SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4112-19

CAROLYN L. BABURKA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

(as per: Title 59 Requirements,

suing a Public Entity),

Defendant,

and

HAZLET TOWNSHIP, HAZLET 

TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT,

POLICE CHIEF PHILIP MEEHAN,

and POLICE OFFICER CHARLEIGH

LOGOTHETIS,

Defendants-Respondents.

_________________________________

Submitted April 19, 2021 – Decided June 10, 2021

Before Judges Currier and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-1266-18.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4112-19

Carolyn L. Baburka, appellant pro se.

Manna & Bonello, attorneys for respondents Hazlet 

Township and Police Chief Philip Meehan (John L. 

Bonello, on the brief).

Chamlin, Uliano & Walsh, attorneys for respondents 

Hazlet Township Police Department and Police Officer 

Charleigh Logothetis (Andrew T. Walsh, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Carolyn Baburka appeals from the May 22, 2020 Law Division 

orders granting summary judgment dismissal of her civil rights complaint to 

defendants Hazlet Township, Hazlet Township Police Department, Hazlet 

Township Police Chief, Philip Meehan, and Hazlet Township Police Officer,

Charleigh Logothetis.1 Plaintiff's complaint stemmed from a frisk conducted by 

Officer Logothetis as part of an administrative search2at the Hazlet Township 

municipal building when plaintiff was screened for weapons prior to entering 

1

 On August 2, 2019, an order was entered granting summary judgment 

dismissal of the complaint to the State of New Jersey. However, that order is 

not challenged in this appeal.

2

 An administrative search is "a limited warrantless search of a person seeking 

to enter sensitive facilities" and "is lawful if 'conducted as part of a general 

regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, rather than as 

part of a criminal investigation to secure evidence of crime.'" Klarfeld v. United 

States, 944 F.2d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. $124,570 

U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1989)).
3

A-4112-19

the municipal courtroom to address her motor vehicle summonses. The frisk 

occurred after plaintiff triggered the metal detector situated outside the 

courtroom. No weapon was found on plaintiff.

On appeal, plaintiff raises the following arguments for our consideration:

1. THE ARGUMENT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

BY THE COURT BELOW WAS CONTRARY TO 

ESTABLISHED UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CONCERNING THE 4TH, 

5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED 

STATES CONSTITUTION.

2. HAZLET POLICE OFFICER LOGOTHETIS WAS 

NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE QUALIFIED 

IMMUNITY.

3. ALL THE DEFENDANTS WERE 

DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO THE RIGHTS 

OF THE PLAINTIFFS [SIC] RIGHTS TO RECEIVE 

A REASONABLE [SIC] CONDUCTED SEARCH OF 

PLAINTIFF'S BODY, PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF 

ENTERING THE COURTROOM.

We reject plaintiff's contentions and affirm substantially for the reasons 

articulated by Judge Henry P. Butehorn in his comprehensive and well-reasoned 

statement of reasons accompanying the orders.

I.

We recite the facts from evidence submitted by the parties in support of, 

and in opposition to, the summary judgment motion, "giv[ing] the benefit of all 
4

A-4112-19

favorable inferences to plaintiff[]." Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 

213 N.J. 573, 577 (2013) (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520, 

523 (1995)). 

In an amended pro se complaint filed on April 24, 2019, plaintiff alleged 

that at approximately 4:00 p.m. on January 16, 2018,3she "went . . . to the Hazlet 

[Township] municipal building to appear for her court date" at the Hazlet 

Township Municipal Court. After plaintiff "proceeded through the metal 

detector," Logothetis, the female officer who was "monitoring the metal 

detector," directed plaintiff "to turn around." According to plaintiff, when she 

complied, instead of using a "wand,"

4 Logothetis "touched [her] extremely 

inappropriately," "unnecessarily squeez[ing her] breasts . . . hard." 

In the complaint, plaintiff alleged that although she "lawfully submitted 

to a search," she was subjected to an unreasonably "harsh search" that caused 

her "excruciating pain," "emotionally and mentally traumatized [her,]" and 

3

 On April 5, 2018, plaintiff served a timely Notice of Tort Claim upon the State 

as required by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, 

requiring the filing of a notice of claim within ninety days of the accrual of the 

cause of action against a public entity or employee unless the claimant 

demonstrates good cause to justify a late filing.

4

 A wand is a common name for "a hand-held magnetometer." Klarfeld, 944 

F.2d at 586.
5

A-4112-19

violated her constitutional rights. She asserted the Township and Chief Meehan 

breached their duty "to provide an appropriate security monitor[] with a wand,"

"provide a proper means for frisking individuals without violating a . . . woman's 

space," or "otherwise furnish adequate and proper warnings to invitees" and 

members of the public entering the premises. 

The complaint also alleged that Hazlet Township and Hazlet Township 

Police Department failed "to properly train . . . Logothetis." Additionally, the 

complaint asserted that "[t]he [d]eprivation of [plaintiff's c]onstitutional rights 

occurred pursuant to governmental custom, policy, statement, ordinance, 

regulation and decision officially adopted and promulgated by governmental 

officials," and "[t]he inaction of [Hazlet Township] rose to the level of deliberate 

indifference." 

Plaintiff alleged defendants' actions caused her to suffer severe physical 

injuries and mental trauma that will continue throughout her lifetime. Plaintiff 

sought $5 million in damages against defendants, "individually" and "jointly,"

for her losses. Attached to plaintiff's complaint was a medical note prepared by 

a nurse during a January 17, 2018 office visit. The note indicated that plaintiff 

complained of breast and chest "pain and discomfort" from being "frisked while 

going through [a] courthouse metal detector." The physical examination 
6

A-4112-19

revealed "tenderness on palpation of right lateral breast tissue and intercostal 

area" and "axillary tenderness." The diagnosis noted "[b]reast pain, right; 

[c]hest wall tenderness; [a]nxiety." X-rays of plaintiff's chest and right ribs 

conducted on the same date reported no "significant findings."

During the discovery period, plaintiff failed to submit any expert evidence 

to support her claim for psychological and physical damages. Plaintiff was 

cleared to return to work on January 19, 2018. Subsequently, on February 8, 

2018, when plaintiff followed up with the same nurse she had visited on January 

17, 2018, the nurse concluded that there were "no long[-]term effects from the 

right upper arm and chest wall pain, which has resolved at this time." 

Additionally, plaintiff underwent a bilateral breast ultrasound on February 13, 

2020, and submitted bills evidencing multiple visits to a licensed clinical social 

worker for psychotherapy. However, no reports were provided.

In her answers to interrogatories, plaintiff reiterated that although she 

"consented to a reasonable search of [her] body for weapons," Officer 

Logothetis "failed to ask [her] if [she] had any item that could have set off the 

metal detector," "failed to . . . request that [she] pass through the metal detector 

again," and "possessed no wand." Instead, Logothetis "immediately requested 

that [she] . . . turn around" and proceeded to "squeeze[ her] breasts." 
7

A-4112-19

Through Chief Meehan's and Officer Logothetis's answers to 

interrogatories, it was revealed that Logothetis had been a Hazlet Township 

police officer since August 2013, and underwent basic training at the Cape May 

County Police Academy from August 2013 to January 2014, as well as twelve 

weeks of field training that included conducting frisks. Although Logothetis 

had no specific recollection of the event, she acknowledged being assigned to 

work the security detail for the Hazlet Township Municipal Court on January 

16, 2018, and being positioned outside the courtroom to conduct screenings for 

weapons prior to people entering the courtroom. The police department 

provided security for the municipal courtroom in accordance with directives 

issued by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Attorney General's 

Office. See Administrative Directive #15-06, "Statewide Municipal Court 

Security Policy" (Aug. 7, 2006) (requiring municipal courts to submit security 

plans to the Assignment Judge of the vicinage); Hazlet Township Police 

Department Policy and Procedures, "Municipal Court Security" (May 10, 2018) 

(codifying departmental policy and procedure in providing security for the 

municipal court).

According to Officer Logothetis, there was a metal detector in the foyer 

of the municipal building and posted signs stating that "All Persons Entering the 
8

A-4112-19

Courtroom Are Subject to Search for Weapons." Ordinarily, when a person 

activates the metal detector, the person can pass through the detector again, be 

screened using a hand-held metal detector, or frisked. Prior to a frisk, Logothetis 

generally advises the individual that she is going to conduct a quick pat down to 

search for weapons and instructs the individual to face the other way with arms 

extended. When frisking a woman, consistent with her training, Logothetis feels 

for weapons under the arms, below the bra strap, and sweeps up and down the 

legs. 

On average, Officer Logothetis conducted approximately one frisk at each 

court session. Logothetis denied ever touching anyone "extremely 

inappropriately" or "unnecessarily squeez[ing]" anyone's breasts. Prior to 

plaintiff's complaint, Logothetis never received any complaints regarding her 

frisks, and only became aware of plaintiff's complaint when she was notified by 

the Internal Affairs Unit (IA) that an investigation into plaintiff's complaint was 

underway. The IA investigation determined that the allegations were 

unfounded. 
9

A-4112-19

The discovery period ended on March 30, 2020. Over thirty days prior to 

the June 8, 2020 trial date, defendants moved for summary judgment.5 In 

support, the Police Department and Officer Logothetis relied in part on a January 

16, 2018 video of the security checkpoint outside the municipal courtroom 

depicting the incident. 

Plaintiff opposed the summary judgment motion on the ground that there 

were disputed material facts, and specifically objected to defendants' reliance on 

the video. In a supporting certification, plaintiff stated that although there was 

a sign indicating that there would be a search for weapons, there was no sign 

indicating that the search would be videotaped and plaintiff "never gave any 

informed consent for the making of the video."6 Plaintiff also objected to the 

late disclosure of the video, stating that it was not provided to her until February 

10, 2020, more than two years after it was supposedly made. Plaintiff 

"suspect[ed] that the video was either edited and/or altered" due to "the long 

delay in its presentation and the failure of any of the [d]efendant[s] . . . to submit 

5

 An earlier motion for summary judgment filed by defendants was "[d]enied 

without prejudice . . . to allow for discovery."

6

 In her Notice of Tort Claim, plaintiff responded to the question requesting the 

identification of witnesses to the occurrence by indicating that "cameras" were 

"onsite."
10 A-4112-19

an affidavit or certification that the video was not altered and/or edited in any 

respects." 

On May 22, 2020, Judge Butehorn conducted oral argument on the 

motions. On the same date, the judge entered orders granting defendants 

summary judgment. In the accompanying statement of reasons, after recounting 

the parties' respective positions and applying the governing legal principles, 

including viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff,7the judge 

determined that based on the undisputed material facts, defendants were entitled 

to summary judgment as a matter of law. 

Preliminarily, the judge noted that he "did not view or consider [the] 

video" or "any outline of the events purportedly depicted therein as part of []his 

decision." The judge agreed with plaintiff that defendants failed to submit "as 

part of the initial moving papers" any evidence indicating the video's

"authenticity." 

7

 The judge noted that despite plaintiff's noncompliance with Rule 4:46-2(b), 

requiring a conforming "responding statement" of material facts "together with 

citations to the motion record," instead of "disregarding plaintiff's submission 

and granting the motions solely upon defendants' submissions," he accorded 

plaintiff "leniency" given the fact that she was "self-represented." Thus, the 

judge considered "the substance of her submission" as "disput[ing] certain 

factual allegations" in defendants' "statement of material facts."
11 A-4112-19

Next, the judge explained that although not specifically identified in the 

complaint, plaintiff seemed "to assert a claim under the Federal Civil Rights Act 

(42 U.S.C. [§] 1983), or the New Jersey Civil Rights Act[, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -

2]" (CRA) as well as "claims of negligence . . . subject to the New Jersey Tort 

Claims Act [(TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3]." Further, "[a]lthough unclear," 

the judge deciphered plaintiff's claims as challenging both the type of search 

performed, namely, a frisk, as well as the manner in which the search was 

conducted. 

Addressing liability under the TCA, the judge acknowledged the statutory 

immunity afforded under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 when a public employee acts in good 

faith in the execution or enforcement of any law. See N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 ("A public 

employee is not liable if he acts in good faith in the execution or enforcement 

of any law."). According to the judge, assessing good faith involved considering

"whether the employee's conduct [was] objectively reasonable under the 

circumstances." See Bombace v. Newark, 125 N.J. 361, 374 (1991) (noting that 

good faith for purposes of immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 applies "if the public 

employee can show either objective or subjective good faith" and defining 

objective good faith as the objective reasonableness of the conduct in the 

circumstances).
12 A-4112-19

The judge pointed out that plaintiff "consented to a search prior to entering 

the municipal court," "admit[ted] the [metal] detector went off" when she 

"walk[ed] through [it]," and "consent[ed] to a further search in light of the 

detector going off." Further, it was undisputed that "municipal police 

departments, through their officers, provide[d] security for municipal courts 

and, as part thereof, the officers [were] executing the law." Other than objecting 

to the type of search performed, the judge determined that plaintiff could not 

"point to any facts upon which it might be found that Officer Logothetis was not 

executing the law" in good faith. 

The judge explained:

In this case the court finds the decision to frisk 

plaintiff objectively reasonable under the 

circumstances. The plaintiff admits she triggered the 

metal detector when entering the municipal court. Any 

objective person would find a further search 

reasonable; plaintiff admits as much. Moreover, there 

are different forms of further searches; one might be 

asked to walk through the detector again. The other 

forms might include, as plaintiff suggests a "wand;" 

another form of electronic or non-touching search. 

However, considering the detector [was] already 

triggered it is objectively reasonable to undertake a 

different form of search.

In addition, Logothetis is the first line of security 

for people coming into the public courthouse. . . . The 

first detector was triggered upon plaintiff walking 

through it and it is objectively reasonable for the officer 
13 A-4112-19

in this case to have determined a further search was 

required and to perform it through a different means 

than that already triggered as a follow up.

Therefore, the court finds N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 

provides Officer Logothetis immunity from any tort 

claim against her for selecting to frisk plaintiff rather 

than a different form of follow up search. Similarly, 

the public entity defendants . . . cannot be liable on this 

claim. N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(b).[8] Nor is there a basis upon 

which to hold the Chief liable.

Specifically addressing plaintiff's tort claim against the Chief, the Police 

Department, and the Township, the judge stated:

[P]laintiff’s claims as outlined in her complaint are a 

failure to provide appropriate security, failure to 

provide warnings for those entering the premises, and a 

failure to provide proper means of frisking entrants to 

the municipal courts. However, plaintiff cannot point 

to any evidence in support of same as against those 

defendants. There is no evidence of any potential 

incidents, or issues, regarding screenings or security at 

the municipal court. The only evidence in this case 

would be as to plaintiff's screening in particular. There 

is no evidence upon which a jury might find the security 

was inappropriate or insufficient. Plaintiff may take 

issue with the way her screening was handled, however 

that is not a basis to sustain a claim for failure to have 

generally appropriate security.

The same is true as to a claim for failure to 

provide warnings or failure to provide proper frisking 

8

 See N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(b) ("A public entity is not liable for an injury resulting 

from an act or omission of a public employee where the public employee is not 

liable.").
14 A-4112-19

of entrants. That is, there is no evidence regarding any 

incidents or issues other than plaintiff's assertions 

regarding her entry alone. As to the claim against the 

Chief for failure to supervise, that is based upon – as 

the allegation is put in the complaint - overlooking what 

took place after the fact. There is no evidence to 

support a claim against him upon a failure to act (or an 

act) prior to the frisk at issue.

Addressing liability for negligence based on "the manner in which the 

frisk was executed," the judge reasoned that "issues of proximate cause and 

damages under the TCA" barred plaintiff's claims. The judge stated that to 

sustain a claim under the TCA, plaintiff must establish "a causal nexus" between 

"the claimed tortious conduct" and her injuries by "objective, credible medical 

evidence." See Mack v. Passaic Valley Water Comm'n, 294 N.J. Super. 592, 

598 (App. Div. 1996) (explaining that in TCA cases "the critical question is 

whether plaintiff has presented objective and credible medical evidence, if 

believed by a factfinder, of a permanent loss of bodily function"). Although 

plaintiff "identified certain medical providers" and provided some medical 

records, the judge pointed out that "plaintiff has not served an expert report" and 

"the medical records/documents" provided "do not make any correlation . . . to 

the events of January 16, 2018." Thus, in the absence of objective and credible 

medical evidence, plaintiff cannot "sustain a claim based in tort under the TCA." 
15 A-4112-19

Furthermore, according to the judge, plaintiff's evidence was insufficient 

to satisfy the $3600 minimum for damages required under the TCA for pain and 

suffering resulting from an injury, failed to satisfy the two-pronged standard to 

vault the pain and suffering threshold under the TCA, and failed to prove 

psychological trauma accompanied by or resulting in physical symptoms to meet 

the requirements of the TCA. See N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d) ("No damages shall be 

awarded against a public entity or public employee for pain and suffering 

resulting from any injury" except "in cases of permanent loss of a bodily 

function . . . where the medical treatment expenses are in excess of [$3600]."); 

Gilhooley v. Cnty. of Union, 164 N.J. 533, 540-41 (2000) ("[I]n order to vault 

the pain and suffering threshold under the [TCA], a plaintiff must satisfy a twopronged standard by proving (1) an objective permanent injury, and (2) a 

permanent loss of a bodily function that is substantial."); Brooks v. Odom, 150 

N.J. 395, 403 (1997) ("Temporary injuries, no matter how painful and 

debilitating, are not recoverable" and "a plaintiff may not recover under the 

[TCA] for mere subjective feelings of discomfort." (internal quotations

omitted)). 

Turning to the civil rights claim, Judge Butehorn was guided by Filgueiras 

v. Newark Pub. Sch., where this court explained that "[t]he elements of a 
16 A-4112-19

substantive due process claim under the CRA are the same as those under § 

1983." 426 N.J. Super. 449, 468 (App. Div. 2012). In Filgueiras, we held that 

in order to establish a claim under either § 1983 or the CRA, "the first task . . . 

is to identify the state actor, the person acting under color of law, that has caused 

the alleged deprivation." Ibid. (alteration in original) (citations and quotation 

marks omitted). "The second task is to identify a right, privilege or immunity 

secured to the claimant by the Constitution or other federal laws of the United 

States." Ibid. (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Judge Butehorn explained that as to the second element, "plaintiff cannot 

identify a specific constitutional violation for the Officer's decision to frisk her 

rather than [conduct] another form of search." As to the manner in which the 

frisk was conducted, the judge explained that such a claim was one "for 

excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution" and was "properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 

'objective reasonable' standard, rather than under a substantive due process 

standard." See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989) (holding that a 

"citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course 

of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other 'seizure' of his person" was 
17 A-4112-19

"properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' 

standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard"). 

Applying that standard, Judge Butehorn determined that "the frisk was 

objectively reasonable." In support, the judge noted that "plaintiff made no 

complaints of the force or discomfort at the time of the frisk," and there was "a 

lack of any evidence causally relating any medical care or treatment to the frisk." 

See Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 208 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding "the facts alleged 

constitute[d] insufficient evidence as a matter of law for excessive force by 

handcuffing" to sustain a civil rights action for damages under § 1983 based on 

the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate or express "signs of discomfort at the time 

he was handcuffed" or "seek . . . medical treatment after the fact"). 

Additionally, considering the totality of the surrounding circumstances, 

including the fact that "plaintiff went through the metal detector and triggered 

its alarm" and the necessity for determining whether "there were any 

impermissible, and potentially dangerous, object[s] being brought into the 

courtroom" that were secreted on plaintiff's person, the judge found that "the 

frisk . . . satisfie[d] the objectively reasonable standard under the Fourth 

Amendment such that plaintiff cannot sustain a claim under the Federal Civil 

Rights Act." Further, according to the judge, for the same reasons, plaintiff's 
18 A-4112-19

claim against Officer Logothetis under the CRA failed as a matter of law because 

"qualified immunity is an affirmative defense and would be applicable based 

upon the objectively reasonable basis" for the frisk. See Brown v. State, 230 

N.J. 84, 97-98 (2017) (explaining that in suits brought under the CRA, "[t]he 

affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from 

personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public 

responsibilities, 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 

known.'" (quoting Morillo v. Torres, 222 N.J. 104, 116 (2015))).

Regarding liability by "the entity defendants" under § 1983 or the CRA,

the judge noted that although a local government entity could be held liable 

under limited circumstances "for the deprivation of constitutional rights by its 

employees or officers," such circumstances did not exist here. See Stomel v. 

City of Camden, 192 N.J. 137, 145-46 (2007) (explaining that "a municipality 

generally cannot be held liable in a § 1983 action for the acts of employees under 

the principle of respondeat superior" unless "an official municipal 'policy or 

custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may 

fairly be said to represent official policy,' is the cause of the constitutional 
19 A-4112-19

deprivation" (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694

(1978))).

Finding "no evidence to support any claim against the municipal entities," 

the judge explained:

[t]here is no evidence on the record to state the Hazlet 

Police Department or Hazlet Township implemented a 

policy, ordinance, regulation, or any of the sort to 

promote unreasonable searches. Even when viewing

[the] evidence in [the] light most favorable to . . . 

plaintiff, there is no dispute of fact which should be 

submitted as a jury question. The plaintiff does not 

point to any policy, nor does she cite any ordinance 

which could possibly lead to a jury question of whether 

[the] Police Department and Hazlet Township officially 

adopted an unconstitutional policy. Without more 

evidence, summary judgment should be granted for the 

Police Department and Hazlet Township.

Further,

[t]here is no evidence to show the officer’s decision –

or the manner in which she carried out the frisk – was 

sanction[ed] or ordered by the municipal entities. 

There is no evidence of any policy, either formally or 

informally, adopted by them as to the decision by 

Officer Logothetis or the manner in which she carried 

out the frisk. There is only plaintiff’s blank allegation 

as put forth in her complaint. Although plaintiff states 

she "alleged a custom or policy," . . . an allegation alone 

is not sufficient.

Likewise, as to the Chief, the judge stated plaintiff cannot point to any 

facts that would establish a claim for "supervisor[y] liability" under the 
20 A-4112-19

"'recklessness or deliberate indifference' standard . . . applicable to plaintiff['s] 

claim" under § 1983 or the CRA. See Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 373-

74 (2000) (adopting a "recklessness or deliberate indifference" standard for 

evaluating supervisory liability under § 1983 that requires a plaintiff to

"establish 'that: (1) the supervisor . . . failed to supervise the subordinate official; 

(2) a causal link exists between the failure to . . . supervise and the violation of 

the plaintiff's rights; and (3) the failure to . . . supervise amounts to deliberate 

indifference' or recklessness" (quoting Hinshaw v. Doffer, 785 F.2d 1260, 1263 

(5th Cir.1986))). According to the judge, there was "[n]o evidence plac[ing the 

Chief] at the courthouse nor being aware of the events that day." "Plaintiff 

makes conclusory statements, but conclusory statements are insufficient to 

overcome a motion for summary judgment."

II.

In this ensuing appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred in granting 

summary judgment to defendants. We review a grant of summary judgment 

applying the same standard used by the trial court. Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's 

Oasis, LLC, 226 N.J. 344, 366 (2016). That standard is well-settled:

if the evidence of record—the pleadings, depositions, 

answers to interrogatories, and affidavits—"together 

with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the 

non-moving party, would require submission of the 
21 A-4112-19

issue to the trier of fact," then the trial court must deny 

the motion. On the other hand, when no genuine issue 

of material fact is at issue and the moving party is 

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary 

judgment must be granted.

[Ibid. (citations omitted) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).]

If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must "decide whether the 

trial court correctly interpreted the law." DepoLink Ct. Rep. & Litig. Support 

Servs. v. Rochman, 430 N.J. Super. 325, 333 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting 

Massachi v. AHL Servs., Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007)). We 

review issues of law de novo and accord no deference to the trial judge's legal

conclusions. Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013).

Applying this standard, we agree with the judge's determination that there 

were no disputed issues of material fact and defendants were entitled to 

summary judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff maintains that she was 

"subjected to an unreasonable search for weapons" "in violation of [42 U.S.C. § 

1983.]" She asserts that the injury she suffered was the result of official policy

or custom and "indifferen[ce] to providing the necessary court training to 

Officer Logothetis prior to the incident," exposing the municipality, the police 

department, and the Chief to liability under § 1983. She further contends that 

"Officer Logothetis was not entitled to qualified immunity" at the summary 
22 A-4112-19

judgment stage given the material disputed facts surrounding "the 

reasonableness component" of the search.

However, our Supreme Court has recognized that in cases involving §

1983 claims, the "doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement 

officers from personal liability for civil rights violations when the officers are 

acting under color of law in the performance of official duties" unless their 

performance was not "objectively reasonable." Morillo, 222 N.J. at 107-08. 

Determining whether the conduct was objectively reasonable "requires a careful 

balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth 

Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at 

stake." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. "The inquiry requires analyzing the totality 

of the circumstances." Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 774 (2014).

Here, we agree with the judge that based on the evidence in the record, 

Officer Logothetis's conduct was objectively reasonable, and plaintiff failed to 

point to any facts that dictated otherwise. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's 

contention, this reasonableness determination obviated a finding of "willful 

misconduct" to vitiate immunity under the TCA. See N.J.S.A. 59:3-14 

(providing an exception to immunity for public employees under the TCA where 
23 A-4112-19

a public official's conduct "was outside the scope of his employment or 

constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct"). 

We also reject plaintiff's contention that neither the township nor the 

police department were entitled to summary judgment. "A local governmental 

entity is deemed a 'person' under [§] 1983 only where the action alleged to be 

unconstitutional 'implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, 

regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's 

officers.'" Bayer v. Twp. of Union, 414 N.J. Super. 238, 270 (App. Div. 2010) 

(quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690). "It is not, however, liable for the actions of 

its employees solely on a theory of respondeat superior." Ibid. "It is only when 

'execution of a government's policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury that the 

government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.'" Ibid. (quoting Monell, 

436 U.S. at 694).

"[T]here are limited circumstances in which an allegation of a 'failure to 

train' can be the basis for liability under § 1983." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 

U.S. 378, 387 (1989). "[T]he inadequacy of police training may serve as the 

basis for § 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate 

indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact." 

Id. at 388. "Only where a failure to train reflects a 'deliberate' or 'conscious' 
24 A-4112-19

choice by a municipality . . . can a city be liable for such failure under § 1983." 

Id. at 389. To survive summary judgment on a failure to train theory, a plaintiff

"must present evidence that the need for more or different training was so 

obvious and so likely to lead to the violation of constitutional rights that the 

policymaker's failure to respond amounts to deliberate indifference." Brown v. 

Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205, 216 (3d Cir. 2001).

Here, we agree with the judge that plaintiff failed to present any evidence 

to support a failure to train theory and her conclusory statements are inadequate

to defeat summary judgment. "Bare conclusory assertions, without factual 

support in the record, will not defeat a meritorious application for summary 

judgment." Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J. v. State, 425 N.J. Super. 1, 

32 (App. Div. 2012); accord Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 440-41 (2005) 

("[C]onclusory and self-serving assertions by one of the parties are insufficient 

to overcome the [summary judgment] motion."). "The opponent must 'come 

forward with evidence' that creates a genuine issue of material fact." Horizon 

Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 425 N.J. Super. at 32 (quoting Brill, 142 N.J. at 

529). Plaintiff failed to do that here. 

Likewise, to the extent plaintiff appears to assert claims of negligent 

supervision and failure to investigate on the part of the Chief, such claims also 
25 A-4112-19

fail. The deliberate indifference test also applies to claims of "negligent 

supervision and failure to investigate." Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 

628, 637 (3d Cir. 1995). "'[D]eliberate indifference' is a stringent standard of 

fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious 

consequence of his action." Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61 (2011) 

(quoting Bd. of the Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997)).

To sustain a claim under those theories, "the plaintiff must identify 

specific acts or omissions of the supervisor that evidence deliberate indifference 

and persuade the court that there is a 'relationship between the "identified 

deficiency" and the "ultimate injury."'" Brown, 269 F.3d at 216. To that end, 

"it is not enough for a plaintiff to argue that the constitutionally cognizable 

injury would not have occurred if the superior had done more than he or she 

did." Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1118 (3d Cir. 1989). Here, plaintiff has 

failed to establish the requisite elements. Plaintiff failed to present evidence of 

any complaints other than her own, and failed to point to any facts to indicate 

that the Chief was even aware of plaintiff's encounter with Officer Logothetis 

on the date in question.

9

 See Schneider, 163 N.J. at 373-74 ("The knowledge 

9

 A claim of supervisory liability may also be predicated on the supervisor 

"participat[ing] in violating the plaintiff's rights, direct[ing] others to violate 
26 A-4112-19

element of a plaintiff's case requires proof that the supervisor was aware of facts 

from which an inference could be drawn that the subordinate was acting in an 

unconstitutional manner that carried a substantial risk of causing serious harm.") 

We also reject plaintiff's puzzling claim that she "was greatly prejudiced" 

by the late production of the video depicting the search. First, at her request,

the judge did not consider the video in making his decision. Second, plaintiff's 

claim of surprise is belied by her acknowledgement in her Notice of Claim that 

there were cameras onsite recording the encounter.10

them, or, as the person in charge, ha[ving] knowledge of and acquiesc[ing] in 

[the] subordinates' violations." A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile 

Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586 (3d Cir. 2004). The record does not support a 

finding of liability on this basis either. 

10

 The judge correctly rejected plaintiff's apparent claim, reiterated on appeal, 

that her failure to consent to a video recording of her entering the municipal 

courtroom constituted yet another constitutional violation. The judge noted that 

the claim was "not part of her complaint . . . nor a basis for her allegations." 

Moreover, according to the judge, "there is no viable cause of action against any 

of the defendants" based upon them "recording those at the entrance, or within 

the public areas of the municipal court building" nor "is there a potential claim 

based upon the lack of a sign indicating [same]." See Tarus v. Borough of Pine 

Hill, 189 N.J. 497, 512 (2007) (condoning "videotaping of public proceedings" 

and acknowledging that "[t]he broad and pervasive use of video cameras at 

public events evidences a societal acceptance of their use in public fora"); see 

also Key v. Compass Bank, Inc., 826 So. 2d 159, 165 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) 

("Normally, there is no liability for photographing a person in a public place.").
27 A-4112-19

To the extent we have not specifically addressed plaintiff's remaining 

arguments, we deem them without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.