented any real or true system by

9

which its employees can report improper conduct or

10

wrongdoing within the rank and file without the

11

overwhelming fear of retaliation.

12

Along these lines, I would like to bring

13

your attention to the tenure program. In the State

14

Police there exists a five-year probation period.

15

Within this probationary period there exists an

16

implied retaliation policy with regard to the two-

17

year, four-year and five-year re-enlistment

18

guidelines, whereas the employee can be terminated

19

without cause within this five-year period. With

20

this in mind, it is important to know that there is a

21

significant portion of probationary troopers who man

22

the road stations. The majority of these troopers

23

are often placed in situations by senior troopers

24

that require them to submit to the program or face

25

career assassination. Fear and intimidation are the

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

283

1

two key elements utilized in this process.

2

Unfortunately, many troopers fall prey to wrongdoing

3

just to be accepted and incorporate the program which

4

is as follows: Make the arrest, get the job, get the

5

promotion.

6

While on the topics of fear and

7

retaliation, I would like to bring your attention to

8

the Smith Special Report marked OAG000987, that’s

9

attached to my statement, of which I am listed as the

10

second trooper interviewed on Page 1. First, I want

11

to bring your attention to Page 2, marked OAG000988.

12

There are 14 troopers listed here, all of which are

13

of African-American descent. Now, let’s return to

14

Page Number 1 and proceed to the last paragraph of

15

which I will read. These are the words of Sergeant

16

Smith. “The undersigned also interviewed several

17

other minority troopers assigned to the Moorestown

18

station who wish to remain anonymous but was advised

19

by them that they also felt there were improper

20

patrol procedures being used at the Moorestown

21

station. However, their concerns were only a

22

perception and not factual.”

23

I submit to you today that the substance in

24

this paragraph as it pertains to the troopers listed

25

on Page 2 of this report that wish to remain

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

284

1

anonymous, is as clear of an example that you will

2

see which demonstrates fear of retaliation.

3

Now, I would like to bring your attention

4

to the document marked GC003065. Sir, is it possible

5

that we can put this on the monitor?

6

SENATOR GORMLEY: We’re familiar with the

7

document.

8

TROOPER STEPHENS: Okay.

9

SENATOR GORMLEY: That’s why we had it

10

marked.

11

TROOPER STEPHENS: May we all please take a

12

moment to review this document. First, I want to

13

identify the abbreviated initials on the top left,

14

Lt. JB. These stand for Lieutenant Joseph Brennan

15

who, by the way, went on to be promoted to the rank

16

of Captain shortly after with charge over the Office

17

of Affirmative Action within the State Police. A

18

brief explanation. The Office of Affirmative Action

19

is the office in existence that was supposedly set up

20

and designed to address issues as they pertain to

21

minority troopers and the minority community.

22

Next, I would like to draw your attention

23

to the last paragraph and the last sentence which

24

reads: “If they provide information other than that

25

in Smith’s Special, this would be the time we could

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

285

1

give them a hard time for not having complied with

2

Article 5, Section 8 of the rules and regs.

3

(Attached)”

4

Now, please refer to the copy of Article 5,

5

Section 8 of the rules and regulations and I’ll read:

6

Article 5 and the subtitle is Performance of Duty,

7

Section 8. “A member shall communicate promptly

8

through the Division chain-of-command all crimes,

9

breaches of the peace, suicides, attempted suicides,

10

fires, accidents, complaints, misconduct or other

11

information of which the Division takes cognizance

12

that may come to the member’s attention during the

13

performance of such member’s duty. A member shall

14

not withhold any information on such matters for any

15

reason.”

16

And finally, draw your attention to the

17

bottom of this memo, FYITG3635. Thomas Gilbert, who

18

many of us have been somewhat led to believe has been

19

instrumental in his efforts as they pertain to this

20

Committee’s quest into the truth behind racial

21

profiling. The retaliatory overtones that reek from

22

this memo are overwhelming in power. Rather than

23

consider the possibility of potential evidence that

24

there may, in fact, have been something very wrong,

25

Thomas Gilbert was terribly anxious to begin the

Testimony - Trooper Stephens

286

1

process of retaliation and punishment against those

2

of us that had complained. I submit to you that the

3

elements in this memo in context are just a blip on

4

the screen as they compare to the retaliation that I

5

and many of my colleagues have been forced to deal

6

with. This is what happens to people that complain

7

and deeper, this is what happens to minorities.

8

In closing, I would briefly like to address

9

the current state of affairs. Currently leaders of

10

this great state have recently testified before this

11

Committee and expressed feelings of being puzzled as

12

to why things are still statistically the same. I

13

offer a common analogy. If a gardener only cuts the

14

top of the weed off in his garden, he shouldn’t claim

15

to be puzzled when the weed continues to grow. To

16

restrict efforts to only the surface and obvious

17

symptoms while leaving the roots, examples of which

18

Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Colonels, intact and

19

undisturbed, is extremely troublesome and a

20

disservice to the citizens of the State of New

21

Jersey.

22

Thank you.

23

SENATOR GORMLEY: Thank you for your

24

testimony.

25

That will conclude the hearing for today.

287

1

(Off the record)

2

3

* * * * *

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

CERTIFICATION

16

17

I, PATRICIA A. KONTURA, the assigned

18

transcriber, do hereby certify the foregoing

19

transcript of proceedings on tape number 1, index

20

number 0 to end; tape number 2, index number 0 to

21

4500; tape number 3, index number 0 to end; tape

22

number 4, index number 0 to end; and tape number 5,

23

index number 0 to 3000, is prepared in full

24

compliance with the current Transcript Format for

25

Judicial Proceedings and is a true and accurate

288

1

compressed transcript of the proceedings as recorded,

2

and to the best of my ability.

3

4

5

6

______________________________ Date:

7

PATRICIA A. KONTURA AOC #234

8

J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CR
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1999
(202) 353-8584
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TDD (202) 514-1888
NEW JERSEY SETTLES ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION BY STATE POLICE
UNDER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The State of New Jersey has agreed to implement new policies and procedures to ensure that the New Jersey State Police do not discriminate against minorities when making traffic stops along New Jersey's roads, under an agreement reached today with the Justice Department.
The agreement, filed along with a complaint in U.S. District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, establishes requirements for traffic enforcement, vehicle searches, data collection, training, supervision, complaint procedures and public reporting for the State Police. Today's agreement, which must be approved by the court, resolves an investigation by the Justice Department into allegations that New Jersey state troopers engaged in a pattern of discriminatory traffic enforcement.
"This agreement will establish real safeguards against racially discriminatory stops and searches for motorists who drive on New Jersey's highways," said Bill Lann Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. "We are pleased the state has worked together with us to develop such a comprehensive agreement."
As a result of the agreement, the state will:
• prohibit state troopers from relying on race, national origin or ethnicity when making traffic stops and initiating any post-stop actions, except when a suspect has been identified in part by their race, national origin or ethnicity;
• require state troopers to have reasonable suspicion and written consent from individuals before initiating any consensual search;
• document the race, ethnic origin and gender of all motor vehicle drivers who are the subject of a traffic stop, the reason for the stop and the nature of any post-stop activities;
• ensure that supervisors regularly review trooper reports on poststop actions and patrol car video tapes, and take corrective measures where appropriate;

• implement a "management awareness" program that uses computerized information on traffic stops, misconduct investigations, and other matters to identify patterns of problematic conduct and allow supervisors to take corrective measures when appropriate;
• make its complaint system more accessible to the public and ensure misconduct allegations are investigated fully and fairly and discipline is imposed when appropriate;
• increase training on supervisory issues, communications skills, and cultural diversity for troopers and their supervisors; and,
• issue semi-annual reports which will provide traffic stop statistics by race and ethnicity, as well as information on complaint investigations.
In addition, the parties will select an independent monitor who will ensure that the state is in compliance with the agreement. The monitor will issue regular reports to the court, the state and the Justice Department.
"This agreement embodies a giant step forward in eliminating any police actions that might discriminate against racial or ethnic minorities," said Robert Cleary, U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. "Our message should be clear -- such disparate treatment will not be tolerated."
This is the fourth police misconduct lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. The first two cases, against the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the city of Steubenville, Ohio, also were resolved through settlement agreements. The third case, against the city of Columbus, Ohio, was filed in October 1999. Under the 1994 Crime Bill, the Justice Department has the authority to file civil suits against law enforcement agencies that engage in a pattern of misconduct. The Department also has the authority to file suit against law enforcement agencies that receive federal funds and engage in a pattern of discrimination. In addition to the four cases already mentioned, the Department is currently investigating a number of other law enforcement agencies across the country.