SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1321-19

JASON MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BOROUGH OF BERLIN POLICE,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________

Argued June 1, 2021 – Decided June 21, 2021

Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law

Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-3537-18.

Louis M. Barbone argued the cause for appellant

(Jacobs & Barbone, PA, attorneys; Louis M. Barbone,

on the brief). 

Andrew S. Brown argued the cause for respondent 

(Brown & Connery, LLP, attorneys; Christine P. 

O'Hearn and Andrew S. Brown, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1321-19

Plaintiff Jason Miller appeals from an October 24, 2019 order sustaining 

eleven disciplinary charges issued against him by defendant Borough of Berlin 

Police Department (Department) and upholding the Department's decision to 

terminate his employment as a police officer. We affirm.

We summarize the facts leading to plaintiff's termination as a police 

officer. Plaintiff was dispatched to a banquet hall to investigate a reported theft 

of a purse. The manager of the banquet hall informed plaintiff about the theft 

and presented video surveillance of an employee taking the victim's purse from 

a table. The manager also provided the employee's name and address to 

plaintiff. Although plaintiff watched the video with the manager, he requested 

a copy in order to conduct a more detailed review at police headquarters because 

plaintiff believed there was insufficient information to arrest the employee at 

that time. 

In addition to speaking with the manager of the banquet facility, plaintiff 

spoke to the victim. Plaintiff gave the victim a stolen property report and 

explained she needed to complete the document to report the stolen items. The 

victim and her husband asked plaintiff about the next step in the process to 

determine if the employee would be charged with a crime. He told the victim 

the case was a "slam dunk," the identity of the perpetrator was "clear as day," 
3

A-1321-19

and the employee would be charged for his crime. However, plaintiff did not 

arrest the employee or perform any further investigation.

Despite the victim expressing her wish to press charges, plaintiff's 

incident report falsely stated the victim did not wish to pursue charges. When 

the victim telephoned the Department to follow up on the matter, another officer 

took the call and explained an arrest of the employee on felony charges could 

have been made based on the information available and there was no need for 

the victim to sign a complaint. Several days after the theft, other officers 

arrested the employee, who confessed to his crime. 

The Department determined plaintiff "engaged in a pattern of subsequent 

conduct which included untruthful statements in his police report, to his fellow 

officers and supervisor and to the victim concerning the seriousness of the crime 

and the process to be followed." Plaintiff disputed the Department's allegations, 

claiming mishandling of the video evidence precluded positive identification of 

the perpetrator. He also asserted misleading statements were made by fellow 

officers regarding his investigation of the theft. Additionally, he claimed any 

mistakes in his handling of the investigation were not done with the intention to 

violate Department rules. 
4

A-1321-19

On February 6, 2018, the Department filed disciplinary charges against 

plaintiff stemming from his investigation of the purse theft. The charges 

included: violation of Department disciplinary regulations related to neglect of

duty, performance of duty, truthfulness, reports and bookings, conduct 

unbecoming an officer, disobedience of orders, cowardice, and misconduct. The 

Department sought plaintiff's termination pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147. 

Plaintiff appealed the charges and requested a hearing. The hearing 

officer, a retired Superior Court judge, conducted hearings on May 8 and May 

18, 2018, and heard testimony from several Department officers, the victim, and

plaintiff. The hearing officer issued an August 8, 2018 written decision 

upholding the charges. In his written decision, the hearing officer rendered 

credibility determinations, finding the victim and her husband were more 

credible than plaintiff because they had no personal interest in the outcome of 

the disciplinary charges. He also noted the demeanor of the victim and her 

husband to be direct and their testimony forthright. On the other hand, the 

hearing officer found plaintiff's testimony was not consistent and contradicted 

other credible evidence proffered during the hearing, including plaintiff's body 

worn camera footage of his conversation with the victim and her husband. Based 

on the testimony, the hearing officer made fifty-four specific findings of fact 
5

A-1321-19

regarding plaintiff's numerous violations of the Department's regulations. The 

charges against plaintiff fell into three categories: intentionally false or 

untruthful statements; failure to discharge his duty as a police officer; and 

misconduct. 

The hearing officer concluded plaintiff's actions were intentional and not 

simply mistakes. He found plaintiff exhibited a pattern of deliberate behavior 

by taking "no action to enforce the law and breached [a] duty owed to the public

and attempted to cover-up his inaction by misrepresentations to the victim and 

other officers as well as in the documented record." 

In a September 6, 2018 supplemental written decision, the hearing officer 

concluded plaintiff's multiple instances of misconduct and failure to be truthful 

were sufficiently severe to warrant termination of plaintiff's employment with 

the Department. He noted police officers "are held to a higher standard. 

Citizens have a right to expect that when dealing with [the public], police 

officers will be truthful and that reports that are filed by the police would be 

accurate and honest." He also found "[p]olice officers, as an essential part of 

their job, must often testify in [c]ourt. One who has be determined to be 

untruthful loses credibility and the ability to be an effective witness." In 

addition, the hearing officer considered plaintiff's disciplinary record. Based on 
6

A-1321-19

plaintiff's disciplinary history, the hearing officer concluded plaintiff "exhibited 

the same type of conduct and neglect of duty on a consistent basis. Such conduct 

negatively effects the operation of the [D]epartment as a whole and their ability 

to perform the function in protecting the residents of the Borough of Berlin." 1

The Department issued a Final Notice of Discipline, adopting the hearing 

officer's recommendation and terminating plaintiff's employment effective 

September 14, 2018. 

Five days later, plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs 

seeking de novo review of his termination under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-150. On 

September 18, 2019, after several case management conferences and completion 

of discovery, Judge Deborah Silverman Katz heard counsels' arguments 

concerning plaintiff's termination. She also reviewed nineteen exhibits 

submitted without objection during oral argument. 

In an October 24, 2019 written decision, the judge sustained the 

Department's charges against plaintiff related to his neglect of duty, 

untruthfulness, and misconduct. In rendering her determination, the judge relied 

extensively on the hearing officer's credibility determinations, as well as her 

1

 Over a three-year span, plaintiff faced eleven disciplinary actions for various 

violations of Department rules and regulations.
7

A-1321-19

own review of the transcripts of the proceedings before the hearing officer. In 

her written decision, Judge Silverman Katz gave detailed reasons for finding 

each witness's testimony credible or not credible. The judge also set forth 

detailed findings of fact in support of her conclusion the Department proved by 

a preponderance of the evidence plaintiff's numerous violations of Department 

regulations. Judge Silverman Katz found there was "sufficient, competent, and 

credible" evidence in the record, both documentary and testimonial, to sustain 

eleven of the Department's disciplinary charges against plaintiff. 

In addition, Judge Silverman Katz concluded termination of plaintiff's

employment with the Department was proper based on "the magnitude of 

[plaintiff]'s acts of neglect and untruthfulness, his prior disciplinary record, and 

the preservation of the public trust."

On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred in determining there was 

sufficient credible evidence supporting eleven disciplinary charges against him. 

In addition, plaintiff contends he was deprived of a fair hearing as a result of the 

Department's violation of the Attorney General's guidelines and N.J.S.A. 

40A:14-181 regarding the internal affairs investigation. He also claims the 

penalty of termination was disproportionate under the totality of the 

circumstances and progressive discipline should have been imposed. We 
8

A-1321-19

disagree and affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Silverman Katz's 

comprehensive and thorough thirty-three-page written decision. We add the 

following comments.

On de novo review of disciplinary proceedings, the trial court renders its 

own findings of fact based on an independent review of the record. Rureode v. 

Bor. of Hasbrouck Heights, 214 N.J. 338, 357 (2013). Our scope of review is 

"to decide whether there was adequate evidence before the [] [c]ourt to justify 

its finding of guilt." In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 579 (1990). We will not disturb 

a trial court's ruling unless "the decision below was 'arbitrary, capricious or 

unreasonable' or '[un]supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as 

a whole.'" Ibid. (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 

(1980)).

Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, Judge Silverman Katz's decision is 

supported by substantial credible evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable. Judge Silverman Katz cited extensively to the hearing testimony 

and documentary evidence in support of her determination. 

We also reject plaintiff's contention progressive discipline rather than 

termination was the appropriate penalty for his conduct. Police officers are held 

to a high standard of responsibility and conduct. Twp. of Moorestown v. 
9

A-1321-19

Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965). "[A] police officer 

[cannot] complain that he or she is being held to an unfairly high standard of 

conduct. Rather, 'it is one of the obligations he [or she] undertakes upon 

voluntary entry into the public service.'" Phillips, 117 N.J. at 577 (quoting In re 

Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 142 (App. Div. 1960)).

Plaintiff's untruthfulness, neglect of duty, and misconduct were 

sufficiently egregious to warrant his termination even without considering his 

prior disciplinary history. Plaintiff's termination from the Department was 

supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record and was not arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable. 

We decline to consider plaintiff's challenge to the legality of the internal 

affairs investigation because he failed to raise the issue before the trial court. 

Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (declining " to consider 

questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity 

for such a presentation is available unless the questions so raised on appeal go 

to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest").

Here, plaintiff's argument is not addressed to the trial court's jurisdiction 

nor does it raise matters of great public concern. Plaintiff's counsel's mentioning 

of the internal affairs investigation during oral argument before Judge Silverman 
10 A-1321-19

Katz did not place the issue before the trial court. Pressler & Verniero, Current 

N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 3 on R. 2:6-2 (2021) (stating "a mere mention of an issue 

in oral argument does not require an appellate court to address it").

Affirmed.