IN THE MATTER OF DAWN SHYNER, LIEUTENANT 5217 (NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF STATE POLICE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3546-18T1
IN THE MATTER OF
DAWN SHYNER,
LIEUTENANT #5217
_____________________________
Submitted July 14, 2020 – Decided September 1, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino and Susswein.
On appeal from the New Jersey Division of State
Police, Docket No. 2015-0002.
Attorneys Hartman Chartered, attorneys for appellant
Dawn Shyner (Mark Alan Gulbranson, Jr., on the
briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent New Jersey State Police (Jane C. Schuster,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dipti Vaid
Dedhia, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Dawn Shyner, is a Lieutenant in the New Jersey State Police
(the Division). She appeals the Division's final agency decision, issued by the
Acting Superintendent, finding she committed two disciplinary violations and
imposing a forty-day suspension. Both violations involve lack of candor during
an internal affairs investigation. Shyner was charged with being untruthful when
she represented to an internal affairs detective that she was not aware that an
earlier investigation had been classified as a domestic violence investigation as
distinct from a "reportable incident" investigation. She also was charged with
refusing to divulge the identities of other troopers she claimed had operated
State Police vehicles while on restricted duty in violation of a State Police
Standing Operating Procedure (SOP). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
who presided over the evidentiary hearing recommended that these charges be
dismissed. The ALJ had found that some of the testimony presented by the
Division was not credible.
After carefully reviewing the record in view of the applicable legal
principles, we are constrained to reverse the Acting Superintendent's
determination that Shyner lied when she claimed that she was not aware she had
been the principal of a domestic violence investigation. The Acting
Superintendent has not offered adequate justification for rejecting the ALJ's
findings that were based on the judge's firsthand assessment of witness
credibility. We believe the remaining evidence relating to that charge, viewed
in its entirety, is insufficient to prove Shyner willfully lied. Accordingly, we
A-3546-18T1
2
vacate that violation. We affirm, however, the Acting Superintendent's
conclusion that Shyner improperly refused to divulge the identities of other
troopers who operated State Police vehicles in violation of an SOP. We remand
the matter for the Acting Superintendent to determine the appropriate penalty
for the single violation we affirm.
I.
We presume the parties are familiar with the procedural history of this
matter and the facts that were adduced at the evidentiary hearing. Much of that
evidence pertains to a charge that Shyner operated an unmarked State Police
vehicle while on weapons-restricted duty. The Acting Superintendent dismissed
that charge, and it is not before us. We therefore briefly summarize only those
circumstances we deem to be pertinent to the issues raised on appeal.
In the fall of 2014, Shyner called 911 for assistance with an altercation
involving her estranged husband. Local police were dispatched to Shyner's
residence. No one was arrested, no criminal charges were ever filed, and no
domestic violence temporary restraining order was ever sought or issued.
In accordance with State Police protocols, Shyner immediately notified
her superiors of the incident. The following day, Shyner met with two superior
officers in a State Police parking lot at which time she surrendered her firearm
A-3546-18T1
3
and executed a "Written Acknowledgement of Law Enforcement Obligations."
The form acknowledged that her "police issued firearm has been seized by order
of the Superintendent." During that meeting, her supervisor told her that he did
not believe the incident would "reach[] the level of a DV [domestic violence
investigation]."
Thereafter, the domestic violence officer in the Division's Office of
Professional Standards (OPS) was assigned to conduct an investigation. That
investigation was delayed for several months due to scheduling conflicts
between Shyner and the OPS investigator. In the course of that investigation,
Shyner advised the OPS investigator she had met with the Division's physician
on her own initiative and that the doctor referred her to a counselor from the
Division's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The parties dispute whether
Shyner was ever told the OPS investigation was considered to be a domestic
violence investigation.
The Division thereafter received a citizen complaint against Shyner for
unsafe driving and for operating a State Police vehicle while on restricted duty.
The investigation of the civilian complaint was conducted by a detective
assigned to the Division's Internal Affairs Unit. During the course of her
interviews with the internal affairs detective, Shyner stated that she did not know
A-3546-18T1
4
that she had been the principal of a domestic violence investigation. Rather, she
claimed that she believed it was a "reportable incident" investigation. 1 Shyner
also claimed that she was not aware that an SOP prohibited troopers on restricted
duty from operating a State Police vehicle. In support of that assertion, she
claimed that she knew of "many members who have had their guns confiscated
but operated troop transportation."
Shyner had never reported those members pursuant to an SOP that
requires a trooper to report the misconduct of another trooper.2 She refused
repeated requests by the internal affairs detective to identify the troopers she
claimed had operated State Police vehicles while on restricted duty. Shyner
1
The record does not indicate the significance of the distinction between a
"reportable incident" investigation and a domestic violence investigation. We
note that unlike a criminal prosecution for perjury under N.J.S.A. 2C:28 -1, an
administrative prosecution for violation of SOP B10, see infra note 4, does not
require proof that a false statement was material to the underlying internal affairs
investigation.
2
That SOP provides:
A member who receives information that any other
member may have violated the Rules and Regulations
or may have engaged in any of the forms of misconduct
identified in Section IV of this order, must report such
information to the OPS or through their chain of
command as provided in this order.
A-3546-18T1
5
asserted that to do so would violate the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-1 to -9 (HIPAA).
In May 2016, Shyner was charged with three violations: (1) unauthorized
use of a troop car after surrendering her assigned firearm, SOPs C18 and D17;
(2) failing to report violations committed by other troopers and failing to divulge
requested information about those violations, SOP B10; and (3) failure to
provide full and candid answers during the course of an internal investigation
by claiming she was unaware she had been the principal of a domestic violence
investigation, SOP B10. 3 The matter was referred to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case.
After conducting a two-day evidentiary hearing, the ALJ issued an initial
decision recommending that all three charges be dismissed. With respect to the
first charge, the ALJ found that "OPS never advised Shyner of the SOPs that
3
SOP B10 provides:
All members of the Division are obligated to answer
questions and provide full and complete information to
investigating officers during internal investigations.
Less than complete candor during any statement may
lead to serious disciplinary sanctions, which may
include suspension or termination.
A-3546-18T1
6
prevented her from driving her NJSP assigned vehicle from October 5, 2014
through January 7, 2015."
The ALJ then turned to the allegations that Shyner failed to provide
complete and truthful answers during an internal affairs investigation. As noted,
the ALJ had already found that Shyner did not know that operating a troop car
while on restricted duty was prohibited. The ALJ thus reasoned that Shyner did
not recognize the conduct of other troopers who drove State Police vehicles
while on restricted duty as a violation that had to be reported. The ALJ also
found that Shyner was concerned that her disclosure of the identities of those
other troopers in response to requests made during the internal affairs
investigation might be a violation of HIPAA. The ALJ thus determined that
Shyner had not violated the SOP that requires troopers to give full and candid
answers to questions posed during an internal investigation.
Finally, the ALJ addressed the charge that Shyner provided false or
misleading statements to the internal affairs detective when she claimed to be
unaware that she had been the principal of a domestic violence investigation.
The ALJ found that Shyner's emails demonstrated that she had been "proactive
upon returning to work" and that she had met with the Division physician on her
own initiative and without being ordered to do so. The ALJ further found that
A-3546-18T1
7
the Division physician referred her to the EAP counselor and that she had not
been ordered to meet with the counselor in connection with a domestic violence
investigation. Although emails from the OPS investigator to his superiors
indicated the OPS investigation indeed related to domestic violence, the ALJ
found there is no evidence those emails were shared with Shyner.
The ALJ further noted the Division relied in part upon the EAP counselor's
statement that "it would be impossible for a member to leave a meeting with her
and not know their internal investigation was classified as a DV incident." The
counselor did not testify at the hearing. Her statement instead was presented
through the testimony and report of the OPS investigator who conducted the
initial investigation. The ALJ recognized that hearsay may be considered in
administrative proceedings, N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.1(c); N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.5(a), so long
as other credible supporting evidence is admitted. See Weston v. State, 60 N.J.
36, 51 (1972) (permitting the employment of hearsay to "corroborate competent
proof" but requiring "a residuum of legal and competent evidence in the record"
to support an administrative decision on review (citations omitted)). The ALJ
found there was no such corroborating evidence to support the counselor's
statement and on that basis, the ALJ found it to be unreliable and gave it no
weight.
A-3546-18T1
8
Importantly, the ALJ also rejected the Division's evidence that on multiple
occasions, the OPS officer assigned to her case had expressly told Shyner that
the investigation was considered to be a domestic violence investigation. The
ALJ found that testimony was not credible based on the witness's demeanor and
evasive answers during cross-examination. In contrast, the ALJ credited
undisputed evidence that during the meeting at which she surrendered her
service weapon, Shyner was told by her captain that he did not believe the
ensuing investigation would reach the level of a domestic violence investigation.
Based on all of those circumstances, the ALJ concluded that the Division
had not proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Shyner was
willfully untruthful when she stated that she was unaware that she was the
principal of a domestic violence investigation and believed instead that she had
been the subject of a reportable incident investigation.
The Division filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision. The Acting
Superintendent modified the ALJ's recommendation on charge one but agreed
ultimately that charge should be dismissed. The Acting Superintendent rejected
the ALJ's recommendations on the two remaining charges, determined that
Shyner had committed those infractions, and imposed a forty-day suspension.
A-3546-18T1
9
II.
Shyner contends the Superintendent has not explained why he disregarded
the ALJ's findings and witness credibility determinations. Regarding the second
charged violation, she maintains the Acting Superintendent failed to adeq uately
explain why he rejected the ALJ's finding that Shyner was concerned disclosure
of the identities of the other officers who drove their vehicles while on restricted
duty could violate HIPAA. She claims the Acting Superintendent's reasoning—
that the Division did not seek confidential medical information protected by
HIPAA—ignores the Division's failure to present that argument to the ALJ or to
present any evidence in support of that argument. Moreover, Shyner argues the
Acting Superintendent's determinations on her first and second charged
violations contradict one another. In finding the first charged violation
unfounded, the Acting Superintendent concluded Shyner was unaware that
driving her trooper vehicle while on restricted-duty status was a violation of the
Rules and Regulations. Yet, the Acting Superintendent also found Shyner
violated her obligation to report other officers for that same conduct.
Accordingly, Shyner contends the final agency decision with respect to the
second charge constitutes an abuse of discretion and should be overturned.
A-3546-18T1
10
Shyner also maintains the Acting Superintendent acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in rejecting the ALJ's credibility findings and concluding that
Shyner committed a candor violation in claiming to be unaware, prior to January
2015, that she was the principal of a DV investigation. She argues that no
credible evidence was presented showing that she was informed her matter was
being treated as a DV investigation. She notes her Captain told her directly that
he did not believe the incident would amount to a DV investigation. Shyner also
claims the Acting Superintendent's reliance on the OPS officer's testimony
ignores the ALJ's finding that the officer's live testimony lacked credibility.
Accordingly, Shyner submits her violation for lacking candor during the course
of the internal investigation should be vacated.
III.
We begin our analysis by emphasizing that law enforcement officers are
held to a high standard of professionalism and integrity. See In re Phillips, 117
N.J. 567, 576 (1990) (noting that the police are a "special kind of public
employee" who, accordingly, are expect to "present an image of personal
integrity and dependability" (quoting Twp. of Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89
N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965))). This includes exercising candor at all
times, and certainly during the course of an internal investigation. An officer's
A-3546-18T1
11
dishonesty in an internal affairs investigation "is significant." Ruroede v.
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 214 N.J. 338, 363 (2013). Although we firmly
embrace the high standard of honesty and integrity to which state troo pers and
all law enforcement officers must be held, that standard does not shift the
Division's burden in disciplinary cases to prove an alleged violation by a
preponderance of the credible evidence. Id. at 355 (citing In re Phillips, 117
N.J. 567, 575 (1990)).
The scope of our review of an administrative agency's final decision is
limited. In re Hermann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). The "final determination of an
administrative agency . . . is entitled to substantial deference." In re Eastwick
Coll. LPN-to-RN Bridge Program, 225 N.J. 533, 541 (2016) (citing Univ.
Cottage Club of Princeton N.J. Corp. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 191 N.J. 38,
48 (2007)); see also In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div. 2001)
(finding a "strong presumption of reasonableness attaches to the actions of the
administrative agencies" (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App.
Div. 1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994))). An appellate court ordinarily "should
not disturb an administrative agency's determinations or findings unless there is
a clear showing that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by
A-3546-18T1
12
substantial evidence." In re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate
of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008); see also Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171
N.J. 561, 571 (2002) (noting the abuse-of-discretion standard is established
"when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed
from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis'" (quoting
Achacoso-Sanchez v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 779 F.2d 1260, 1265
(7th Cir. 1985))).
When a contested case is submitted to the OAL for a hearing, the agency
head must review the record submitted by the ALJ and give attentive
consideration to the ALJ's initial decision. N.J. Dep't of Pub. Advocate v. N.J.
Bd. of Pub. Utilities, 189 N.J. Super. 491, 500 (App. Div. 1983). The agency
head nonetheless remains the primary factfinder and maintains the ultimate
authority to reject or modify findings of fact, conclusions of law, or
interpretations of agency policy. Id. at 507 (citing N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c)). In
State Police disciplinary cases, the Superintendent, not an ALJ, ultimately has
the managerial prerogative to determine whether a trooper violated the
Division's rules and regulations, as well as the penalty to be imposed. State v.
State Troopers Fraternal Ass'n, 134 N.J. 393, 416–17 (1993).
A-3546-18T1
13
Even so, ALJs are not mere conduits for transmitting evidence to the
agency head, and they should not be considered "second-tier players or hold an
inferior status as factfinders." In re Hendrickson, 235 N.J. 145, 160 (2018).
Accordingly, when an agency head strays from the factual findings of an ALJ,
we need not accord the agency head the level of deference we ordinarily
recognize in reviewing final administrative decisions. See H.K. v. State of N.J.
Dep't of Human Servs., 184 N.J. 367, 384 (2005) (noting that it is "not for . .
the agency head to disturb" ALJs' credibility determinations based upon live
witness testimony); Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587–88 (1988)
(declining to defer to the agency head's assessment of witness credibility when
the ALJ was the one who heard live testimony). Furthermore, and of special
significance in this appeal, an agency head may not reject or modify findings of
fact as to issues of credibility of lay witness testimony unless the agency head
first determines from a review of the record that the ALJ's findings "are
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or are not supported by sufficient,
competent, and credible evidence in the record." N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); accord
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6(c).
A-3546-18T1
14
IV.
We first address the charge that Shyner lied when she told an internal
affairs detective that she did not believe that she had been the principal of a
domestic violence investigation. The issue before us is not whether the Division
classified the OPS inquiry as a domestic violence investigation. Clearly, they
did. Rather, the disputed question at the heart of this case is whether Shyner
was aware of that designation.
Shyner's alleged awareness of the nature of the OPS investigation is a
subjective state of mind that can be proved either by direct or circumstantial
evidence. See Mayflower Indus. v. Thor Corp., 15 N.J. Super. 139, 162 (Ch.
Div. 1951), aff'd o.b., 9 N.J. 605 (1952) ("[A] person's intentions . . . need not
be proved from what he said[] but . . . may be inferred from all that he di d and
said, and from all the surrounding circumstances of the situation under
investigation."). As to direct evidence, the Division presented testimony that on
multiple occasions, the OPS investigator told Shyner he was conducting a
domestic violence investigation and that she was the principal of that
investigation. If believed, that testimony would conclusively establish the lack -
of-candor violation. However, the ALJ found that testimony was not credible
A-3546-18T1
15
based on the ALJ's firsthand observation of the witness's demeanor during cross-
examination.
The Acting Superintendent's final decision relies upon this evidence but
makes no mention of the ALJ's adverse credibility assessment. The Acting
Superintendent, in other words, has not presented an explanation, as required by
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) and N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6(c), for concluding that the ALJ's
credibility finding is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or is not supported by
sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the record.
Nor does the Acting Superintendent's final agency decision explain why
the ALJ abused her discretion in discounting the hearsay statement attributed to
the EAP counselor who claimed "it would be impossible for a member to leave
a meeting with her and not know their internal investigation was classified as a
DV incident." We add that the counselor's statement does not declare that she
told Shyner the OPS investigation was designated as a domestic violence
investigation. Rather, the counselor's statement is essentially a lay opinion
drawn from the circumstances of her meeting with Shyner.
We infer from the counselor's hearsay statement that they discussed
domestic violence and marital discord during the counseling session. That does
not mean, however, they discussed Shyner's awareness of the designation of the
A-3546-18T1
16
internal investigation, that is, whether Shyner was a principal in a domestic
violence investigation or a reportable incident investigation. Nor did the
Division present evidence that the counselor knew that Shyner's supervisor had
told her that he believed the matter would not reach the level of a domestic
violence investigation.
We recognize that, at first glance, it might seem implausible on its face
that Shyner was not aware she was the principal of a domestic violence
investigation given that she had called 911 and surrendered her service weapon
the next day. The Division argues Shyner's claim that she was unaware that she
was a principal in a domestic violence investigation is undercut by her
compliance with all the steps required of a trooper who is the principal in a
domestic violence investigation. As we have noted, the Division could prove
Shyner's awareness of the classification of the investigation from the
surrounding circumstances, including the steps she took from the outset that are
consistent with the steps that would be taken by the principal of a domestic
violence investigation. Those circumstances, however, must be viewed in their
entirety.
Because the Acting Superintendent has not complied with the
requirements of N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) and N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6(c) before
A-3546-18T1
17
rejecting the ALJ's lay witness credibility findings, we disregard the testimony
the ALJ found was not credible. The remaining evidence, in our view, supports
the conclusion that Shyner subjectively, albeit erroneously, believed the OPS
investigation was deemed to be reportable incident investigation rather than a
domestic violence investigation. That exculpatory evidence includes that no one
was ever arrested or charged with domestic violence and no domestic violence
temporary restraining order was ever sought or issued. Furthermore, the OPS
investigation was not completed expeditiously as one might expect when a
trooper is the principal of a domestic violence internal investigation.
Most importantly, at the time Shyner surrendered her service weapon, her
captain told her that he did not believe the matter would reach the level of a
domestic violence investigation. That statement of reassurance by Shyner's
supervisor reasonably suggests the Division's classification of the ensuing
investigation was not a foregone conclusion or, at least, suggests that Shyner
might subjectively believe a domestic violence classification was not
inevitable.4 We note the Division did not present evidence that the captain's
statement to Shyner was inappropriate.
4
It is conceivable Shyner acted swiftly and preemptively, e.g., by reaching out
to the Division's physician before being ordered to do so, in the hope of
A-3546-18T1
18
The ALJ concluded that Shyner was never told after that initial meeting
that her captain was mistaken and that the investigation had in fact reached the
level of a domestic violence investigation. On this critical point, we defer to the
ALJ's factual finding because, as noted, the Acting Superintendent in his final
decision did not address the ALJ's explicit witness credibility assessment.
Considering all of these circumstances, we are constrained to agree with
the ALJ that the Division failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that Shyner lied when she said she believed the internal investigation
pertained to a reportable incident rather than suspected domestic violence. We
therefore vacate the Acting Superintendent's ruling on this charge.
V.
We turn next to the charge that Shyner refused to divulge the identities of
troopers she knew had operated State Police vehicles after their weapons had
been surrendered. The internal affairs investigation in this case focused on
whether Shyner had violated Division rules by driving a State Police vehicle
influencing the decision as to how the investigation would be classified. We
reiterate that the critical issue with respect to this charge is not whether Shyner
was objectively reasonable in believing that the investigation would be deemed
to be a reportable incident investigation. Rather, the issue is whether she
willfully lied when she told the internal affairs detective that she was unaware
that the investigation had been classified as a domestic violence investigation.
A-3546-18T1
19
while she was on weapons-restricted duty. Shyner did not dispute that she
operated an unmarked troop car before her service weapon was returned to her.
Rather, she claimed by way of defense that she was unaware of the SOP that
prohibited her from driving a State Police vehicle.
In support of that defense, Shyner told the internal affairs detective she
was aware of plenty of troopers who "are on limited duty, that had their weapons
taken away, for medical reasons or other reasons, that still drive troop cars."
That statement no doubt was intended to corroborate her assertion that she was
unaware such conduct was prohibited. As it turns out, that assertion spun the
first thread in a tangled web. The internal affairs detective challenged Shyner
to support her assertion by providing the names of those other troopers. Shyner
did not reply that she had only heard this information from others and did not
know the identities of these troopers. Rather, she refused to reveal their
identities to the internal affairs detective, claiming that to do so would violate
their privacy rights under HIPAA. She thereby impliedly confirmed that she
knew their names.
The ALJ reasoned that because Shyner was unaware that driving a troop
car without a service weapon violates an SOP, she had no reason to believe she
was required to report other troopers who engaged in the same conduct. That
A-3546-18T1
20
rationale might explain why she did not commit a violation each time she learned
another trooper was operating a vehicle while on restricted duty. The ALJ's
reasoning, however, does not explain much less justify why Shyner did not
answer the direct question put to her by the internal affairs detective after she
was told that such conduct is prohibited.
We emphasize the specifications of the alleged violation make clear that
Shyner was not just charged with failing to report the other troopers when s he
first learned of their conduct. Rather, the specifications make clear she also was
charged with refusing to divulge information specifically requested by the
internal affairs detective. 5 The ALJ's decision does not address this aspect of
5
The specification supporting this charge provides:
On February 2, 2016, Lieutenant Dawn Shyner #5217
acted to her personal discredit and to the discredit of
the Division, when she refused to identify unnamed
enlisted members who she had indicated committed
misconduct by operating troop transportation while on
weapons restriction duty status. Specifically, during a
formal principal interview with internal investigators
on June 10, 2015, Lt. Shyner stated "There are plenty
of troopers that I'm aware of throughout Division that
are on limited duty, that had their weapons taken away,
for medical reasons or other reasons, that still drive
troop cars." Despite this assertion, investigators
determined that Lt. Shyner never reported those
members to the OPS or the Division as required. During
A-3546-18T1
21
the charge except to note in conclusory fashion that Shyner asserted that
compliance with the detective's demand would violate HIPAA. The ALJ did not
consider whether, in fact, Shyner had been asked to disclose confidential
information that the Division was prohibited from knowing under HIPAA or any
other privacy law.
We conclude Shyner's HIPAA argument is unpersuasive and unavailing.
The record clearly shows she was not asked to provide the reasons why the other
troopers had been placed on duty status restriction (e.g., medical or
psychological problems, suspected domestic violence, suspected alcohol or drug
abuse, a police shooting or other use-of-force investigation). And of course, the
Division would already be aware why those troopers had been placed on
her third formal principal interview on February 2,
2016, internal investigators directly asked Lt. Shyner to
identify the enlisted members that she had knowledge
of who had operated troop transportation while on duty
status restrictions, however, she refused to identify the
members. After this refusal, Lt. Shyner was reminded
of her obligation to provide full and complete
information to investigating officers but she again
refused to identify the enlisted members.
[(Emphases added).]
A-3546-18T1
22
weapons restricted duty.6 In these circumstances, Shyner was obligated to
cooperate with internal affairs once she was told driving a troop car while on
restricted duty is prohibited and was reminded of her obligation to provide full
and complete information to investigating officers.
We conclude the Acting Superintendent acted well within his discretion
in rejecting the ALJ's recommendation on this issue and finding that Shyner
willfully failed to cooperate with the internal affairs detective and did not
provide full and complete responses regarding possible misconduct by other
troopers. This is not an instance in which the Acting Superintendent
unjustifiably disregarded an ALJ factual finding. We therefore affirm that
violation.
VI.
To the extent we have not addressed them, any additional contentions
raised by Shyner lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Because we vacate one of the violations, we remand the matter
6
As noted, when she surrendered her weapon, Shyner signed a form
acknowledging that her "police issued firearm has been seized by order of the
Superintendent." Presumably, that practice was followed in other cases where
troopers surrendered their service weapons.
A-3546-18T1
23
to the Acting Superintendent to determine the appropriate penalty for the single
disciplinary infraction we affirm. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
A-3546-18T1
24