[brief] Thus, and contrary to the Trial Court’s ruling, reliance on precedent interpreting “misconduct” as relating to public officers and/or officials such as law enforcement officers, is proper.  In this regard it is noted that this State has ruled police officers are “public officials,” Costello v. Ocean County Observer, 136 N.J. 594, 613 (1994), just as Plaintiff here.  In [...], supra, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that “misconduct” is akin to conduct unbecoming a public employee.  [...], 152 N.J. at 554.  Relevant here, the [...] Court ruled, “Conduct unbecoming a firefighter or other public employee, in many ways, is reminiscent of the common-law offense of misconduct in office and the statutory offense of official misconduct."  Id. at 553-54.  The [...] Court further held, New Jersey courts have applied the standard of “conduct unbecoming” in numerous cases involving the discipline of police officers.  For instance, in In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136 (1960), the Appellate Division confronted the issue whether an off-duty police officer's refusal to cooperate and to submit to a sobriety test following an automobile accident constituted ‘conduct unbecoming an officer. ’  Id. at 140.  The court observed that ‘[t]he phrase is an elastic one, that has been defined as any conduct which adversely affects the morale or efficiency of the bureau...[or] which has a tendency to destroy public respect for municipal employees and confidence in the operation of municipal services. ’  Ibid. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].  Id. at 554 (emphasis added).  The [...] Court also relied upon Emmons, supra, in ruling that for a violation of “misconduct” or “conduct unbecoming a public employee” to be found, "it is sufficient that the complained of conduct and its attending circumstances be such as to offend publicly accepted standards of decency."  Id. (quoting Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. at 140).  The Emmons Court ruled that such misconduct does not need to "be predicated upon the violation of any particular rule or regulation, but may be based merely upon the violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands it he public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct. ”  Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. at 140 (citing Asbury Park v. Dep’t of Civil Service, 17 N.J. 419 (1955)).  See also, Hartmann v. Police Dep't of Vill. of Ridgewood, 258 N.J. Super. 32, 40 (App. Div. 1992)), and Phillips, supra, 117 N.J. at 576.  As to the off-duty racist conduct of a public official addressed in [...], the Supreme Court further held:  Here, [...] did not simply use a racial epithet against a private citizen, but against a police officer who was in the course of performing his duties.  To make matters worse, he identified himself as an [...] employee prior to conducting himself in such a manner.  He exhibited this behavior in public, toward other City employees, and without regard to who may have witnessed the incident.  Such conduct adversely affects the morale of both the police and fire departments; It also has the tendency to destroy public respect for City employees and public confidence in the operation of the respective departments.  **Such behavior clearly offends accepted standards of decency. **  We find that by a preponderance of the evidence that Karin’s conduct constituted, “conduct unbecoming” both a public employee and an [...] member, in violation of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6) and Article VII, Sect. 2-A(a) of the [...] rules and regulations…  *[...]*, 152 N.J. at 556-557 (emphasis added).  Certainly, the revolting video [...] distributed publicly offends accepted standards of decency.