GLEN RIDGE POLICE REPORT INVESTIGATION AND NAOMI JOHNSON REBUTTAL OF THE REPORT

GLEN RIDGE POLICE REPORT INVESTIGATION AND NAOMI JOHNSON REBUTTAL OF THE REPORT 

PUBLIC RECORD NOTICE

The documents contained on this page, including but not limited to affidavits, rebuttals, tort claim notices, and related submissions concerning the Glen Ridge Police Department and public officers, are intended to serve as a public record.

These documents have been made publicly accessible in accordance with principles of:

• Transparency and accountability in government operations;

• Public Rights Doctrine and Popular Sovereignty, recognizing the people as the ultimate authority;

• New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., supporting access to governmental records;

• U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, supporting public disclosure of information concerning government conduct;

Purpose:

• To preserve a legal and historical record of official actions, including investigations, internal affairs reports, and civil rights concerns;

• To provide public access for review, transparency, and accountability;

• To document the timeline and content of government actions for potential legal reference.

Usage:

• The contents may be freely accessed, downloaded, and referenced for educational, journalistic, civic, or legal purposes.

• Users must not modify the original documents.

Disclaimer:

• Personal information unrelated to public officers or government action has been redacted where necessary to protect privacy.

• This notice is not intended to replace any legal filings or proceedings; it supplements legal documentation by providing public access.

Date of Record Creation: August 29, 2025

Author / Beneficial Owner: Naomi Johnson, We The People / Private Woman

______________________________________________________

The Police Internal Affairs covered up the actions of the officer who pulled me over for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign and for driving an unregistered vehicle. Officer Anthony Mazza towed my car and forced me to walk home, despite my status as a disabled woman. According to Lt. Timothy Faranda’s report, he concluded that Officer Mazza did nothing wrong and merely followed procedure.

However, police officers take an oath to uphold the New Jersey and United States Constitutions—not merely policies, rules, regulations, or internal procedures. Officers are required to follow the law and statutes in a manner that does not violate the rights of private people, private women, private men, or private citizens, as protected by the unalienable rights guaranteed under both the New Jersey and United States Constitutions.

The police must understand that they are governed by the people, not that they govern the people. They are public servants, accountable to the citizens they serve. The report fails to address the unlawful behavior of the officer and ignores the constitutional violations inherent in forcing a disabled woman to walk home and unlawfully seizing her property.

Naomi Johnson

Private Woman / Beneficial Owner

Address: 

Town, State and Zip Code: 

Email: 

Phone: 

Date: August 28, 2025

To:

Glen Ridge Police Department

Internal Affairs Division

825 Bloomfield Avenue

Glen Ridge, NJ 07028

Re: Formal Rebuttal to IA Report – Incident 25-05455

Dear Internal Affairs Division,

This letter serves as my formal rebuttal to the Glen Ridge Police Department Internal Affairs (IA) Report dated July 7, 2025, regarding Incident 25-05455. The IA Report concludes that Sgt. Anthony Mazza “acted within his duty” and followed department policies and New Jersey Title 39 statutes. This conclusion fails to address multiple legal, constitutional, and civil rights obligations that Sgt. Mazza is sworn to uphold, including the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), natural law, and principles of public rights and due process.

Every police officer swears an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution, which supersede internal policies and statutory law under the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2). Compliance with department policy rules or statutory law, such as New Jersey Title 39, does not excuse violations of constitutional rights (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803); Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987)). Statutory and administrative regulations are legislative or procedural in nature, not constitutional law. Constitutional obligations are a separate and higher standard, and Internal Affairs’ focus on policy compliance does not negate the officer’s duty to uphold constitutional protections.

Title 39 is administrative, not criminal law — so the officer cannot import criminal law concepts to justify seizing my person or property. Instead, the officer should have had a legitimate, constitutionally grounded reason beyond a mere regulatory violation before demanding identification or seizing my car. Under the Constitution, police may only demand ID if they have lawful cause to detain an individual. Title 39 governs civil/administrative infractions; therefore, an officer cannot invoke “probable cause” (a criminal doctrine) to escalate a civil matter into a custodial seizure of me and my property. Passing a stop sign and driving an unregistered private conveyance are administrative infractions, not crimes. They do not create reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, nor probable cause for a custodial seizure. At most, they are subject to civil penalty—not the deprivation of liberty, seizure of property, or issuance of a bench warrant.

The New Jersey Constitution, Article I, §2, explicitly states that government derives its power from the people, and that the people are the ultimate sovereign. Every individual possesses unalienable rights that cannot be lawfully violated by the state. The Internal Affairs Complaint report fails to consider or protect these unalienable rights, including the right to due process, equal protection, and freedom from arbitrary seizure.

The IA Report also completely disregards recognized human rights and civil liberties standards, including:

• Due Process Violations: The vehicle impoundment and associated actions occurred without proper legal justification or notice (U.S. Const. Amend. V & XIV; NJ Const. Art. I, §1, §10).

• ADA Violations: I am a medically disabled person, and the report ignores whether accommodations were provided as required under 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. and NJLAD.

• Equal Protection & Anti-Discrimination: The report does not consider whether police actions were applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner.

• Public Rights Doctrine & Preliminary Power Doctrine: Officers exercise authority only within constitutional and statutory limits, not merely internal policy.

• Unalienable Rights: The IA report fails to acknowledge that, as a private woman and beneficial owner, I hold rights that the officer is sworn to protect under both state and federal law.

The IA Report’s assertion that Sgt. Mazza “did not act outside his duty” and that he followed department policies is legally and doctrinally flawed. Duty under oath is defined by constitutional, statutory, and common law obligations—not merely by internal department rules. The report wrongly implies that following internal rules constitutes lawful exercise of police power, ignoring the constitutional and civil rights standard (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)).

By focusing solely on department policy and Title 39 compliance, the IA Report disregards:

• Failure to Uphold Constitutional Oath – ignoring the higher duty to the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions.

• Abuse of Authority – framing actions as “policy-compliant” while disregarding due process and ADA obligations.

• Misuse of Statutory Authority – treating civil infractions as criminal offenses to justify seizure of liberty and property.

• Violation of Natural and Common Law – ignoring property rights and the principle of protection from arbitrary seizure.

• Doctrine of Supremacy – department policies and Title 39 cannot override constitutional rights.

Because of these failures, the Internal Affairs Complaint report cannot be relied upon as a lawful determination of compliance with constitutional obligations or civil rights protections. It mischaracterizes the officer’s conduct as lawful and proper, when in fact it ignores the higher constitutional and civil rights obligations that govern all police actions.

I therefore formally rebut the Internal Affairs conclusion and preserve all rights to pursue legal action for constitutional and civil rights violations, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, ADA enforcement, and common law protections.

References & Authority (Non-Exhaustive):

• U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)

• U.S. Constitution, Amendments V & XIV (Due Process & Equal Protection)

• New Jersey Constitution, Art. I, §§1, 2, 10 (People as Sovereign; Unalienable Rights)

• Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.

• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

• Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)

• Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987)

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 7, 9, 21)

• American Jurisprudence, Vol. 55, Police §102

• Public Law 101-336, ADA

• Commercial statutes and principles: 49 U.S.C., 47 CFR, UCC 1-308/1-201

• Natural law and common law maxims: ubi jus ibi remedium, lex naturalis

• Doctrinal references: Public Rights Doctrine, Preliminary Power Doctrine

Respectfully submitted,

Naomi Johnson

Private Woman / Beneficial OwnerA

Executive Summary – Notice of Constitutional and Procedural Violations

On February 24, 2025, Officer Anthony Mazza of the Glen Ridge Police Department pulled me over for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign and for driving an unregistered vehicle, both administrative civil infractions under Title 39, not crimes. Officer Mazza towed my vehicle and forced me, a disabled woman, to walk home. The Police Internal Affairs, through Lt. Timothy Faranda, concluded that the officer “did nothing wrong” and merely followed procedure.

This conclusion ignores the constitutional and statutory framework governing police authority. Title 39 is civil and administrative; an officer cannot invoke criminal law doctrines such as probable cause to justify custodial seizure of a person or property. Demanding identification, towing my car, and issuing a bench warrant without lawful cause constitutes unlawful deprivation of liberty and property.

My vehicle contained personal groceries that remained in impound for seven days, all of which spoiled, resulting in financial loss and undue hardship. Forcing me to walk home while disabled, coupled with the loss of property, violated my rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.

Police officers take an oath to uphold the New Jersey and United States Constitutions, not merely internal procedures. They are public servants accountable to the people, not rulers over them. The actions taken against me—including the towing, forced walk, and spoilage of property, constitute unlawful and unconstitutional conduct. Internal Affairs failed to address these violations and did not provide accountability.

This Notice documents the violations and demands immediate recognition, accountability, and corrective action to uphold the constitutional rights of private citizens.

Respectfully,

Naomi Johnson

Private Woman / Beneficial Owner

One of the People of New Jersey Notice of Constitutional Violation

To Whom It May Concern:

The Police Internal Affairs has failed to address the unlawful actions of Officer Anthony Mazza, who pulled me over for an alleged failure to stop at a stop sign and for driving an unregistered vehicle. Officer Mazza subsequently towed my car and forced me, a disabled woman, to walk home. According to Lt. Timothy Faranda’s report, Officer Mazza did nothing wrong and merely followed procedure.

This determination is unacceptable. Police officers take an oath to uphold the New Jersey and United States Constitutions, not merely internal policies, rules, regulations, or procedures. Officers are required to enforce the law in a manner that respects the rights of private people, private women, private men, and private citizens, consistent with the unalienable rights guaranteed by both the New Jersey and United States Constitutions.

The police must recognize that they are public servants governed by the people, not rulers over the people. The actions taken against me, including the towing of my vehicle and forcing me to walk home while disabled, constitute a violation of my constitutional rights. The Internal Affairs report fails to address these unlawful actions and does not provide accountability for the officer’s misconduct.

This Notice serves to formally document the constitutional violations and to demand recognition, accountability, and corrective action in accordance with the protections guaranteed under state and federal law.

Respectfully,

Naomi Johnson

Private Woman / Beneficial Owner

One of the People of New Jersey

Here is the Criminal doctrine reference table formatted for your Naomi's case filings. It shows the doctrine, definition, source, and direct application to your February 24, 2025 stop and impound:

Doctrine	Definition / Standard	Source / Case Law	Application to Naomi Johnson’s Case
Reasonable Suspicion	Police may stop and briefly detain someone if there are specific and articulable facts suggesting criminal activity. Lower standard than probable cause.	Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)	Traffic violations (stop sign, unregistered vehicle) are civil infractions, not crimes. Sergeant Mazza lacked proper reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Probable Cause	Facts and circumstances sufficient for a reasonable person to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. Required for arrests, searches, and seizures.	Fourth Amendment; Illinois v. Gates, 1983	Driving a private car with minor infractions does not rise to probable cause. Seizing the vehicle and issuing a warrant exceeded authority.
Exclusionary Rule	Evidence obtained through unlawful stops, searches, or seizures is inadmissible in court.	Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)	The impound, tickets, and bench warrant are all “fruit of the poisonous tree” stemming from an unlawful stop.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree	Derivative evidence or penalties from an unlawful action are inadmissible or void.	Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)	All consequences of the stop, including towing and bench warrant, are tainted and unlawful.
Plain View Doctrine	Officers may seize evidence in plain sight if lawfully present and item’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent.	Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)	No evidence in Ms. Johnson’s vehicle was visible in plain view; this doctrine does not justify seizure.
Automobile Exception	Vehicles may be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is inside.	Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)	No probable cause existed; civil infractions do not justify warrantless search or seizure.
Community Caretaking Doctrine	Police may impound vehicles to protect public safety or for administrative purposes, not investigative purposes.	Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973)	Vehicle was not abandoned, blocking traffic, or dangerous. Impound was punitive and exceeded community caretaking authority.
Due Process Doctrine	Individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper procedures and notice.	Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments	Bench warrant, seizure of vehicle, and spoilage of groceries violated due process and constituted excessive intrusion.
ADA / Disability Rights	Disabled persons must receive reasonable accommodations; government cannot impose undue burdens.	Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act	Ms. Johnson is disabled; towing forced her to walk long distances and caused loss of essential groceries, violating her ADA rights.
Pretextual Stops	A stop may be lawful if based on any traffic violation, even if the officer has another motive. Controversial if used for discriminatory profiling.	Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)	Stop was minor; escalation to impound and warrant was disproportionate, punitive, and potentially discriminatory.