SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1795-17T2

KENNETH M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE,

Respondent-Respondent.

___________________________

Argued January 30, 2019 – Decided February 13, 2019

Before Judges Alvarez and Reisner.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Police.

Daniel Louis Grossman argued the cause for appellant.

Erica R. Heyer, Deputy Attorney General, argued the 

cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney 

General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Erica R. Heyer, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-1795-17T2

Appellant Kenneth Johnson appeals from a November 8, 2017 final

decision of the Superintendent of the State Police, adopting the initial decision 

of an administrative law judge, denying appellant's application for a private 

detective license. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the initial 

decision and the Superintendent's final decision. 

On this appeal, appellant raises the following points of argument:

POINT ONE

NJSP IS ADMINISTRATIVELY ESTOPPED FROM

DENYING APPELLANT HIS P.I. LICENSE

BECAUSE THE STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE ARE 

IDENTICAL.

POINT TWO

THE DECISION WAS ARBITRARY AND 

CAPRICIOUS.

After reviewing the record, we find that the Superintendent's decision is not 

arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial credible evidence. See

Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995); 

Mattia v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 455 N.J Super. 217, 221 

(App. Div. 2018). Appellant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant 

further discussion beyond the following brief comments. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 
3

A-1795-17T2

Appellant retired from the State Police after admitting, as part of a 

negotiated settlement of disciplinary charges, that he abused sick time, 

concealed his misconduct, and committed other related infractions. After he 

retired, he obtained a license to work as a security officer (a SORA license). 

However, as the State's witness explained at the administrative hearing, the State 

Police engage in a much more in-depth investigation when considering an 

application for a private detective license as opposed to a SORA license.

1

Further, the regulatory requirements pertaining to a private detective license are 

somewhat different in terms of the applicant's character and background. See

N.J.A.C. 13:55-1.11(a)(2) (a private detective license may be denied based on 

the applicant's "bad moral character, intemperate habits or a bad reputation for 

truth, honesty and integrity[.]"); N.J.A.C. 13:55A-3.7(a)(7) (a SORA license 

may be denied based on the applicant's "bad moral character, incompetence, or 

untrustworthiness[.]"). The investigation for the private investigator license 

revealed appellant's disciplinary history preceding his retirement from the State 

Police, and the application was denied based on that history. 

 

1 The SORA license was issued after a routine criminal background 

investigation. Appellant's qualifications for that license were not the subject of

an administrative hearing or other adversarial proceeding. 
4

A-1795-17T2

We conclude that the Superintendent's decision was amply supported by 

the record and was not arbitrary or capricious. The Superintendent was not 

estopped from denying the private detective license based on the earlier issuance 

of the SORA license. Collateral estoppel requires a showing that the "identical" 

issue was "actually litigated" in a "prior proceeding." Olivieri v. Y.M.F. Carpet, 

Inc., 186 N.J. 511, 521 (2006). The previous issuance of the SORA license did 

not meet any of those standards.

Affirmed.