1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ----------------------------- : RE: : : NEW JERSEY STATE (STATE : POLICE) : : and : : STATE TROOPERS FRATERNAL : ASSOCIATION : : PERC Docket AR-2017-471D : (Darran Crane) : ----------------------------- : OER# 14442 10 DATE: 11 Office of Employee Relations 240 West State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 24, 2018 B E F O R E: ARNOLD ZUDICK, ESQ. ARBITRATOR A P P E A R A N C E S: GURBIR S. GREWAL, ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JANA DiCOSMO, ESQ. Deputy Attorney General ON BEHALF OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY/STATE POLICE LOCCKE, CORREIA & BUKOSKY BY: MICHAEL A. BUKOSKY, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF STATE TROOPERS FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION J.H. BUEHRER & ASSOCIATES BY: TRACEY L. PINSKY, CCR,RPR CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER License NO.: XI002197 1 2 IN D E X 2 WITNESS 3 COLONEL PATRICK CALLAHAN 4 PAGE By Mr. Bukosky 29 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E X H IB I T S NUMBER J-1 J-2 J-3 J-4 U-1 U-2 U-3 U-4 I.D. 4 4 4 4 114 175 197 212 EVID. 4 4 4 4 4 1 appears to be, as followed through, it appears to be 2 the same. I guess it's language in Article 24 of the 3 parties agreement. J-2 is the April 13, 2017 request 4 for arbitration in this matter that caused me to be 5 assigned. J-3 is the original grievance that was filed 6 in this matter on March 16th of '17. And J-4 was the 7 grievance response that was dated March 6th -- I'm 8 sorry, I think the grievance was actually. 9 10 -210 210 -- ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: The grievance was 11 March 13th, and the grievance response was March 16th. 12 Sorry about that. Okay. 13 14 15 13 MS. DiCOSMO: 17 of 2017. (At which time, J-1 through J-4 were marked for identification and received in evidence.) ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: The parties know they 16 have the opportunity to present other documents as they 14 17 proceed. So let's talk about the issue in the case. 15 18 Let me just ask the parties to state their appearance 19 for the record. Let's begin with the STFA. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 MR. BUKOSKY: To frame the issue? 21 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: First state your 22 23 appearance for the record. MR. BUKOSKY: Michael Bukosky from Loccke, 24 Correi & Bukosky on behalf of the State Troopers 25 Fraternal Association. 3 1 5 1 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: And for the state? 2 order. This is a formal hearing in the matter of the 2 MS. DiCOSMO: Deputy Attorney General Jana 3 State of New Jersey State Police and the State Troopers 3 DiCosmo on behalf of Governor's Office of Employee 4 Fraternal Association. This is Docket Number 4 Relations and New Jersey state police. 5 AR-2017-471, that's the PERC Docket Number. The OER 5 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Thank you. 6 docket number is 14442. And this concerns Darran 6 Now, let's talk about the issue. 7 Crane, but this is not a discipline case. This is a 7 8 contract interpretation or dispute case. 8 9 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: The hearing will be in That being the case, the union, not the 9 Mr. Bukosky, if you want to take a shot at it. MR. BUKOSKY: Was station representative Darran Crane improperly transferred from the Sussex 10 state, has the burden to proceed in this case. I am 10 11 Arnold Zudick, I'm the arbitrator who's been appointed 11 12 to hear this matter. I think I know the parties 12 13 understand the process. The parties have the 13 14 opportunity to make opening remarks, closing remarks, 14 MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. 15 produce documents, present documents, call, examine, 15 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. 16 and cross-examine witnesses. At the conclusion of the 16 17 entire hearing parties can file post hearing briefs, 17 statement. Did the State Police violate Articles 24, 18 and after all of that is done, I will consider all and 18 26, and 27 when it reassigned Detective Crane from 19 issue a decision in this matter. 19 Sussex station to Totowa substation. 20 station to the Totowa station. MS. DiCOSMO: Mr. Arbitrator? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: And then I would assume, if not, what shall the remedy be? MS. DiCOSMO: We also had drafted an issue 20 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. 21 through four documents, I'm going to put those on the 21 MS. DiCOSMO: Which are the contractual 22 record. Parties agreed that the relevant contract 22 23 between the parties will be marked as J-1, and, 23 24 technically, that might be the 2008 through 2012 24 25 collective agreement, but the pertinent language 25 When we were off the record, we went provisions actually listed in the grievance. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. So 24, 26 and 27, is that what you said? MS. DiCOSMO: Yes. 6 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Mr. Bukosky, any 8 1 station representative, union representative, that was 2 reason not to refer to the articles that were in the 2 effected in this case, but he did not bring an 3 grievance or refer to the articles in the issue. 3 individual claim and doesn't assert or bring any 4 individual claims in this proceeding, I wanted that to 5 be very clear on the record. 1 MR. BUKOSKY: Because I don't know the 4 5 reason why he was transferred. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, the grievance 6 7 alleges that, is that not accurate? MR. BUKOSKY: The grievance alleges that 8 9 he was improperly transferred. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: It includes those 10 11 references. MR. BUKOSKY: I mean, you know, it could 12 13 be a violation of any number of clauses. 14 15 16 6 As I indicated, this case involves the 7 transfer of what the parties have historically and 8 traditionally recognized to be a station 9 representative. That's a term that the contract 10 utilizes and the parties have ordinarily utilized in 11 describing these union representatives. They don't use 12 the term shop steward, they use the term station 13 representative, and that may be significant in this ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well -- 14 case. MR. BUKOSKY: Depending what the reason 15 was. His assigned location as the station 16 representative was at the Sussex station. There are 17 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: We don't have to 17 several dozen stations throughout New Jersey. And we 18 necessarily get an agreement on this, as long as the 18 will have documents that reflect, you know, the 19 parties authorize me to frame the issue based upon 19 majority of the stations in New Jersey, the state was 20 your, you know, how you both framed it, and, obviously, 20 kind enough to provide us with a, like, a table of 21 as I see the case develop. 21 organizations, and you'll see there is several 22 different stations throughout New Jersey. Do the parties give me the authority to 22 23 frame the issue? MS. DiCOSMO: Yes, Mr. Arbitrator, thank 24 25 Now, the State Troopers designate a 23 you. 24 station representative to each of its stations. There 25 is, for instance, in this case there was a -- Darran 7 9 1 MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. 1 Crane was stationed in the Sussex unit, Sussex 2 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Thank you. 2 barracks, that is a Sussex -- that is a station, there Now, the parties have the opportunity to 3 is a Sussex station, and that's where Darran Crane was 4 make opening remarks. We will talk about witnesses and 4 posted by the State Troopers as the station 5 so forth when we get to that point. You may waive that 5 representative. 6 opportunity, but now is the time to begin, and the STFA 6 7 has the burden to proceed. 7 State Trooper Organization, and that has some degree of 8 importance in this case. The State Troopers are 9 obviously a statewide operation, and the 3 8 9 Mr. Bukosky, do you wish to make an opening statement? Now, Darran Crane was selected by the 10 MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. A couple of 10 representatives for each station is critical as to how 11 preliminary statements that I'd like to make. 11 the State Troopers conduct their union affairs. They 12 Foremost, that this is a grievance brought by the State 12 are not -- the State Police does not operate from a 13 Troopers as an association, it's a union grievance. It 13 single headquarters. There are various -- because it's 14 was filed on behalf of the union by the president. 14 statewide, there are various headquarters throughout 15 You'll see in the response to the grievance that the 15 the state, throughout the state there are each 16 Colonel at that time indicated that he believed there 16 individual station houses. So it's important for the 17 was a grievance filed by Detective Crane, and that's 17 union to have a representative sort of with boots on 18 not the case. The grievance was filed by the union. 18 the ground in each station house, and that's how this 19 Detective Crane did not file the grievance. Detective 19 operates. 20 Crane does not make any individual claims in this 20 21 matter. He's not an individual claimant. This is a 21 in each station. The union is very careful on who it 22 union issue. It's an association issue brought by the 22 selects. They want a capable person, someone who's 23 association, and it seeks to assert the association's 23 able to represent the interest of the union and the 24 right under the contract. 24 interest of the individual members in that particular 25 station. There is a recruitment process. The 25 Now, Darran Crane, obviously, was the There are important persons in each unit, 10 12 1 selection is not an easy one, you want to have -- make 1 that the members are protected adequately. You know, 2 sure you have the right guy. And the union spends a 2 there is grievances that happen, you know, on a daily 3 lot of time and a lot of money training station 3 basis, and there is disciplinary matters that come up 4 representatives for their job. They invest resources, 4 on a daily basis that require, like, a type of union 5 it's part of the organizational practice to have these 5 representative or a Weingarten representative. You 6 station representatives, you know, trained, they go to 6 need somebody that's knowledgeable of the supervisors 7 school, they are in the loop, you know, there is an 7 in that particular station house. You need that guy in 8 e-mail manner in which all the information is posted. 8 there. 9 They are in charge of the bulletin board in the unit to So it's important that we don't have our 9 10 get the STFA information out. If there is a break in 10 station representatives shuffled from station to 11 that chain, State Troopers, essentially, get cut off 11 station because those relationships are developed over 12 from that station. So it's very important that the 12 years, and it's important for the station 13 station representative has the ability to operate 13 representative to be able to grieve things and take 14 freely without retaliation, without transfer in that 14 care of things and resolve things at the lowest level 15 particular station house. 15 of the grievance process and at the lowest level of the 16 disciplinary process. That's very important, not to 16 Now, the State Troopers have always 17 zealously protected this particular interest. The 17 just the union, but the employees and the employer as 18 interest of -- when I say the interest, I mean, the 18 well. 19 interest in having our station representatives stay put 19 20 and not to be arbitrarily or capriciously transferred 20 regular union representatives in a particular station 21 out of their station house, and there is a number of 21 house who's knowledgeable; because if you have a guy 22 reasons for that, that I'll get to in a second, but we 22 that transfer in from Salem County up to Sussex County, 23 have, as a State Police State Troopers Association, 23 he doesn't know anybody, he doesn't know what's going 24 always aggressively sought to protect that right. We 24 on, he doesn't know the player, he doesn't have the 25 have filed grievances in the past on this and have an 25 relationships, he's a valueless station representative. It's a benefit to the employer to have 11 13 1 arbitration award on this very same article that we are 1 That's important to the employer and the employee, and, 2 going to be addressing today. 2 perhaps, the biggest and most significant is, you can't 3 have a station representative who's subject to transfer 4 interest in maintaining station representatives. This 4 for arbitrary and capricious reasons for retaliatory 5 is not just something that, you know, oh, it happened, 5 reasons, for improper motives. 6 don't worry about it. We always said, this is a very 6 7 important interest to us. This has to be protected. 7 grievance or represents a particular employee that's 8 And if you are going to move somebody without just 8 disfavored, and all of a sudden management thinks, oh, 9 cause, then you better have a very good reason for 9 you know what, this is just a big problem for us, that 3 And the Division is aware of our strong So if a station representative files a 10 doing it. Because it's very disruptive to not only, 10 station representative's just too effective, he's 11 you know, the union's affairs, but it could have, you 11 making all kinds of problems for us, and filing 12 know, very big impact on the entire rest of the unit. 12 grievances that are annoying to us, or something that 13 And the reason why it might have an impact on the whole 13 they don't like or they strongly dislike, you know 14 rest of the unit is the reasons why you want a station 14 what, here's what we are going to do. We are going to 15 representative there in the first place. You need 15 transfer a station representative from Sussex, we will 16 somebody that's familiar with the customs and practices 16 put him down in Mercer County, we'll put him out in 17 of a particular station house. He needs to know the 17 Siberia, that's how we will take care that, of that 18 people who are there, the supervisor's there, the chain 18 problem. 19 of command. He knows the people who that particular 19 20 station works with in terms of local police departments 20 and that's an important consideration for protecting 21 in terms of the Prosecutor's Office in terms of 21 the interest of these station house representatives, 22 everything. You need your man on the ground who's 22 because if a station representative could be 23 knowledgeable about that. They form relationships with 23 transferred because of their advocacy in a particular 24 their supervisor, and the chain of command. These 24 issue, you see how that not only violates the 25 relationships are extremely important in making sure 25 protections in the contract that says you can't So there is a retaliatory aspect of it, 14 16 1 transfer a station representative, but it also violates 1 station representative, and the fact that they 2 other provisions in the contract that say you can't 2 particularly use the word "assigned location" is 3 discriminate against any Trooper because of their union 3 significant in this case. Why is it significant in 4 activity. 4 this case? Because if you look at the grievance filed 5 by the STFA, we say station representative Darran Crane 6 analysis of, you know, what's going on here. So if you So if, you know, and that folds into the 6 was improperly transferred, and the reply from the 7 are transferring a station representative, you might 7 employer denying the grievance, they say in their 8 violate any number of provisions in the contract. It 8 decision that, well, we didn't really transfer him, 9 may be that you are violating the specific clause at 9 this was simply a secondary assignment. So, in other 5 10 issue here that says station representatives shouldn't 10 words, they are saying, well, this is just a 11 be transferred. It may be that the transfer is a 11 reassignment, not a transfer, and he stayed within the 12 result of retaliatory union activity, that might 12 auspices of Troop B so, therefore, he was never 13 implicate other pieces of the contract. It may be 13 transferred. This was just, he stayed in Troop B, 14 because Troopers were engaged in some type of whistle 14 Troop B incorporates both Sussex station and the Totowa 15 blowing activity, if that's the case, then, again, 15 station. 16 another provision of the contract might be implicated 16 17 as to the reason why station representatives shouldn't 17 18 be transferred. We will struggle through those as we 18 19 get along. 19 there really wasn't a transfer, it was some type of Now, we have a particular contract clause ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Totowa in Passaic County. MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. And because of that, 20 reassignment. The contract doesn't speak about 21 in our contract, that particular contract clause is 21 transfers from Troop Unit A to Troop Unit B, and it 22 contained in Article XXIV, right. It's a specific 22 doesn't speak about transfers, you know, or 23 clause, and I provided you with that particular aspect 23 re-assignments from one particular, you know, aspect of 24 of the clause. So what does that clause say? That 24 a Trooper's duties to another, you know, in other 25 clause has several parts to it. The first part of the 25 words, in this particular case, Detective Darran Crane, 20 15 1 clause indicates -ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Let's just identify 2 17 1 he's a Detective, he's part of the investigatory part 2 of that unit, and there's other units that go on road patrol. 3 for the record, so Article XXIV, and you're talking 3 4 about Section E. 4 MR. BUKOSKY: Section E is very, you know, Just because there is a reassignment is 5 not what the contract speaks about. The contract 6 transparent in its operation. Both parties, the 6 speaks about station representatives, in other words, 7 employer and the Association, recognize that both 7 your assignment to a particular station and it talks 8 executive board members and station representatives of 8 about location. The location of the station 9 the Association have a need for continuity in their 9 representative, that's what it speaks to and that's 5 10 assigned location which exceeds that of other Troopers. 10 what protected, and that makes sense, because the way 11 So the employer's recognizing that and the Association 11 that the Division operates, it's based out of station 12 recognizes that mutual need. Then the next sentence 12 houses, that's how it operates, and what we want to do 13 says, station representatives of the Association will 13 is protect the need of the station representative in 14 not, will not, subject to overriding operational 14 each individual station at that location. So you can't 15 requirements of the Division be routinely transferred 15 say, well, we just reassigned from Totowa to Success, 16 involuntarily, except that he or she is subject to 16 and that should be fine, that's not a transfer, no, it 17 normal rational rotational transfer to and from toll 17 protects the location, that's what the contract 18 roads. 18 protects. 19 So I can tell you that, and I don't think 19 So what is the reason why Detective Darran 20 there will be objection to this, we are not dealing 20 Crane, the station representative in Sussex, was 21 with the exception of a rotational transfer to and from 21 removed from his location and transferred to another 22 toll roads, this was a transfer from Sussex station to 22 location? We don't know. We don't know. We have 23 Totowa station, so that part of it is not triggered in 23 never been provided with an explanation by the 24 this particular case. The fact that the parties have 24 employer, and we simply, sitting here today, don't 25 defined this particular interest as accruing to a 25 know. I expect by the close of this hearing we will -- 18 20 1 we may have an answer, but maybe we won't, I don't 1 that can be invoked as to, you know, why it would be 2 know. We have a variety of theories about why 2 problematic. It's also tantamount to, really, the type 3 Detective Crane was transferred from one station to 3 of clauses that give particular classes of employees 4 another, but I can't say for sure. 4 with a super seniority, typically, seniority is a 5 Now, the union's position is that this 5 factor in the placement of employees in particular job 6 particular contractual interest to remain in your 6 locations, and, here, employees are given a type of 7 location as a station representative is a static 7 super seniority. 8 contractual right, and what I mean by that, it's an 8 9 embedded right in the contract to stay in a particular 9 Traditionally, arbitrators who have been reviewing claims of seniority to a particular 10 location, and this is a protectable interest. This is 10 assignment or location, places the burden on the 11 an interest that each station representative has and 11 employer to justify what they are doing. If the most 12 the union has, which can't simply be arbitrarily 12 senior guys says, hey, I'm senior, I deserve to be in 13 revoked or diminished or removed, there has to be some 13 Sussex station not Totowa station, the employer might 14 explanation by the employer before they take the 14 be able to transfer him, but they have to say and give 15 actions in transferring a station representative. And 15 reasons and an explanation why they did it. And most 16 why this is important is that this interest not to be 16 arbitrators, most arbitration decisions, place that 17 transferred is really tantamount to something in the 17 burden on the employer to do that. So when you would 18 nature of a just cause provision, it's similar and 18 have a case about seniority, they would say to the 19 tantamount to some type of disciplinary action or 19 employer, well, tell us the reasons why you didn't 20 adverse action. In other words, if you have a right 20 abide by seniority, and then we can address them, 21 not to be transferred, the employer has to have just 21 tantamount, to a type of disciplinary case. That has 22 cause in order to transfer you, and that invokes the 22 been the traditional matter of review of these type of 23 traditional arbitrable concepts of notice and an 23 cases, and I would submit that it's appropriate for 24 opportunity to be heard, and some process where the 24 this case as well. 25 union and the station representative can address the 25 Here, the employer provides us no 19 21 1 reason why he's being transferred, and that's 1 explanation, none, so the only thing that the union can 2 particularly important in this case because no 2 do is bring it to arbitration and compel the testimony 3 explanation is given. 3 of witnesses, some of the witnesses involuntarily here, 4 have to be compelled by subpoena, to get an 4 In essence, the employer is saying, well, 5 we don't ever have to give you an explanation, we are 5 explanation. I think the failure to provide an 6 going to transfer you. We don't have to give you any 6 explanation is per se contractual violation, it's a per 7 reason, it could be for any reason. Or the employer is 7 se contractual violation. On its face, I think 8 simply going to say, you know what, you came in ten 8 whatever the reason might be and, maybe, there is no 9 minutes late today to work, we think that's adequate 9 reason, I don't know, whatever the reason might be, the 10 justification to transfer you, and, therefore, you're 10 fact that they didn't give one, is a contract violation 11 transferred, and the station representatives says, 11 in and of itself, and requires the grievance to be 12 well, but I wasn't late, here's my time record, I came 12 sustained on that basis alone. 13 in five minutes early that day. We don't care what you 13 14 said. We don't care what the truth is. Our reason is 14 to the contract clause at issue has to have read into 15 you're late, doesn't matter if we are right or wrong, 15 it a part that says the employer has an obligation to 16 you are transferred, done, it's a done deal. That 16 reveal the reasons why, if only that the union wouldn't 17 would, obviously, be an arbitrary and capricious action 17 have to go through this whole process to get the 18 on behalf of the employer. 18 reason, it simply is unfair and undermines the very 19 reasons that clause is in there. The substantive 19 The significance and the importance of why I think giving any meaningful definition 20 I'm going through that, is, the employer has an 20 meaning of that clause, I think, inherently requires 21 obligation to disclose the reasons so that the station 21 that type of obligation, and we didn't have it in this 22 representative and the union has an opportunity to say, 22 case and that's very problematic. Because, probably 23 you're wrong, you're wrong, you did it for a reason 23 today, we will get some type of explanation, and then 24 that was false or arbitrary or capricious, and, you 24 we will make a determination whether or not that 25 know, there is a number of scenarios, you know, that 25 explanation is reasonable or not, and it probably will 22 24 1 cause us to, if we don't agree with it, to have further 1 individuals without such actions becoming union wide as 2 testimony and further, you know, documentary requests 2 a matter of course, so we just want to place that on 3 so that the union would be in an issue to counter what 3 the record. 4 may, perhaps, be an unreasonable explanation, but we 4 5 don't know yet. Also, Mr. Bukosky had stated that, quote, 5 any number of provisions could have been violated, 6 So based upon all of that, we believe the 6 unquote. However, the burden is on the union to prove 7 contract has already been violated on the face of the 7 what provisions it believes were violated, and the 8 employer's actions sitting here today, and we also 8 necessary first step is to identify what provisions it 9 believe that there probably was not adequate 9 believed were violated. Therefore, again, as a 10 justification to transfer the station representative in 10 preliminary matter, this hearing should be limited only 11 this case. In any account, we have analyzed what this 11 to the conditions that were actually listed in the 12 station representative did, and we have not seen any 12 grievance. 13 improper action whatsoever that would warrant his 13 14 transfer. Based upon that, we think the grievance 14 explanation, that is belied by the multiple filings of 15 should be sustained, and, as a remedy, I believe that 15 Mr. Bukosky prior to today's hearing where he has 16 two things should occur, one is Darran Crane should be 16 listed a number of conspiracy theories that are without 17 placed back as station representative and, secondly, 17 merits. And, with that, I'll actually begin what was 18 that the contract be construed so that the parties are 18 prepared. 19 clear about what their future obligations are in terms 19 20 of providing an explanation for why station 20 wholly without merit. Contrary to the assertions made 21 representatives must transfer. 21 by Mr. Bukosky, Mr. Crane was not transferred, he was 22 reassigned, and this is not a distinction without a 23 difference. The differences are monumental. The 24 transfer -- a transfer is governed by the contract 25 between the New Jersey State Police and STFA. A ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Thank you, 22 23 Mr. Bukosky. Give me one second. Is the state -- do 24 25 you want to give your opening at this time? As far as not being provided an So, to that end, the grievance itself is 23 25 1 MS. DiCOSMO: Yes, Mr. Arbitrator. 1 reassignment is solely within the purview of managerial 2 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You may do so. 2 prerogative. 3 MS. DiCOSMO: Thank you. 3 4 Before I begin the substantive part of my 4 information, the New Jersey State Police consists of Just as a background, background 5 opening statement I just want to respond with a couple 5 four troops, A, B, C and D. Each of these troops has a 6 preliminary statements as well. 6 designated headquarters and several road stations. 7 Each of these troops also has a CIO unit which is 8 unique in that it is not assigned to any geographic 9 location, but instead is Troop wide, and individuals First, Mr. Crane is the only individual 7 8 listed in the grievance, so the scope of this 9 arbitration should be limited to his reassignment and 10 no other individuals. There was plenty of an 10 who participate or are assigned to the CIO unit who 11 opportunity to amend this grievance it was filed a year 11 volunteer, who are not put there against their will, 12 and seven months ago, over a year and seven months ago. 12 know that they can be reassigned at any moment. The 13 So if this were to be a group grievance that -- 13 reassignment is based on -- or the assignment, rather, 14 is based on operational needs. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, the remedy 14 15 didn't ask for anything else. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You said what CIO 15 16 MS. DiCOSMO: Yes, and that brings me to 16 17 my next point, the remedy sought by Mr. Bukosky with 17 18 regard to reassignment back to Sussex County is the 18 19 only remedy requested in the grievance. As far as how 19 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Oh, okay. 20 contract should be construed, that's something that 20 MS. DiCOSMO: My apologies, thank you. 21 would have to be negotiated by the parties, that's not 21 There is no property interest in the 22 something that would be the subject of this 22 geographic location, because they have full knowledge 23 arbitration. 23 when they begin that they could be moved at any time. 24 And regarding operational need, Mr. Bukosky in his 25 previous filings had spun a conspiracy theory about why 24 25 Additionally, just as a general statement, the union regularly files actions on behalf of unit? MS. DiCOSMO: CIO, Criminal Investigations Office. 26 28 1 Mr. Crane was assigned, and it's just patently false, 1 alleviating the strain created by the offices which was 2 and it's a misrepresentation. And today to say he has 2 the direct result of Mr. Crane's actions, and the New 3 no idea, is also a misrepresentation. Operational need 3 Jersey State Police did exactly what it was supposed to 4 changed due to the breakdown in communication and the 4 do in this position. 5 painfully strained relationship between the Sussex 5 Thank you. 6 County Prosecutor's Office and the New Jersey State 6 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Thank you. 7 Police, and that painfully strange relationship was a 7 Are we ready for testimony? 8 direct result of a series of actions taken unilaterally 8 MS. DiCOSMO: I believe there was a 9 by Mr. Crane, which demonstrated a colossal lack of 10 sound judgment. 9 discussion about witnesses. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: We can discuss that 10 11 afterwards. I believe the Colonel is our first 12 County Prosecutor's Office no longer had faith in the As a result of these actions, the Sussex 12 witness; is that correct? 13 ability of the Troopers, especially Mr. Crane, to 13 MR. BUKOSKY: Correct. 14 thoroughly and impartially investigate allegations of 14 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: We will talk about 15 criminal conduct. The New Jersey State Police, and 15 others afterwards. Okay. Well, let's do the 16 forgive the obvious nature of this statement, but the 16 formalities first. 17 New Jersey State Police is a state level governmental 17 Colonel PATRICK CALLAHAN, after having 18 entity. The Sussex County Prosecutor's Office is a 18 been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 19 county level governmental entity. The New Jersey State 19 follows: 20 Police does not have the authority to reassign 20 21 individuals in the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office. 21 11 The Sussex County Prosecutor's Office and 22 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Please be seated and state your full name and rank for the record, please. THE WITNESS: Patrick J. Callahan, Colonel 22 23 the New Jersey State Police, CIO Troop B Troopers, 23 and Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. 24 namely, Mr. Crane were at an effective stalemate. The 24 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Thank you. 25 only recourse that the New Jersey State Police had in 25 Before the testimony begins, I am just 27 29 1 order to continue to serve the residents of Sussex 1 noting for the record, while the parties are aware of 2 County in their investigations was to reassign the 2 this, the record is not, Colonel Callahan was 3 individuals who had a secondary geographic temporary 3 subpoenaed by the STFA, the state filed a motion to 4 assignment to Sussex County and to bring in other 4 quash that subpoena, and in a February decision, 5 Troopers to fill those spots. Mr. Crane was not 5 February 26, 2018, I issued a written decision 6 demoted. He lost no privileges. The reassignment does 6 declining or dismissing the motion to quash, and so the 7 not preclude him legally or logistically from 7 Colonel is here under subpoena here today. 8 performing his duties as a station representative. He 8 9 has a state vehicle. He can use state time. It's not 9 Okay. You may begin your questioning, Mr. Bukosky. 10 his personal time. He has a gas station fuel card. 10 EXAMINATION 11 He's not paying any money out-of-pocket, and -- 11 BY MR. BUKOSKY: ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'm sorry to interrupt 12 Q 12 Good morning, Colonel. Thank you for 13 you, when you say he can use state time and he has a 13 coming. Can you tell us with whom you are currently 14 fuel card, so what does that mean for me, what are you 14 employed? 15 saying? 15 A 16 MS. DiCOSMO: There is no practical limit New Jersey State Police. Q 16 And can you tell me, do you currently hold 17 on his ability to continue working as a station 17 a position with the State Police? 18 representative for Sussex County Troopers. 18 A 19 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. 19 MS. DiCOSMO: The reassignment was not I'm the Colonel and Acting Superintendent. Q Did you hold any prior positions within 20 the State Police? 21 retaliatory, it was not punitive, it was the only 21 A 22 possible outcome after the series of actions taken by 22 23 Mr. Crane. This was the State Police's only option to 23 24 serve the residents of Sussex County, who they made an 24 25 oath to protect and serve, could only be facilitated by 25 20 Yes. Q A Q A Can you tell me what those were? I'll go in reverse order, if you like. Sure. Prior to becoming the Colonel, I was the 30 32 1 Lieutenant Colonel and Deputy Superintendent of 1 like, when you oversaw field operations? 2 Operations. Prior to that I was Lieutenant Colonel and 2 A 3 Deputy Superintendent of Administration. Prior to that 3 Colonel was to, basically, whether it was being made 4 I was Major of Emergency Management. Prior to that 4 aware of Troopers that were hurt, Troopers that were 5 Captain of the Recovery Bureau. Prior to that the 5 killed in the line of duty, Troopers that committed 6 Captain and CFO for Division of State Police, Chief 6 suicide, those were the dark days of being in 7 Financial Officer. Prior to that I was a Lieutenant 7 operations, and we had ten of them while I served in 8 assigned to Budget Operations in the Attorney General's 8 that role. And, basically, just trying to work with 9 office. I also served as a Sergeant First Class and 9 our external partners, external and internal partners, Again, in the capacity of reporting to the 10 Sergeant within that same bureau, Budget Operations in 10 in order to complete the mission of the New Jersey 11 the Attorney General's office. Prior to that I was a 11 State Police. And, again, from large scale events, 12 Sergeant in Homeland Security. Prior to that a Trooper 12 securities, deployments to Puerto Rico to Houston to 13 in the Planning Bureau. Prior to that a Station 13 around the country in the emergency management function 14 Detective. And prior to that a general road duty 14 that we served. So, you know, basically, just to be on 15 Trooper. 15 call 24/7 to address the needs of the men and women in 16 operations. Q 16 17 Police? 18 A Q 17 April 7, 1995. Q 19 When did you first start with the State Were you in a particular class? I think So I'm just going to kind of summarize 18 what you have testified to as your day-to-day 19 responsibilities, it was to administer services to 20 the Troopers go by class? 20 Troopers who are hurt, killed, or suicides, and, also, 21 A 21 to, my word, sort of liaison with external partners and I was 115th class. Q 22 help assist in large scale events; is that correct? 23 what position you held? 23 A 24 A 24 25 that position oversees all the field operations 22 In the beginning of 2017, can you tell me I was Deputy Superintendent of Operations which 25 That's correct. Q So those are your day-to-day usual activities? 31 1 including the Criminal Investigations Office. Q 2 3 A October 31st of last year. Q 4 And when did you become a full Colonel? And your position as the Lieutenant 33 1 A That's correct. Q 2 Now, did there come a time in February of 3 2017 that you were contacted about an issue or an event 4 that occurred in the Sussex station? A 5 Colonel, and, I believe, you said Superintendent of 5 6 Operations, what did that position entail? What were 6 7 your duties and responsibilities? 7 was? 8 A 8 A 9 and, again, overseeing the, approximately, 1,700 9 it was February of 2017, is that what you said? Reporting directly to the Colonel at the time 10 enlisted members of the field operations throughout the 10 11 entire state. 11 Q 12 12 Is field operations a particular branch in There was, yes. Q I don't, to be honest with you, as far as -- if Q A Do you recall, approximately, when that You know, in the early -- Early winter of 2017. Q Who contacted you? 13 State Troopers? 13 A 14 A 14 for Sussex County. 16 Operations is the branch, yes. Q 15 A Yes, there are. Q 17 Are there other branches? 18 A 19 Security. What are the other branches? Administration, Investigations, and Homeland Q Tom McCormack was the chief of the Detectives Q 15 Mr. McCormack has certified that he 16 contacted you on February 7, 2017; does that sound 17 accurate to you? 18 A It sounds accurate. Q 19 In what manner did he contact you? 20 A 21 under? 21 regard to -- with regard to a case that was initially 22 A Actually, falls under the Chief of Staff's 22 denied, charges were denied in a case that was brought 23 office, it's not within a -- contained within a branch. 23 forth and then subsequently the Trooper Detective in 24 It's separate and apart. 24 that case ultimately went to a municipal court judge to 25 get the charges approved. So the initial call was to 20 25 Q What branch would Internal Affairs fall So what were your day-to-day activities, I think he called me on the phone first with 34 36 1 advise me, one, of that, and, two, to express the 1 funerals that I spoke to, so as a retired Trooper, that 2 concerns of how that protocol unfolded with regard to 2 would be normal for him to do. 3 bail reform and the new procedures that were in place 3 4 with regard to the Prosecutor's Office having to 4 5 approve indictable offenses at the prosecutor's level. 5 Q 6 Now, Mr. McCormack called you on the Q So this is first time he called you? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You don't have to guess, so if you don't know. THE WITNESS: We've probably spoken on a 6 7 telephone? 7 handful of occasions, I would say, before this 8 A 8 incident. 9 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Correct. 9 Q 10 phone? 10 Q 11 A 11 Two-dozen? 12 cell or my landline at the Division -- 12 A Did he call you on a landline or cell Probably -- I couldn't say, it was either my When you say, "handful", a dozen? Less than that. Q 13 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So you don't know. 13 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 14 topics did you speak about? 15 A 16 cancer, he was going to Ireland to pray for her and was 17 bringing her holy water, so it was, probably, five or 18 six times over the course of two or three years. 15 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 16 17 called you? 18 A That I don't know. Q 19 Do you recall, approximately, what time he Do you recall, approximately, how long the I don't remember. I don't know. My wife has Q 19 What were your -- did you speak -- what Were these personal calls that he was 20 call lasted? 20 making to you or official calls? 21 A 21 A 22 if he could drop off a copy of the interview of the 22 probably, phone calls. 23 victim in the alleged sexual assault, so, again, within 23 24 days, maybe, of that call. He did, ultimately, stop by 24 personal calls, some of them, that you can recall, 25 and present me with a DVD of that interview. 25 involved going to Ireland, picking up holy water? Probably, 5 to 10 minutes. It was really to ask I think up until this point, they were personal, Q So you had several -- a handful of 35 37 A 1 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: DVD? 1 2 THE WITNESS: Digital disk. 2 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. 3 close relationship with him? 4 A 5 as a retired Trooper, I never really -- I didn't know 6 Tom McCormack until I became the Deputy Superintendent 3 4 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 5 Can you tell me, then, why he called you? Yeah, that's correct. Q That sounds like you had a particularly I would say no, to be honest with you. I think 6 A 7 not mistaken, had either a phone call or meeting with 7 of Operations. I never spoke to him, other than, like 8 Major Devlin, and then, again, as Lieutenant Colonel 8 I said, that handful of times, yeah, so not really. I 9 who oversees operations, he is a retired Trooper, too, 9 would call him a colleague, but not a close personal Because I oversee -- I think he may have, if I'm 10 so I think he felt comfortable in reaching out to 10 11 myself and Major Devlin. 11 Q 12 Did he say how he got your phone number? 13 A 14 I'm in his cell phone, so. No, I don't know. Again, he's in my cell phone, Q 15 You had his cell phone number before he friend by any stretch. Q It would sound, though, as he was fairly 12 familiar with you because he knew of your wife's 13 illness? 14 A Yeah. Q 15 How did he know of her illness? 16 called you? 16 A 17 A 17 my wife's illness, so I don't know. Yes. Q 18 Why does he have your cell phone number? 19 A 20 Chief of Detectives in my phone. I have a lot of Chief -- lot of prosecutors and Q 21 Had he ever called you before? A lot -- about the entire division knows about Q 18 You said McCormack was retired, do you 19 know when he retired? 20 A 21 well, so I don't know when he retired. I don't know. My dad's a retired Trooper, as 22 A 23 because of this particular incident. The only time I 23 his certification, does that sound consistent with your 24 really see Tom and the Prosecutor were at -- they came 24 memory? 25 to each of those line of duty deaths, viewings, 25 A I don't know, probably got to know him most Q 22 He says he retired in September of 2004 in If he said it in his certification, I believe 38 1 him. That was -- that's approximately, 14 years 3 ago? 4 A 5 the job when he retired. I would have had about eight or nine years on Q 6 Q 1 Q 2 40 Were you the one that advised him that And would you say it's likely that he 2 contacted you on your cell phone? 3 A Or the landline. Q 4 Now, what did he tell you? 5 A 6 Sussex station called his office, spoke to an Assistant He said he was concerned that a Detective at 7 your wife was sick? 7 Prosecutor requesting sexual assault charges. They 8 A 8 were denied at the time under the belief that a Probably, yeah. Q 9 Assistant Prosecutor did not think there was enough 10 would speak to him about your wife's illness? 10 probable cause, and that the Trooper subsequently 11 A 11 called the municipal judge and had the charges 12 approved. He then told me that the Prosecutor had to 9 Either that or in person. Q 12 So you probably had a phone call and you But you didn't consider him to be a friend 13 he was just a colleague? 13 personally go before the assignment judge and have that 14 A 14 charge dismissed and, again, talking about 15 considered him to be a colleague in the workplace. 15 relationships and external partners. He was concerned 16 that it was a trust and credibility issue now had 17 arisen between, at the time, it was just -- it was a Yeah, I considered him a retired Trooper. I Q 16 Even though he retired 14 years ago? 17 A 18 Detectives, I considered him to be a colleague, work 18 different Detective, it wasn't Detective Crane, but 19 colleague. 19 subsequent decisions made afterwards then included all 20 of the Detectives at Sussex station. That's right. In his role of Chief of Q 20 But you said you've never gotten any Q 21 official phone calls from him prior to this particular 21 22 incident? 22 best of your recollection, if you can tell me, what 23 A 23 happened on this initial call and what he told you on 24 that initial call? 25 A Q 24 25 Not that I recall, no. And did you ever call him on your cell phone? Did you call him back? All right. So I'm going to ask, to the Just what I just said with regard -- again, his 39 41 1 A 1 concern with a Trooper going against the denial of 2 said, it was, probably, less than a hand -- five to, 2 charges. 3 you know, handful of times that I've spoken to him over 3 4 the course of serving as the Deputy Superintendent of 4 5 Operations. 5 THE WITNESS: By the Assistant Prosecutor. 6 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I want to make sure I Only if he left me a message. I mean, like I Q 6 And the only substance of those several ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: By the Assistant Prosecutor? 7 handful of phone calls that you had, was that you 7 understand this. What you are saying is that 8 recall that he said he was going to bring your wife 8 Mr. McCormack called you and told you that a Trooper 9 some holy water back from Ireland? Did he ever bring 9 had wanted to file charges against an individual. 10 the holy water back? 10 THE WITNESS: Correct. 11 A 11 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: The Assistant Q 12 13 A A And delivered it to you? He did. Q 14 15 He did, yes. Did he go to your house? No, never been to my house. 12 Prosecutor declined to do so, and then, I think, what 13 you are saying is that the Trooper then went to court 14 to a Superior Court judge or -- 16 Q 17 dinner? 17 18 A 18 19 to lunch with him and the Prosecutor with regard to 19 20 this matter that we are discussing today, but, no, I've 20 21 never had -- never socially hung out with him. 21 Did you ever socialize with him, go out to Never had a beer. Never went to dinner -- went Q 16 judge. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: A municipal court judge, and asked that charges be implemented? THE WITNESS: Signed against. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Signed against the individual? 22 THE WITNESS: Correct. 23 February 7, 2017, and you believe that contact was by 23 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: And then you said that 24 phone? 24 the Assistant Prosecutor had to go into, what, Superior 25 A 25 Court to get that thrown out. 22 Now, he says that he contacted you on THE WITNESS: Phoned a municipal court 15 Correct. 42 THE WITNESS: The Prosecutor himself, the 44 1 and circled back with the AP, checked on parking lot 2 Prosecutor of Sussex County, which, again, the first 2 video and talked to other witnesses, that they may have 3 time that ever happened in my career and it hasn't 3 been able to get to the Prosecutor's Office approving 4 happened since, that a Prosecutor had to go in and 4 charges, they did not. I think that they were annoyed 5 dismiss a charge that one of our Detectives had 5 that they did not get approval on the night that they 6 improperly assigned. 6 called, and they went to a municipal court judge. 1 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Well, I just 7 8 wanted to know if I understand what you are saying that 9 this is what was relayed to you by Chief McCormack. 10 11 12 Q as you have this 5, 10-minute phone call -- 9 A Uh-huh. Q 10 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. I'm sorry. 11 a story? 12 A And that whole story was related to you in Okay. So it sounds like to me, that right 8 THE WITNESS: That's correct. BY MR. BUKOSKY: 13 Q 7 Right. Q 13 -- with McCormack, that he related to you And you believed him? 14 a 5 or 10-minute phone call? 14 A 15 A 15 it was about the arresting Detective at the time, but I 16 that -- the interview of the victim as well, so between 16 did believe him. 17 either the 5-minute phone call or 10-minute phone call 17 18 and then when he stopped by my office to bring me that 18 19 disk, and, again, as the Lieutenant Colonel over 19 20 operations, I thought it was a legitimate concern, and 20 moment that the Troopers acted improperly? 21 that's why, you know, that's why we were speaking to 21 A 22 one another. 22 DeLorenzo. 23 Q 23 Probably. Over -- again, he wanted to bring me So on this phone call he relayed to the -- Yeah. Again, it wasn't about Detective Crane, Q A Believed everything he said? Yeah, I did. Q And you came to the conclusion at that Just one at that point, that would be Detective Q So just based upon what Mr. McCormack told 24 to you this story, and he said that the Prosecutor had 24 you in a 5, 10-minute phone call, and his statement to 25 dismissed the charges? 25 you, you determined that Detective DeLorenzo did 43 1 A 2 think I knew that at that point in time. Q 3 4 I don't think that had happened yet. I don't A So he hadn't told you that? No. Q 45 1 something improper? 2 A DeLorenzo. Q 3 DeLorenzo, right? And what was it that 4 you thought he did that was improper? 5 A 6 person who was involved in a sexual assault and the 6 having been denied the ability to charge that subject. 7 Trooper filed charges? 7 8 A 8 the documents involved in the case? 9 A 5 Correct. Q 9 10 A He was just telling you a story about some That's the gist of it? Correct. The fact that he went to a municipal court judge Q Now, had you, at this time, seen any of Nothing. 10 Q 11 cause? A You didn't see an affidavit of probable 11 Q 12 was calling? 12 13 A 13 14 of the Detectives that have to bring all their 14 15 indictable charges to the Prosecutor's Office. As a 15 16 former Detective, if you bring an indictable charge to 16 A 17 a Prosecutor, and it's denied, even the fact that it 17 I watched the entire, almost, two-hour interview of the 18 got signed by a municipal judge, the Detectives would 18 victim. 19 ultimately have to be back in Superior Court with the 19 Q 20 Prosecutor as on the same team. You have a Prosecutor 20 particular 5, 10-minute phone call and the conclusions 21 office that denied charges, how is that same 21 you reached following this phone call. 22 Prosecutor's Office now going to be the ones that 22 23 walked Detective DeLorenzo, or any other Detectives 23 any videos, just the statement that McCormack told you? 24 involved, through that case. I think there was an 24 A 25 opportunity, had the Detectives waited a couple days 25 And so did Mr. McCormack tell you why he Because he had concerns with the relationships (Witness nodding.) Q A You didn't look at a single report? No. Q You didn't look at a single video? Not prior to that phone call, shortly thereafter I just want really to focus in on this You hadn't looked at any documents or seen Right. Q And you believed him? 46 48 1 A 2 retired Trooper, seasoned Detective himself, I don't 2 3 think he would have been calling me had there not been 3 Q 4 some truth and some validity to his concern with regard 4 this incident? 5 to the arresting detective's actions that night. 5 A 6 Lieutenant Colonel who oversees field operations and all the Detectives in the criminal investigations. I believe he wanted me to see the video, so as a Q 6 But you made a conclusion that your -- the 7 men under your command did something wrong? 7 8 A 8 9 video. Not until after -- not until after I watched the 9 Q 10 11 done? 12 A What did McCormack tell you that he wanted ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. 1 10 BY MR. BUKOSKY: I think I answered that earlier, because I'm the MS. DiCOSMO: I'm going to have to object. This question has been asked and answered multiple times. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: It's not so much for 11 He didn't. He just wanted me to be aware of it. Q 12 that reason, but, as you know, this is fact gathering. 13 So you're asking him a hypothetical, let's get the 14 didn't you just simply say, I'll look into it, and 14 facts. You've been asking very pertinent questions. 15 I'll, you know, I'll have somebody do an investigation? 15 The Colonel has been answering them. Let's get back to 16 A 16 that. You're asking him why do you think this or that, 17 that isn't necessarily a fact. Let's get back to what 13 That is what I said to him. Q 17 Okay. He made you aware of it, and why Why do you think he's calling you about Is that what you told him? 18 A 18 somebody said, why he did -- he's testified why he, you 19 off and then I'd look at supplemental investigations 19 know, was involved and what he thought as a result of 20 report, the initial investigation report, and then, 20 the conversation with McCormack, continue in that way. 21 again, you'll probably get to it, it led to a series of 21 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 22 other decisions that then just went beyond the 22 23 arresting Detective that involved Detective Crane and 23 you and not, say, whoever was in charge of the Sussex 24 all of the Detectives at Sussex station which, again, 24 station? 25 strained the relationship with the Prosecutor's Office 25 That we'd look into it. If you drop the video Q I mean -- but why do you think he called MS. DiCOSMO: I'm going to object again -- 47 1 and the members within it. Q 49 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: He has answered that, 1 There was mention of a strained 2 because -- he just answered that. He said because he 3 relationship by Ms. DiCosmo, now, at the time that this 3 was the Lieutenant Colonel in charge of that operation. 4 phone call was made to you, and Mr. McCormack said it 4 5 was on February 7, 2017, were you aware of any strained 5 6 relationship with the Prosecutor's Office? 6 7 A 7 that question. 8 impetus to the start of that relationship getting 8 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 9 deteriorating. 9 Q So you were not aware at this point about 10 Sussex station as well, correct? 11 any strained relationship or any type of breakdown in 11 A 12 communications between the Prosecutor's Office and 12 13 these Troopers in the Sussex unit? 13 to speak to whoever is in command of the Sussex 14 A 14 station? 15 from, again, from my role and position as the 15 A 16 Lieutenant Colonel over operations. 16 think I answered that as well. I think he spoke to 17 Major Devlin prior to calling me, I think so. 2 10 None whatsoever. I think this incident was the No. This incident was the one that began it, Q 17 All right. So McCormack just calls you up 18 and said -- tells you this story, and he doesn't say 18 19 that he wants anything done, just says giving you a 19 20 heads-up? 20 21 A 21 Q 22 23 That's correct. A That was it? (Witness nodding.) MR. BUKOSKY: I understand that, but there's many people who are under your command. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Well, then ask Q That's correct. Q Did he say what Major Devlin told him? I don't recall. Q 22 Did he tell you that on the phone? I don't recall. Q A Did McCormack indicate why he did not want I think he spoke to the Troop B commander, I Q A And there's someone in command of the Now, this was an incident involving a 23 possible victim of a sexual assault; is that your 24 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You have to respond. 24 recollection? 25 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 25 A That's correct. 50 Q 1 Now, did Mr. McCormack indicate that he 52 1 concerned about the victim in some way? 2 was concerned about the victim in any way? 2 3 A 3 I said, I wanted to see the interview of the alleged 4 victim and of the alleged subject who, you know, No, he did not. Q 4 Did you tell him that you were concerned "ANSWER: I had no facts either way. Like 5 about the victim in some way? 5 allegedly committed the act. Based upon what I saw in 6 A I had no facts either way. Like I said, I 6 the video, I thought it was some of the worst, if not 7 wanted to see the interview of the alleged victim and 7 worst, police work I have ever seen in my 23 years at 8 of the alleged subject who, you know, allegedly 8 the time.") 9 committed the act. Based upon what I saw in the video, 9 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So, then, we get back 10 I thought it was some of the worst, if not worst, 10 to you asked him about did he have concern for the 11 police work I have ever seen in my 23 years at the 11 victim, why is that relevant? 12 time. 12 13 Q But I want to talk to you about this 5, 13 MR. BUKOSKY: Because -ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'm not saying, and 14 10-minute phone call that you had on February 7th. Did 14 let's all be honest, we are on the record here, I'm not 15 you express any concern that a woman was possibly 15 saying that anyone wouldn't be concerned about a victim 16 sexually assaulted, and that was a concern of yours? 16 of sexual assault. We should all be concerned about 17 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, relevance. 17 that. This case, however, is not about the sexual 18 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: What is the relevance? 18 assault directly, it's about why Officer Crane was 19 MR. BUKOSKY: Relevance is that there was 19 moved from one location to another. I won't use the 20 no concern for the poor victim, the only concern was 20 word "transferred", "reassignment", whatever it was, 21 McCormack wanted something damaging done to these 21 that's what it is about, so why does that matter? 22 particular Troopers. 22 MR. BUKOSKY: It's actually at the very 23 core of this case, and the reason why it matters, is 24 because the State Troopers who were involved in this 25 particular incident had a sworn duty and moral MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, that's something 23 24 to be elicited from someone else. MR. BUKOSKY: Well -- 25 51 53 1 MS. DiCOSMO: Excuse me, Mr. Bukosky, I 1 obligation to treat this victim, and she clearly was a 2 allowed you to finish your statement, you can show me 2 victim, and the facts that will come out in this 3 the same -- 3 hearing will undeniably reveal that this poor woman was 4 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Finish your statement. 4 a victim of a sexual harassment, and that this 5 MS. DiCOSMO: Thank you. 5 particular case was handled so poorly by individuals, 6 This is not -- this grievance is not about 6 when I say individuals, not the Troopers, by upper 7 whether someone showed concern for an alleged victim 7 management in the Prosecutor's Office and upper 8 that was to be investigated, this was about the 8 management in the Division and, eventually, this is all 9 reassignment. 9 going to come out. And why this goes to the core of ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'm going to sustain 10 10 this particular case, is that there was a singular 11 the objection. You asked -- I allowed that first 11 concern in this matter. The singular concern was to 12 question, you asked the witness and he responded, and 12 somehow punish these Troopers for being for somehow 13 then you asked it again. There is no reason to ask it 13 annoying McCormack in some way, who I think the record 14 again, so I sustain. 14 has already revealed, had a close personal relationship 15 with the Colonel in this particular case. MR. BUKOSKY: Did I get an answer about 15 16 whether he was concerned about the victim? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I think he answered 17 18 that question. 19 16 17 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, that's a mischaracterization of what was testified to. 18 MR. BUKOSKY: Well, I beg to differ. MR. BUKOSKY: Did you answer that no? 19 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Finish your statement. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'll ask Tracey if you 20 MR. BUKOSKY: The motivation for him was 21 can sort through to the first time that question was 21 some type of personal vendetta, when, really, the focus 22 asked. 22 of this particular case should have been on the 23 particular victim, and that's what the underlying 24 Troopers did, they focused their duties on this poor 25 victim and what was occurring to her. 20 23 24 25 (At which time, the reporter reads back a pertinent portion of the record as follows: "QUESTION: Did you tell him that you were 54 Now, what happened in the Prosecutor's 56 1 my jurisdiction. I do not have jurisdiction to 2 Office, I don't know, we will have Mr. McCormack come 2 determine whether there was a legitimate sexual assault 3 in and testify tomorrow about all the shenanigans that 3 here which should have been -- offer which the 4 went on with that and why they dropped the case on this 4 Prosecutor then should have proceeded on. 5 poor woman. We will get an explanation for that. And 5 MR. BUKOSKY: I agree. 6 you'll see all the records in this case and you can 6 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I do not have 7 draw your own conclusions. But there is no doubt that 7 8 this poor woman was the subject of a sexual harassment. 8 9 And what happened in this particular case is very 1 9 authority to make that determination. MR. BUKOSKY: I know. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: To the extent you may 10 problematic, because what you have is the discordance 10 try to go there, I'm not going there. 11 between Troopers trying to do the right thing and 11 12 making sure under the law in New Jersey -- and this is 12 the factors that are important to your resolution in 13 not just a moral obligation -- the laws in New Jersey, 13 this matter, and two significant factors, number one, 14 and we will present them, actually specify the things 14 this whole incident was in bad faith, number one, so 15 that the Troopers are supposed to do when there is a 15 what was generated here and what was done was in bad 16 victim of sexual harassment. There is all these things 16 faith, number one, it was -- 17 that they have to do, and they had tried to do that and 17 18 they were thwarted at every level of this case. And it 18 19 started with McCormack making -- calling up his old 19 20 friend saying, "I want you to try to put some pressure 20 that. And, number two, it was retaliatory for 21 on these guys", that's clearly what happened. And -- 21 protected whistle blower activity. MR. BUKOSKY: I understand, but these are ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: And you'll have to demonstrate that. MR. BUKOSKY: I'll be able to demonstrate 22 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: That's your position. 22 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection. 23 MR. BUKOSKY: That's our position, and 23 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You're making 24 I'll be able to prove it. You'll see. 24 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: We will see. 25 25 argument. I don't want to hear argument. MR. BUKOSKY: That's why it is relevant. 55 MR. BUKOSKY: And the fact that there was 57 1 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: No. The relevance 2 no concern for a victim of sexual assault is not just 2 that you're saying is, which you stated up front, which 3 appalling, but goes to the heart of this case. There 3 I let you make that argument, is, from your point of 4 was no concern from the top to the bottom, there was no 4 view, that there really was a sexual assault here, and 5 concern. There was no concern for the victim. There 5 what I'm saying to you is I'm not deciding that, that 6 was never a phone call or any communication with the 6 isn't for me. I don't have that jurisdiction to decide 7 Troopers on the scene from the Colonel in this case. 7 whether there really was a sexual assault. This is a, 8 "Detective DeLorenzo, what happened here, what 8 you know, an opportunity for you to find out why the 9 happened? "Well, Colonel, this poor woman was a victim 9 Colonel made the decision he made, what he knew, what 1 10 of sexual assault and we are trying to protect her." 10 he determined from that, why he made a determination 11 No, there was nothing about that. You know, what there 11 that he made, and you've been asking pretty much very 12 was, there was a call from McCormack, old buddy, and 12 relevant questions, and he's been answering, so 13 all of a sudden in the 5 or 10-minute phone call a 13 continue asking those relevant questions. 14 conclusion was reached. Detective DeLorenzo, who was 14 15 the Chief Trooper on the scene, did something improper 15 want on the record is an assumption that he didn't care 16 and that was the testimony already, already, came to a 16 about a sexual assault victim, that isn't an issue for 17 conclusion already, without looking at a single report, 17 me. What I want to know is what somebody said to him, 18 without -- 18 what he got from that, what he did. He's already 19 testified that based upon McCormack's telephone call to 19 20 21 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You're going way too far. Your making -- But as to what -- I guess, what I don't 20 him, at that point he had a feeling that something -- MR. BUKOSKY: You asked me -- 21 that a Trooper did something they shouldn't have done. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I understand that, but 22 Hadn't seen any documents or anything, so, yes, he's 23 let's just be clear. My jurisdiction is limited to 23 already said that. Was that a good thing or a bad 24 determine whether or not essentially there was just 24 thing? I don't know at this point. You already made 25 cause for moving Officer Crane, that's my authority and 25 that point, that he reached an initial determination 22 58 60 1 based upon the phone call, and, yes, that was without 1 MR. BUKOSKY: Then the answer is no. 2 knowing anything else, so move on from there. Let's 2 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You're using the word 3 find out what else, if anything else, was said between 3 "concern", and I think that's the nature of the 4 them, and then how things moved from that phone call to 4 objection, and I sustained that. You ask him if he was 5 why Detective Crane was moved somewhere else. 5 able to reach any determination about that, or if he 6 was able to do anything about that at that point, go ahead and ask him. MS. DiCOSMO: Mr. Arbitrator, just for a 6 7 clean record, I want to put on the record that we are 7 8 moving to strike the entire colloquy of Mr. Bukosky as 8 9 him testifying as opposed to eliciting testimony from a 9 MR. BUKOSKY: I think it is a pretty direct question, did you have any concern for the 10 witness. We also move to strike because it's 10 11 completely inconsistent with his opening statement 11 12 where he said he had no idea why Mr. Crane was 12 13 reassigned so I just want that on the record. 13 MR. BUKOSKY: All right. 14 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You can ask what, if ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, as you know, the 14 victim. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I don't think that's a factual issue in this case. 15 statements by Mr. Bukosky are not evidence, so I'm not 15 anything, he did or what he knew and so sort. 16 striking anything, but they are not evidence in this 16 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 17 case. I know how to sort out the difference between 17 18 evidence and argument, and there is, obviously, a lot 18 this particular incident? 19 of passion involved in this case, there is nothing 19 A 20 wrong with that, nothing wrong with Mr. Bukosky showing 20 21 some passion about this, or a particular witness. 21 victim may have been the subject of an assault or not? 22 There is apparently a lot riding on this for the 22 A 23 parties, and I appreciate that, I understand that. My 23 24 job is to remind the parties my focus is on the facts, 24 discussions about the underlying facts involving the 25 as I pointed out on the record. No one here should 25 incident? Q Did Mr. McCormack describe the victim in I don't recall that he did, no. Q Did Mr. McCormack say that he believed the I don't recall him saying that. Q Did Mr. McCormack ever have any 59 61 1 feel that it's unimportant that someone is a victim of 1 A 2 sexual assault, but that's not the issue before me. 2 a denial of a charge and then went to a municipal court 3 The issue before me is why was Detective Crane moved 3 judge to get it approved, that was his concern on the 4 from one location to another, and that's what I have to 4 phone call. 5 focus on, and we are moving -- you know, most of the 5 6 questioning, I think, was very relevant. We have 6 charge was denied? 7 gotten answers to those questions. Let's continue with 7 A 8 what happened and the Colonel's involvement in what 8 him, I think it was on the AP, at the time, didn't 9 happened. 9 think there was sufficient probable cause to sustain No, his primary concern was that a Detective got Q He didn't think -- I don't know if it was on 10 MS. DiCOSMO: Thank you, Mr. Arbitrator. 10 11 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Now, just off the 11 Q 12 the AP? 13 A 12 record for a moment. (At which time, a discussion is held off 13 Did he indicate on the phone call why the the charge, or to make the charge. So why was McCormack calling you and not You have to ask -- Q 14 the record.) 14 15 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 15 behalf of an AP? 16 A 16 Q I just wanted to make sure that the record 17 is clear, you, on that phone call, never expressed any 17 18 concern for the victim? 19 20 21 22 No. Q 18 himself? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection. 19 A MR. BUKOSKY: You never answered that 20 Q 21 Prosecutor? 22 A question. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: No, he answered it, I Did Mr. McCormack say he was calling on Did he say he was calling on behalf of He called me, so. Did he say he was calling on behalf of the No, I don't remember him saying that. Q 23 believe, when he said he didn't -- wasn't able to frame 23 So this is his personal call to you? 24 a view one way or the other because he didn't have any 24 A 25 information or evidence. 25 talk about work, it was -- I wouldn't classify it as a Well, he called either my landline or phone to 62 1 personal phone call. Q 2 64 1 But this is an incident that McCormack was confession interview? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, calls for 2 3 contacting you based upon something that he personally 3 speculation. 4 believed was improper? 4 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 5 A 5 6 more professionally. I would say personally and professionally, yes, Q 7 Did McCormack say that he had any 8 involvement in that case? 9 A 7 Did he tell you why? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: If you know. If you don't know, just explain. THE WITNESS: The idea was by showing it 8 No. 10 Q 6 9 to me and, I guess, other commanders, did we think ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: No, he didn't say? 10 that, based upon that interview of that subject, that THE WITNESS: No, he didn't say, and, no, 11 there was enough probable cause there. So I think he 12 I don't know if he had any involvement in the case, I 12 was trying to prove that whoever the AP was in the 13 guess it's two nos. 13 office didn't approve the charges, and here's why, I 14 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 14 think you have to ask him, but that was the gist of it. 11 Q 15 Did I professionally think that what was elicited as a 16 of anybody else? 16 quote/unquote confession, was it, I made the 17 A 17 determination that it wasn't. 18 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 15 I don't remember him saying that, no. Q 18 And he didn't say he was calling on behalf Now, Mr. McCormack specifically remembers Q 19 the date of February 7, 2017 as the first time that he 19 20 contacted you, is there any reason that that date would 20 21 stick out in his mind? 21 22 A 22 this confession interview because he thought there was 23 a dispute as to whether or not there was probable I don't know. Q 23 Did you keep any notes of this A Right. Q 24 conversation? 24 cause? 25 A 25 A I did not. But in his first phone call to you --- you believed that he was talking about I think that's fair to say, yes. 63 Q 1 2 A No notes? None. 65 Q 1 And that dispute was actually the dispute 2 between the Prosecutor and the Trooper? 3 A 3 Q 4 documents? 4 5 A 5 Assistant Prosecutor that was involved? 6 A No. Q 6 And Mr. McCormack did not send you any Did Mr. McCormack mention any particular The Assistant Prosecutor, correct. Q I don't recall at the time. Q 7 documents or evidence in this phone call? 7 8 A 8 phone call? 9 the time as a confession, and that was that interview 9 A 10 Just what was deemed by Detective DeLorenzo at of the subject. Q 11 So the only thing he spoke of was the 10 confession interview? 12 all? A 13 A Q 15 16 And did he speak to Detective Crane at Not that I remember, no. Q Did he say -- 14 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You have to answer 15 particular -- there's been the phrase used the putative 16 defendant in this case was under arrest at that time? 17 A that. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. So that's what 17 Not that I recall, just Detective DeLorenzo was Q 11 13 14 Did he mention any other names on this the primary reason for the call. 12 (Witness nodding.) Now, did he mention the name of the Did he say during that phone call that the I don't remember. Q 18 he wanted to drop off, a copy of that videotape to me. 18 19 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 19 A 20 the defendant at the time. Q 20 And that's what he was concerned about? 21 A 22 approval from the AP on the charges and went to a 22 23 municipal court judge, that was his primary reason for 23 24 the phone call. 24 25 He was concerned that the Trooper didn't get the Q Why did he want to provide you with the 21 25 Was it that he might have been in jail? I don't recall. I don't remember talking about Q Did Mr. Callahan indicate to you -ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: This is Mr. Callahan. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q Did Mr. McCormack indicate to you that the putative defendant was -- had been arrested? 66 1 A I don't remember. 1 over to Internal Affairs, you can tell them your story? 2 A 3 an internal investigation. I don't -- Troopers, 4 Detectives, make mistakes, I trust them to make What questions did you ask him? 5 mistakes as long as they are not ones that, you know, Again, his reason were to drop off a copy of 6 are career enders or, you know, literally or Q 2 3 jail? 4 A Or that he was in a holding cell or a I don't remember. Q 5 68 I didn't think it warranted, at that juncture, 6 A 7 that DVD, the interview, so I don't remember really 7 figuratively fatal ones. I do remember having a phone 8 specific questions. It was over a year ago. So I 8 call with Troop B command and CIO head up there with 9 asked him when was he stopping by to drop off this 9 Major Szenzenstein and discussing the case in the 10 interview, so I could make the determination with 10 11 regards to whether I thought that the subject gave a 11 12 confession. 12 training issue, although, I did believe there was some Q I thought of it more, quite frankly, as a 13 frustration between Detective DeLorenzo and the 14 of dispute between the Troopers and the Prosecutor's 14 Prosecutor's Office, but, ultimately, at that juncture, 15 Office? 15 based upon what they had done, I didn't think it rose 16 A 16 to the level of an internal investigation. 13 (Witness nodding.) 17 18 19 This seems to be that there was some type manner in which they handled it. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, in this instance, yes. 18 you would follow up? 19 A BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 20 Q ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You have to respond. Did it seem to be major, to you, or a Yes. Q 20 But you did indicate to Mr. McCormack that Did you understand this to be your own 21 minor dispute? 21 individual investigation of this matter? 22 A 22 A 23 assault crime, to your point about the victim, I don't 23 myself and the other commanders whose field operations 24 think anybody takes those that lightly, whether you're 24 was bail reform was relatively new, was this a bail 25 in law enforcement or not, but major with regards to 25 reform being new issue, or was it a bit of friction and I think when you're talking about a sexual I didn't look at it that way. I just looked at 67 69 1 how bail reform came out, I don't know if there was a 1 a bit of head butting starting to go on between a 2 practice in place prior to this where on sexual 2 Detective and the County Prosecutor's Office. 3 assaults, if the Detectives or Troopers were supposed 3 4 to reach out to the Prosecutor's Office anyway, the 4 phone call with Mr. McCormack -- let me ask you this, 5 fact that they reached out to the Prosecutor's Office, 5 was that phone call recorded? 6 gave me some sense that they knew what the protocols 6 A 7 were in place. The fact, again, in my professional 7 8 opinion, I think the Detective was frustrated and 8 landline recorded? 9 A Q No. Q bothered that he did not get approval on the charge, 9 10 and, subsequently, went to a municipal court judge. 10 11 And I can't speculate as to why, I don't know if the 11 12 defendant was in a holding cell, was sitting in a break 12 13 room, if they had him for a certain amount of time, 13 to call you? 14 which made it a de facto arrest, that he sat there for 14 A 15 a long time. All I know is that Chief McCormack had 15 16 called me over the concerns over that protocol being 16 A 17 disregarded. 17 cell phone. Q Are the conversations that come in on your No, they are not. Q A After your phone call with -- your initial Cell phone is not recorded? No. Q Do you know what phone Mr. McCormack used I don't know. Q Whether it was his cell? I don't remember if he was on in his office or 18 Q 19 McCormack was calling you because he thought the 19 work hours? 20 Troopers acted improperly? 20 A 21 A 21 22 Detective DeLorenzo. 18 23 All right. But you believed that Just the one at that point in time which was Q So why didn't you simply turn this whole 22 It was. Q A You definitely believe this was during How did you conclude the phone call? We set up a time to drop by the taped interview. 23 Q And what was the setup? What was the 24 matter over to Internal Affairs to investigate at that 24 arrangement? 25 point and say, Mr. McCormack, I'm going to turn this 25 A He was going to stop by the Division 70 72 1 headquarters. 1 a confession and that the Detective, arresting 2 Q 2 Detective, was hanging his hat on as far as thinking 3 that it was. 3 A In West Trenton. Q 4 5 that? 6 A And was this your suggestion that he do As far as where we met or? Q 7 Where is that? This whole arrangement that you were going 8 to take a look at this video. 9 A Q 4 5 corroborating evidence, reports, documents, other 6 videos, the statement of the victim? 7 A 9 At the time, no. Q 8 He said he was going to drop it off, so -- if he But you weren't concerned with any other A Weren't interested in those? No. Q 10 was asking me to watch this almost two-hour 10 11 quote/unquote confession, if he thought it was that 11 video and make whatever conclusions you could just from 12 serious, I was going to take the time to watch it. 12 looking at one video? 13 A 14 serious that you wanted to take to watch a two-hour Q 14 yes. 15 video? 15 16 A 17 18 13 What was serious about it that was so Because a Detective did not get a charge from an So you were just going to look at the And have my own question based upon what I saw, Q You weren't interested in looking at any 16 other documents? Assistant Prosecutor and went to a municipal court 17 A judge, I felt that was serious, and still do. 18 Q 19 All right. Now, did you -- he just Not at the time, no. Q Now, you get this phone call out of the 19 blue from Mr. McCormack, and he's alleging all of these 20 volunteered just to bring just the video? 20 things and wants to bring a video to you, did you call 21 A 21 somebody in the Sussex unit and ask what the heck is 22 going on? 23 A I think that's all he brought, yes. Q 22 23 video? 24 A (Witness nodding.) Q 25 Now, you said, that's okay, bring just the Q 24 That's yes? 25 No. I called the Troop commander. A Who's the Troop commander? Mike Devlin. 71 1 A I don't recall that part of the conversation. Q 2 You were, of course, aware at this point 73 Q 1 2 A And how soon did you call him? I don't recall. Q 3 that it was a significant investigation? 3 4 A Well, it was an alleged crime that Chief 4 A 5 McCormack was alleging that there was not enough 5 two. I think it was after I watched the video, 6 probable cause there, I think he wanted to see if I 6 whenever that -- I don't remember when McCormack 7 came to the same conclusion. So had it been proven, 7 dropped the video off, but after I watched it is then 8 the allegation alone is, yes, a significant one and a 8 when I called up and had a conference call with Major Devlin and some other criminal investigations office 9 serious one. The fact that it was not approved as a 9 10 charge and, ultimately, dismissed by the Prosecutor 10 11 himself, again, is part of the reason why we are here. 11 Q Was it the same day? Might have been the same day, within a day or personnel. Q Who was that? My question to you is why just this video 12 A 13 and not all of the other videos and all the documents 13 remember Mike Devlin being on the call. I don't know 14 involving this case? 14 who else was on the phone call. 15 A 15 12 I didn't know they existed. Q 16 Wouldn't you be curious about the 16 I remember Eric Mueller being on the call, and I Q A Mr. Mueller is -- how was he involved? He was a supervisor in CIO. Q 17 investigation, or were you just simply going to look at 17 18 the video and make your determination from that? 18 19 A If I had questions based upon that video of that 19 20 person, again, I was, myself, going to see if I thought 20 A 21 that that could be classified as a confession, that was 21 out of each Troop headquarters. 22 the purpose for him dropping off the video. I was not 22 23 doing my own internal investigation. I was not asking 23 24 for a reports. I wanted to see what was in this video 24 25 that Chief McCormack thought was not, you know, was not 25 A Criminal Investigations Office. Q So where was Mr. Mueller located -- I think he was in the Totowa station. Q A Is that in Sussex? That's -- CIO is in all four troops, it's based Q A CIO stands for? Where is Mr. Devlin? In Totowa. 74 Q 1 2 A 4 A A 2 A You called down to Totowa station? Yes. The three of you had a conference call? Yes. Q 7 8 1 Q 5 6 Major Devlin, right? Yeah, Troop commander. Q 3 76 A Was that conference call recorded? What did they tell you? 3 A 4 said that he had either spoken with or met with Chief 5 McCormack, and they were looking into it. They were looking into it. Again, Major Devlin Q 6 No. I don't remember. Q If they were looking into it, why didn't 7 you simply delegate this whole thing to Major Devlin to 8 handle, why did you want to stay involved in it? A 9 MS. DiCOSMO: I'm sorry to interrupt, but 9 10 can we just have a clarification on the Totowa station, 10 first about it. I didn't know if he was -- I don't I think Chief McCormack talked to Major Devlin 11 there is a Totowa substation and then a headquarters at 11 know if he thought that the response from the Major was 12 Totowa, can you have the witness indicate -- 12 one that thought it was as egregious as it was, so I 13 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Can you clear that up? 13 think that's what ultimately may have prompted -- and 14 THE WITNESS: It was Totowa headquarters. 14 you can ask him when he is here -- Chief McCormack to ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: The Totowa 15 call me. 16 headquarters and Totowa substation, those are two 16 Q 17 different things? 17 coming here today? 18 A 15 THE WITNESS: They are the same physical 18 19 building, but traffic substation is literally the first 19 20 floor and Totowa headquarters is the second floor where 20 21 the command -- 21 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So that's headquarters 22 23 for Troop B? 25 A BY MR. BUKOSKY: When is the last time you spoke with him? Months ago, probably. Q Was it about this matter? I don't know. It may have been. Q 23 THE WITNESS: Correct. 24 22 No. Q A Did you speak to Mr. McCormack prior to So you suspect that there was a 24 communication with Major Devlin, and he didn't like the 25 answer that Major Devlin gave him? 75 Q 1 2 A Now, you initiated this call? I think so, I think I asked for it, correct. Q 1 A 2 as the, again, his level of the seriousness of it. I Yeah -- I'm not so sure it was the answer it was 3 don't think Major Devlin gave him the impression that 4 make in this type of circumstance, I would have said, 4 he thought it was that serious of a situation. 5 "Mike, what the heck is going on here?" What did you 5 6 say to him? 6 testimony you thought it might have been a training 7 A 7 issue at that point? 8 copy, I think I was just asking questions as well, are 8 A 9 they aware what was going on with Sussex Prosecutor's 3 I mean, I know the type of call I would 77 I wondered if -- I didn't know if he had had a Office. I think he said he was, because of Chief 10 11 McCormack reaching out to him. It was just what was 11 12 their level of awareness of the fact that a Trooper, 12 13 you know, again, having not been approved charges then 13 14 went a different route in order to get them. 14 Q 16 A Probably, maybe, 10 minutes, at most. Q 17 How long was this phone call? You were just wondering whether or not 15 19 Q And what did you tell them to do? Nothing, at that juncture. 21 Q 23 information? 23 24 A 24 25 (Witness nodding.) Not that I recall, no. Q Did they ask any questions of you? (At which time, the reporter reads back a pertinent portion of the record as follows: "QUESTION: Were you -- you indicated in "THE WITNESS: That's true. "QUESTION: So you didn't think it was 20 22 You didn't ask them send any documents or ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Sure. training issue at that point? 18 A A question and last previous answer read back? your testimony you thought it might have been a they were aware of the issue? 21 MS. DiCOSMO: Could we have that last 17 19 20 So you didn't think it was serious either? Not at that point, no. 16 18 That's correct. A Were you -- you indicated in your That's true. Q 9 10 15 Q serious either? "THE WITNESS: Not at that point, no.") 22 25 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q also? And the phone call with Major Devlin and 78 1 A Eric Mueller. Q 2 What's his rank? 3 A 4 Sergeant First Class at the time. He's a Lieutenant now. He was probably a Q 5 Give him the benefit, Lieutenant Mueller, 80 1 was provided, and I had objected based on relevance and 2 the fact that it was not authenticated. And at that 3 time in January you ruled in the state's favor to 4 exclude it. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Quite frankly, I don't 5 6 you didn't tell him to do anything? 6 remember that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but 7 A 7 counsel isn't asking at this point for the admission of 8 do anything, no. 8 anything. He just asked the witness if he knew that 9 Detective DeLorenzo got some kind of commendation, I don't remember asking them or ordering them to Q 9 And it was just -- the phone call was left 10 as no one was going to do anything? 10 that's the question. I don't have a problem with the 11 A 11 question at the moment; and, so, if you know, you can 12 answer. At that point, correct. 12 Q 13 further? 13 14 A 14 Not at that point, no. Q 15 But you had intentions of doing something You had indicated that you were going to THE WITNESS: I was not aware of that. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 15 Okay. And Major Devlin did not indicate 16 consider looking at that video? 16 to you that, yeah, we saw the video and he got a 17 A 17 commendation for that? 18 A Yeah. 18 Q 19 at that video? 19 20 A I did. And I may have even prior to that phone 20 today, that Detective DeLorenzo received a commendation 21 call. I may have viewed that video before that phone 21 for that? 22 call. I forget the timing of it. It was within a few 22 A 23 days of each other. 23 now. Did you tell them you were going to look 24 Q 25 at the video? Did you ask Major Devlin whether he looked All right. Are you aware, sitting here That was the first I heard of it today right Q 24 25 No. I know that did not happen. Q Okay. Now, if you had known that Detective DeLorenzo received a commendation for that 79 1 A 3 I did. Q 2 A I don't recall. Q 4 What did he say? Do you recall an impression that he might 81 1 interview, would that change your assessment of whether 2 or not he might have acted appropriately or not? 3 A 4 that in MAPPS, if that's where that -- this performance notice is. 5 have given you? 5 6 A 6 7 8 9 I don't remember. Q You're aware that Detective DeLorenzo received a commendation for soliciting this confession? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, it assumes I would have questioned the person who wrote Q So you left this conversation with Major 7 Devlin and Lieutenant Mueller with them not doing 8 anything further? 9 A I think that's how we ended it, correct. Q 10 evidence not in the record and I already objected in 10 11 January to the inclusion of that MAPPS commendation 11 between the three of you about this phone call? 12 form at the time, and, Mr. Arbitrator, you ruled in the 12 A 13 state's favor to exclude such document as an exhibit. 13 I don't think so. Q No documents, no -- nothing? No 14 documentary memorialization of that meeting 15 are talking about, so you asked a question and, that 15 conversation? 16 is, whether the witness knew that what -- 16 A 14 17 18 19 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'm not sure what we And were there any e-mails exchanged MR. BUKOSKY: Detective DeLorenzo received a commendation for his -ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. And now you No. I don't remember, no. Q 17 What did you do, then, next concerning 18 your follow-up of this incident? 19 A I think that was it. I think at some point I 20 made an objection, I'm not sure I understand the nature 20 think I called Chief McCormack back and agreed with him 21 of the objection. 21 that I did not think that it was a confession, and at 22 that juncture, that's pretty much, until subsequent 23 believe, Exhibit C to one of his original letters in 23 things happened, that's pretty much where it ended at 24 this matter to you, Mr. Arbitrator, a copy of the 24 that point in time. 25 alleged commendation, it was unsigned, no signed copy 25 22 MS. DiCOSMO: Mr. Bukosky included as, I Q Okay. Now, let me just back up, because, 82 84 1 obviously, at some point Chief McCormack brought the 1 documented this meeting? 2 video to where? 2 A 3 A 3 5 A A 9 A Was anybody else present at that meeting? No. Q 10 And did you have a meeting with him? If you call it a meeting. Q 8 Did he come into your office? Yes. Q 6 7 To my office. Q 4 How soon after this initial phone call did No. Q And you believe it was only about a 4 10-minute meeting? 5 A About that. Q 6 Now, you indicated things such as he was 7 concerned about the relationship and the frustrations, 8 did he use those words frustrations and relationship? 9 A He may have, those are my words here today, but 10 that was the overall -- again, the series of decisions 11 you have this meeting? 11 that were made afterwards, clearly strained the 12 A 12 relationship and included a lack of trust, a lack of Within a few days. Q 13 the ability to work in collaboration with another 14 with him? 14 which, for obvious reasons, Detectives and Troopers and 15 A 15 Prosecutor's offices have to have in order to 16 by Detective DeLorenzo. 16 effectively carry out their mission. 13 18 A A Q 17 What did you discuss at the meeting? This very case. Q 21 And how long did this meeting last? 10 minutes, probably. Q 19 20 Just the video of the subject being interviewed Q 17 And did he -- what documents did he bring And can you recall the substance of your Now -- so in this 10-minute meeting 18 Mr. McCormack raised those sentences with you? 19 A 20 denial was made, no effort was made for follow-up, 21 which could have easily happened in the next few days, I think the fact that, again, the fact that the 22 discussions involving this case? 22 that rush to charge, still sitting here today, I do not 23 A 23 understand. The fact of getting -- going to the 24 call, I did not watch the video with him there. I 24 Prosecutor's Office first indicated to me that the 25 watched it with Major Szenzenstein. 25 Detective had an understanding of bail reform and what Similar to the ones that were on the telephone 83 Q 1 the new process was. Again, got a no answer and was 2 already been dismissed? 2 not happy with that answer and went to a judge, and 3 A 3 then that breakdown over the course of the next few 4 weeks which then, ultimately, did involve Mr. Crane and 1 I think so. I think so. Q 4 At this point, though, the charges had 85 Now, Chief McCormack is coming to you 5 several days after the charges have been dismissed and 5 every Detective at Sussex County led to the 6 showing you a video, why did he care at that point? 6 reassignment of all of the Detectives. 7 A 7 8 relationship between the Detective and the frustrations 9 that have -- that had evolved of the lack of approval I think he was, again, pointing to the Q My question is, during this 10-minute 8 meeting, Mr. McCormack raised this issue of the 9 relationship and frustration? 10 when the Detective did not get an approval on the 10 A 11 charge, again, that led to a series of several other 11 did. 12 things between the Detectives at Sussex and the Sussex 12 Q 13 County Prosecutor's Office, alleged corruption, 13 relationship? 14 videotaping of the victim's request for a restraining 14 A 15 order, things that were not -- that are not common 15 with the AP at the time. 16 practice. And when those chips, or dominos, started to 16 17 fall, I could sense that there was a serious 17 A 18 relationship deteriorating, I guess is the word, 18 it was Pappas was the associate -- or Assistant 19 between the Detectives at Sussex and the members of the 19 Prosecutor involved in this. 20 Sussex County Prosecutor's Office. 20 Q 21 Now -- so you don't recall the specific 22 office? 23 24 A Would there be any records that would Q Who was the AP? I didn't know at the time, but I found out later Q So at that moment, though, you knew it was A date of this meeting when Mr. McCormack came to your It was within a few days of the phone call. Again, it was, at the time, Detective DeLorenzo Detective DeLorenzo and another AP? 23 Q Did he say who had a frustrating 21 22 25 In one way, shape, or form, yes, I would say he That's correct. Q And did he give you any specifics? 24 A 25 that Detective DeLorenzo called her, gave her the facts Just what we are discussing here today, the fact 86 88 1 as he knew them with regard to this alleged sexual 1 were, and I think that's a fair question at this point. 2 assault, and at that juncture, as AP, she determined 2 I don't want to go too long on this, but that's a fair 3 right here and now, not enough to charge. That was the 3 question. 4 foundation of the friction and the relationship being 4 5 strained. 5 Q 6 Isn't it true, though, there is friction MS. DiCOSMO: Thank you, Mr. Arbitrator. THE WITNESS: Basically, a subject who was 6 in possession of a vehicle that had an altered VIN 7 between every law enforcement agency, that's sort of 7 number. His allegation was that he secured various car 8 the nature of the business? 8 parts online and from different junk yards, they all 9 A 9 had the same -- every car part, major ones, have a VIN I would disagree with that. In this juncture, I 10 think the 9/11 Commission Report to speak to that 10 number that's concealed, so he would have had to be the 11 breakdown and that collaboration, I mean, Bratton's 11 luckiest person on earth to go around to various car 12 book Collaborate or Perish -- on TV you may want to see 12 shows and junk yards to get all of the same parts of 13 Detectives and DAs and New York City have friction with 13 the same car. I thought I had enough there to charge 14 one another, but, again, in my 24 years, this was 14 with receiving stolen property, and at the time the 15 friction and this was lack of faith. 15 Somerset County Prosecutor's Office didn't. So, was I Now, you've been a Trooper for several 16 frustrated? Yes. And, again, I ultimately live with 17 decades, have you experienced any situation when 17 that decision. I didn't think that they were correct 18 Troopers were eager to charge and either the 18 in their assessment of the facts at hand, but that's 19 Prosecutor's office or the Attorney General's office 19 what I -- that's what I ultimately left. 20 was pushing back? 20 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 21 A 21 Q 16 I experienced it myself, yes. Q 22 So it happens often? 22 A 23 time. 23 A 24 you had to run through was Somerset County, they were 24 25 known as a test county, and you had to bring your 25 Well, not at the time, because the only county Q Were you dealing with a specific AP there? I was, and I don't remember who it was at the Q That's an example of a situation where a Trooper wanted to charge and the Prosecutor's Office 87 89 1 charges to them for approval. It happened to me once 1 didn't? 2 as a young Trooper where they did not allow me to 2 A 3 approve on a receiving stolen property charge. They 3 4 were -- I thought they were wrong, but I ultimately had 4 5 to live with that decision that they made. With bail 5 6 reform now, all 21 counties are that way, so whether 6 7 it's the 30,000 police officers in New Jersey, or the 7 8 2,800 Troopers, when you have what you think is an 8 reports, documents, background information, right? 9 indictable offense, you need to go to the Prosecutor's 9 A That's correct. Q A Q A You say you were frustrated? Correct. Probably more than frustrated? Frustrated, it's accurate. Q You did a lot of work on that case, Correct. 10 Office to determine, one, do you have enough probable 10 Q 11 cause and, two, are we going to seek to detain this 11 officer? 12 person on a warrant or put it on a summons. And, 12 A 13 again, how this case unfolded, I don't think Detective 13 time. I was a Trooper with, like, six months on the 14 DeLorenzo agreed with the AP's decision at the time. 14 road. Q 15 Let me explore this issue that happened I forget, probably my squad Sergeant at the Q 15 Did you bring it to your commanding Okay. Why didn't you think that this 16 between you and the Somerset Prosecutor's Office, you 16 particular case was similar to what happened to you in 17 indicated it was about stolen goods? 17 Somerset County? 18 A 18 A 19 cause, and, again, I did not have all the facts at 19 About a stolen car. Q Stolen car, can you tell me a brief 20 hand. I had the interview which was being classified MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, relevance. 21 as a confession. I was told that Detective DeLorenzo 22 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'll allow a little 22 also told the municipal court judge he had a videotaped 23 bit of this. I think counsel is asking -- he wants to 23 confession, again, it gets down to interpretation of 24 see, I think, some of this is about the Colonel's frame 24 what a confession is. I disagreed with that and still 25 of mind and how he viewed it and what his obligations 25 do, to this day, given the questions that were -- not 20 21 summary about the case and what happened? Because I didn't think that they had probable 90 92 Q 1 so much what was asked by Detective DeLorenzo but what 1 2 he didn't ask. When you're going to charge somebody on 2 you just gave us a very long-winded discussion of all 3 what is, quite frankly, one of the most serious 3 these successive events, they happened well after the 4 charges, sexual assault, sexual criminal contact, you 4 decision to transfer in this particular case, right? 5 need to ask specific hard questions which were not 5 A 6 asked, and that's why I didn't think they had probable 6 Crane, excuse me, recording the pretrial meeting, was 7 cause. So I can understand Detective DeLorenzo's 7 well after, but the Official Corruption, the 8 frustration, but he could have done a few more things 8 videotaping of the victim, all that happened within 9 in order to secure those charges if, in fact, a crime 9 close proximity to this. 10 had occurred. 10 Q Just the one, just him recording -- Detective Q Okay. Now -- so he drops off the video, 11 McCormack drops off the video, did you watch it 12 you back to this, you had a meeting where McCormack 12 together? 13 brings the videotape to your office and you have a 13 A 14 10-minute meeting with him, and he expressed some 14 15 sentiment of frustrations and a frayed relationship? 15 A 16 A 16 Major Szenzenstein, who was the major of field 17 operations, pretty much my number two in command. 11 That's correct. Q 17 So I'm going to backtrack now and bring Right, but, of course, all this stuff that I mean, at that time, did you have a sense No. Q Did you -- when did you watch it? I don't know when. I remember watching it with Q 18 that this was really just the ordinary type of incident 18 19 that you experienced in Somerset County, the Prosecutor 19 20 didn't want to charge and the Trooper did? 20 21 A I forget as far as the timing goes, but, again, 21 going to watch it? 22 it was beyond that initial not agreeing with it, it was 22 A 23 what happened afterwards, and that degradation, the 23 McCormack was dropping it off. 24 victim being called into the Prosecutor's Office and 24 25 being told that the Prosecutor dropped the charges, 25 A Q And did you tell Szenzenstein why you were He was aware. I think he was aware that Chief Q A And did you watch it together? That's correct. How was he aware? Because I told him. 91 93 Q 1 after that she went to the Sussex station and got 1 2 videotaped by Detectives, and something I never seen 2 Szenzenstein -- So you had a discussion with 3 before, which was more questioning of how could they 3 A 4 drop the charges, and I understood her frustrations, 4 5 too. And then it led to the Detectives reaching out to 5 to the meeting with McCormack? 6 our Official Corruption Bureau alleging that the only 6 A 7 reason they didn't charge was that the alleged subject 7 Major Szenzenstein and said I'm coming up, we watched 8 had a relationship, and it just became this one 8 it in Major Szenzenstein's office. (Witness nodding.) Q -- prior to looking at the video and prior It was probably I got the video and I called Q 9 decision after another of Detectives digging their 9 10 heels in frustration, which I still understood, but 10 the video with him, had a conversation with him and 11 once it started to blossom into -- even Detective Crane 11 told him why he was going to watch it? 12 being called back months later on a bank robbery and on 12 A 13 tape saying, "I don't care what happens in this case", 13 specific one. I probably did. He was my number two, 14 that let me know that his reassignment was appropriate, 14 yes. 15 given the nature of a bank robbery case in which he was 15 16 a witness, and without the Prosecutor's Office knowing, 16 to watch a two-hour video?" 17 initially, recording that pretrial. 17 A 18 So there was a series, again, of decisions I think so. I probably did. I don't recall a Q Did Szenzenstein say, "why do you want me No, he never asked that. Q 18 But you had previously, before you watched I mean, I imagine you're a pretty busy 19 beyond -- I understand that initial not getting the 19 guy? 20 approval and being frustrated, but what unfolded 20 A 21 afterwards, it was clear to me that the Sussex CIO crew 21 22 kind of circled the wagons and dug their heels in and 22 confession was way out of the ordinary for you? 23 made decisions that weren't in the best interest of the 23 A 24 Division and made it impossible for them to work in 24 myself engaged with what's going on day to day. The 25 concert with the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office. 25 fact that I took that much time to look into it, I am. Q Taking time to watch a two-hour video of a I wouldn't say out of the ordinary. I consider 94 1 indicated that I thought it was a serious matter. Q 2 And you thought it was a serious matter 96 1 the Trooper. 2 Q Are you aware if the judge possibly looked 3 just based upon what Mr. McCormack told you? 3 at -- what would a judge ordinarily look at? 4 A 4 A 5 the Trooper or Detective. Q 5 6 Yeah, at the time, yes. A Q 7 That was it? (Witness nodding.) upon what McCormack told you? 9 A 10 And he was taking the time, too, so if he was taking that time, again, I did at that juncture. Q Q 6 The full basis of your concern was based 8 at a statement of probable cause? 8 A Sometimes, yes. Q 9 statement of probable cause that was prepared in this 11 case, right? 12 A 13 A 13 No. Q Now, you would agree with me that when you Q wanted -- A are looking at a video, it's important that you also 15 16 have at your disposal any evidence which corroborates 16 17 or somehow is -- does not corroborate the testimony 17 that? 18 that's provided in a video, right? 18 A 19 A 19 Q Okay. You never had -- you never I don't recall reviewing it. Q You didn't have an interest in looking at I wouldn't say that. I hadn't looked at it. Q Now, you said that your only concern and 20 your purpose in looking at this video is to see whether 21 background to see about the possible voracity of what 21 or not there was a confession, right? 22 this person is going to say? 22 A 23 A 23 24 went into RMS and pulled the initial invest, the 24 Detective DeLorenzo made some kind of mistake? 25 supplemental invest, but they were done much further 25 A 20 Wouldn't you want to look at some of the I have not seen it. 14 15 Right. And you're aware that there was a 10 single report or a single document? 14 Would it be ordinary for a judge to look 7 12 11 And at this basis, you hadn't looked at a In my experience, a judge would take the word of At some point in time, not before the video. We That's correct. Q Were you looking at the video to see if I wanted to see if Detective DeLorenzo told the 95 97 1 down the line. So at some point we pulled those 1 judge, "you're honor, I have a confession on tape", and 2 documents together, but then and there watching that 2 use that in order to make that judge make that 3 video, I don't know what else there was to corroborate 3 determination, again, which was against the wishes of 4 the story. I don't know what else the Detectives did. 4 the AP at the time, did I believe in my professional 5 Did they go back to the bar? Did they see if there was 5 and personal experience was that hour and a half or two 6 cameras? Did they talk to other witnesses? I wasn't 6 hours a confession, I sit here today saying I concluded 7 armed with any of that information, all I had was the 7 that it was not. 8 video. 8 Q It would be important, though, when 9 looking at a video to have facts at your disposal, that 10 was what? 10 may tend you to believe or disbelieve what the person 11 A To see if I believe that that was a confession 11 is saying? 12 or not, but that's what was ultimately used to get a 12 13 municipal judge to sign the charges. 13 9 Q 14 But your purpose in looking at the video Q Do you have any idea whether or not the 14 15 municipal judge ever looked at the video? 15 16 A 16 18 I don't know that. Q 17 A I would probably bet he did not, but then -- Q 19 It's pretty sure that he didn't? So when you say the judge relied upon this 17 18 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, asked and answered. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Can you read that back, that question back to me, please. (At which time, the reporter reads back a pertinent portion of the record as follows: "QUESTION: It would be important, though, 19 when looking at a video to have facts at your disposal, 20 video in making his determination, that was not true? 20 that may tend you to believe or disbelieve what the 21 A 21 person is saying?") 22 that he obtained a videotaped confession. The judge relied upon the Detective's statement 22 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Your objection? 23 MS. DiCOSMO: Been asked and answered relied upon? 24 several times, because Mr. Bukosky previously asked, A 25 did he obtain any other evidence when viewing the video 23 Q 24 25 Do you know what documents the judge I would think he relied upon the phone call from 98 1 or prior to viewing the video. Q 1 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Factually, I think the 2 100 Okay. Now -- but probable cause would 2 encompass not just the video, it would encompass 3 witness has testified what he -- pretty much made it 3 everything else, right? 4 clear at that point he had no documents, he had the 4 A 5 video and he testified what he was looking for in the 5 6 video. So I sustain the objection because we know what 6 probable cause, yes, or probable cause, no, you have to 7 he had, what he considered at that point. 7 look at everything, right? 8 A MR. BUKOSKY: All right. 8 9 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 10 Q You couldn't just look at a video and say I didn't. Q 9 Now, you said that you were looking for a I would agree with that, yes. But you indicated that you were concerned 10 that there was a question about probable cause? 11 confession or not, right? 11 A 12 A 12 determine if I thought it was a confession. I think 13 Detective DeLorenzo thought he had enough. I don't 14 think the Assistant Prosecutor thought there was 15 enough. Q 13 14 That's correct. A Q 15 That was your purpose? That's correct. Why would you care if he confessed or not? Again, the reason for watching the video was to 16 A 17 Trooper was basing his frustrations upon. If he had a 17 without looking at the video from the victim, without 18 videotape confession that everybody around the table 18 looking at any of the reports, without looking at any 19 would agree with, then that would mean that there was 19 other witness statements that might have corroborated 20 an issue with the Prosecutor's Office and with the AP 20 what happened, that would give a sense to, you know, 21 determination on not to charge. So I thought it was 21 the important facts and what was this person actually 22 important that I watch that and make that 22 going to be charged with, right? 23 determination. And, again, I didn't think it was a 23 A 24 confession. 24 was -- I wasn't pulling witness statements and other 25 videos. My task at hand was, did I think that this was Because it would give me a sense of what the Q 25 Okay. And you were only concerned about Q 16 Okay. But you came to this determination I was only concerned if I thought that video 99 101 1 whether that this was a confession and you were not 1 a confession. 2 concerned about any other evidence that might 2 Q 3 corroborate whether or not this was a confession or 3 defendant was charged with at this point? 4 not? 4 A 5 approval was on sexual criminal contact. MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, asked and 5 6 7 answered. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, no. I'm okay 8 with the question as long as it goes a little bit 9 further, which is, at that point in reaching your 7 A Did you look at the actual charges? No. Q 8 9 I think he was charged with -- I think the Q 6 Did you even know what this putative How would you know if he's confessing to the charges or not, if you didn't even know what he was 10 determination about the tape that you saw -- that's 10 charged with? 11 where I think it is a legitimate question -- you were 11 A 12 comfortable reaching that without looking at anything 12 subsequent and after the fact. If, again, if Detective 13 else. I think that's where counsel is going, and I'm 13 had asked appropriate questions to get to that charge, 14 okay with that at this point. I don't need the charge. The charge is 14 I would have agreed that the charge was appropriate. 15 THE WITNESS: At that point, yes, if I 15 The Detective never asked the appropriate questions. 16 can -- again, it was almost a two-hour interview. 16 17 There was a lot of questions asked. There was a lot of 17 18 facts and information that Detective DeLorenzo did get 18 19 out there. I'm not sure what else existed with regard 19 admitting guilt of something, right, some fact? 20 to, again, corroborating or dispelling the allegation, 20 A 21 but the video, to me, was thorough. It just wasn't 21 was ultimately charged with. 22 thorough enough, from my perspective, or from the 22 23 Prosecutor's Office perspective, that there was enough 23 24 probable cause there. 24 25 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 25 Q A Q Admission of guilt, right. So must be Again, in this case something was not what he Q A What do you understand a confession to be? Admission of guilt. He was charged with some fact, right? He was charged with sexual assault. Q And some facts that led up and were elements of a sexual assault, correct? 102 A 1 bogus, he wasn't looking at the video to see if it was When you looked at this particular video, 2 a confession, no reasonable person would look at just a 3 you said that there was no confession, but you didn't 3 video -- 4 know what facts were being relied upon to support the 4 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection. 5 charge? 5 THE WITNESS: I sustain the objection. 6 A 6 MR. BUKOSKY: What he was really doing 7 presenting in his line of questioning, that's all I had 7 here was investigating whether Trooper DeLorenzo did 8 to go on. 8 something wrong. 1 Q 2 9 That were not ultimately proven. 104 Just the ones that Detective DeLorenzo was Q You know, you said you -- 9 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Counsel, you seem to 10 10 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: We don't know that, I don't know that. And -- 11 be arguing with the witness. We've established a fact 11 12 that the witness made a determination based upon the 12 13 video he saw, and nothing else. He's made that clear. 13 14 You've asked it several times. He's made it clear. 14 that either. What I'm telling you is, I'm going to 15 You may disagree with whether somebody, the Colonel, 15 make you stick to what the issue is in the case over 16 could reach a determination of probable cause, overall, 16 which I have jurisdiction, and I don't have 17 on just the video, but that doesn't make any 17 jurisdiction to determine whether the Colonel should 18 difference. The question is, what did he do, how did 18 have looked at more information to make a decision over 19 he reach determinations, you've established that. So 19 probable cause. I want to know, what was the 20 why are we going down that road? 20 information he had that, ultimately, led him to make a 21 determination about the movement of Detective Crane from one location to another. MR. BUKOSKY: Because there is two 21 22 important factors, and I'm going to get to some 22 23 subsequent stuff as well, there's two important 23 24 factors, one is, the real issue is whether or not there 24 25 is probable cause, right? 25 MR. BUKOSKY: That's what Mr. McCormack was complaining about. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, I don't know MR. BUKOSKY: Right. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Now, we have gotten to the point where he's seen the video. He's had his 103 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: No, that's not the 105 1 discussion, both on the phone and then in person, with 2 real issue in the case. The issue in the case is 2 Mr. McCormack. He's now seen the video. And at that 3 why -- 1 3 point, and the witness has made this very clear, at MR. BUKOSKY: Not the issue in the case -- 4 that point, he felt there was not enough probable cause 5 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: That's what I have 5 and that's -- he based it on his review of the video. 6 jurisdiction over, and I'm going to keep reminding you 6 7 of that. I only have jurisdiction over whether -- over 7 know what happened next. How did we get to a point 8 whether there was just cause for -- because that's how 8 where Detective Crane was moved from one location to 9 you phrased it -- over whether there was just cause for 9 another. I don't know. We are already at 1 o'clock in 4 Move on. What happened next? I don't 10 the movement of Detective Crane from one location to 10 11 another. Okay. This isn't about -- and I understand 11 12 why you are raising questions and the STFA is concerned 12 the problem with why this case is being litigated 13 about whether enough was done and even, perhaps, by the 13 backwards, remember, is because the employer has 14 Colonel, who was Lieutenant Colonel at the time, to 14 refused to provide the explanation about why they 15 reach an overall probable cause determination, but 15 transferred him, right and if we had that explanation, 16 that's not what I have jurisdiction over. 16 maybe all this would be irrelevant. 17 18 19 20 MR. BUKOSKY: I understand. 17 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I have very limited 18 jurisdiction, and we are going to stick with that. 19 MR. BUKOSKY: That's not why this 20 the afternoon. I want to stay on point. MR. BUKOSKY: Me too. And in the -- and ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You have the witness, you could ask him, why was it made. MR. BUKOSKY: I'm going to get -ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You can ask it right 21 testimony is being elicited, though. It's being 21 now or you want to build to it, that's fine, too. 22 elicited because this decision was made in bad faith 22 23 from the very beginning, and that the suggestion that 23 because I think what's critical at the bottom of this 24 the Colonel was looking at this video to determine 24 case is -- and this is going to be a major question -- 25 whether there was a confession or not, is completely 25 what was the motivations of McCormack? What was his MR. BUKOSKY: I want to build to it, 106 108 1 motivations for initiating this? And then, really, 1 made a determination based upon viewing the video only, 2 what were the motivations of the Colonel in this 2 and whether or not someone should also look at 3 particular case. Was it really true -- 3 documents and other information and deciding probable 4 cause, doesn't matter. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Well, that's 4 5 going well beyond what we are discussing. 6 7 5 MR. BUKOSKY: Okay. I understand. MR. BUKOSKY: Yeah, but that's what -- 6 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: We are not there. We ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'm not going to let 7 are not going down that road because that didn't 8 happen. So we know it didn't happen. Let's go on to 9 what happened next. 8 you use this hearing as an opportunity to keep talking 9 about your view of the case. We are not at the point 10 of argument. You've made your argument in the 10 11 beginning of the case. You'll have an opportunity to 11 12 make argument at the end of the case. This is the time 12 13 for testimony. I just want to keep you on point with 13 14 the involvement that this witness had with the case and 14 15 what he knew and what he didn't know in reaching his 15 16 determination, that's what I want to do. 16 MR. BUKOSKY: Very good. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Before you do that, let's go off the record for a moment. (At which time, a recess was taken.) BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q So we were speaking about the confession and -- 17 So we have gone over now all of the facts 17 18 leading up to him getting the video, viewing the video 18 19 and reaching a determination at that point of he didn't 19 20 think there was enough probable cause. At this point, 20 video, can you -- you obviously viewed the video? 21 and we have spent a lot of time already with this 21 A 22 witness, at this point, Detective Crane isn't even 22 23 involved, so let's get to it, let's find out how this 23 Szenzenstein? 24 came back onto Detective Crane, because I have no idea. 24 A MR. BUKOSKY: I understand, and I 25 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, the video. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q That's correct. Q And you viewed that with Colonel Major. Q 25 -- the video known as the confessional And you viewed it together? 107 109 A 1 understand your frustration, and I'm equally 1 2 frustrated, and the point of why I'm indicating all 2 3 this is because, you know, ultimately, we have to make 3 you? 4 a determination whether this decision was made in good 4 A 5 faith or not, right? 6 7 Yes, we did. Q Why did you want him viewing it along with To get his perception and his perspective, as 5 well, I try not to operate in a bubble. I thought his ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You mean the STFA? 6 insight would be helpful. MR. BUKOSKY: The Division, whether the 7 8 determination of the transfer was made in good faith or 9 Q You wanted to get his perspective, his 8 perspective of what? A whether or not the reasons they are giving are 9 10 pretextual, right? So there could be all kinds of 10 Whether he thought, in his opinion, whether he 11 testimony about this is the reason we did it, this is 11 12 the reason we did it. And you hear all this stuff 12 was a confession or something less than a confession, 13 about, well, we were frustrated, the relationship was 13 just facts? 14 frayed, and all this other business, it's all 14 A 15 pretextual. 15 had a confession to a judge, I thought it was relevant. thought it was a confession. Q And why would it matter whether or not it Based upon Detective DeLorenzo stating that he Q 16 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection. Move to strike. 16 17 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I do strike that. 17 the information that was relayed to the judge in this 18 MR. BUKOSKY: I'm going to prove that. 18 particular case, right? 19 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, we'll see. Once 19 A 20 conversation was, but I would imagine. 20 21 again, it's what I decide, not what you are deciding. MR. BUKOSKY: Right. I agree. 21 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. So let's Now, this particular video would relate to I would imagine. I don't know what the Q The judge, do you know which judge was 22 involved in this case? 23 remember, I want to hear the facts. We've got this 23 A 24 witness, let's keep going towards his involvement. 24 25 You've clearly established up to this point that he 25 22 I don't remember, no. Q If I told you it was Judge Gavin, does that ring a bell? 110 1 A It does not. Q 2 Now -- so if this judge -- what did the 112 1 that was the case or not, but I think it may have led 2 to their decision to not charge the subject at that time, although, I don't recall. 3 judge do in this particular case that you're aware of? 3 4 A 4 5 from the Prosecutor's Office. He approved the charge that was initially sought Q 6 5 And when you say, "approved the charge", Q Wouldn't these be things that you would be interested in looking into? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I don't know the 6 7 does that mean he found probable cause? 7 purpose of that question. Once again, that seems to be 8 A 8 going down a road of what else the Colonel could have 9 done or even, from your perspective, should have done, I would think so, yes. Q 9 Do you know what the judge relied upon in 10 finding probable cause? 10 I want to know what he did. I want to know what 11 A I don't. 11 happened. And I want to move on to find out how What would a judge typically rely upon? 12 Detective Crane got involved in this. Affidavit of probable cause and the phone call 13 Q 12 13 A 14 from a Trooper. Q been statements by both counsel, as well as the Colonel 15 in this case, that the concern of McCormack was this 16 judge look at the video? 16 frustration with the Prosecutor's Office, that there is 17 A 17 somehow this disagreement, and I think -- 15 Probably not. Q 18 These are typical things. Now, would the MR. BUKOSKY: I understand. But there's 14 Do you know if the judge in this case looked at the video? 19 20 A 20 I do not. Q 21 Typically, what is on the video or not on ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I thought that -- 18 19 21 well, okay, go ahead. MR. BUKOSKY: So there is some kind of disagreement. 22 the video would have very little impact on the judge's 22 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Between who? 23 determination of probable cause? 23 MR. BUKOSKY: Prosecutor's Office and, 24 A 24 25 that's a confession, then it has a tremendous amount of Again, it's -- if the Trooper's stating that obviously, some of the Troopers involved. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. So you want to 25 111 113 1 impact on the judge's decision to approve the charges. 1 2 I think that's what happened in this case. I can't 2 3 speak to the conversation or what the judge relied 3 4 upon, but I think a judge being told that, "I have a 4 5 videotape confession", would be enough for any judge in 5 hypotheticals is that it doesn't fill in the blanks for 6 this state or, otherwise, to approve the charges. 6 me. So let's find out who he talked to, what was said, 7 so forth, things like that. Q 7 Now, this particular video that Mr. 8 McCormack brought to you, do you know whether the 9 Prosecutor's Office at the time it made a decision not 9 to prosecute, that it had anyone from that office view 10 11 the video? 11 12 A 14 That I don't know. Q A 12 You have no idea? 13 I don't, or I don't remember. 14 Q 15 So it's possible that Mr. McCormack is MR. BUKOSKY: Yes, I mean, but that's what I'm getting at here is. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: The problem with And, again, I want to remind you, now we 8 10 13 ask about that, go ahead. are 20 to 2:00, I really want to know how Detective Crane got involved in this. MR. BUKOSKY: I understand, and we are getting closer. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. Let's head that way. MR. BUKOSKY: But before we go to the -- 15 16 bringing you a video that had no relation whatsoever to 16 and I'm doing this largely based upon, you know, the 17 the Prosecutor's decision to charge or not? 17 timeline that we have, because it's very difficult to 18 A 18 say -- It's possible. Q 19 If the Prosecutor's Office did not review ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I don't mind you 19 20 the video in making its determination, would that have 20 21 an impact upon the degree to which you were concerned 21 staying on a timeline. 22 about the video? 22 transfer happened in March, but, you know, these are 23 A I would think in rendering their decision, 23 the dates that are preceding the run up to the March 24 although, I don't know. I would think that the AP and 24 decision. So I think of it's important to do them 25 those involved watched the video. Again, I forget if 25 sequential. MR. BUKOSKY: Ultimately, we know the 114 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I really didn't know 116 1 implications. 2 when it happened, because I just got the documents and 2 Q 3 the grievance and the response today, so I didn't know 3 the ordinary course of business? 4 it happened in March, just so you know. 4 A 5 one, yeah, this is pretty typical. 1 MR. BUKOSKY: All right. Fair enough. 5 Yeah, when, in this case, this is a positive Q 6 I'm going to get to that, eventually. 6 7 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 7 document? 8 A Q 8 I'm going to back up a little bit, though, And this type of document is created in Now, can you tell me who created this Looks like Sergeant Mueller authored it. Q 9 because you said that you had, prior to looking at the 9 10 video, a discussion with Major Devlin and you believe, 10 had a conversation with Major Devlin? 11 at that time, Sergeant Mueller? 11 A 12 A 12 Correct. Q 13 14 Now, is this the same Sergeant Mueller you That is correct. Q I'm going to show you this document here. 13 yourself? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, this is the 14 A Now, I'll ask you to read that document to I'm done. Q 15 document that I moved to be excluded. I don't know if 15 16 it's being entered into evidence, but it's unsigned so 16 confessional video? 17 I'd like the record to reflect that. 17 A ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'm going to mark the 18 19 document as U-1 for now. (At which time, U-1 was marked for 20 21 identification.) It does reference that. Q 18 That document speaks about the And my question to you is, obviously, did 19 Sergeant Mueller bring up during his conversation that 20 he had issued a commendation to Detective DeLorenzo 21 about the confessional video? 22 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: It's marked as U-1. 22 A 23 MR. BUKOSKY: Can you -- 23 the date of incident versus the date of what they said ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Wait a minute. This 24 was a confession and the date this is issued, I think 25 the date that this was issued would help, if it was 24 25 is a document that says MAPPS, M-A-P-P-S, on top and I don't recall that, no. This isn't dated, so 115 1 it's marked as U-1 for identification. MS. DiCOSMO: Additionally, this doesn't 2 3 say Mr. Crane's name, isn't anywhere on this document. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, I don't know 4 5 what the question is. 117 1 going to be allowed. Q 2 We can -- if we look into the system, we 3 can make a determination about when it was issued? 4 A You may be able, that I'm not certain of. Q 5 This particular document speaks to a date 6 MS. DiCOSMO: Okay. 6 in it, like, February 7th, it talks about that? 7 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So -- 7 A 8 MS. DiCOSMO: I understand. 8 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: -- yes, the document That's correct. Q And Mr. McCormack said that that was the 9 date that he first came to meet with you originally 10 was given to the witness. What's your question? 10 about this case -- or, I'm sorry, I stand corrected, 11 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 11 February 7th is the date that Mr. McCormack called you, 12 the initial call? 13 A 9 Q 12 13 Do you recognize this type of document? 14 15 A Yes. Q 16 17 My question is, first, let me get through some of the preliminaries. A You've seen this type of document before? That's correct. Q Q 14 We can assume, though, that this document 15 was created some time after February 7th? 16 A Correct. Q 17 Now, either this document was created 18 before you had the conversation with Major Devlin and 19 Sergeant Mueller or after you had the conversation with Systems, it's where we track performance notices like 20 Sergeant Mueller and Major Devlin, we can't determine this. 21 that, though, right? Could be before -- 18 19 A 20 21 What does MAPPS stand for? That's what -- Management Awareness and Personnel Performance 22 A 23 fairly routine type of document that's created? Q 23 date of that phone call. 24 A 24 25 counseling side, so it has both positive and negative 22 And do you know -- and this is, like, a Yes, either for on the commendation side or the 25 Probably not, since I don't remember the exact Q But it would be significant, though, for Sergeant Mueller to tell you, if you are speaking about 118 120 1 the video, well, yeah, I issued a commendation for that 1 answered. Had that occurred, we probably wouldn't be 2 video? 2 sitting here today. 3 A 3 4 been -- I had never seen a video that I thought was 4 5 just not good police work, and if Eric Mueller, who's 5 6 also my classmate from the academy, told me on that 6 because if you are going to charge someone with it, you 7 phone call that he issued a positive performance notice 7 got to ask it to find out, he just explained that. 8 for that, I would have strongly questioned that on that 8 MR. BUKOSKY: I agree. I don't recall that, because, again, I had never Q Okay. Now, why is it important that that question is asked or answered? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: He just explained; 9 phone call. I don't recall that, because this was, 9 10 again, in my time in law enforcement, just what I 10 Q 11 deemed, again, personally and professionally not a good 11 in this case? 12 interview, and, certainly, not a confession. 12 A 13 AP. Q 13 14 with you? 15 A Now, would it have been relevant for you But you had no idea what the charges were No, I knew what charge was not approved by the Q 14 He obviously did. Q 16 But, at least, Sergeant Mueller disagreed BY MR. BUKOSKY: A charge? 15 A 16 municipal judge, so the statement of, "went too far", And what charge was, ultimately, approved by the 17 to be aware of this commendation before you looked at 17 that's too broad, and as a former Detective, "went too 18 the video? 18 far", meaning, what, went to the parking lot, went to 19 A 19 the car, put my hand down her pants. You need to get 20 had been issued before, I was not aware of this 20 to the fact. If you have a confession, or claiming 21 performance notice until today, that I recall. 21 that's what it is, you need that subject to make that. I would have liked to have known about it, if it Q 22 Minimize it, as you will, say it was only the tip of my 23 Szenzenstein, the two-hour video, and what happened 23 index finger, whatever, all the skills that we learn in 24 after you watched the video? 24 interviewing interrogation school, was never asked and 25 A 25 was never answered. 22 So you looked at the video with Major I think that's what might have triggered the 119 121 Q 1 phone call to Major Devlin and Sergeant Mueller. I 1 2 don't recall the exact timing of it. But that video, 2 3 to me, again, resulted in me making a determination 3 4 that a confession was not elicited; and that if the 4 right? Do you recall anything else that he said? 5 judge was told that there was one on videotape, that 5 A 6 that, in my estimation, wasn't an accurate statement to 6 DeLorenzo was hanging his hat on, that I went too far. 7 make to the judge. 7 Q 8 9 10 And did Major Szenzenstein share that determination of yours? A He agreed. Q 11 Now, you said that you believed that you 8 did not see a confession on the tape? 12 A 13 Q He must have said, "I went too far", That's the -- what I thought was what Detective Q But watching the video, you had no idea what the charges were? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, asked and answered. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'll allow it. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q My question to you is, how could you know 14 if he confessed to something, if you don't know what he 15 was charged with? 16 A 17 what the charge was or not, I don't recall that, I Detective should have asked if the subject digitally 18 don't recall the timing of that. What I did recall was penetrated the alleged victim. That was never stated. 19 that I was told the Troopers told the judge, "I have a 20 As far as they went was I may have gone too far or I 20 confession", whether that was criminal sexual contact, 21 went too far was there. Although, again, not an easy 21 whether that was assault, what the varying level of the 22 question to ask, if you're going to charge somebody 22 indictable offense was, but in an hour and a half to 23 with that heinous crime, you need to ask that question. 23 two hours, I saw nothing that came close to a 24 That question in that hour and a half or two-hour video 24 confession of any of those, regardless of what he was 25 was never asked, and it needed to be and needed to be 25 charged with. 14 What were you looking for him to confess Q 11 13 Now, this was a two-hour video? About that. 9 10 12 That's correct. A 15 to? 16 A 17 as this, although it's not an easy question to ask, the 18 19 To digital penetration of the -- in a case such He didn't confess to anything, so whether I knew 122 Q 1 So nothing, even like an improper kiss, 124 Q 1 Now -- so what did you and Szenzenstein 2 that would be an assault, right, possibly? 2 decide to do after watching the video? 3 A 3 A 4 yes. 4 call with Major Devlin and Mueller, somewhere in there. Q 5 6 That would possibly be, if it wasn't consensual, A Q 7 Did he admit to that? Q 5 I don't recall. You watched this video, two-hour video, 8 with Major Szenzenstein, I mean, this was a very -- you 9 thought it was critical, that this was something way I think that's when I told you we had the phone You said you just called them to advise 6 them and determined to do nothing? 7 A 9 At that point we didn't do anything about it. Q 8 A Okay. We advised that -- pretty sure they were advised 10 out of your bailiwick, right, you typically didn't 10 of what the proper protocols are; and if a Prosecutor's 11 watch videos, and you don't remember the significance 11 Office denies a charge, that unless you build 12 of the facts that occurred during the video? 12 additional information to get to probable cause, you 13 A 13 can't go to anyone else, that Prosecutor's Office has 14 question or every answer. What I distinctly remember 14 the ultimate approval or denial of charges. 15 is that I did not think it was a confession and still 15 16 don't to this day. 16 after you looked at the video, you called Major Devlin, 17 and, I believe, you just testified that you advised him Not significance, I don't remember every Q 17 But I'm going to ask you again, you didn't Q Okay. So on this phone call, you know, 18 think it was a confession as to what? 18 as to the proper protocols? 19 A 19 A 20 ensure that with bail reform was probably a month old, 21 new to everybody, including me, including all the Q 20 21 As to a sexual assault. A Any sexual assault? Any. Q 22 Detectives, and, again, initially, to me, it was a 23 regular assault? 23 training incident that had subsequently led to other 24 A 24 things after that. 25 so I don't understand the question, maybe. 22 Could it have been a confession as to a I think that was the main gist of the call, to No. Simple assault is when you strike somebody, Q 25 You advised him as to proper protocols, 123 Q 1 what were the proper protocols? 2 assault, correct? 2 A 3 A 3 Prosecutor's Office in order to charge somebody. 1 Correct. Q 4 As you said, there is different degrees of 125 So if somebody was to grope somebody, That you needed approval from an AP at a county Q 4 Did you just simply state that orally? 5 that's a different degree, you know, over clothes, that 5 Did you direct them to any particular documents or send 6 is still an assault? 6 them any documents? 7 A 7 A 8 right in the wake of bail reform coming out, there is a 9 document that's all 21 counties and the proper 9 That is. Q 8 And, obviously, there's various degrees. If you were to go under someone's clothes, that's a I think there was -- I don't remember sending 10 more serious degree, correct? 10 protocols, that was distributed to everybody, both in 11 A 11 field ops and to -- on the investigative side, because 12 you are doing under those clothes, so it's either 12 there is Detectives on that side, too, so that was -- 13 criminal sexual contact or criminal sexual assault, 13 as much as we tried to get 21 counties to do it the 14 those are really two things that, you know, that, I 14 same way, certain counties still had their own -- their 15 think, that Detective DeLorenzo was trying to get to 15 own protocols and processes, so I knew that document 16 the more heinous one of sexual assault. Again, I 16 was out there. 17 didn't hear it asked. And I didn't hear it answered. 17 It depends upon what you are touching or what Q Q Okay. So you and Major Szenzenstein Okay. And you just based your 18 watched the video, approximately, two hours. 19 determination solely on the video, no other documents, 19 A 20 no other information -- 20 18 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: That's been 21 22 established. MR. BUKOSKY: All right. I just want to 23 Yes. Q Now, when is the last time you looked at a 21 similar type of video prior to this incident? 22 A Never since and never before. Q 23 24 make sure. 24 video? 25 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 25 A This is the first time you looked at a Of an interview, I looked at several pursuits, 126 128 1 several dashcams, but as far as an interview of a 1 2 subject, I don't recall ever having done that before. 2 Q 3 And, yet, you concluded that watching such a video of this nature for the first time that it was 4 5 not a confession? 5 6 A 6 7 confession. Q 8 9 THE WITNESS: Okay. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Do you know if he 3 4 That is correct, and I thought it was not a So the question is, do you know? looked at any other documents? THE WITNESS: He did. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 7 All right. Now, I'm curious, you had never seen, watched a video before or after, why -- 8 A Q 9 He told you that? (Witness nodding.) Did he tell you what documents he looked 10 again, I'll ask you this question, why did you, as a 10 at? 11 Lieutenant Colonel, at this point, watch a two-hour 11 A 12 video and not send it to someone else further down the 12 the initial investigation and the supplemental 13 chain of command? 13 investigation reports that were done by a few different 14 A 14 Detectives. 15 interview subject, but I've watched countless videos of 15 16 Troopers, again, predominantly in pursuits, critical 16 didn't? 17 incidents, in shootings, so I have the ability to sit 17 A 18 at my desk and do that and log onto our system and 18 19 watch all of these things, which I do. As far as the 19 A 20 interview, Chief McCormack asked me to watch it, and I 20 probably called Chief McCormack back, too, and agreed 21 watched it. 21 with him, at some point after watching the tape, and This was the first time I watched a video of an Q Q Okay. So he looked at something, but you I don't recall, no. Q And what did you do next? That was it at that juncture, nothing. I 22 said, I agree that it wasn't a confession. And that's 23 Major Devlin, did you tell him to do anything? 23 as far as this initial incident where that pretty much 24 A 24 ended. 25 or ordered or asked to do anything at that juncture, 25 Q 22 Okay. Now, you had a phone call with I don't know specifically. I think he pulled up Not at that point, I don't believe he was asked So you think you called the chief back? 127 1 no. 1 Q 2 129 And he didn't indicate to you that he was A (Witness nodding.) Q 2 Do you know -- 3 going to do anything? 3 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Yes? Is that a yes? 4 A 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 with regard to just remind them of what the new 5 6 processes are under bail reform. 6 No, other than, again, what I initially stated Q 7 Now, Szenzenstein also concluded that -- 8 what did he conclude? 9 A I can't speak for the Major, but I think he BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q Do you think you called him on a cell 7 phone? Regular phone? 8 A I don't recall. Q 9 And do you recall how long the 10 agreed with me in our assessment that it wasn't a 10 conversation was? 11 confession. 11 A 12 again. Q 12 13 A Q 14 15 A Did he use those words? We agreed that it wasn't a confession. Probably, a few minutes long, 5 to 10 minutes, Q 13 And when you told him that you agreed it And how did he articulate that to you? 14 was not a confession, what is the significance of that? He said, "I don't think it was a confession." 15 A Q 16 Assistant Prosecutor that not enough probable cause was 17 looked at any other documents involved in this case? 17 there at that time to charge with what Detective 18 A He might have looked at a little more, he might 18 DeLorenzo wanted to charge with. 19 have gone into records management and pulled up -- 19 20 again, it might have been later down the road, though, 20 word "not enough probable cause", but the basis that 21 and pulled up the initial investigation and 21 you made that decision is solely looking at the video? 22 supplemental -- 22 A 16 23 Okay. And do you know if Szenzenstein That I agreed at that juncture with the ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, I want to remind 23 Q Well, you just -- now, you just used the That's correct. Q And you don't know what charge would be 24 you, the only thing that's helpful to me is what 24 addressing the degree of probable cause, right, you 25 happened. If you're guessing, that doesn't help me. 25 don't know that? 130 1 A I don't know. Q 2 132 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You don't have to 1 But you determined that there was not 2 guess, as far -- 3 enough probable cause for any charge whatsoever? 3 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. At some 4 A 4 point in time, though, I did have a discussion about 5 filing a complaint. Because I think it, basically, got 6 back to Chief McCormack that she had made an allegation 7 of they talked her into dropping the charges. I found 8 that statement also bazaar, because, unlike TV, the Q 5 6 At that time, yes. A Based upon the video solely? Yes. 7 Q 8 going to do? 9 A I don't recall. Q 10 Now, what did Mr. McCormack say he was What did you say you were going to do? 9 Prosecutor doesn't need the victim to say we are 10 dropping the charges. The Prosecutor drops the 11 A 11 charges. The Prosecutor's Office was not calling her 12 advise them of -- advise all the Detectives -- I think 12 in to talk her into dropping the charges, they were 13 it even went beyond CIO -- to remind everybody what the 13 calling her in to tell her they were dropping the 14 proper protocols are with bail reform. 14 charges, or had, or were about to, I'm not sure of the Nothing, at that juncture, other than, again, Q 15 exact timing of it, but I think the fact of that being 16 A I don't recall. I don't recall if I asked the 16 videotaped and the ultimate call to our Official 17 Troop commanders in an e-mail, if it was a phone call. 17 Corruption Bureau alleging some relationship with the 18 We met regularly with Troop commanders before our 18 alleged subject, his father, was a high powered -- 19 command staff meetings, so it was probably something as 19 again, it was starting to get few tentacles, and that's 20 simple as that, just remember that we need approval 20 when I thought that the fact they went to our Official 21 from Prosecutor's Offices if we are going to move 21 Corruption Bureau was, really, the first indication now 22 forward on these criminal charges. 22 that this relationship was going to -- was going to be 23 one that was contentious between the Detectives and the 15 Q 23 And how did you accomplish that? Okay. So did you have any further 24 discussions with Szenzenstein? 24 Prosecutor's Office. 25 A 25 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Not that I can recall, no. 131 Q 1 Was that the end of the incident for you? 2 A 3 yes, that was it for me. Until other things -- for that initial incident, Q 4 Okay. Did you have any further 133 Q 1 So the fact that they contacted the 2 Official Corruption Unit was, really, the straw that 3 broke the camel's back for you? 4 A It probably -- I would say that that was an 5 discussions with Mr. McCormack? 5 indication to me that they had taken their frustration 6 A 6 to a different level. Again, even if they had gone 7 alleged victim in to tell her that they had dropped the 7 to -- if they had gone to the Official Corruption Unit 8 charges. She apparently left the Prosecutor's Office 8 in the Attorney General's office, I probably would have 9 and went to the Sussex station to file a complaint 9 thought that if you have a complaint against the 10 Only after -- again, only after they called the against the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office. 10 Prosecutor, again, we -- that's not the State Troopers' 11 So we are not the receives of complaints for the 11 job, I think they knew that, and I hope they would 12 Sussex -- for any Prosecutor's Office, but, apparently, 12 realize that as seasoned Detectives, but, nevertheless, 13 the Detectives at the time decided to videotape and 13 that's what they did, they called our Official 14 question her with regard to her experience at the 14 Corruption Bureau, and I think that's when, maybe, the 15 Prosecutor's Office. Again, I found that odd. I think 15 Prosecutor himself personally got involved and called 16 they stated she was, if I'm not mistaken, applying for 16 me and said, they are now making an allegation of 17 a restraining order. I asked what other restraining 17 corruption in this Prosecutor's Office, so he, you 18 order have they ever videotaped before. They had never 18 know, he had a problem with that, both personally and 19 videotaped one ever before or ever since. And, again, 19 professionally. And that's when the discussions about 20 in my time on the road, and as a Detective, the 20 reassigning the Detectives first started, not with him, 21 videotaping of a victim filing for a restraining order 21 but, again, the fact that it's the second busiest 22 was not a common practice, not a practice, period. 22 station in the state and where were they going to bring 23 their indictable offenses to? You have to bring them Q 23 All right. So is Mr. McCormack telling 24 you all this stuff? 24 to Sussex, because that's, you know, we cover 14 towns 25 A 25 in Sussex. So it was obvious that from -- the ability I think he called after that happened. 134 136 1 to get along and work with one another, that 1 that he would have been removed. I'm certain, knowing 2 relationship was, I thought, not repairable at that 2 him at the level that I do, that he was not going to 3 juncture. 3 risk his career and his livelihood over a case like Okay. So you believe it was 4 this one. 5 Mr. McCormack, or somebody, spoke to you and you 5 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 6 learned that there was a complaint made to the 6 7 Corruption Unit? 7 for this transfer was due to a frustrated relationship 8 A 8 between the Troopers and the Prosecutor's Office, is it 9 your testimony today that a major factor that caused Q 4 Correct. Q 9 It's your testimony today that the Q Now, counsel has indicated that the reason 10 Troopers doing that, contributed to a bad relationship 10 this relationship to go bad was the complaint to the 11 with the Prosecutor's Office? 11 Corruption Unit? 12 A 12 A That's correct. Q 13 can -- I separate the fact that the initial charge 14 why you made the transfer in this case? 14 wasn't approved, because, again, I've explained the 15 A 15 situation in my own career, the frustration that that 16 that decided to, again, dig their heels in and rally, 16 lends to, but the subsequent decisions and judgment 17 circle the wagons. You know, the Sussex County 17 calls made after that, that were a direct attack, quite 18 Prosecutor's Office doesn't need the State Police, we, 18 frankly, on the Prosecutor and his office, was clear 19 conversely, need them. So I thought in order to make 19 that they were never -- and I spoke about it earlier -- 20 sure we were able to file charges, have working 20 you need to work through cases, arrests in this day and 21 relationships beyond, you know, drug tasks forces. 21 age is really a small part of it. The prosecution and 22 That relationships needs to be rooted in trust and in 22 the successful prosecution is, ultimately, what 23 faith, good faith, and I think that allegation about 23 determines, you know, the validity and solidness of 24 the Prosecutor was evidence to me that the relationship 24 that case. And, as I said earlier, I understand the 25 was strained to a point that all of the Detectives 25 frustration, but if there is a handful of Detectives 13 And, ultimately, that bad relationship is I think it was a piece of that puzzle. Again, I Well, it's the reassignment of every Detective 135 137 1 there needed to be reassigned, if we were going to be 1 that are unable to work with the Prosecutor's Office, 2 able to perform our mission up there. 2 and those people in there, that they needed to be 3 reassigned, because they would never get anything done. 4 And I think we were almost setting -- we'd be setting 5 them up to fail and to just have more friction full 6 encounters that were not going to, you know, not going to result in good relationships moving forward. 3 4 Q MS. DiCOSMO: Asked and answered, 5 6 So the bad relationship was caused by this complaint to the Official Corruption Unit? objection. 7 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'll allow. 7 8 THE WITNESS: If I had had an indication 8 9 that it was rooted in any type of fact, I mean, in this 9 Q Let me get a handle around your thinking. Mr. McCormack brings you the video. You look at the 10 day and age, if I thought -- my ultimate goal is to 10 video. And you determine that there was a disagreement 11 protect the Division, as I would imagine a Prosecutor's 11 and dispute about whether or not there was probable 12 is to protect his office. If I saw the allegation and 12 cause to file the charges, and there was a disagreement 13 what it was rooted in, if I had thought that the 13 with the Prosecutor's Office. Up to that point, was 14 subject's father was a high-powered attorney who had 14 that enough frustrated relationship between the two 15 relations with the Prosecutor or the governor at the 15 entities that would warrant a transfer? 16 time, that was something that I would have liked to 16 A 17 have known, but what I saw was an allegation rooted in 17 18 frustration about a charge not being granted. To this 18 occurred after that that contributed to your ultimate 19 day, I don't know where that Official Corruption 19 determination to make a transfer? 20 allegation or investigation went. I wish there was 20 A 21 some -- if there was some truth to it, then we would 21 22 have referred it to the Attorney General's office and 22 fact that they called and made a complaint to the 23 it would have went down that path, but Francis Koch 23 Corruption Unit? 24 still sits as the Prosecutor in Sussex County, so I 24 A 25 thought if there was any truth to it at this juncture, 25 No. Q Okay. And so it had to be the events that That's correct. Q And, as you said, a piece of this was the Correct. Q Was that a major piece of it? 138 1 A 2 word, too. I would classify it as major, I'll use that Q 1 thereafter, so after February 16th, he states, "I had a 2 meeting with New Jersey State Police command staff at 3 division headquarters in West Trenton. The topic of 4 you about the complaint to the Corruption Unit? 4 this meeting was to discuss the conduct of Detective 5 A 5 DeLorenzo and unlawfully issuing the complaint 6 himself. I don't remember. 6 warrant." Do you recall that meeting? 7 A 3 Okay. Now, you believe Mr. McCormack told 140 I forget if it was him or the Prosecutor 7 Q 8 Unit is? 9 A Now, can you tell us what the Corruption They just -- ours looks into allegations of just 9 I don't, no. Q 8 A Was it a meeting with you? Probably would have been a meeting with me. Q 10 that Official Corruption. Decisions being made of 10 11 people in influential positions, whether that's, you 11 might be? 12 know, dealing with contracts and awarding contracts in 12 A 13 a way that's not above board and in line with 13 Chief McCormack coming and bringing the DVD. I don't 14 procurement regulations. In this case, again, had 14 remember a subsequent meeting, but, again, if he is 15 there been -- had the allegations had been made been 15 certifying it -- as far as -- I don't remember it. 16 true, that would be something that Official Corruption 16 17 would look at, not State Police Official Corruption 17 the topic that DeLorenzo was unlawfully issuing a 18 Bureau, but the one in the Division of Criminal Justice 18 complaint warrant? 19 in the Attorney General's office. 19 A ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I just want to be Do you know who the other command staff I don't. Major Szenzenstein -- I only remember Q Do you remember anyone discussing with you It's the foundation of everything we are talking 20 about here today. I don't know about the word 21 clear, so the -- am I right that what happened here is 21 "unlawfully", I think it was an act of frustration, but 22 that the State Police Detectives called the State 22 the unlawfulness of it, again, I don't recall that word 23 Police Corruption's Office? 23 being used in my discussions about it. 20 24 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 24 25 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: And they made 25 Q Okay. I mean, because -- I agree with you, that's a pretty significant term, and he's saying 139 141 1 allegations about corruption going on in the 1 that he had a meeting with command staff, which is 2 Prosecutor's Office? 2 probably guys at your office, about an unlawful action 3 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 3 of Detective DeLorenzo, you're not aware of that 4 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: That's what you 4 meeting? 5 A 6 again, if I met with Chief McCormack and he used the 7 word that the Trooper did something unlawful, that 8 would kind of make the -- raise the hairs on the back 9 of my neck. I don't think that was the case here. I 5 subsequently learned. THE WITNESS: Specifically, with regards 6 7 to the gentleman who ultimately was not charged. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. 8 9 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 10 Now, do you know how Mr. McCormack learned Again, it was -- I think it was inappropriate, 10 think they did not follow protocol, but as far as it 11 about the allegations to the Corruption Unit? 11 being unlawful, I think that's a different level which 12 A 12 I would not have agreed with that use of that word in 13 his certification. I don't know. Q 13 Are generally allegations to the Q 14 Corruption Unit kept confidential? 14 15 A 15 there was a meeting with command staff and I'm trying 16 them, yes. I don't even recall how I remember being 16 to determine who was at that meeting. 17 informed, if you are going to ask. 17 A For the most part, yes, given the nature of Q 18 Mr. McCormack indicates that on So my most -- my biggest concern is that It was probably me, again, I can't remember -ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Just for the record, 18 19 February 16th he had a meeting with Major Devlin at 19 20 Totowa headquarters to discuss the incident, were you 20 THE WITNESS: Right. 21 aware of that? 21 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: But you're just saying 22 A 22 that if that's what is in McCormack's certification, 23 you're not doubting that it may have occurred, is that 24 right? 24 25 I don't recall the specifics of it. Q 23 A You certainly were not at that meeting? No. Q And then he indicates that shortly 25 then, you don't recall a meeting? THE WITNESS: That's accurate. 142 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So now you're being 1 144 1 A I don't recall that. Q 2 asked who was at that meeting, you can surmise, but 2 All right. It suggests that you wanted to 3 it's a guess? You don't know because you don't 3 alert the Prosecutor and Mr. McCormack that an official 4 remember the meeting? 4 corruption complaint was filed? 5 THE WITNESS: Correct. 5 A 6 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. So you can 6 that file. I'm almost certain they were not hearing 7 pursue the question, but, once again, he doesn't recall 7 that from me for the first time or from anybody from 8 the meeting. 8 the State Troopers that there was an official 9 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 9 corruption allegation. The meeting, from my Q 10 Do you recall any person having any notes My recollection of it is they already knew about 10 recollection, was more of one of me almost apologizing 11 or e-mails concerning this meeting? 11 on behalf of the detectives for what transpired over 12 A 12 the last month as a Lieutenant Colonel and, ultimately, I don't remember. Q 13 the one responsible for the Troopers and Detectives in 14 video with Szenzenstein, did you guys make any notes? 14 operations, I thought that that -- I thought that that 15 A 15 meeting, albeit a luncheon in Somerville, was warranted 16 in order to, as I said, to mend a fence that I thought 17 had been damaged. 13 17 A A 21 A Did you e-mail each other? Did anyone prepare any reports? I don't think so. Q Q 18 I don't remember. Q 20 Did you take any notes? No. Q 18 19 I don't remember him taking any notes. Q 16 All right. How about when you viewed the restaurant in Somerville? 20 A I don't remember. Q 21 Was it one that you suggested? That the 22 Prosecutor suggested? 23 communications with Prosecutor Koch? 23 A 24 A 24 I don't know. Might have been a diner in Somerville, I 25 call, and I remember specifically going out to lunch in 25 don't remember. 22 Ultimately, did you have any All right. Let me ask you this, what 19 At some juncture, again, I think one was a phone Never been to it before, never been to it since. 143 145 1 Somerville with myself, Major Szenzenstein, Chief 1 2 McCormack, and the Prosecutor. 2 Q 3 4 A Q 5 Whose idea was that? I don't remember. Was it a social lunch. Q A Q 3 4 A And it was just the four of you? 6 A 7 thought was a bridge that had been, you know, somewhat 7 8 impacted negatively about what happened over the month 8 were having the meeting? 9 leading up to that going out to lunch. 9 A No, no, it was about trying to mend what I Q 10 And you don't know who arranged that 6 A Do you know who picked up the tab? I don't remember. Q 5 And do you know how long it lasted? Probably, about, an hour. That's correct. Q All right. And you don't know why you No, we were discussing the incident that 10 happened and the subsequent incidences that led up to 11 meeting? 11 the faith in the Detectives at the Sussex station, that 12 A 12 there was a lack of it now between the Prosecutor's 13 the Prosecutor. 13 Office and them. Q 14 15 16 It would have been -- it would have been me and A Q 17 18 21 But up until this point, you really -- you saw the video and you thought it really was just a type What was the purpose of the meeting? 16 of training issue? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, asked and 17 A 18 The subsequent -- and there is other internal -- the 19 subsequent Jahaz (phonetic) accessing CJIS criminal 20 record system -- there was things that happened that 21 were very clear, including Detective Crane, as I said, ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Sustained. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q Q 14 15 answered. 19 20 You think you initiated that? Either me or the Prosecutor, I don't recall. According to Mr. McCormack, and I quote, The initial going to the municipal judge, yes. 22 "the purpose of the meeting was to alert the Prosecutor 22 taping of a pretrial meeting which can become 23 and I about a complaint Detective Darran Crane lodged 23 discoverable, things that were an indication that this 24 against the Prosecutor for corruption", that's what he 24 was not going to get better even with my involvement. 25 said it was. 25 They knew, Detective Crane and those other Detectives 146 148 1 knew, how involved, even as a Lieutenant Colonel, why 1 it, what I mean, it really was those three primary 2 would I get involved, I got involved because the 2 things and how this domino effect from what my 3 Division's reputation was at stake, that's why I was 3 estimation, was, these Detectives digging their heels 4 involved. 4 in because of their initial frustration and then, you Q 5 know, trying to further deteriorate the relationship 6 they all got transferred? 6 with the Prosecutor's Office. 7 A 7 5 9 They got reassigned. Q 8 I'm sure the Troopers were frustrated, Right. So let me ask you this, why was Szenzenstein at the meeting? 10 A 11 operations. He's my number two, number two in command of Q 12 Do you recall what was discussed at the Q You reference that you discussed the 8 complaint to the Corruption Unit, right? 9 A I think we did, I think we probably did, yeah. Q 10 Do you know how you knew about the 11 complaint to the Corruption Unit? 12 A I don't recall, no. Q 13 meeting? 13 14 A I thought it was -- again, starting with the 14 sent to the Corruption Unit? 15 initial not following protocol and the subsequent 15 A 16 decisions, all of it was probably discussed, quite 16 17 frankly. 17 to the Corruption Unit was about? 18 A Q 18 You say "all of it", now, at this point Did you ever read any complaints that were No. Q Do you have any idea what the complaints I do. Q 19 you have a luncheon with yourself, Szenzenstein, 19 20 Prosecutor Koch, and Mr. McCormack, at this point in 20 A 21 time had you looked at any other documents or the 21 me? I don't know. I don't remember reading it, that 22 charges or anything to do with this case? 22 the alleged subject's father was a high-powered 23 A 23 attorney that had some connections politically, and 24 investigation, that, if I'm not mistaken, Detective 24 that was the whole basis and reason why the 25 Sergeant Lewis authored, and, maybe, a few other 25 Prosecutor's Office didn't approve those charges. I recall looking at one 11-page supplemental How did you know that? That I don't remember. I remember -- who told 147 149 1 reports, but from my perspective, an incredible amount 1 Serious allegation, to this day, and shortly 2 of energy went into describing the things around the 2 thereafter, you know, is that true, is the subject's 3 initial complaint, the alleged sexual assault, so an 3 father an attorney? I've asked it, I don't -- to this 4 11-page supplemental investigation report that had my 4 day I don't know if he is or if he wasn't. 5 name in it, that had command staff in it, it was very 5 6 atypical for a supplemental investigation report about 6 during an interview he would -- if his dad's a 7 an alleged sexual assault to go into that detail which, 7 high-powered attorney, from my perspective, you should 8 again, had nothing to do with the crime -- with the 8 have a high-powered attorney sitting next to you, but I 9 alleged crime, so that I remember reading, but no other 9 never got the answer to that question. So I thought If that was the case, I would have thought 10 specific -- that was just because of its length and the 10 the allegation may not have been rooted in truth, and, 11 amount of energy that went into trying to justify what 11 again, here we sit some time later, and I still don't 12 they did, why they did it, again, just very atypical 12 know the answer to that. 13 and not normal, and I forget the exact date or timing 13 14 of that report, but I recall reading that. 14 that the complaint had to do with someone making an 15 assertion that there was -- I think you used the term 16 high-powered person -- 17 A Q 15 16 A I think that was the one, correct. Q 17 You recall Sergeant Lewis' report? You indicated that you, then, at this Q But you believed at this luncheon meeting Attorney. Q 18 luncheon meeting you discussed all of it, so what was 18 19 the "all of it" that you discussed? 19 investigation? -- that was interfering in the 20 A Not following protocol, the victim coming to the 20 A 21 station complaining about the Prosecutor's Office, the 21 this subject's father was a high-powered attorney with 22 Detectives going to Official Corruption. I don't think 22 connections, and that is what led to the not approving 23 at that juncture that the pretrial meeting had happened 23 of the charges. 24 so that probably wasn't discussed. That was the 24 25 recording of the pretrial meeting. So, I guess, all of 25 Not interfering, I think the allegation was that Q Okay. As you said, that would be a very serious charge? 150 1 A Yes, it would. Q 2 Now, why did you feel comfortable 152 1 allegation against the Prosecutor's Office? 2 A I don't know. Q 3 discussing that very serious charge at a luncheon with 3 4 the Prosecutor and Mr. McCormack who would have been 4 the complaint was referred to the Attorney General's 5 the targets of such an investigation? 5 office? 6 A The discussion was, it's not the State Police's 6 A 7 role to investigate prosecutors, so it got referred to 7 8 the Attorney General's official. So it was an apology, 8 9 quite frankly, on my part, one, that the call was made; (Witness nodding.) Q A How do you know that? I think it was. Q 9 But you also testified that you believe How do you know that? 10 two, the Detectives didn't follow protocol, and giving 10 A 11 the nature of this, it would certainly be a conflict if 11 however I found out that it got to our Official 12 now this friction that had been created that now the 12 Corruption, I forget who the -- it might have been 13 State Police, who has zero oversight over any 13 Attorney General Porrino, at the time, explained to him 14 Prosecutor's Office, would be investigating such a 14 the circumstances, and he agreed that wouldn't be 15 matter. So that was it, that was what was discussed, 15 something the State Police would look into, so whoever 16 that we are not investigating it, it's been referred to 16 picked up the phone and physically called or e-mailed 17 the Attorney General's office. 17 the Official Corruption Unit in the Division of Q 18 Criminal Justice, that I do not know, but we removed 19 one, is, you don't think the Corruption Unit can 19 ourselves from that investigation, that much I know. 20 investigate allegations against a Prosecutor's Office? 20 21 A 21 clarification, for the record, the pronoun "him" was 22 -- all prosecutors fall under the Attorney General and 22 used, that former Attorney General Porrino told him, 23 Division of Criminal Justice. If there is a conflict 23 who is "him"? I'm sorry, I just want to make sure. 24 deemed there, then we may be asked to, but in the case 24 25 that, from my perspective, was frustrated Detectives 25 18 Okay. Now, two things that you just said, I'm not for sure, but I think when that -- Not -- no, I don't think so, I think that falls MS. DiCOSMO: If can we just get THE WITNESS: Chris Porrino would have been -- I remember having discussion with him 151 153 1 didn't get the call and the same Detectives now some 1 about -- with Chris Porrino, who's the Attorney 2 time later, whether it was a week or two, I don't 2 General, that this would -- official corruption 3 remember the time, those same Detectives are now making 3 allegation would not be one investigated by the State 4 that allegation in frustration to our Official 4 Police, and he agreed to that, that was not 5 Corruption. 5 appropriate. 6 If they had picked up the phone and called the 6 7 Division of Criminal Justice, and those facts got bared 7 8 out, that would have been the proper protocol, not 8 9 using our own people. And I don't think, to this date, 9 10 maybe I'm wrong, I don't think the State Police 10 11 investigates county Prosecutor's offices. 11 MS. DiCOSMO: Thank you. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q So you had a discussion about this matter with Chris Porrino? A Yes. Q Can you tell me when that occurred? 12 A 13 what you are saying, is, that the problem you took from 13 probably -- I was with the Attorney General every day 14 that was when you have State Police making the 14 physically, or on the phone, so it would be hard for me 15 corruption allegations about prosecutors, it shouldn't 15 to say when, but he was made aware of it because it was 16 go to the State Police Corruption Unit, because of the 16 a serious allegation. 17 allegations made by the State Police and the State 17 18 Police are investigating there's a problem there, it 18 communication with him? 19 should go to the Attorney General's office? 19 A General all the time. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So if I understand 12 20 THE WITNESS: That's my point, yes, sir. 20 21 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. 21 22 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 22 It's was in close proximity to all of this, Q I don't recall, again, I was with the Attorney Q A All right. And did you initiate the Did you initiate the topic with him? Yes. Q But you don't know, sitting here today, 23 24 whether or not that's, in fact, the case, whether or 24 A 25 not the Corruption Unit could take jurisdiction over an 25 that it wasn't appropriate for us to investigate it. 23 And what did you tell him? That that allegation was made to our office and 154 Q 1 turn -- I think Lieutenant Colonel at the time was Ray 2 wasn't appropriate? 2 Guidetti, G-u-i-d-e-t-t-i, it was probably a 3 A 3 conversation with him that he was advised to refer that 4 allegation to the Division of Criminal Justice. 1 5 A A 9 Q 5 So what did you do based upon that? That's it. Q 8 Okay. Did he say what would happen? I don't recall. Q 6 7 I made that recommendation which he agreed with. Q 4 You made that determination, that it 156 All right. So you had a discussion with AG Porrino, and you told him that there was an Who advised him? 6 A 7 have been me or Colonel Fuentes, himself, at the time. Q 8 9 Might have been me, I don't recall, it might Did you have any communications with Colonel Fuentes about this issue? 10 allegation made against the Sussex County Prosecutor's 10 A 11 Office? 11 again, he's the Colonel and should be made aware of an 12 A 12 allegation of this nature. That's correct. Q 13 14 allegation? 15 A Did you tell him the substance of the I did. Q Probably, I don't recall any specifics, but, Q 13 14 him? 15 A I think I probably did. Q You told him it was because this victim 16 17 was alleging favorable treatment to the defendant? 17 complaint? 18 A 18 A 16 20 That's correct. Q 19 A That's right. Q 21 And because of a high-powered individual? 20 And what did the Prosecutor say in A What did he say? I don't recall. Q 21 Did you tell him about this corruption Probably, yes. Q 19 So you believe you had a discussion with Now, your communications with Ray 22 response to that? 22 Guidetti, is he a Major? 23 A 23 A Q 24 25 The Attorney General, you mean? A Yes, I'm sorry. Again, they took on that investigation, that was He's a retired Lieutenant Colonel. 24 Q 25 Colonel then? He's retired now, but he was a Lieutenant 155 157 1 what he said would happen. And, to this day, I don't 1 A 2 know what the outcome was, but they took on that 2 Official Corruption. 3 allegation of influencing charges not being levied 3 Q 4 against that subject because who his father was. 4 memo? 5 A Q 5 6 A 7 Q 8 figure? 9 A Was he in fact a high-powered political 7 A So you had a conversation with the 9 A No letters, right, no letters? No letters, no. Q 10 No e-mails? No e-mail. Q 8 Okay. Did you do this by phone? With a It was probably on the phone. Q 6 I don't know. Q 10 Do you know who his father was? No. Over the investigations branch who oversees Wouldn't you think this would be important 11 Attorney General and you made him known about the 11 to document the fact that the Attorney General was 12 allegations of possible corruption in the Prosecutor's 12 advising to refer this investigation to their office? 13 Office, and his reply to you was, we are already 13 A 14 investigating it or we will investigate it? 14 significant, but didn't need to be memorialized in a 15 A 15 memo or letter. It was me asking Lieutenant Guidetti 16 knowledge of it at that point in time. 16 to tell the Official Corruption folks to turn the case 17 over to the Division of Criminal Justice, and that's what happened. I think it is, we will. I don't know if he had It was probably a two-minute phone call. It was 17 Q 18 call you or -- 18 19 A 19 20 matter being referred out of the State Police to the 20 allegations of possible corruption would have the 21 Division of Criminal Justice, so I never asked another 21 significant impact on the appropriateness of how the 22 question about it. 22 Prosecutor's Office acted in this case, including 23 Mr. McCormack, weren't you curious about the matter at No, that was the last I -- again, it was a Q 23 And did you tell him, I'll have my guys How would the Corruption Unit know it was Q 24 being referred to the AG's office? 24 all? 25 A 25 A Either somebody from corruption would have to You know, of course, the serious Wasn't my place to do an official corruption 158 160 1 investigation. If I don't think it's appropriate for 1 2 State Troopers to be asking questions about it, I 2 3 certainly wasn't going to start to. 3 Q 4 As you testified, a major factor that contributed to the frustrated relationship between 5 6 these two units is this corruption complaint? 6 7 A 7 9 That's correct. Q Q A And you just had this conversation with the Attorney General and had them refer it to the A A 9 Texts? Anything like that? No. Q How about to Elliot Hoenig, any -- I had no conversation with him about this. Q 8 No memorialized documents? E-mails? No. Q 4 5 8 BY MS. DiCOSMO: And no -- I believe you testified that there was no memorialized documentation between you and 10 Attorney General's office? 10 Ray Guidetti? 11 A 11 A That's correct. Q 12 Did they ever contact you, the Attorney No, none. Q 12 Now, according to Mr. McCormack, the 13 General's office, and follow up? 13 purpose of the luncheon meeting was to alert you, and 14 A 14 that's his word, alert the Prosecutor and McCormack Never. Q 15 about a complaint Detective Crane lodged against the 16 office did anything about the complaint? 16 Prosecutor for corruption. You say that you don't 17 A 17 recall that being the purpose of the meeting? 15 Do you know if the Attorney General's I don't know what they did. 18 A 19 they even investigated it, even a little bit? Q 19 that was the first time that they were hearing of it. 20 A 20 As I said, I know we discussed it, but I don't think it 21 know what they did once it was referred to them. 21 was to advise them for the first time that our 18 Do you have any reason to believe that I would hope they investigated it, but I do not Q 22 Detectives had called Official Corruption, that's not 23 completely sunk the investigation, you don't know? 23 my recollection that that was the first time they were 24 A 24 hearing it. 22 That I don't know. Q 25 So they may have investigated it or just I don't recall it being -- I don't recall that Okay. Who would know? Q 25 Okay. But you don't know how they would 159 1 A 2 Criminal Justice would know. The Official Corruption staff at the Division of Q 3 4 referred to? 5 A I don't. Q 6 Do you know who it would have been But the Corruption Unit would know where 161 1 have learned about it? 2 A I don't remember. Q 3 Now, according to Mr. McCormack, he 4 certified that the Colonel indicated there was no 5 evidence supporting Crane's complaint, it was lodged in 6 bad faith and he was apologetic to the Prosecutor. Do 7 they referred it to? 7 you recall telling anyone at that luncheon that there 8 A 8 was no evidence supporting Crane's complaint? 9 no longer the Director of Criminal Justice, I would 9 A 10 The director at the time was Elliot Hoenig, he's imagine he would know. Q 11 There probably would have been transmittal apologetic, but I also remember telling them that 11 that's why the State Police would not be investigating the matter. 12 letters, though? 12 13 A 13 14 15 I would imagine so. Q MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, asked and 16 17 Did you have any other communications with the Attorney General about this incident? answered. I don't remember that. I remember being 10 Q Why would the State Police not be 14 investigating the matter? 15 A 16 we are making the allegation. The people making the 17 allegation, to have the same division doing the Just because of the friction that was there, and 18 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: What was the question? 18 investigation, from my estimation and, ultimately, 19 (At which time, the reporter reads back a 19 everybody who was asked, including the Attorney 20 General, thought that it was appropriate that it be 21 removed from us and turned over to Criminal Justice, that's why. 20 pertinent portion of the record as follows: "QUESTION: Did you have any other 21 22 communications with the Attorney General about this 22 23 incident?") 23 Q You mentioned several times that you think 24 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: It's okay. 24 that this was a complaint that was initiated by State 25 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. 25 Troopers? 162 1 A That's correct. Q 2 164 1 What makes you believe that? A That's correct. Q 2 So why were you apologizing for something 3 A 3 that might be very serious? 4 Detective Crane or somebody at Sussex called somebody 4 A 5 in Official Corruption and made that allegation. 5 regards to this case, and if the Division of Criminal 6 Justice took on -- took on the case and found it to be I thought that is what I was told, either Q 6 It was the victim that was making that I thought that the Division had a black eye with 7 allegation, was it not? 7 so, I probably wouldn't have been so apologetic. I 8 A 8 felt at that juncture, based upon the information I 9 had, that our reputation was tainted, and it was mostly That I don't know. Q 9 10 correct? 11 A 10 I did. Q 12 You did read Sergeant Lewis' report, based upon the Detectives' actions involved in this. Q 11 Now, did Sergeant Lewis indicate that But why would you think that State 12 Troopers' reputation was tainted, when it was the 13 that's what the victim was stating? 13 Prosecutor's Office that was allegedly engaging in 14 A 14 misconduct? I don't remember. 15 A 16 making this allegation, it was the victim, was it not? Q 16 front of me at the time, I thought that the actions of 17 A I remember being told that it was a Trooper that 17 the Detectives were ones that, at that juncture, were 18 picked up the phone and called our Official Corruption, 18 not defendable, and I sit here today, saying that I 19 but that's what I recall. I haven't read Sergeant 19 think their actions were not defendable. 20 Lewis' report in, probably, over a year, not even 20 21 preparing for this did I read that, but I don't recall 21 all the reports and watch all the videos and look at 22 it was the victim that made that allegation. 22 all the corroborating evidence? 23 A 15 Q 23 So it really wasn't the State Troopers Okay. Wouldn't that be important if it 24 was the victim making the allegation not the Troopers? 24 25 A 25 Regardless who made the allegation, I think it It was my -- based upon my -- what I had in Q I did not, no. Q A As you sit here today, did you ever read So how could you make that determination? I made it based upon what I had, based upon that 163 1 still would have been referred to Criminal Justice. Q 2 So what are you apologizing for? 165 1 video and based upon what I did read and Sergeant 2 Lewis' report and based upon their own actions, again, 3 A 3 videotaping a victim, never saw that in my career. 4 breached or not followed, and, two, the fact that those 4 Bringing a tape recorder into a pretrial meeting, never 5 same attorneys -- excuse me, the same Detectives that I 5 saw that in my career. It was just one judgment call 6 thought were frustrated and upset about that, now took 6 after another that led to that relationship being 7 it upon themselves to then, again, from my -- what I 7 tarnished, and one that I thought they'd have a hard 8 remember, was that they were making the allegation. So 8 time overcoming, if another bank robbery happened or a 9 the fact that here they were frustrated and now in 9 homicide of a child, you fill in the blank with an For one, the protocol that I thought was 10 order to quote/unquote get back at this Prosecutor's 10 egregious crime, I thought we would have some serious 11 Office that they made this allegation. 11 issues with working with the Prosecutor's Office. 12 Again, the facts of allegation I still, to this Q 12 You indicated that Sergeant Lewis in 13 day, don't know, but what it appeared to me was 13 issuing his report did so with a lot of energy, and 14 happening was this complete breakdown in relationship, 14 that it was an atypical manner, right? Do you remember 15 and, maybe, a little bit on both sides, but not having 15 that testimony? 16 the ability to transfer or move people within the 16 A 17 Sussex County Prosecutor's Office, the Detectives were, 17 18 ultimately, reassigned, again, as evidenced in the 18 Sergeant Lewis, you know, had put so much energy into 19 months to follow with additional cases that needed to 19 that report, why was it atypical? 20 be prepped for and tried, it was not -- it was not 20 A 21 going to be an effective relationship and, certainly, 21 that's going to look out for their men and women that 22 not in having successful prosecutions. 22 they supervise. I thought it was, what I would deem, 23 an over-the-top response in order to justify what 23 Q Of course, it was possible that the Yes, I do. Q Why did you -- what did you conclude why I thought from a supervisor, I like a supervisor 24 allegations of corruption in the Prosecutor's Office 24 initially happened. If they had just said, you're 25 could have been true? 25 right, we were wrong, and moved on -- it's not too 166 168 1 often you see an 11-page supplemental investigation on 1 have learned that every Trooper in that station house, 2 a crime that was not charged for. To this day, I still 2 including the superior officers, thought there was 3 think that that supplemental investigation says cleared 3 probable cause for an arrest and had -- they had felt 4 by arrest, which it wasn't, the charge was dismissed 4 that the arrest was appropriate? 5 so, again, a seasoned Detective, a seasoned Detective 5 6 Sergeant, putting a lot of time into a report to talk 6 7 about everything except, really, the matter at hand, 7 8 which was an alleged sexual assault, from, again, from 8 9 my perspective. Q 10 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, that's argumentative. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Sustained. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 9 You're aware this putative defendant was Are you aware that -- so circling back to 10 this luncheon, according to Mr. McCormack, it says you 11 arrested, right? 11 indicated that there was no evidence supporting Crane's 12 A 12 complaint, are you denying that you ever said that? 13 A 14 wouldn't have enough information to say that there was 15 no evidence. If there's evidence supporting that 16 claim, one, to this date I haven't seen it, and, two, Yes. Q 13 14 correct? 15 A Yes. Q 16 And you're aware that he was put in jail, And are you also aware that, despite the I don't recall. I don't recall saying that. I 17 defendant sitting in jail, that the Prosecutor's Office 17 it wasn't our place to investigate it. I don't recall 18 directed his release? 18 saying that either to the Prosecutor or to Chief 19 A 19 McCormack. Q 20 21 Yes. A Q 22 You're aware of that? Q 20 Yes. Does that seem odd to you? Okay. And he also says that you stated 21 that it was lodged in bad faith, do you recall that? 22 A I don't recall saying that, no. 23 A 24 to, in my brain, explain the reasons and motivations 24 this to the witness, I think it is unfair to ask 25 behind the Troopers; and if the fact that somebody was 25 questions of specifics that are in the McCormack Gives me concern more so on -- from what I tried ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I just want to show 23 167 169 1 in the station for hours and subsequently sitting in 1 affidavit -- or certification, and I'm going to show 2 jail, that they needed to take the stance of we had 2 you what counsel has been reading from. You can read 3 what we needed, we did have probable cause, again, this 3 it, and you can tell us whether these are things you 4 was just me surmising and trying to speculate as to why 4 said. These are clearly things that Mr. McCormack is 5 they would do what they did and, maybe, it was because 5 saying, you can tell us whether you said these things 6 that person may have been handcuffed to a bar for a 6 or not. 7 real long time and when they were told no, they 7 THE WITNESS: Which number are we at? 8 swallowed hard and said, oof, this is tough, we had 8 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Right now he's at 9 this guys here for a while. Again, this is just me in 9 number ten of that certification, and that 10 my trying to say what motivated Detective DeLorenzo to 10 certification, just for the record, was provided by the 11 do that. 11 attorney representing Mr. McCormack who filed a motion 12 Again, had they released him and let him go 12 to quash a subpoena, which I denied, but he, in filing 13 which, ultimately, did happen, again as we sit here 13 his papers, that was one of the papers he filed and 14 today, I still thought a little bit more work could 14 that's why I have it, and that was provided to 15 have been done to possibly get to a probable cause, 15 Mr. Bukosky this morning. 16 other witnesses, videotape of parking lot, could have 16 17 circled back with Sussex County Monday morning and 17 don't recall saying that there was no evidence, because 18 said, hey, see what we have here. The rush to charge 18 I would have no knowledge of whether there was evidence 19 was, in my estimation, was not a good judgment call on 19 or not. Who was going to investigate and ask who is 20 Detective DeLorenzo's part, and then, again, it spun 20 this subject's father, is he connected politically, I 21 into this dig our heels in and try to make this right, 21 wasn't in any position at that luncheon, or even today, 22 and with every decision they dug a deeper hole for 22 to say that there is evidence or no evidence to support 23 themselves. 23 that. So I don't think I said it. And to his point Q 24 about being lodged in bad faith, it's not a phrase that 25 I use, doesn't quotes around it. Again I don't think I 24 25 Of course, you didn't read all the reports, but had you read all the reports, you would THE WITNESS: Back to the question, I 170 172 1 said that either. I'm not sure the allegation being 1 released. I get the victim's upset, and rightfully so, 2 made if it was by one of our Detectives, it had an air 2 if she believed there was a crime committed. So that's 3 of retaliation about it, and not one rooted -- that I 3 what the retaliatory nature of it is, this frustration 4 don't know if it was rooted in facts. 4 that's building against Detectives and prosecutors and 5 assistant prosecutors, and they made the phone call. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Now when you say that, 5 6 you're referring to what? To the. THE WITNESS: The allegation of official 7 8 corruption. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: To the State Police 9 10 Q 6 Corruption Unit. Now, it if it was the victim who made 7 these allegations? 8 A Right. Q 9 And the Troopers were just referring this 10 on, how is that retaliatory? 11 THE WITNESS: Correct. 11 A 12 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: And then the last part 12 Again, I didn't go on a fact finding mission. If one It could be one of the Detectives involved. 13 of that sentence, at the end of ten, you've already 13 of the Detectives said, hey, to the victim, why don't 14 testified that that's correct, that you -- 14 you call our Official Corruption, still gets us to the 15 point where the State Police, given the nature of how 16 I remember. Again, I grew up in the State Police. My THE WITNESS: I was apologetic, that much 16 this charge got unapproved, quite frankly, or 17 dad is a retired Trooper, and I thought that this was 17 dismissed, that the State Police should not be involved 18 just an instance that had it just stopped with the 18 in the investigation of it. 19 non-approval of the charge, was one thing, but, again, 19 20 I've testified about what subsequently happened, and 20 Mr. McCormack and Prosecutor Koch about this corruption 21 the pride associated with this uniform and actions of 21 complaint? 22 our Detectives, which are phenomenal across the board, 22 A 23 in this case I didn't think it was phenomenal, I 23 24 thought it was an embarrassing situation, so I was 24 25 apologetic. 25 15 Q At the luncheon we talked about it, correct. Q A All right. Now, obviously, you spoke to But you didn't have any specifics? None. Q All right. Just that a complaint was 171 1 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 2 You testified that you -- partial reason 173 1 lodged? 2 A Correct. Q 3 why you were apologizing is that you thought it had an 3 4 air of retaliation to it, what did you mean by that? 4 5 A An air of -- so the Detective disagrees with an 5 6 Assistant Prosecutor, charge is ultimately dismissed. 6 with Major Devlin? 7 And then the retaliation is, well, we will just lodge 7 A 8 this complaint that there is official corruption going 8 Q 9 on in the Prosecutor's Office. That, to me, is 9 Szenzenstein? A Q A retaliatory in order to upset, again, a working 10 11 relationship in order to throw, you know, throw the 11 12 Prosecutor and his staff under the bus. 12 with him? 13 A Q Do you know what Trooper alledgedly made Did you discuss the corruption complaint I don't recall having that, no. 10 13 And you apologized for the complaint? I did. Did you discuss it with Colonel Major Szenzensein, yes, probably. Q And in what capacity did you discuss it Just on -- and, again, it was an indication of 14 the allegation? 14 the breakdown in communication and relationships with 15 A 15 the Prosecutor's Office. I don't. Q 16 So what makes you think it was Q 16 A What did Szenzenstein say? 17 retaliatory? 17 18 A 18 19 of the Detectives or Troopers at the Sussex station, so 19 A 20 Detectives and Troopers are now probably aware that 20 agreed that -- 21 there is some substantial friction going on, so the 21 Q 22 fact that this complaint now comes into our Official 22 A 23 Corruption, just leads me to believe that that's the 23 I'm not going to put words in Szenzenstein's mouth, but 24 retaliatory nature of it. We got frustrated, we got 24 I don't know what he thought. 25 annoyed, we didn't get the charge, the person was 25 I think it was one of the -- I think it was one I think he agreed. Q He thought -- I don't remember what he said, but I think he He thought it was retaliatory -- I don't know if he thought it was retaliatory, Q Okay. Now, did you discuss this 174 176 1 corruption complaint with anyone else? 1 and then we'll get into it. He can take a look at it. 2 A 2 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Let's go off the Q 3 4 A A 3 Anyone underneath the AG? 5 Okay. This luncheon meeting, according to Mr. McCormack, happened on March 1, 2017, is that your 9 recollection? A 11 around that time. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q Ultimately, would that be something that Colonel, you have in front of you what's 7 been marked as exhibit U-2, I believe? 8 A Yes. Q 9 I don't know the exact date, but it was probably Q 12 (At which time, a recess was taken.) 6 8 10 record. 4 I don't recall, no. Q 7 But you discussed it with the AG? That's correct. Q 5 6 I don't remember, no. And could you identify that document for 10 the record? 11 A 12 time, was the Sergeant Major in the field operations, It's an e-mail from Laura Medori who, at the 13 might be in a -- do you keep a calendar? 13 sending it to Margaret Masterson and Marilyn Sanchez in 14 A 14 our human resources section advising human resources to I do, might be on my calendar. Q 15 make the effective changes of these CIO personnel 16 any Troopers based upon this luncheon meeting that you 16 effective March 11, 2017. 17 had? 17 18 A 19 all the factors that weighed into it, leading up to it. 19 Q 20 The decision was made that all of the Detectives at the 20 that e-mail? 21 Sussex station would be reassigned. 21 A 22 went from me to Major Szenzensein, and he told Sergeant 23 Medori, that's probably how it happened. 15 Not as a result of the luncheon. As a result of Q 22 23 made? 24 A Okay. Do you know when that decision was I don't recall, no. Q 25 Did you make a determination to transfer 18 Q A 25 Is March 7th. Now, did you tell Sergeant Medori to issue Probably through the chain of command, probably Q 24 Was it before this luncheon or after the And the date of that e-mail? That e-mail dated March 7th, is that consistent with your recollection as to the timing of 175 177 1 luncheon meeting? 1 when you made the decision to transfer in this case? 2 A 2 A 3 order came out, I would know. I forget when they were 3 4 reassigned. 4 March 7th, that you made the decision? I'll show you this document. 5 A ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Let's mark it. Let me 6 Q 5 6 7 just have it for a second. Mark this as U-2. (At which time, U-2 was marked for 8 9 identification.) ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: This is a -- looks 10 11 I don't know if -- if I knew when the personnel like an e-mail dated 3/7/2017. Yes, it is. Q Do you think it was that same exact day, Probably the week of. Q Okay. Would you say that -- how would 7 you have -- you or Szenzenstein communicated to 8 Sergeant Medori to issue that e-mail? 9 A Probably, verbally. Q 10 So you probably told her, maybe, March 7th 11 or 6tj, not, like, a week earlier? 12 MS. DiCOSMO: Mr. Arbitrator, that's one 12 A 13 of our exhibits, could it be marked as a joint exhibit? 13 March 1st meeting with the Prosecutor of Sussex and Chief McCormack, within the week after that. The week of it was -- it is on the heels of the 14 MR. BUKOSKY: Too late it's U-2. 14 15 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I already marked it. 15 16 MS. DiCOSMO: That's fine. 16 meeting of March 1, 2017 at the luncheon? 17 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I mean, we can undo 17 A 18 that, it doesn't matter, but -MR. BUKOSKY: You can put the same exhibit 19 20 21 in -- 18 19 20 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Yes, it can come up 21 Q Okay. So it's definitely after your Yes, sir. Q Now, it was you who made the determination to effectuate the transfers? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, predisposes this was a transfer. 22 under another number, but right now it's marked for 22 23 identification. 23 is -- the state uses the word "assignment" or ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, I know there 24 So your question to the witness. 24 "re-assignment", and the STFA is using word "transfer", 25 MR. BUKOSKY: Maybe we can take a break 25 I understand the parties' different positions on that. 178 180 1 I don't think this is a got you. I don't think this is 1 Office were not good, and we need to be in locks step 2 a situation like that. So the parties can use the 2 with one another. That being said, that's why the 3 words they want, I understand the difference of opinion 3 Troopers were reassigned. 4 about that, but other than that, what's the answer to 4 5 the question? 5 relied upon in making the determination of the 6 transfer? A THE WITNESS: Ultimately, it is my 6 7 decision, that was made in concert with Major 7 8 Szenzenstein, though. 8 9 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 10 9 And there are a number of Troopers who on Q That's right. Q A And that was a consideration that you Is that the sole consideration? If a Prosecutor's Office doesn't find Detectives 10 trustworthy, or credible, which is, obviously, two key 11 that list? 11 ingredients, and our inability to affect any type of 12 A 12 movement within the Prosecutor's Office, that's why 13 these -- and, again, it's semantical with a transfer. 14 We don't do it on a personnel order, we do view CIO 15 members in one unit, so they were reassigned in order 16 for us to have a working relationship with the 17 Prosecutor's Office. Q 13 14 A 16 unit? 17 A A Some of the officers are not in the Sussex On this e-mail? Q 18 Among them is Detective Crane? That's correct. Q 15 19 Yes, maybe, upwards of a dozen. Yes. Q Q 18 They are not. to be tedious about this, but the sole consideration 20 that you relied upon in making your determination to 21 going to the Sussex unit? 21 transfer was based upon the relationship between the 22 A 22 Troopers and the Prosecutor's Office? 23 A 20 That's correct. Q 23 They are coming from some other place I'm going to ask you again, I'm not trying 19 Can you tell us why that is? I think it boils down, and I know it's buzz 24 A In order to effect the reassignment of these 24 words, but it's operational need, it became clear that 25 Detectives, you have to bring one from, maybe, Netcong, 25 these Detectives were unable to work professionally and 179 181 1 one from Totowa, whatever that looks like. If there's 1 in a manner that was going to be effective with the 2 five Detectives at Sussex, we need to pull five 2 Prosecutor's Office. So when use the word "sole 3 Detectives from somewhere else in CIO in Troop B. 3 consideration", I think it is those two factors, trust 4 and credibility which had diminished considerably given 5 the actions that took place over the course of about 6 six weeks, and even subsequently after these Q 4 5 A Correct. Q 6 So it's a balanced exchange? About how many Troopers from Sussex unit 7 were transferred? 7 assignments were done, there was still actions that 8 A 8 were being taken that were -- led me to believe that the reassignment was the appropriate decision. Four, according to this e-mail. Q Four from Sussex are transferred out? 9 10 A Including, excuse me, I think, also the zone 10 11 supervisor which may have been Sergeant McCurry, so I 11 Troopers were not trustworthy? 12 think five out and five new ones in. 12 A 13 Office position over the course of six weeks. I had 9 Q 13 Okay. Now, when you made this Q What evidence did you have that any of our It was their position versus the Prosecutor's 14 determination was it a joint decision or did you come 14 very seasoned Detectives that 9 days out of 10 do a 15 to the conclusion that Szenzenstein confirmed? 15 phenomenal job, and I think in this instance in the 16 A 16 sexual assault investigation, and the decisions 17 person, but, ultimately, at the end of the day it 17 afterwards, were an indication that the working 18 ultimately falls on me and it is my decision. 18 relationship was gone, it was diminished, and we need 19 to have one with the other 20 prosecutors, too. It was probably joint, I'm a consensus driven Q 19 When you made this decision to effectuate 20 the transfers, what considerations did you have in mind 20 21 to make your determination? 21 was a consideration that we made, too. We discussed 22 A 22 having them completely out of CIO, that's how we 23 leading up to this that, again, a -- I know I'm 23 thought their credibility -- Morris County, Passaic 24 rehashing it, but the relationship between our 24 County, regardless of the county, they started talking 25 Detectives at Sussex station and the Prosecutor's 25 about what the actions of these Detectives, we worried It was evident to me in six weeks, or so, And prosecutors talk to each other, too, that 182 184 1 about it, but we didn't all, we did was reassign them 1 this, that there was just, what was clear to me, was 2 and not remove them from CIO, which, to this day, I 2 going to be a constant conflict with the Prosecutor's 3 think was a good decision to reassign them, and I'm 3 Office. 4 glad they are still in CIO. 4 Q 5 Crane, no, but he was part of a group of folks and, 6 because I don't think I got an answer. What evidence 6 again, although, it was after the reassignment, the 7 do you think that any of our Troopers were not 7 fact that he was recording that discussion, albeit 8 trustworthy? 8 afterwards, I understand that, his indication that he 9 A 5 Their actions over the course of six weeks. Q 10 Again, I'll ask the question again, So, specifically, with regard to Detective What actions? What specific actions? 9 didn't care what happened in the bank robbery case, 10 again, made it clear to me that the reassignment was 11 A Telling a judge that you had a videotaped 11 appropriate because you need to be able to work 12 confession, that diminishes trust. Not following 12 together, and they couldn't. 13 proper protocols with bail reform and having a charge 13 14 not approved and going to a judge, that diminishes 14 have that Crane was not trustworthy was that he was a 15 trust. Videotaping the complaint against the Sussex 15 part of a gang of folks? 16 County Prosecutor's Office, that diminished trust. 16 A 17 Referring the alleged victim, or themselves, calling 17 group of Detectives that were not getting along with 18 our Official Corruption Bureau and making an 18 the Prosecutor's Office. 19 allegation, that diminished trust. Those four things 19 Q 20 over the course of six weeks, it was clear that the 20 transferred? 21 working relationship was now defunct and operational 21 A 22 need would require that they be reassigned, and that's 22 not getting along with the Prosecutor's Office. 23 what we did. 23 Q 24 you just felt that he was part of this group? 25 A 24 25 And these four items that you were speaking to, what Troopers had engaged in those Q So the only specific evidence that you I didn't use the word "gang". He was part of a He is part of a group, that's why he was He was part of a group of Detectives that were Q But he didn't do anything specifically, I can't speak to the specifics, again, it was -- 183 185 1 actions? 1 it was all five of them, including the supervisors, 2 A 2 that got moved in order to, you know, repair that 3 I also thought Sergeant Lewis, those three, but, 3 relationship, so, specifically, no. 4 anecdotally, I thought there was an air, and I have 4 5 no -- being a Trooper, I understand comradery, I think 5 was part of a group? 6 the culture in Sussex station was one that was not 6 A 7 going to foster that good relationship. So if I just 7 8 moved Detective Crane, or just reassigned Detective 8 A 9 DeLorenzo, you still had three, possibly four, I think Detective Crane and Detective DeLorenzo, Q What makes you think that Detective Crane He was one of the Detectives there. Q That's it? He was -- understanding the culture of the State 9 Police, and the air of what surrounds the station; and 10 Detectives there that were still on this quote/unquote 10 if they felt they were wronged, they want to stick up 11 battle with the Prosecutor's Office, and I thought in 11 for one another, as they should, but the level of 12 order to repair that relationship, and in order to 12 sticking up and defending one another, I think went 13 foster that air of trust and to build that back up 13 beyond -- it went above and beyond in this case, and 14 again, that all of those assigned to the Sussex station 14 that's why Detective Crane as well as the other four 15 needed to be reassigned. 15 were reassigned. Q Q So you said the actions of Crane, 16 17 DeLorenzo, and Sergeant Lewis, certain of their actions 17 been sticking up for DeLorenzo, in what manner? 18 were not trustworthy, can you tell me what specific 18 A 19 actions Detective Crane engaged in that were not 19 he -- again, I'm not going to put words in his mouth, I 20 trustworthy? 20 think Detective Crane and all the Detectives there 21 A Again, they were viewed as a group of 21 thought they had enough and felt they were wronged in 22 Detectives, I can't speak to specifics, I think once 22 not being able to charge that subject. 23 the charge was disproved, that Detective Crane and 23 24 Sergeant Lewis, you know, there is, obviously, there 24 any time that he wanted DeLorenzo fired? 25 was an internal investigation that came on the heals of 25 A 16 When you say Detective Crane might have Just in agreeing with the fact that he thought Q Did you ever hear Mr. McCormack state at I don't remember him ever saying that. 186 Q 1 rep, and we said -- or Colonel Fuentes said it in 2 Mr. McCormack said that? 2 response, you're reassigned to Totowa, but you can 3 A 3 still perform the functions of a station rep which, to 4 this day, he's still welcome to walk in and out of 5 Sussex on state time with a state car, and that was our 6 position. 1 5 No. Q 4 A Or did he express that sentiment to you? No. Q 6 Do you recall anyone telling you that 188 Did Mr. McCormack express any sentiment Q 7 that he thought DeLorenzo was very problematic 7 8 individually? 8 moment you made the transfer and determination, you did 9 A 9 not know that Detective Crane was a station I mean, over the course of six weeks, he was Now, I believe you testified that at the 10 problematic. 10 representative? 11 Q And Mr. McCormack -- 11 A ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, the question 12 12 13 is -- 14 15 16 But at some point you knew for certain 13 that he was -- THE WITNESS: Did he express that to me? 14 A ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: -- whether 15 Mr. McCormack presented that to you. 16 THE WITNESS: Only through their actions. 17 I don't remember. I don't remember. Q That's correct. Q A Q 17 -- prior to the actual transfer occurring? I think it was prior, I think it was prior. Now, did you give any consideration to 18 I don't think the words ever came out of his mouth that 18 that factor and talk to anyone about that? 19 DeLorenzo is problematic, but in outlining what he did, 19 A 20 it was clear to me that he was problematic from a 20 Burgos at the time, who was the STFA president at the 21 symbiotic relationship that needs to happen between a 21 time, and, again, if our response was, you need to be a 22 Prosecutor and Detective in the State Police. 22 Detective in Sussex County, you could still perform the 23 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 23 functions of a station rep, which is still true to this 24 day. Q 24 25 Now, you believe that Detective Crane was part of this group and was sticking up for DeLorenzo, I think the response might have been Chris Q 25 So at a certain point you did consider the 187 1 right? 2 A Yes, I believe that. Q 3 Do you believe he was sticking up for 189 1 fact that he was a union rep? 2 A I did, yes. Q 3 And you felt that the -- were you also 4 DeLorenzo as part of his activities as a union 4 aware that the contract had some restrictions on 5 representative? 5 transferring union representatives? 6 A 6 A 7 at the time, I would say no. I think he was sticking 7 here for, the debate, we don't do CIO personnel on a 8 up for him as a fellow Trooper and Detective. 8 transfer form, they are assigned to a unit. And, 9 again, that argument, maybe, will be something that is I didn't know that he was a union representative Q 9 Is it your position that at the time of Again, that's obviously a piece of what we are 10 the transfer, when you transferred Detective Crane, 10 hashed out in the next negotiation, but the fact that 11 that you didn't know he was a station representative? 11 they are assigned to a unit out of Troop B headquarters 12 A 12 and that secondary assignment, as referenced in this 13 but we may have -- again, timing of it, may have been 13 e-mail, is a physical location, again, we can argue all 14 made aware of it before this e-mail went out, or 14 day over it, moved, reassignment, transfer, but their 15 shortly thereafter. But even in our response to the 15 primary responsibility is to the Division and to 16 grievance, there was nothing that -- even in the 16 perform the functions of a CIO Detective and 17 grievance signed by the former Colonel Fuentes that 17 Investigator, and if they can't work with the 18 would preclude Detective Crane from still paring on 18 Prosecutor's Office, he couldn't work in Sussex 19 that function. He wasn't banned from the Sussex 19 station. 20 station. He still had access to the bulletin board. 20 21 He still could represent the Troopers there who I know 21 simpler than that, I'm just asking you, at the time, 22 he was close with. So I think the response to the 22 right before the transfers were effected, you were 23 grievance was -- the primary responsibility is to the 23 aware that Detective Crane had some type of interest in 24 Division of State Police and your role and 24 remaining as a shop -- I mean, a station representative 25 responsibility there; secondary is his role as a union 25 and could not be moved? I think at the time we made the decision, no, Q So I think my question is a little bit 190 192 1 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection. I'm not sure I 1 those functions of both station rep and Detective, but 2 understand the question, some kind of what interest. 2 the station -- but the Detective piece would be done out of a different station. 3 MR. BUKOSKY: Contractual interest. 3 4 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, are you clear 4 5 about the question? I'm not clear about the question. 5 you had a conversation with Trooper President Chris 6 Burgos? THE WITNESS: If you don't mind 6 Q Now, you stated that at a certain point 7 rephrasing. 7 A 8 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 8 if he was the president at the time. Q 9 10 Before this e-mail came out, right, and the e-mail came out on March 7th? I think so. If my timing is right. Can I ask ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Just testify to the 9 10 best of your recollection. 11 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: U-2. 11 12 MR. BUKOSKY: U-2. 12 recollection, I did. 13 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 13 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 14 You aware that Detective Crane was a THE WITNESS: To the best of my Q 14 And he also advised you that there was a 15 station representative? 15 restriction in transferring Detective Crane in the 16 A 16 contract? 17 A I think I was, yes. Q 17 And, also, before the e-mail, you're aware It's was either Chris Burgos or Wayne Blanchard, 18 that the contract had certain restrictions on 18 it was either one of the presidents, I forget the 19 transferring station representatives? 19 timing of it. 20 A 20 Yes, I was aware of that, too. Q 21 But you felt that the contract Q Okay. Ultimately, the Troopers filed a 21 grievance in this matter? A 22 restrictions were overridden, right? 22 23 A 23 24 He would be of little to no value as a Detective in the 24 was only filed by Detective Crane. Are you referring 25 Sussex station. No Assistant Prosecutor was going to 25 to the Unfair Labor Practice charge that was filed by I thought operational need, in this instance. That's correct. MS. DiCOSMO: Objection. The grievance 191 193 1 have discussions with him. The Prosecutor himself was 1 2 not going to have discussions with him, from my 2 MR. BUKOSKY: Exhibit J-3 filed by -- 3 perspective, that's why he was reassigned. You have to 3 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Filed by the STFA. 4 be able to perform those functions. And, to my point 4 MS. DiCOSMO: Okay. 5 earlier, I think we made an allowance in the response 5 6 by saying, you can still be the station rep, he's able 6 clear, I mean, you said filed by Detective Crane, but 7 to drive there on state time and perform the duties. 7 J-3 is signed by the STFA president, and I think that's 8 This was more about his primary assignment and his role 8 why counsel is referring to this as filed by the STFA. 9 as a Detective, not as a retaliatory move to retaliate 10 against the station representative. Q 11 You're aware that there was some kind of apologies, I thought he was saying by the Troopers in 11 Sussex, my apologies. contractual right? 12 A 13 Q You determined that that contractual right MS. DiCOSMO: I misunderstood, my 9 13 14 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, just to be 10 12 I am aware of that and was, too. the Troopers? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 14 Are you aware that Colonel Fuentes filed a 15 was not applicable because of why? 15 response to that grievance? 16 A 16 A 17 ability to work within that county; two, as our 17 18 prerogative as commanders and managers, I thought, also 18 19 played a part, and, also, because, again, his primary 19 20 40-hour week, for the most part, is being a Detective, 20 the response is J-4. 21 whether that's in Hope, Netcong, Totowa, he's assigned 21 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 22 to Troop B. Again, if he felt it was a hardship to 22 23 drive -- again, retaliatory, to me, would have been 23 ever saw that document before? 24 removing him from CIO and taken away his Troop car, 24 A 25 this was done in order to allow him to still perform 25 think I saw it when it came in. Primarily because of operational need and his Yes, I am. Q I'll show you the grievance, I think it is marked as an exhibit. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: The grievance is J-3, Q Take a look at J-4, and I'll ask if you I think I saw it before. It's been a while. I 194 Q 196 Did you have any discussions with Colonel 1 2 Fuentes in helping him to prepare his response to the 2 3 grievance? 3 because of this frustration with relationships with the 4 A 4 Prosecutor's Office? 1 I don't recall. Q sent to the various stations. Q So you think Major Devlin told them it was I would imagine that before Colonel 5 A 6 Fuentes responded to the grievance, he must have asked, 6 Detectives, yes, it was a verbally -- 7 well, why were these guys transferred, right? 7 5 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You don't have to 8 9 guess, it's only on your knowledge. THE WITNESS: Maybe not. He may not have 10 And the lack of faith and trust in those Q 8 Troopers? 9 A That I don't know. Q 10 Did he have a group meeting with all these Went up to the individuals and said, by 11 asked that. I don't recall. I don't recall 11 the way, we are going to transfer you because of the 12 discussions with Colonel Fuentes about that. And it 12 lack of -- 13 was the transfer of five people in Troop B, I'm not 13 A 14 saying that that's beneath the Colonel, but given the 14 15 air around the how it came about, we may have had a 15 16 conversation, I just don't recall. 16 17 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 17 Q A -- faith? I don't know. Q That seems implausible to me, that's why I'm questioning you. 18 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection. Argumentative. 19 did have some conversations with Colonel Fuentes about 19 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I'll allow a new 20 this incident occurring in Sussex? 20 question. 21 A 21 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 18 23 A So he was aware of it? Q 22 Yes. Q 24 25 I think I probably did. Q 22 I think you did testify earlier that you I don't know. Q Was he aware that the Attorney General was conducting an investigation? The question is, what makes you think that 23 Major Devlin went to each individual officer and 24 explained to them the reasons for the transfer? 25 A He wouldn't have. He would have told his 195 1 A I think he was aware of that, too. Q 2 Was he aware that your Corruption Unit had 197 1 regional commander who would talk to the station 2 commander and said, by the way, the five Detectives at Sussex are being reassigned. 3 initially received that complaint? 3 4 A 4 I think so, yes. Q Q So he didn't tell them, you're assuming he Do you recall him having any discussions 5 told someone, and then someone told someone else? 6 with you about his response to the grievance in light 6 A 7 of the corruption complaint? 7 can't speak to how the message got relayed to them. 8 A 8 5 Q 9 10 No. A Q 11 Nothing? No. Do you know who prepared that response? 9 A Relation, although, I'm not certain, and prepared for 13 14 the Colonel's signature. 14 You'll agree with me, if you read through personal knowledge, that any of these transferred 11 A Q Sitting here today, you have no knowledge, Troopers were ever told the reason for their transfer? 13 15 Q 10 12 It was probably done by the Office of Labor That's generally how that works. In this case I Q 12 15 That's correct. I don't know. Let me ask you about transfers in general, and I'm going to show you this document. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: This will be marked as U-3 for identification. 16 that document, that no where does that document say 16 17 that the reasons why the transfer was made was because 17 18 of this operational concern regarding the Prosecutor's 18 19 Office and the relationship of the Troopers with the 19 table of organization. 20 Prosecutor's Office? 20 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 21 A 21 Q 22 verbally -- I know you opened up with saying they were 22 organization? 23 never informed, they were all informed of that 23 A 24 verbally, to my knowledge, by Major Devlin and command 24 25 staff from Troop B, as to why -- as to why they were 25 I would agree -- I know that they were (At which time, U-3 was marked for identification.) ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: This is some sort of You're familiar with that table of Yes. Q This happens to be a table of organization that you used to be responsible for? 198 1 A That's correct. Q 2 200 1 I think you said you were the Colonel in A That's accurate. Q 2 And be an hour back? 3 charge of operations? 3 A 4 A 4 going to his house, no. That's correct. Q 5 So these would be all the branches under If he was going back to Totowa, but if he was Q 5 Well, he'd have to drive an hour to the 6 your concern? 6 Totowa station, and then take care of whatever union 7 A 7 business he had to, and, of course, if it was -- 9 10 I note that there are four Troop units, Troop A, Troop B, Troop C and Troop D? A A These were all under your command? And then there were also, let's say, at least two hours every episode, right, any time he wanted to attend to union business? 13 A 14 15 A 15 That's correct. And one of the Trooper stations looks like He would then have to drive an hour back, 12 several dozen Trooper stations listed underneath? Q Q 11 14 16 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 10 Correct. Q 13 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Form a question. 8 9 Correct. Q 11 12 Correct. Q 8 Are you asking me a question? Q Yes, it would, at least, be a minimum of two hours travel? MS. DiCOSMO: I still don't hear a 16 17 under Troop B is Sussex station? 17 question. 18 A 18 BY MR. BUKOSKY: That's correct. Q 19 And another one of the Troop units is the Q 19 Isn't that correct? 20 Totowa station? 20 21 A 21 try to get this down. Are you asking him that if he That's correct. Q 22 was in Totowa and needed to conduct union business in 23 Totowa station is, approximately, 40 miles from the 23 the Sussex office and then go back to Totowa, how long 24 Sussex station, is that an accurate assessment? 24 that would take, right, that's what you are asking. 25 A 25 22 Now, I heard or read documents that the ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I think what -- let's That's correct. MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. 199 Q 1 And how long do you think it would take to 201 travel those 40 miles? 2 3 A 3 5 An hour. Q 4 A That's correct. Q 6 At least an hour? So when you're suggesting that Trooper THE WITNESS: That would take two hours. 1 2 4 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q A Q 5 Just travel? Correct. And whatever union work he had to do, that 6 would have to be taken care of, as well, during that time period. 7 Crane could serve as a station representative for the 7 8 Sussex station by traveling from the Totowa station, he 8 9 would have to, one way, travel an hour to just to get 9 Frequently the station representative is needed fairly quickly to attend to disciplinary matters 10 there? 10 or Weingarten type of things, wouldn't you understand 11 A 11 this to be unreasonable for him to be able to travel To Totowa, yes, but not to Sussex. Q 12 that type of distance. 13 Sussex is about 40 miles, you said, it's been about an 13 A 14 hour drive, right? 14 15 A 15 A 16 Detective Crane lives in Sussex, and would be in close 16 to being on call and you may have to go from Sussex to 17 proximity to Sussex, either coming or going. Leave 17 Somerville on a weekend, so it's not unusual and, 18 Totowa at 3:00, do any station rep work at 4:00. 18 again, to have Troop transportation to do it in, I 19 think helps them all in responding, whether it's to a Weingarten rep situation or to a homicide scene. 12 I know, but if I'm not mistaken, I think Q 19 Well, the distance between Totowa and So you're thinking that he would come in 20 and do station rep work after hours? 20 21 A 21 22 the station reps do that all the time. 23 No, he could do that on his state time, I think Q If he's working out of Totowa, in order to Not at all. Q No. Especially, not as a CIO Detective who are used Q You are also presuming he would receive 22 permission to be gone, probably, at least, three hours? 23 A I would think both Detective Crane and his 24 get to Sussex, he would have to drive an hour, at least 24 supervisor that would work that into his day in such a 25 an hour? 25 manner that if he had to rep somebody at 3:00 in the 202 204 1 afternoon, that flexibility would be upon them to work 1 about when Troopers are transferred or reassigned, 2 that in, so he would not have to then drive back to 2 however you want to do it, between stations, so 30 3 Totowa. I would hope that would be the case. 3 different stations on this exhibit, what type of events 4 are occurring that are resulting in transfers? Q 4 And even if he wanted just to simply put a 5 notice on the bulletin board, he would have to drive 5 A 6 two hours? 6 experience in various types of stations. Somerville is 7 A 7 very different than Sussex. Somerville is all traffic, 8 work, no, or on his way home. 8 all you will do all day long is drug accidents and drug 9 seizures. Sussex is a lot of domestics, burglaries, Probably -- not if he did it on his way into Q 9 Now, as the head of operations for all I explained the large majority of them is to get 10 field operations, I would imagine there are common 10 very different type of police work. In some instances 11 instances when Troopers are transferred, correct? 11 there is EEO complaints or hostile work environments 12 A 12 that are alleged in which one or both people need to be Yes. Q 13 moved. I really can't think of too many other 14 ordinarily or customarily transferred, under what 14 circumstances, quite frankly, other than rounding out 15 circumstances? 15 experience and where there's a conflict that needs to 16 A 16 be mitigated in order to make sure that the station 17 like, come out of the academy, spend time at a, let's 17 environment is one that's conducive to work. 18 say, a general police station, one like Sussex, that's 18 19 pretty rural, you don't get much traffic experience. 19 largely rests on training and getting Troopers 20 So the most ordinary ones are GP, general police 20 accustomed to different stations? 21 station, traffic station, sometimes a combination of 21 A 22 both, and then, ultimately, after a few years, they are 22 MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, that appears to 23 eligible to then go out onto the Parkway or Turnpike, 23 be a mischaracterization. There was testimony that it 24 those are the -- most of them are to get them 24 was both training and resolution of conflicts. 25 experience in various different areas of the Troop. 25 13 Now, can you tell me when Troopers are First and foremost is probably after they spent, Q So for the majority of transfers, it For the most part, yes. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, I think counsel 203 In this particular instance, the reassignment 205 1 was just trying to summarize, the Colonel's testimony 2 was rooted in, as we have talked about all day long, in 2 is on the record. Again, I don't think he was trying 3 the working relationship, or lack thereof, with the 3 to catch you on something; but if I recall your 4 Prosecutor's Office, that sometimes plays a part if 4 testimony, Colonel, it was you put Turnpike and Parkway 5 there is a deterioration in the decision to reassign. 5 in kind of a separate category. 1 Q 6 In this particular case, did the decision THE WITNESS: Only because they need a 6 7 to transfer or reassign, it was completely 7 certain amount of experience. We don't put -- because 8 discretionary on your part, was it not? 8 of the nature of those roadways, we ask that they have 9 A 9 a few years under their belt before we move them out That's correct. Q 10 And when you are making these types of 10 there. So, although, they are field operations, there 11 transfers, I presume your envisioning the transfers 11 is a prerequisite and criteria in order to get out 12 between some of these different stations? 12 there due to the magnitude and the volume out there. 13 A In this case, again, you can see the one block 13 14 on the table of organization you presented. It's one 14 15 unit, CIO B-230, that's where every single Detective in 15 16 the Troop is housed. So, again, we don't do transfers 16 selected to be transferred among the stations? 17 for them. They were done, in this case, in the form of 17 A 18 this e-mail, because they are viewed, but, again, from 18 think it falls upon the field operations administrative 19 my standpoint, the point is they couldn't work with the 19 officer in trying to, like, we have the class that's 20 Sussex County Prosecutor, whether it was Totowa, 20 coming off of the Trooper coach program right now in a 21 Netcong, or Hope, it just couldn't be Sussex from a 21 few months, they will be eligible to go to various 22 work standpoint, it could be from a station rep 22 stations, again, all geared towards rounding them out 23 standpoint. 23 and getting them the experience, so. 24 25 Q I just want to try -- I'm going to ask you some questions, I'm trying to get a general background 24 25 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q So how does one decide which troopers are You know, I don't know how that happens. I Q So it's an administrative officer who makes that call? 206 1 A Generally, yes. Q 2 208 1 And who is that for your -- for this A That's correct. Q 2 And all these determinations are really 3 operations branch? 3 discretionary determinations? 4 A 4 A 5 At the time -- again, at the time of these, he wasn't 5 6 there, so I forget who the administrative officer is. 6 answer to who gets selected or how? 7 A Now it's Lieutenant Yanstick, Y-a-n-s-t-i-c-k. Q 7 It was an administrative officer who 8 ultimately makes that determination? 9 A Q 9 And he'll make the calls as to who gets There is no necessary right or wrong No. Q 8 I think so, yes. Q 10 Yes. Are there some instances when there would be a mandatory movement that would be necessary for a 10 Trooper to be transferred? 11 transferred to where? 11 A 12 A 12 that, that the Detectives involved here almost made the Correct. Q 13 decision for themselves in evidence how they were 14 one that we have entered into evidence? 14 working or not working with the Prosecutor's Office, so 15 A No. Transfer from station to station requires 15 in this instance, although, I know they obviously 16 a, what we call, a 369, an actual transfer form, the 16 disagree, I thought the working relationship took 17 Trooper's name, their position number, the new unit 17 precedence over, you know, being close to home. 18 code that they are going to. Again, we view all the 18 19 Detectives and CIO in one unit, so that transfer form 19 discretionary call? 20 isn't done, it's done via an e-mail like the one you 20 A 21 presented as U-2. 21 13 Q Would he send out a similar e-mail to the I think this instance serves as an example for Ultimately, though, it was your Yes. Q It was nothing in the rules and 22 regulations that required them to be transferred, it 23 enlighten me, if you know what type of considerations 23 was just your discretion considering the factors? 24 he would utilize in making or choosing one Trooper over 24 A 25 another to transfer? 25 I've seen in my, at the time, 23 years, again, they 22 This administrative officer, can you Q I thought it was as close to a required move as 207 209 1 A 1 were not going to be effective either side, 2 are upwards of 80 miles from their home in their 2 Prosecutor's Office with them, them with the 3 personal cars. We try and get their third or, 3 Prosecutor's Office, so, although, the word "required" 4 depending upon how many transfers we are going to do, 4 may be a misclassification, I think almost mandatory 5 we do try to get them within an hour of their last -- 5 would be a close classification, given the nature of 6 of where they live, only because they are working a 6 their work. It's the second busiest station in the 7 12-hour day, driving their personal car. We don't even 7 State of New Jersey, they work with the Prosecutor 8 let tractor trailer drivers drive more than 10. So the 8 every day. 9 idea behind it is to try to get them as close to home 10 It's usually in the first station, some Troopers by the time that they had that various experience. Q 11 And these are discretionary calls that are Q 9 I understand. But you agree, then, that 10 there is no rule, regulation or policy that required 11 their transfer? A 12 made by the administrative officer? 12 13 A 13 14 need to -- again, there is a balance, sometimes we need 14 15 to shift Troopers around with the recruitment from all 15 16 the Northeast New Jersey, a few years back, we do have 16 17 Troopers driving a very long way to work who are 17 18 working on the road upwards of an hour and a half each 18 want to ask, and then I want to talk about these 19 way in their personal cars. So, ultimately, it's the 19 documents, just to admit whatever we have to. 20 Colonel who signs off on the personnel order, but the 20 21 recommendations and how we do it, to balance that 21 Paragraph Number 10 that you had -- that you had been 22 experience and that reasonableness to close to home is 22 questioned about, there is a sentence in there that 23 all taken into consideration by the admin officer. 23 suggests or says that Crane, I think, called -- let me 24 see it again -- the Prosecutor -- that Detective Crane 25 lodged against the Prosecutor for corruption, is that 24 25 They are recommended by him. Ultimately, we Q Okay. Admin officer recommends and the Colonel usually signs off on it? I would agree with that statement. Q A It was ultimately your discretion? Yes, sir. MR. BUKOSKY: Let me take a 5-minute break, I may be winding down. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I have one question I On the McCormack certification, that 210 212 1 your understanding or do you not know who lodged that 1 2 complaint? 2 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't 3 3 4 know -- or I don't remember would probably be a more 4 5 accurate statement, I thought it was a Detective or 5 6 Trooper, not the alleged victim, but -- 6 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You don't know, so you 7 8 don't know if that's an accurate statement? 11 9 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. That was my question on that. And then with respect to -- well, U-1 he 12 MR. BUKOSKY: Let me make a copy of this document. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Let's go off the record, again. (At which time, a discussion is held off the record.) ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Let's go back on the 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know that. 9 10 7 this time? record. We have some more direction questioning of the 10 witness. 11 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 12 Colonel, did you at any time direct 13 didn't -- he wasn't involved with, so that's going to 13 Captain Green or any other person to create an incident 14 stay marked for identification. 14 form concerning the allegations made by Chief 15 McCormack? 16 A MS. DiCOSMO: No objection. 17 that one, ultimately, got done, a reportable incident ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay so U-2 and U-3 18 form. I don't remember if that was under my -- if I 19 directly asked that to happen. U-2 and U-3, are you moving those? Any 15 16 objection. 17 18 19 are admitted. (At which time, U-2 and U-3 were received 20 21 in evidence.) 23 this point, do you want to take a break? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay. You want to 20 21 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: That was all I had at 22 I don't remember if I directed it, I do know mark it now? 22 MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. 23 (At which time, U-4 was marked for 24 MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. 24 25 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Let's go off the 25 identification.) ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So we are going to 211 1 mark as U-4 a document called reportable incident 2 (At which time, a recess was taken.) 2 report with a date on it, date received anyway, of 3 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Any other questions? 3 2/27/17, and it's been shown to the witness. 4 MR. BUKOSKY: I believe I'm concluding my 4 1 record for a moment. 213 MS. DiCOSMO: Just one thing, the state 5 questioning for the Colonel with, of course, the 5 just wants to note for the record that we are 6 reservation that I reserve to recall him if there is 6 requesting that it not be entered into evidence until 7 further items that come up that I need to, you know, be 7 it's been authenticated by who we believe to be Captain 8 clarified. 8 Green. MS. DiCOSMO: The state objects to that 9 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Well, it's marked for 9 10 for obvious reasons. If Mr. Bukosky wants to do a 10 identification at this time, and I'll certainly 11 redirect examination after my cross, the state does not 11 consider your position on that. 12 object. If he wants to recall because he learns new 12 MS. DiCOSMO: Thank you. 13 information, the state does not consent to that. 13 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Questions. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: I don't have to make 14 14 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 15 that decision at this point, because whenever we -- 15 16 because, obviously, we are going to have cross and any 16 about what might have occurred with Captain Green? 17 redirect and we will finish the testimony of the 17 A 18 witness. Whether there is a basis for recall, I'm not 18 it, but I think the -- I'm trying to look at the date 19 going to decide that now, we will decide that, if I 19 when it was done. It looks like it was done in close 20 have to, at a later time. 21 22 23 24 25 Does this form refresh your recollection It really doesn't, it's the first that I've seen 20 proximity to the meeting I had with Chief McCormack So let's go off the record for a minute. 21 February 7, 2017. (At which time, a discussion is held off 22 the record.) ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Do you have any other questions you'd like to ask on direct of the Colonel at Q Well, there's a number of dates on this 23 document, right, on the very top it says date received, 24 do you see that, 2/27/17? 25 A Yes, I see that. 214 Q 1 And if you look at the box in the middle, 216 1 and read that, and then answer any other questions. 2 it says number -- box number 17, it has a date of 2 3 February 7, 2017? 3 station Detective disregarded the initial determination 4 A 4 by the Assistant Prosecutor and contacted a local judge Okay. Q 5 who found probable cause to issue the complaint. 6 dates? 6 Further review of the affidavits and more indicated the 7 A 7 subject had confessed and there is a discrepancy with 8 was February 7th the date of the interview of the 8 the confession. 9 subject? 9 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 5 11 It was the date of the -- I'm asking you now, Q 10 What are the significances of those two THE WITNESS: As it states in here, the February 7th was the date that you had a phone call with Chief McCormack? ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Let me show the 12 Q 10 Do you recall having any conversations 11 with Captain Green? 12 A He was the executive officer at the time, so him 13 witness Mr. McCormack's certification. Look at Item 4, 13 and Major Szenzenstein were probably involved in that 14 Paragraph 4. 14 discussion. 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. So February 7, 2017 15 MS. DiCOSMO: Do you personally remember? 16 was the date that the subject was charged by Detective 16 THE WITNESS: No, I don't remember it, no. 17 DeLorenzo. The time that Captain Green did this report 17 18 to me indicates he did it at the end of February, on 18 19 February 27th. 19 created? 20 BY MR. BUKOSKY: 20 A 21 start. Again, it's a reportable incident form to start BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q Why would a form of this nature be This would be created in order to document and 21 Q 22 report? 22 an internal investigation with the Office of 23 A 23 Professional Standards which is our -- basically our And it says the reporting on the very top 24 Internal Affairs office. left-hand corner, it says Reporting Station Unit, Field 25 25 I may have directed him to do that. Q 24 Okay. Why did Captain Green create this Q So as of February 27, 2017, either you or 215 217 1 Operations Section, Division HQ, that would be you, 1 Szenzenstein directed that an Internal Affairs 2 right? 2 investigation be opened up concerning this incident? 3 A 3 A That would be. Q 4 Code M000 is operations, right? 4 That's correct. MR. BUKOSKY: No further questions. 5 A It's, actually, the level below me, but, 5 6 technically, it's Major Szenzensein's unit code, but 6 questions for the Colonel at this time, but, as I 7 it's, for all intents and purposes, it's the operations 7 understand it, you're reserving the right to continue 8 branch which was under me, yes. 8 direct when we resume on November 19th. Q 9 10 Why did you tell Captain Green to prepare this report? MS. DiCOSMO: Objection, that's not what 11 9 10 11 12 the Colonel testified to, he says he doesn't know, he 12 13 doesn't remember. 13 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: So you have no further MR. BUKOSKY: That's correct because I want to look at the video. ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: That's fine. MR. BUKOSKY: And there may be some questions about that. 14 MR. BUKOSKY: He said he directed him to. 14 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: That's fine, not a 15 MS. DiCOSMO: He said he may have. 15 problem. So the record notes, then, we are finished ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: You can clear that up. 16 with testimony for today, and I want to direct the 17 Colonel, thank you for coming, thank you for coming 16 17 BY MR. BUKOSKY: Q 18 back, but in the interim, I have to direct you not to 19 Captain Green to create this report? 19 discuss your testimony about this incident with anyone. 20 A 20 You know, if you have operational needs, I don't want 21 instance I don't think Captain Green would have taken 21 to interfere with those, but, otherwise, don't discuss 22 it upon himself, and given the nature of Justin 22 the possible testimony or the facts of this case or 23 DeLorenzo, Detective DeLorenzo -- I'm just reading the 23 what you have testified to with any of your 24 narrative now. 24 subordinates at the State Police, or, really, anyone 25 else, or with the State's DAG at this point, because 18 25 Do you recall now that you directed I don't specifically recall it, but in this ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Why don't you go head 218 220 1 now you could be asked when you resume your testimony 1 2 whether you have discussed this with anyone, whether 2 3 anyone said anything to you, and so forth. 3 people, do that. I don't want -- you know, the issue 4 that came up where the state received your request Now, I also want to direct that -- so we 4 about who should be on our -ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: If there is other 5 may have the transcript by that time, the transcript is 5 about the other people a couple days before the 6 not a public document, so it's not for distribution to 6 hearing, and the state's concern, it's a legitimate 7 just everybody or everybody who might be coming to 7 concern, so we need advance notice, that's why I'm 8 testify, so, I'm telling the parties, you know, that's 8 trying to obviate a problem later on. So, at least, we 9 for your information and only at this point, and there 9 know that date, if one or two of those people could be 10 is no need to dispense that with anyone else. We have, barring any emergencies, we have 10 available by call, we may not even need them that day, 11 and we will set another date, my calendar may change in 12 agreed on Monday, November 19th, to resume the hearing, 12 December. So I'm hoping that I'll have other dates to 13 at which time we will resume the questioning of the 13 offer this calendar year. I think at this point we 14 Colonel set for 10 o'clock here at OER. If there are 14 will take it one day at a time rather than try to piece 15 issues with regard to other witnesses, other potential 15 together a block of days, because that doesn't 16 witnesses, I'm expecting the parties to work that out 16 necessarily work, for a variety of reasons. 17 in the intervening time. As well as to -- for the 17 So unless there is anything else that 18 parties to work out an opportunity for Mr. Bukosky to 18 either party needs to raise on the record, I thank 19 view the video. 19 everyone for coming, and the hearing is closed for 20 today. 11 So Mr. Bukosky, when we were off the 20 21 record, indicated there were three, at least three, 21 22 other people he wanted to call, Major Szenzenstein, 22 23 Major Devlin, is it, and Captain Green, so the state is 23 24 on notice that those people are being requested. The 24 25 only problem, I am not expecting that all three people 25 Thank you all. (At which time, the proceeding concluded at 4:53 p.m.) 219 1 are needed on November 19th, and I'm not even sure, 2 depending on how long it takes to finish the Colonel's 1 3 testimony that day, whether either party would want to 2 4 start another witness that day. What's always best is 3 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New Jersey, 5 when we can put somebody on call, the closest person 4 do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of the 5 examination, the witness and/or witnesses were sworn by 6 me to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth. 221 C E R T I F I C A T E I, Tracey L. Pinsky, a Certified Court 6 would be Major Szenzenstein, who's down in West 7 Trenton, I understand -- I don't know where Captain 7 8 Green is, where is he located? 8 is a true and accurate computer-aided transcript of the 9 testimony as taken stenographically by and before me at 10 the time, place and on the date hereinbefore set forth. THE WITNESS: His office is in Princeton. 9 ARBITRATOR ZUDICK: Okay, that's not too 10 11 I do further certify that the foregoing I do further certify that I am neither 11 far, and that's a lot closer than where Major Devlin 12 of counsel nor attorney for any party in this action 12 is. So, at the very least, if those people could be 13 and that I am not interested in the event nor outcome 13 put notice to be available, if they can be, that day, 14 of this litigation. 14 but by call, because even in Princeton, if we're 15 15 finished with the Colonel by, you know, noon and we can 16 get the Captain down here, depending how long we think 18 17 we will be with him, we might be able to finish his 19 18 testimony that day. I'm not telling you what you have 20 16 17 21 19 to do, I'm putting it out there. So I think rather 20 than have any of those witnesses actually come here on 23 21 the 19th, you know, give them notice to be available by 24 22 call. 25 23 Does that make sense to the parties? 24 MS. DiCOSMO: Yes. 25 MR. BUKOSKY: Yes. I'll talk to Jana 22 ____________________________ Certified Court Reporter XI00219700 Notary Public of New Jersey My commission expires 12-9-22