Police bodycam footage of Spotswood mayor turned over to lawyers in court battle

NEW BRUNSWICK – A Middlesex County Superior Court judge has ordered the police bodycam footage of an April 2022 meeting between Spotswood Mayor Jackie Palmer and seven members of the borough police department to be turned over to the attorneys in a legal battle over whether the recording should be destroyed or released to the public.

Palmer has gone to gone to court to prevent disclosure of the footage, now in the possession of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, that a police officer in a lawsuit against the borough says has a recording of the mayor making "inappropriate comments" about a Black resident at Borough Hall.

Gannett, the parent company of the Home News Tribune and MyCentralJersey.com, has filed as an intervenor in the court proceedings after submitting an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the footage. Spotswood resident Steven Wronko has also filed as an intervenor in the case and has filed an OPRA request for the footage.

In a Thursday morning hearing, Judge Michael Toto said redacted footage given to the attorneys in the case would clear up issues in their legal arguments and "inconsistencies" in the facts.

"You can't have good law unless you get good facts," Toto said. "And we don't have that yet."

The attorneys have not yet seen the footage.

"I think you all need to see it," the judge said, adding "we're in a bit of a gray area."

Toto, who said he has seen the recording, also said there are "some factual inconsistencies that need to be fleshed out before we get to the next step."

At the heart of the legal case is a reconciliation among the state's OPRA law on public access to government records, the state bodycam law and state rules on internal affairs investigations.

Matt Moench, Palmer's attorney, argued that the footage should be destroyed because Palmer was not told she was being recorded and the bodycams were "intentionally turned on improperly."

But that depends on the determination of whether the officers' meeting with the mayor was part of a continuing investigation of two incidents involving the Black man at Borough Hall and his arrest.

CJ Griffin, counsel to Gannett and MyCentralJersey.com, argued that because Palmer was a witness to the incidents, she could be recorded on the bodycams. Griffin also said that the police officers were in the official course of their duties during the meeting with the mayor.

Griffin added that the litigation brought by the mayor is "costing the borough a significant amount of money."

Walter Luers, Wronko's attorney, told the judge that he found it "incredible" that one branch of government is asking another branch of government to destroy a government document.

Toto ordered the Prosecutor's Office to remove from the footage identifying information of private citizens, information about police procedures and attorney-client information. The Prosecutor's Office has an April 5 deadline to provide a redacted copy of the footage to the judge.

The footage must be provided to the attorneys in the case by April 12. The judge ruled the footage will be for "Attorney's Eyes Only," meaning it cannot be shared, disseminated or released to anyone, including the parties in the case, without permission of the judge.

The attorneys will then have until April 26 to submit supplemental briefs on the case to the judge.

The controversy

Griffin, a government transparency attorney, has argued in court papers that "all the public will learn from disclosure of this video is whether Mayor Palmer said the highly inflammatory and problematic things" that Borough Police Officer Richard Sasso alleged in his lawsuit.

"The video is a neutral account of what Mayor Palmer said and the public deserves to see it," Griffin stated in court papers.

Griffin maintained "the need to know about the misconduct or bad behavior of public employees or elected officials is just as important as the right to monitor the police."

State law requires the officers to keep their bodycams activated when they respond to a call for service and Palmer made a call for service when the Black man was in Borough Hall, Griffin contended, and the cameras should remain activated until the event is "fully concluded."

What the case boils down to, Griffin wrote, is that "Mayor Palmer obviously prefers that the public not see the video and enough taxpayer money has been wasted trying to keep this video from the public."

The controversy over the bodycam footage accelerated when Sasso, president of the Spotswood PBA, filed a Superior Court lawsuit on Jan. 15 against Palmer and the borough, alleging violations of the state's Whistleblower Law and other allegations.

Sasso's lawsuit is one of many that police officers have filed against the borough and even each other.

In the 45-page lawsuit, Sasso alleges Palmer repeatedly interfered in the police department and retaliated against him.

In one part of the lawsuit, Sasso details "racially-charged" April 2022 incidents when a Black resident came to the municipal building and was allegedly confronted by Palmer and a meeting between Palmer and police officers.

More: Spotswood mayor suspends top cops; lawyer says it's 'an outrageous abuse of power'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the Internal Affairs investigation that followed have been redacted from court papers.

Palmer maintains because it is "uncontroverted" that the footage was recorded in violation of state law. And because it was illegal, "no explanation has been offered for why it was not destroyed."

"It was improper for the videos to be turned on at all," Moench wrote in papers to Toto, adding there is no "remotely applicable" criteria to support keeping the cameras activated.

The mayor also argues that the police officers failed to notify her that the bodycams were recording as required by state law and a state Office of Attorney General directive.

"If there is no penalty or impact for not notifying someone they are being recorded, why would officers be concerned about complying?" Moench argued.

"Notification is an essential part of the overall scheme to balance public privacy concerns with law enforcement needs," Moench wrote. "It is not an afterthought or a pesky administrative issue."

Because the footage was "illegally obtained," Moench said "there is no question the video should have been destroyed."

Moench also contended there are "substantial policy interests weighing against disclosure" of the footage.

Palmer has a "reasonable expectation" that when she is having a meeting in her office that "she is not being secretly recorded and that such recordings would be subject to disclosure."

"If elected officials need to be concerned that every conversation they have in their office with staff is going to be recorded and subject to OPRA and common law right of access, it will stifle meaningful debate and impinge officials' ability to conduct business," said Moench, who has twice been elected mayor of Bridgewater.

Email: mdeak@mycentraljersey.com

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

This article originally appeared on MyCentralJersey.com: Spotswood NJ police bodycam footage of mayor turned over to lawyers