N.J. judge throws out rule barring state troopers from talking

The Associated Press

07.08.99

Printer-friendly page

TRENTON, N.J. — A state Superior Court judge yesterday threw out a State Police rule threatening to discipline troopers who do unauthorized interviews with news reporters.

An official in the troopers' union said the rule played a role in silencing troopers during the controversy over treatment of minorities and over the firing of Superintendent Carl Williams.

Judge Anthony Parrillo, ruling in Mercer County, found that while police agencies may control the release of confidential information, the New Jersey State Police had imposed an overly broad rule that crushed free-speech rights just as a way to avoid embarrassment.

The ruling was sought by Trooper Samuel Davis and 12 other black troopers who have filed a discrimination lawsuit in federal court. They were denied permission to give interviews on the subject to reporters from the CBS News program "60 Minutes" and ABC.

Late yesterday, First Assistant Attorney General Paul Zoubek announced the state would seek a 30-day delay in Parrillo's ruling to keep the interview ban in effect until a more balanced regulation could be drafted.

State Police Regulation 19 requires a written waiver to be granted for every specific interview request. Davis' attorney, Renee Steinhagen, said supervisors never responded to his request for permission so, in effect, they turned him down.

Parrillo ruled that the clauses of Regulation 19 "convey too cramped a conception of First Amendment Rights, one that impermissibly views public speech as a mere option but administrative convenience (as) an imperative."

The ruling comes in the wake of a report critical of the State Police released last week by Attorney General John Farmer. It found an atmosphere of racial discrimination and inadequate minority recruitment, and Farmer cited lawsuits like the Davis case.

Trooper Dave Jones, treasurer of the State Troopers Fraternal Association, says the union believes the ban on public comment has kept the ordinary troopers' side of the story from being told.

"I would say on a multitude of matters of critical concern over many years, the rank and file, by virtue of these regulations, have in fact been muzzled," Jones said.

"The Constitution doesn't have an asterisk in it" exempting police officers from free speech, Jones said.

Trooper Davis' attorney, Renee Steinhagen, brought the case to Parrillo. "This is a victory not only for the troopers I represent but for all troopers in New Jersey, and all public employees," Steinhagen said yesterday.

Michael Cole, a private attorney retained by the State Police, formally requested a 30-day delay in the ruling, writing to Parrillo that the police agency does not want it left up to individual troopers to decide what is and is not confidential.

Comparing the situation to a famous case involving a book by a former CIA agent, Cole said, "The same concerns are very much present in this case as plaintiffs may well seek to disclose information which they may mistakenly believe to be non-confidential yet may inadvertently compromise an ongoing investigation."

Parrillo in his ruling says that depriving someone of their free speech is an immediate, irreparable harm. At question was whether such harm was justified. Parrillo said in the Davis case, it was not even a close call.

"Indeed, courts have struck down as unconstitutional prior restraint regulations that burdened speech far less directly than Regulation 19," Parrillo said. He said the state's claim that Davis' public comments would cause harm to the State Police "is seriously wanting."

The judge's opinion said that the troopers, if allowed to speak out, would link their discrimination problems to issues such as racial profiling.

"Whatever the disruptive effect of plaintiff's proposed speech, it would be minimal compared to the adverse publicity and public criticism of the very practices and tactics of which plaintiffs complain in their underlying lawsuit," the judge wrote.

Steinhagen, who works for a nonprofit foundation handling the Davis case, said, "It is recognized that the public has an interest in these issues."