Appeals filed after judge blocks release of 'racially charged' Spotswood bodycam footage

Two appeals have been filed of Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Michael Toto's ruling that bodycam footage of Spotswood Mayor Jackie Palmer allegedly making racist comments to police during a meeting in her office will not be publicly released.

The appeals of the May 29 ruling were filed by Gannett, the parent company of the Home News Tribune and MyCentralJersey.com, and Spotswood resident Steven Wronko.

Gannett and Wronko had requested the footage through the state's Open Public Records Act (OPRA) after Spotswood Police Officer Richard Sasso, president of the Spotswood PBA, filed a Superior Court lawsuit on Jan. 15 against Palmer and the borough, alleging violations of the state's Whistleblower Law and other charges.

The recordings, Sasso argues in his lawsuit, illustrate Palmer's "antagonism" toward police and possible inappropriate "racially charged" comments she made in the meeting on April 28, 2022.

"Transparency is important here," said CJ Griffin, Gannett's attorney, after Superior Court Judge Michael Toto released the decision. "We argued all along that the public deserves to see the exact words and context of what the Mayor said, as opposed to the allegations in Sasso’s complaint, as well as how the police behaved and any violations of law that they committed."

In the 53-page decision, Toto ruled that the footage was not a government record as defined under OPRA nor a public record under the common law right of access.

At the heart of the case is a recording made in the course of two April 2022 incidents when police were called to deal with a Black resident allegedly causing a disturbance at the municipal building.

While all the parties agree that the officers violated policy by not informing the mayor that she was being recorded, the legal fight over the 30-minute recording centers on whether it met the exemptions for release under OPRA.

In a May hearing, Toto said the public's right to have access to a document is "not absolute" and a legal analysis is necessary before a decision is made whether the material could be released.

In the ruling, Toto wrote that "it is also reasonable to believe the mayor (Palmer) relied on the confidentiality of statements made between herself and the police command staff during a meeting requested by the chief and held by her office."

But Griffin argued that Palmer "had no reasonable expectation that anything she said to them would be confidential."

Toto decided that while he agreed there is a "diminished expectation of privacy granted to public officials, but that does not mean the mayor has no expectation of privacy."

Griffin had also argued that the footage should be made public because it was a continuation of the investigation into the prior events on April 22, 2022 and earlier on April 28, 2022.

But Toto did not find "the meeting in the mayor's office to be a continuation of earlier events, nor does a meeting with command staff qualify as a call for service."

The footage, the judge wrote, "contains more than the mayor’s alleged inappropriate comments" and includes "confidential information, police procedures and other safety concerns."

Toto wrote that the footage "could harm more than just the mayor's reputation."

Though Toto stated the relationship between Palmer and the police department is "problematic," the argument for the footage's release "does not negate privacy concerns."

"It is evident that transparency does not supersede other well-established confidentiality concerns," Toto wrote.

"It is objectively reasonable that the mayor, having members of the police command in her office, expected the contests of that meeting would remain private," the judge wrote.

Even if the footage were to be released, Toto wrote, the discussion of attorney-client privileges, police protocols and procedures would be redacted, leaving "only a limited amount of the video would be available for public disclosure, severely diminishing the accuracy of the factual nature and context of the recordings. "

That, Toto wrote, "could chill agency decision-making and conceivably impact future policies and departmental policies."

Toto also noted that the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office's Bias Unit had investigated the allegations against Palmer and no charges were brought.

The judge wrote that after reviewing the unredacted footage and other material, he "is satisfied that the investigation was adequate."

Though the public has a right to know what happened between the mayor and police department so residents can draw their opinions based on "a complete record," Toto wrote, "ultimately this is not about the relationship between the mayor and the police. The issue is whether the BWC (body-worn camera) recording is a public record."

Although the judge found "there is a pattern of contentious disputes between the mayor and the Spotswood Police Department, this Court does not find that those allegations are enough to overcome the confidentiality concerns."

The judge also wrote that the footage is being retained because of an Internal Affairs investigation, "which triggers its own confidentiality exceptions."

The judge noted that "most of the information will likely come to light throughout the civil litigation process" of Sasso's lawsuit.

What triggered the chain of events leading to this decision is the April 22, 2022 incident in which Sasso alleges Palmer became irate when police did not remove a Black man from the municipal building.

In the lawsuit, Sasso alleges that in his investigation of the "racially charged" April 22, 2022 incident, he interviewed the Black resident who told him that he was approached several times by "a clearly aggravated" Palmer.

Sasso alleges that in surveillance he reviewed he saw Palmer "being extremely antagonistic" and telling the resident he had to listen to her because she "is the mayor."

The surveillance also shows Palmer ignoring a police captain's advice to stay in her office rather than approach the man, Sasso alleges.

When the resident returned to the municipal building six days later, police were dispatched to the building because unnamed municipal employees felt unsafe because the resident was there, the suit contends, and they asked for police escorts to their offices.

But, during that time, the suit says, Palmer went on a "verbal tirade" because the man was not removed from the building.

The mayor allegedly said, "everyone is going to get an (expletive) chewing because if I (expletive) call downstairs and say get this (expletive) guy out of here," according to the lawsuit.

"I don't give a (expletive) if (expletive) Spotswood is on fire, there's got to be someone downstairs that can two foot this (expletive) stairs to find out what's happening," the lawsuit quotes the mayor.

After police called the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office to confirm the resident could not be ejected from the building because it would a violation of his civil rights if he were not committing a criminal act, Palmer was informed on the direction from the authority that oversees all police departments in the county, the suit says.

But Palmer became "immediately hostile" and made "inappropriate comments, " Sasso alleges, including "we need to control the perception of what's happening" and "I don't need BLM and the KKK fighting on our front steps over this."

The suit alleges that Palmer had the municipal administration initiate an Internal Affairs investigation into the police officers who were present because their bodycams recorded Palmer's comments.

That was done, Sasso said, as a legal strategy to block any potential OPRA requests for video footage during the incident. One of the officers has left the department.

The litigation over the bodycam footage is part of a thicket of legal action involving the Spotswood Police Department and the borough.

In March Palmer suspended Chief Phillip Corbisiero and Acting Capt. Nicholas Mayo Jr., the two top-ranking officers in the Spotswood Police Department, and has threatened to fire them. In turn both officers have filed suit against the borough.

Corbisiero and Mayo went to Superior Court to have those charges dismissed. Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Christopher Rafano ruled on July 19 that the charges should be dropped because the "appropriate authority" for issuing the disciplinary action should have been the county prosecutor's office or the state Attorney General.

In January, Corbisiero filed a $2.5 million tort claim against the borough, claiming he has been subjected to a hostile work environment, harassment, retaliation, age discrimination and defamation by Palmer, Business Administrator Brandon Umba and Assistant Business Administrator John Scrivanic , a retired Tinton Falls police chief.

Corbisiero alleges that he has been targeted for filing a lawsuit in 2020 with former Police Chief Michael Zarro alleging they were victims of age discrimination and whistleblowing retaliation against former Mayor Ed Seely and former Business Administrator Dawn McDonald. Zarro received an out-of-court settlement for $350,000 and Corbisiero received $120,000 .

In 2020, Mayo, along with fellow officers John Fedak and Edward Schapley, sued the borough, Seeley and McDonald alleging civil rights violations, harassment and retaliation . That case is scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 15 in Middlesex County Superior Court.

Email: mdeak@mycentraljersey.com

Mike Deak is a reporter for mycentraljersey.com. To get unlimited access to his articles on Somerset and Hunterdon counties, please subscribe or activate your digital account today.

This article originally appeared on MyCentralJersey.com: Appeals filed after judge blocks release of 'racially charged' Spotswood bodycam footage