SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1390-17T4

DANA CLARK STEVENSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND 

PUBLIC SAFETY,

Respondent-Respondent.

____________________________

Argued September 18, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Haas.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Law and 

Public Safety.

Michael M. Mulligan, Salem County Counsel, argued 

the cause for appellant County of Salem.

Robert J. McGuire, Deputy Attorney General, argued 

the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney 

General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Robert J. McGuire, on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

October 1, 2019
2

A-1390-17T4

Appellant County of Salem (the County) appeals from the Attorney 

General's final decision denying the County's request for defense and 

indemnification in connection with a class action lawsuit filed against it by a 

group of inmates. We affirm.

The underlying facts of this matter are not in dispute. On May 17, 2017, 

four inmates housed by the County in the Salem County Jail filed a complaint 

against the County in the Law Division. The inmates alleged that the County 

violated their federal and state civil rights by adopting policies and practices 

requiring that they and other similarly-situated inmates be "classified as suicidal 

for no apparent reason, made to wear garments which exposed [their] private 

parts, and . . . routinely strip searched" several times a day. The inmates sought 

an award of compensatory damages, and a judgment declaring the County's

"policies, practices and customs to be unconstitutional and/or violations of their 

rights."

Significantly, the complaint did not name the County Sheriff or any 

individual county employees as defendants. On June 19, 2017, the County filed 

an answer to the complaint.

Two months later, the County sent a letter to the Attorney General and the 

Commissioner of the State Department of Corrections demanding that the 
3

A-1390-17T4

Attorney General defend and provide indemnification to the County in the 

lawsuit. In support of this demand, the County relied upon the Tort Claim Act, 

N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to -12.3 (the Act), but failed to cite a specific section of the Act 

that supported its request. The County also referred to the Supreme Court's 

seminal decision in Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422 (2001) in support of its claim 

that it was entitled to defense and indemnification.

On September 21, 2017, the Attorney General rendered a written decision 

denying the County's demand. The Attorney General explained that in Wright, 

the Court held that a county prosecutorial employee, sued for actions taken while 

acting in his or her law enforcement or investigatory capacity, could be 

considered a "State employee" under the Act and entitled to defense and 

indemnification provided by the State. In this case, however, the Attorney 

General determined that Wright did not apply because the County's development 

and implementation of a strip search policy at the county-operated correctional 

facility was an administrative function, rather than a law enforcement action. 

This appeal followed.

On appeal, the County raises the following contentions:

POINT ONE: The County Sheriff and his 

uniformed corrections staff prove to be local agents of 

the State for law enforcement purposes respecting the 

management of a county adult correctional facility.
4

A-1390-17T4

POINT TWO: A county sheriff's operation of a 

county jail is subject to a compulsory and pervasive 

State government regulatory framework administered 

by the Attorney General and the Department of 

Corrections.

POINT THREE: The vicarious liability rule of the 

New Jersey Tort Claims Act [the Act] authorizes 

imposition of liability on the State for unintentional 

wrongs by its local law enforcement "agents[,"] 

including county jail corrections staff.

POINT FOUR: Where the [Act] permits vicarious 

liability to be imposed upon the State of New Jersey for 

a sheriff's law enforcement officer's unintentional 

wrongs, the State owes trial court defense and 

indemnity obligations to the sheriff and the county.

We have reviewed the County's contentions in light of the record and 

applicable law, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant 

extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the 

following brief comments.

The County based its demand for defense and indemnification on two 

grounds: the Act and the Court's decision in Wright. However, neither provides 

support for the County's contentions.

N.J.S.A. 59:10A-1 provides that "the Attorney General shall, upon a 

request of an employee or former employee of the State, provide for the defense 

of any action brought against such State employee or former State employee on 
5

A-1390-17T4

account of an act or omission in the scope of his [or her] employment." 

(emphasis added). "If . . . the Attorney General provides for the defense of an 

employee or former employee, the State shall [also] provide indemnification for 

the State employee." N.J.S.A. 59:10-1. (emphasis added).

Here, only the County was named as a defendant in the inmates' 

complaint. Neither the County Sheriff nor any of his individual employees were 

parties to the Law Division action. Because the Act plainly states that only an 

employee may seek defense and indemnification, the County was not entitled to 

do so under the Act, N.J.S.A. 59:10A-1; N.J.S.A. 59:10-1, and the County was 

unable to offer any alternate statutory support for its claim.

Under these circumstances, the Court's decision in Wright is simply 

inapplicable. In that case, the Court had to decide whether employees of a 

county prosecutor's office should be treated as "State employees" eligible for 

defense and indemnification in a case where they were sued as individuals for 

alleged improper actions taken during their law enforcement activities. Wright, 

169 N.J. at 429-31. The Court concluded that these county prosecutors held a 

"hybrid status" due to their "unique role" in performing a "function that has 

traditionally been the responsibility of the State and for which the Attorney 

General is ultimately answerable." Id. at 455-56.
6

A-1390-17T4

In the present case, however, no county employees were parties to the 

underlying class action lawsuit, and no employees sought defense and 

indemnification from the State. Therefore, and contrary to the County's 

assertions, there is no need to perform a Wright analysis in this matter. 

Nevertheless, and for purposes of completeness, we note that the County 

Sheriff "and his [or her] office are part of county government." In re Burlington 

County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 99 N.J. 90, 97 (1985). Unlike the situation 

in Wright, where the county prosecutors shared responsibility with the State for 

the enforcement of the State's criminal law, the County Sheriff alone is charged 

with "the care, custody and control of the county jail or jails and all persons 

therein, and shall be responsible for the conduct of any keeper appointed by 

him" to oversee the operation of those institutions. N.J.S.A. 30:8-17. These 

"administrative functions[,]" including the development and implementation of 

the challenged search procedures, "are the exclusive responsibility of the 

County" and, therefore, do not fall under the rule of Wright. Lavezzi v. State, 

219 N.J. 163, 167 (2014); see also Kaminskas v. Office of the Attorney General, 

236 N.J. 415, (2019) (reaffirming Wright, and holding that the Attorney General 

was not required to defend and indemnify county police officers).

Affirmed.