Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 116
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Attorney for Defendant Sean F. Dalton
v.
Defendants.
-1-
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2
actionable under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J. Stat. Ann.
EXHIBIT A.
amended complaint, stamped on the first page with the date and time
-2-
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3
as EXHIBIT C.
Gloucester County Superior Court via letter that the filing of the
hereto as EXHIBIT E.
-3-
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4
this Court.
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
-4-
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 5
Dear Sir/Madam:
Sincerely yours,
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX TELEPHONE: (609) 292-1575 FAX: (609) 633-8702 Benjamin.Zieman@lps.state.nj.us
New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-2 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 6
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Atlantic County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Gloucester
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esq., The Vigilante Law Firm, P.C., 99 North For Dalton: DAG Benjamin H Zieman, 25 Market Street, Trenton NJ
Main Street, Mullica Hill, NJ 08062, 856-223-9990 08625, 609-292-1575; For Muniz: Patrick J. Madden, Esq., 108 Kings
Hwy E, Haddonfield NJ 08033, 856-428-9520
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-3 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 116
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Attorney for Defendant Sean F. Dalton
v.
Defendants.
civil cover sheet with the Clerk of the United States District
Court, and that a copy of these documents will be sent via UPS
-1-
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-3 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 9
and correct.
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
-2-
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 10
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 11
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 12
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 13
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 14
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 15
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 16
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 17
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 18
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 19
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 20
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 21
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 22
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 23
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 24
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 25
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 26
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 27
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-4 Filed 07/13/17 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 28
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-5 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 29
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 116
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Attorney for Defendant Sean F. Dalton
To:
1
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-5 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 30
Exhibits.
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
2
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 26 PageID: 31
. ,, f
~~ '_ . . ~ , . .._
't,. ~ 1'
-1-
Jacqueline M. Vigilante
NJ Bar Id.030961988
Micole Sparacio
THE VIGILANTE LAW FIRM,PC
99 North Main Street
Mullica Hill, NJ 08062
856-223-9990
Attornevs for Plaintiff
Superior Court of Ne~v Jersey
JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA
Plaintiff Gloucester County, Law Division
COMES NOW, JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA, Plaintiff herein and who hereby files
this Amended Complaint for damages. This Amended Complaint is filed as a matter of right
pursuant to R.4:9-1. This claim involves a pattern of conduct based on personal and political
motive and malicious intent over a period of dine by the Defendants in their individual capacities
designed to violate Plaintiffs constitution and statutory rights. Plaintiff seeks an award of
compensatory damages against Defendants for the costs associated with his defense of the
misconduct charges brought against him as well as the emotional distress he suffered. Plaintiff
also seeks back pay and equitable relief including front pay and/or reinstatement, and
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 26 PageID: 32
-2-
reimbursement for all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the prosecution of this litigation.
Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages against Defendants Muniz and Dalton in their individual
1. This action is initiated pursuant to the New Jersey State Constitution, New Jersey
Civil Rights Act 10:6-1 et seq, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the United States
Constitution. This Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
2. Venue is properly laid in this County because Defendants are domiciled and/or
regularly engage in business in the County of Gloucester and a substantial part of the acts and/or
omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this County.
II. PARTIES
Atlantic County, State of New Jersey, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
residing in Gloucester County, State of New Jersey, who serves as Chief of Police of Washington
Township Police Department and who is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 3 of 26 PageID: 33
-3-
individual residing in Gloucester County, State of New Jersey, who serves as the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer of Gloucester County and who is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. From 2004 through 2008, Paul Moriarty ("Moriarty") served as the Mayor of
Washington Township.
4tn
7. In 2006 Moriarty was elected to the New Jersey State Assembly for the
Legislative District in the State of New Jersey, which is a position he still holds.
8. '
In 1993 through 1997, Defendant Dalton served as an Assemblyman in the 4`t
Prosecutor for afive-year term and reappointed in 2007, to a second five-year term.
10. While not reappointed since the end of his term in 2012, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2A:158-2, Sean F. Dalton remains in the position Chief Law Enforcement Officer in Gloucester
COt111ty.
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 4 of 26 PageID: 34
11. As the Prosecutor and Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Gloucester County
Defendant Dalton is responsible for criminal investigations and prosecutions in the County of
12. In addition to and separate and apart from his duties as a State Prosecutor,
Defendant Dalton is responsible for administrative tasks and personal matters and decisions for
13. In that role, Dalton serves as a County official in a function separate and apart from
14. In that capacity, Defendant Dalton had supervisory authority over the operations of
municipal police departments in connection with internal affairs investigations and personnel
matters.
16. As the County's Chief Law Enforcement Officer, Dalton was responsible for
wrongdoing by high ranking municipal police officers and for internal affairs investigations where
a conflict of interest prevented a municipal police department from investigating one of its own
officers.
was a law enforcement agency at all times bound by the guidelines governing the "Internal Affairs
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 5 of 26 PageID: 35
-5-
Policy and Procedures" of the Police Management Manual promulgated by the Police Bureau of
the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety.
18. In this case, due to the conflict of interest identified herein, Dalton was the person
responsible for the administrative internal affairs investigation into whether Plaintiff violated any
19. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181, Defendant Dalton as the person responsible for
the administrative internal affairs investigation was bound by guidelines governing the "Internal
Affairs Policy and Procedures" of the Police Management Manual promulgated by the Police
Bureau ofthe Division ofCriminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety with regard
20. As the Chief of Police of Washington Township, Muniz was bound by guidelines
governing the "Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures" of the Police Management Manual
promulgated by the Police Bureau of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law
and Public Safety with regard to any internal affairs investigation in which he was involved.
21. At all times, Plaintiff was a municipal police officer who was subjected to an
internal affairs investigation which led to his unlawful employment termination as a result of
arresting a former mayor of Washington Township and political associate of Defendants Dalton
and Muniz.
22. From 2006 to 2009, Paul Moriarty served as Mayor of Washington Township,
Gloucester County.
23. During his tenure, Moriarty promoted Defendant Rafael Muniz, from the rank of
25. At all tunes relevant hereto, Plaintiff was employed by Washington Township as a
Police Officer.
26. On June 5, 2012, Muniz alleged in a complaint to Dalton that on that same date he
became aware of an OPRA request seeking a copy of a police report which could not be found by
27. The report, identified by member in the OPRA request, was of a theft of more than
28. At the time the theft was committed it was reported to Muniz and the WTPD, which
failed to repo~~t or refer the crime to the GCPO despite the fact that the incident involved an alleged
29. Muiz's son was not arrested for that crime even though it was reported to the WTPD
-~-
30. Even though a copy of the report was available to and at the WTPD, Dalton
authorized an investigation into the missing report and assigned that investigation to Lt. Langdon
Sills. After a lengthy investigation into who took the missing report, the report was located in the
WTPD.
31. Even though a copy of the report was available, the victim was denied a copy upon
32. Upon information and belief, the report was never missing, but had been removed
33. Upon information and belief, Dalton and Sills did not initiate an investigation into
34. Despite the allegation of a felony, Dalton did not, initiate an investigation or
prosecution of the alleged theft committed by Muniz's son until the victim sought began to
35. On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff reported to the Washington Township Business
Administrator that that Muniz had engaged in misconduct by failing to refer the crime committed
37. On or before July 24, 2012, Defendant Dalton received written communication
misconduct.
38. Despite the complaint forwarded to the GCPO about Muniz's misconduct, Dalton
39. Dalton arbitrarily and intentionally ignored information about Muniz's improper
conduct.
40. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff arrested Moriarty on violations of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and
misconduct when Plaintiff filed a separate complaint with the Gloucester County Prosecutor's
Office alleging that Defendant Muniz engaged in official misconduct in failing to refer the theft
involving his son to the GCPO for investigation or charges; failing to file charges against his son
for jewelry thefts which occurred in Washington Township; engaging in possible witness
intimidation and/or bribery; and failing to follow normal police procedures in investigating the
jewelry thefts, where his son was identified by all witnesses as the suspect.
42. Following his at-rest on DUI and refusal, Moriarty proceeded to flood the press with
statements about his belief that the arresting officer, Plaintiff, was comipt and that the arrest was
immediately that there would be an administrative internal affairs investigation into the conduct
of Plaintiff.
44. Defendant Muniz also recognized that he had a conflict ofinterest which precluded
hiin and his department from conducting the Internal Affairs investigation because former Mayor
Moriarty had recommended his appointment to the position of Chief in 2006 and that such
involvement may lead to the "justifiable impression to the public" that there is an appearance of a
45. Muniz and Dalton discussed the conflict of interest immediately after the arrest.
46. Despite the acknowledged conflict of interest, between July 31, 2012 and August
14, 2012, Muniz worked directly in concert with investigators assigned by Dalton to the internal
affairs investigation to investigate Plaintiff and to build a case against Plaintiff to assist Moriarty
that conflict verbally to Dalton, Muniz acting in accord with John Porter, an investigator under
Dalton's direct supervision and control, took and ordered a series of actions to investigate the
alleged misconduct between July 31, 2012 and August 14, 2012 when the letter was finally
-10-
a. retrieving available video data from Plaintiff's patrol vehicle mobile video recorder
(MVR);
b. authorizing Lieutenant Rolando to seek to obtain additional metadata from the MVR
which was not readily available and which had not been obtained in any other DUI or
cl. permitting Moriarty to access the WTPD through the police entrance to meet with Lt.
Rolando for the purpose of reading a statement into the record as a complaint instead
Internal Affairs;
e. authorizing Lt. Rolando to refrain from asking IVloriarty any questions about his
complaint;
f: instructing Plaintift~ to cease all activity in connection with his ongoing investigation
48. Dalton pel-mitted Muniz to proceed with the investigation despite acknowledging
the conflict of interest which allowed Muniz to build a case against Plaintiff to assist Moriarty in
-11-
49. Muniz and Dalton were politically motivated to target plaintiff and assist Moriarty
50. After gathering up evidence which was designed to assist Moriarty in his complaint
against Plaintiff, Muniz forwarded the conflict of interest letter to Dalton on August 14, 2012,
51. Upon receipt of the correspondence marked Exhibit A, Dalton communicated with
the NJ Attorney General for guidance on handling the request, but continued to allow Muniz and
WTPD to build a case against Plaintiff to assist Moriarty in his claims and defenses.
52. The NJ Attorney General advised the Dalton that his office should handle the
internal affairs investigation and cautioned that the IA investigation should not proceed prior to
the adjudication of the DUI and refusal trial in the matter of State v. Moriarty.
that his office would handle the internal affairs investigation involving Moriarty's complaint.
54. Once Dalton was responsible for the internal affairs investigation, Muniz and the
WTPD should have been conflicted out of the matter and removed from any participation in the
administrative investigation.
55. As of the date the conflict was disclosed, Dalton was administratively responsible
for the internal affairs investigation and any employee discipline which could have followed.
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 12 of 26 PageID: 42
-12-
56. Despite the cautionary instruction and guidance of the AG's office, Dalton did not
stay the internal affairs investigation pending the outcome of the DUI and refusal trial.
57. Dalton assigned the internal affairs investigation to County Detective Robert
Hemphill with. no instructions to stay the investigation pending the outcome ofthe DUI and refusal
trial.
58. Instead of staying the IA investigation, per the AG's instruction, Hemphill began
59. On September 26, 2012, on behalf of the GCPO Hemphill issued a Notice of
60. A scheme was devised by which it was determined that if Moriarty filed criminal
charges against the Plaintiff, the plaintiff would exercise Fifth amendment rights not to testify
against Moriarty and as a result the charges against Moriarty could and would be dismissed.
61. Upon information and belief defendants participated in, knew of or acquiesced to
that scheme.
62. On October 16, 2012, Moriarty was permitted once again by Muniz to enter the
WTPD through its police only entrance where he met privately with Defendants Muniz and Lt.
Rolando.
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 13 of 26 PageID: 43
-13-
63. Despite the fact that Moriarty was a criminal defendant in the DUI and refusal case
and Muniz and the WTPD had a clear confirmed conflict ofinterest in the IA matter, Moriarty met
twice on that day for an extended period oftime with Rolando, Muniz and court personnel.
64. These meetings were designed to assist Moriarty in drafting and filing criminal
65. Following the meetings, Moriarty emerged with a criminal complaint containing
twenty-seven (27) criminal charges directed at Plaintiff, which Moriarty promptly filed with the
66. Moriarty could have filed those charges with Dalton, whose office was handling
the IA at that time. However, the GCPO would have had to hold any such charges until such time
67. Upon information and belief, the scheme was designed so that the charges were
filed in municipal court so that the GCPO would have to proceed with a criminal investigation.
68. The criminal complaints once filed were sent to GCPO Chief of Detectives John
Porter by Muniz's secretary on October 17, 2012, who promptly advised Defendant Dalton of the
69. On or about that same date, Defendant Dalton issued findings in the Internal Affairs
Investigation complaint initiated by Plaintiff before the Moriarty anest regarding whether Muniz
-14-
70. Dalton's conclusion was that Muniz did not engage in misconduct by failing to
make an arrest in the theft case or to refer the criminal case to the GCPO.
71. Dalton reached that conclusion even though the GCPO did in fact initiate a
criminal prosecution against Muniz's son at that same time demonstrating the fact that an arrest
was warranted and that the matter should have been referred to the GCPO.
72. As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Gloucester County assigned to handle
the administrative internal investigation and employee discipline, Dalton was required to:
c. proceed with the prosecution of the DUI and refusal charges in an adversarial setting
prior to pursuing the IA and the criminal charges, which were both initiated by
Moriarty.
73. Instead, and as a result of the scheme which resulted in the criminal charges Muniz
assisted Moriarty, Dalton instructed Hemphill to convert the IA investigation into a criminal
investigation.
74. As a result of the criminal charges, Plaintiff was suspended without pay.
75. On May 1, 2013, Dalton sought and obtained an indictment on the criminal charges
-15-
76. After indicting the Plaintiff, the Gloucester County Prosecutor moved improperly
77. At all times, Dalton arbitrarily and intentionally failed to follow the instruction of
internal affairs investigations and police discipline, a police department may proceed with
administrative charges following the disposition of criminal charges against a police officer.
80. Due to the conflict of interest which prevented the WTPD and Muniz from fairly
and impartially handling the IA, Dalton was the person responsible for the internal affairs
81. In other cases where there has been a conflict of interest in the municipality police
department investigating an officer, Dalton has intervened in the administrative matter as the
county Chief Law Enforcement Officer and taken over the internal investigation and disciplinary
process.
82. Dalton was at all times aware of his obligation, duty and responsibility to conduct
a fair and impartial internal. affairs investigation, to issue findings on the internal affairs
investigation and determine whether there would be any administrative charges against the officer
-16-
83. Following the acquittal, Defendant Muniz contacted Dalton through a private email
server instead of his authorized Township email account and requested permission to move
forward with the internal affairs investigation, from which he had already been removed as a result
84. In direct contravention of the instructions and guidelines issued and published by
the Attorney General and in violation of his own duties and responsibilities, on March 6, 2015,
Dalton abandoned his role as the person responsible for the IA and any administrative charges and
granted Muniz authority to proceed with the departmental internal affairs investigation and
85. Defendant Dalton unlawfiilly authorized Defendant Muniz to proceed with the
internal affairs investigation in direct contravention. of the Attorney General's instruction and
guideline that all such investigations shall be objectively investigated by a fair and impartial.
investigator with actual kno`vledge that Muniz and his department had a conflict of interest that
86. Defendant Muniz had no authority to allow Muniz and the WTPD to proceed with
87. Defendant Muniz proceeded with his internal affairs investigation in direct
contravention of Attorney General's instruction and guideline that all such investigations shall be
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 17 of 26 PageID: 47
-17-
objectively investigated by a fair and impartial investigator and after his admitted conflict of
88. In addition to the self-admitted conflict of interest Muniz identified in his August
13, 2012 letter, Muniz had a conflict of interest stemming from Plaintiffs complaint that he
purposely mishandled the investigation involving his son, which resulted in criminal charges
89. Defendant Dalton was well aware of the significant conflicts of interest which
should have precluded the Washington Township Police Department Defendant Muniz from any
90. Despite that knowledge, and in direct violation of Plaintiff's rights to a fair,
impartial and objective internal affairs investigation, Dalton violated his duties and responsibilities
as the chieflaw enforcement officer of Gloucester County to plaintiff's severe personal detriment.
91. Dalton knew or should have known that any investigation by Muniz and WTPD
would be tainted and geared to terminated the plaintiff from his employment as a police officer.
92. Due to the political affiliation between Muniz, Moriarty and Dalton, Dalton
arbitrarily and intentionally favored Moriarty in connection with the charges against him, which
93. Due to the political affiliation between Muniz, Moriarty and Dalton, Muniz and
Dalton arbitrarily and intentionally treated Plaintiff unfavorably in connection with the scheme
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 18 of 26 PageID: 48
~~~
described above, the Moriarty IA, and criminal charges and in failing to stay the IA pending the
94. As a direct result of Defendant Dalton authorizing Muniz and the WTPD to proceed
with its investigation and administrative process, Plaintiff was the victim of a result driven
95. Plaintiff was terminated from his employment as a result of the administrative
96. Plaintiff had a right to an impartial and fair investigation which defendants denied
97. Plaintiff also had ,a right not to be removed from his employment for political
98. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
full.
100. Defendants conduct was intended to interfere with Plaintiff's substantive due
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 19 of 26 PageID: 49
-19-
process secured to him under the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.
process secured to him under the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.
102. There is no rational or legitimate basis for Muniz's request to move forward with a
departmental internal affairs investigation and for Dalton's abdication of his own responsibility to
103. Defendants' conduct denied Plaintiffs' right to a fair and impartial investigation of
104. Defendants' conduct which led to the termination of Plaintiff's employment was
105. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary losses, and
106. Defendants' as complained of above were willful, wanton, malicious, and/or were
made in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs civil rights and Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of
punitive damages.
-20-
107. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
full.
108. The manner in which the plaintiff was treated and his IA and charges were handled
109. All of Defendants' actions as taken toward plaintiff were taken under color of state
law.
violated Plaintiffs right as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
established rights under the law. Defendants knew or should have known that the scheme to
charge plaintiff and allow Moriarty to escape liability was illegal and that their actions were not
reasonable under the law as established at the time they took said actions.
1 12. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has suffered severe pecuniary losses,
1 13. Defendants' actions as complained of above were willful, wanton, malicious, and/or were
made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of
punitive damages.
-21-
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
UNDER 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983
AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
1 14. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
full.
1 15. Plaintiffs actions of arresting and charging Moriarty, a public official, with DUI
1 16. Plaintiff's interest in the speech outweighed any interest Defendants had in
promoting the efficiency of the public service it provides. Plaintiff's complaints therefore
constituted protected activity under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
1 17. Defendants conduct as set forth above toward plaintiff was motivated by
1 18. Defendants' actions, as complained of above, were taken under color of state law.
established rights under the law. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions of
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 22 of 26 PageID: 52
-22-
scheming to charge plaintiff with crimes before the adjudication of the DUI and refusal and in
proceeding with and authorizing Muniz the administrative discipline and investigation process in
retaliation for engaging in protected activity was illegal and not reasonable under the law as
established at the time they took said action. Their actions therefore constituted a violation of
plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and results in liability under
42 U.S.C. 1983.
and/or were made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil. rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment in his
favor:
(d) awarding him attorneys fees and costs of this action: and
(e) granting other such relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
COUNT IV
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 23 of 26 PageID: 53
-23-
122. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
~~f
123. Plaintiff was entitled to a fair and impartial administrative process including the
124. By ignoring the instructions regarding the manner in which the DUI and refusal
charges should have proceeded and instead charging plaintiff and dismissing the charges against
Moriarty, Defendants denied certain processes to which plaintiff was entitled, including a fair
125. Defendants' actions, as complained of above, were taken under color of state law.
established rights under the law. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions of
scheming to charge plaintiff with crimes before the adjudication of the DUI and refusal and in
proceeding with and authorizing Muniz the administrative discipline and investigation process in
retaliation for engaging in protected activity was illegal and not reasonable under the law as
established at the time they took said action. Their actions therefore constituted a violation of
plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and results in liability under
42 U.S.C. ~ 1983.
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 24 of 26 PageID: 54
-24-
and/or were made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment in his
favor:
(d) awarding him attorneys' fees and costs of this action: and
(e) granting other such relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
COUNT V
EQUAL PROTECTION
CLASS OF ONE
UNDER 42 U.S.C.$ 1983
AGAINST DEFENDANT DALTON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
129. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
full.
130. Plaintiff has been intentionally treated differently than others similarly situated in
the internal affairs and administrative process by Dalton authorizing Muniz to conduct the
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-6 Filed 07/13/17 Page 25 of 26 PageID: 55
-25-
internal affairs investigation and administrative process after the conflict of interest was
acknowledged.
132. Defendants' actions, as complained of above, were taken under color of state law.
established rights under the law. Defendant knew or should have known that his actions of
authorizing Muniz to proceed with the administrative discipline and investigation process was
unlawful and not reasonable under the law as established at the time he took said action.
protection under the U.S. Constitution and results in liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
and/or were made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive
-26-
(d) awarding him attorneys' fees and costs of this action: and
(e) granting other such relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that demand is hereby made by the Plaintiff for a Trial
by Jury as to all issues of this cause of action.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the hatter in controversy in this action is not the subject ofany
other action pending in any other court or of a pending arbitration proceeding and no other
action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated. I forth c rtify that I am unaware of
any other persons who should be named as parties in t 's acti r~~ ~ /
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex FILED
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 116
Trenton, New Jersey 08625 J UL 0 ? 2017
Attorney for Defendant Sean F. Dalton
Jean B, McMaster, J.S.0
B y: Benjamin H. Zieman (082712013)
Deputy Attorney General
(609)292-1575
Benjamin.Zieman@dol.lps.state.nj.us
herein, along with any opposition, and for good cause shown;
it is further
1
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-8 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 59
it is further
s >/~
rr
J.S.C.
Jean 8.11~cM~ster,J.S.C.
following date s )
tP~ ~~ ~ I~Ec~,~,