Assistant Prosecutor Steven Paskowitz of Professional Standards Bureau wrote Lt Faranda back.
RE: PSB #2025-
Your case #2025-
The letter reads:
Dear Lt. Faranda,
The Professional Standards Bureau has reviewed the above case. We conclude that there is insufficient credible evidence does not mean that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution of the above matter. This does not mean that there is insufficient evidence to sustain administrative charges. An independent review of the evidence review of the evidence should be undertaken at the administrative level, being mindful of the significantly lower burden of proof to sustain administrative charges as opposed to criminal charges. Therefore, this matter is being referred to your agency for any administrative action deemed appropriate.
Please advise us of any action taken in this matter by emailing us the outcome at notify@njecpo.org. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at 862-520-3700.
I do not know how the prosecutor did not have insufficient evidence. Naomi gave the prosecutor a copy of the towing bill, picture of the spoiled food, receipt, Lt. Fararanda report, Naomi's rebuttal. My question is what did the prosecutor Steven Paskowitz did to get more evidence to build on Naomi's information.
The two unlawful $55 ticket citation with no jurisdiction or mutual agreement with Montclair, NJ as a Glen Ridge police that Naomi was force to pay which end up with a $500 warrant that is still active as today with a threat of arrest by Glen Ridge court judge who is violating State v. Scotus, 114 N.J. 327 (1989). If it was not for these unlawful/unconstitutional ticket that violated the outline of ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2021-6 "United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, or federal and state statutes and regulations". I am being force to pay a ticket that the police or courts have no jurisdiction over. It violates me, Naomi Johnson due process and alienable rights.
"Redacted Public Records in Naomi Johnson v. Glen Ridge PD – Evidence of Jurisdictional Overreach").
Do you thing Steven Paskowitz who is an Assistant Prosecutor of Professional Standards Bureau did his job based on the information below?
Responsibilities of Assistant Prosecutor Steven Paskowitz in Investigating Naomi Johnson's Complaint
Based on the New Jersey Attorney General's Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures (IAPP, revised November 2022, incorporating AG Directive 2021-6 and prior directives like 2019-5 and 2020-7), the Essex County Prosecutor's Office's (ECPO) Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) guidelines, and relevant statutes like N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181, I'll address your questions directly. These policies mandate a structured, thorough process for handling complaints of police misconduct, with county prosecutors playing a supervisory role—especially in Essex County, where the PSB has primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting police criminal misconduct. I'll break it down step by step, focusing on whether it's Paskowitz's (or the PSB's) duty to "dig deeper" beyond what Naomi provided, including obtaining body camera footage, and the broader failures by Glen Ridge PD in handling her complaint. Professional Standards Bureau Corruption and Bias Crimes
Question. 1. Is it the Prosecutor's Responsibility to Dig Deeper or Request Further Information Beyond What Naomi Provided?
Answer.Yes, absolutely. The IAPP explicitly requires county prosecutors (and their designees, like Assistant Prosecutor Paskowitz in the PSB) to conduct or oversee thorough, objective, and prompt investigations of police misconduct allegations, particularly when they involve potential criminal conduct. This duty goes far beyond passively reviewing complainant-submitted evidence (e.g., Naomi's towing bill, photos of spoiled food, receipts, Lt. Faranda's report, and rebuttal). Here's why and how:
- Supervisory Authority Over Investigations: Under IAPP § 1.0.6, county and municipal agencies must "inform the appropriate County Prosecutor when allegations of police misconduct involve potential criminal conduct" and "confer with and follow the instructions given by the County Prosecutor at all critical points in the investigative process." This includes gathering evidence like statements, documents, and records. The PSB's role is to improve the administration and delivery of Police Internal Affairs services on a countywide basis, which means actively directing or conducting supplemental investigations if the initial evidence suggests gaps. Professional Standards Bureau Corruption and Bias Crimes
- Thoroughness Requirement: IAPP § 6.3.4 mandates that investigators (under prosecutorial supervision) "conduct a thorough and objective investigation without violating the rights of the subject officer," including interviewing witnesses, reviewing reports/documents, and obtaining "necessary information and materials." If Naomi's evidence (e.g., showing jurisdictional overreach, falsified reports, and improper towing) raises red flags for crimes like official misconduct (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2) or falsifying records, the prosecutor must request or subpoena additional evidence—such as radio logs, dispatch records, or officer statements—to build or confirm the case. ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2022-14
- Declination Doesn't End the Duty: Paskowitz's letter declining criminal charges due to "insufficient credible evidence" does not absolve the PSB of further inquiry. IAPP § 6.3.8 states that even if a criminal investigation is declined, the administrative probe must continue under the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, and the prosecutor must ensure the agency documents why charges weren't pursued. In Essex County, the PSB routinely conducts over 130 such investigations annually, including risk analysis and integrity testing, showing their active role. (Investigation Unit)
- Statutory Mandate: N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181 requires every law enforcement agency (including prosecutors' offices) to adopt IAPP-consistent guidelines for internal affairs, emphasizing meaningful and objective investigations of complaints. Failure to dig deeper could expose the ECPO to liability for inadequate oversight.
Naomi's submission triggered the process, but Paskowitz/PSB had a mandatory duty to request more (e.g., via subpoenas or agency directives) if it was needed to assess criminality. Simply referring it back without follow-up appears non-compliant.
2. If Naomi Didn't Provide Body Camera Footage, Was It Steven Paskowitz's Job to Obtain It for a Thorough Investigation?
Yes, it was Paskowitz's (and the PSB's) responsibility to obtain and review body-worn camera (BWC) footage as part of a thorough criminal misconduct probe. Here's the blueprint:
- Evidence Gathering Protocols: IAPP § 7.2.2 requires investigators to "examine and retrieve all electronic, computer, digital and video records," explicitly including "in-car video systems, video surveillance systems and other forms of audio and video recording." BWCs fall under this, as do AG Directive 2015-1 and 2020-13, which mandate BWC use and preservation for all interactions like traffic stops. The PSB, as the lead on police criminal misconduct, has authority to compel Glen Ridge PD to produce it.(njoag). Professional Standards Bureau Corruption and Bias Crimes
- Prosecutorial Oversight in Criminal Contexts: For potential crimes (e.g., Sgt. Mazza's alleged falsification of the stop location or improper impoundment), IAPP § 6.3.2 requires immediate notification to the prosecutor, who directs evidence collection—including BWCs—to avoid interference with the probe. Naomi isn't expected to access police-only evidence; that's the investigator's job.
- Essex County Specifics: The PSB conducts "activities necessary to improve... Police Internal Affairs services," including reviewing footage in critical incidents. If BWC footage existed (as required for the stop), Paskowitz should have requested it to verify Naomi's claims of no probable cause, jurisdictional issues, or abandonment of a disabled person. Professional Standards Bureau Corruption and Bias
Not obtaining it undermines the "thorough" standard and could indicate a superficial review, especially since Naomi's evidence alone showed inconsistencies (e.g., radio logs vs. citations).
3. Glen Ridge PD's Failures in Handling Naomi's Complaint (and Violations of Constitutions/Statutes)
Naomi's interactions highlight clear non-compliance by Glen Ridge PD with IAPP and constitutional mandates. Police chiefs and internal affairs (IA) units are not optional—failure to act violates N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181 and exposes the agency to supersession by the AG or prosecutor. Let's outline the issues you raised: (Directive Revising Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures/State of New Jersey OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY)
Issue Raised
Police Chief Sean Quinn ignored Naomi's writ of replevin and did not initiate an IA report.
IAPP/Statutory Violation
IAPP § 5.1.1: Agencies must accept all complaints (including writs alleging misconduct) from any person, at any time, and forward to IA for investigation. Chiefs cannot unilaterally ignore; must notify PSB if criminal.
Constitutional/Regulatory Breach
Violates NJ Constitution Art. I, ¶ 1 (due process/right to redress) and US Constitution 14th Amendment (deprivation of property without process). Writs require response; ignoring it denies access to courts (State v. Scotus, 114 N.J. 327 (1989)). NJ.gov
Issue Raised
Detective Sergeant Daniel Manley was spoken to but did not file an IA report.
IAPP/Statutory Violation
IAPP § 5.1.2: Any officer receiving a complaint must complete an IA report form and explain procedures; cannot dismiss without documentation. Supervisors must audit informal resolutions (§ 5.1.13).
Constitutional/Regulatory Breach
Breaches federal/state statutes on equal protection (18 U.S.C. § 242 if discriminatory) and NJ AG Directive 2021-6 (transparency in misconduct handling).
Issue Raised
Lt. Timothy Faranda's report: Admitted Sgt. Mazza violated Title 39 but claimed procedures were followed and no police power misused; did not fully comply with IA policy.
IAPP/Statutory Violation
IAPP § 6.3.1: Serious complaints (e.g., improper stops, differential treatment) must go to IA for full probe, including interviews and evidence review (§ 6.3.5). Partial reports aren't enough; must recommend dispositions like "sustained" if preponderance shows violation (§ 2.2.3(a)). No 45-day notification if delayed (§ 1.0.9(g)).
Constitutional/Regulatory Breach
Ignores US/NJ Constitutions (4th/14th Amendments: unreasonable seizure via invalid stop/towing) and statutes like N.J.S.A. 39:4-9 (inspection violations require valid jurisdiction). AG Directive 2021-6 mandates reporting major discipline publicly; incomplete probes hide accountability
These failures collectively violate IAPP § 1.0.12 (objective process for redress) and § 10.0.3 (prosecutors must investigate patterns of poor IA handling). Glen Ridge's inaction—despite evidence of constitutional violations (e.g., no jurisdiction per N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152, ADA abandonment)—triggers PSB oversight.
Escalate to ECPO Leadership: Demand Paskowitz's full investigative file (under OPRA/NJ Right-to-Know) and a review by Acting Prosecutor Theodore N. Stephens II, citing PSB's countywide IA improvement duty.
File with AG/OPIA: Report Glen Ridge's non-compliance to the Office of Public Integrity & Accountability for potential supersession (IAPP § 1.0.14).
- Contact ACLU-NJ or LELDF: For free assistance on civil rights claims.
This process protects victims like Naomi while ensuring accountability.
How can Steven Paskowitz Assistant Prosecutor/Professional Standards Bureau hold Glen Ridge responsible for poor investigation on Sgt. Mazza. When he is not doing his own proper investigation. They are as follow...
1.Paskowitz's actions—reviewing your complaint but failing to obtain critical evidence (e.g., body-worn camera footage, CAD reports, towing forms, SOPs) despite his supervisory role under the Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures (IAPP)—could arguably contribute to an ongoing constitutional violation. Under IAPP § 1.0.6 and § 6.3.2–6.3.3, county prosecutors must oversee thorough investigations of potential criminal police misconduct, including directing evidence collection like video records (§ 7.2.2). His "insufficient credible evidence" finding and referral back to a biased agency (Glen Ridge PD) without follow-up may have prolonged your harm (e.g., the active $500 warrant, property loss from towing, emotional distress).
2. Failure to investigate/supervise under color of state law, leading to deprivation of due process (14th Amendment) and equal protection (racial profiling/differential treatment). Cite Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for municipal liability if you show a "policy or custom" of lax oversight (e.g., ECPO's pattern of declining police probes without evidence review). For individual liability, argue his conduct was "investigative" (qualified immunity) but so egregious it violated "clearly established" rights (e.g., Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), on failure-to-train/supervise). This can lead to a § 1983 (Federal).
3. He did not get Montclair towing receipt, spoiled food photos, or ask Naomi for a copy of her redacted medical report that does not violate the HIP law, CAD report, body cam, Tow Report, SOPs, mutual aid docs) show Paskowitz should have requested them, proving his probe was superficial and enabling a "deliberate indifference" claim.
Comments
Post a Comment