supreme-court.JPG

The censure from the state Supreme Court -- composed of, from left in a file photo, Justice Ariel Rodriguez, Justice Anne Patterson, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, Justice Barry Albin and Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina -- does not affect Roman Montes' ability to continue as judge.

(Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)

Not long after Municipal Court Judge Roman Montes threw Miguel Martinez into jail over a domestic dispute involving an exotic dancer at a Rahway go-go bar, the judge visited the scene of the crime.

Over the course of a couple of hours that evening at Breathless Men’s Club — a place known for pretty women and cheap lap dances — Montes said he "flirted" with the woman at the center of the court case. Claiming not to have recognized her, he bought her drinks as she danced for him, and he tipped her.

After she reminded him who she was, they exchanged telephone numbers and he continued to pursue her for weeks afterward.

On Thursday, the state Supreme Court censured Montes, who serves as a municipal court judge in Rahway and Elizabeth, finding that he demonstrated a "gross lack of good judgment and self control," who placed his "personal desires ahead of his judicial integrity."

A staff member reached at the Elizabeth Municipal Court said Montes was on vacation, and other attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. A message left with Montes’ lawyers was not returned.

The censure grew out of an ethics complaint filed by Martinez after his arrest. In a court opinion published by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, investigators said Montes first received a call from a Rahway police sergeant in the early morning hours of Nov. 21, 2012, following a fight between Martinez and his girlfriend at the time in the parking lot of the strip club, where she worked.

Montes found probable cause for an arrest warrant against the man and five days later, arraigned the man through a teleconference connection while the defendant was in the Union County jail in Elizabeth.

On Dec. 11, according to the report, Montes, an occasional patron of Breathless, went there with another man at the invitation of the owner. Martinez’s girlfriend, who has not been identified, approached the judge.

During the evening, the woman related that she knew Montes was a judge and that she was the victim in the domestic violence case he was handling, which she wanted dismissed. Montes reportedly told her he couldn’t discuss the case, but continued socializing even though he realized she was trying to "get on his good side ... to manipulate the situation," the committee stated.

The next day they exchanged text messages and Montes told his staff to transfer the case because of his conflict with the victim, according to the report. But the case wasn’t transferred until two weeks after their encounter, during which time investigators said Montes continued to exchange calls and text messages with the woman.

When told the case was transferred to Clark, the woman said she wanted Montes to be the judge and asked him about the Clark judge. Montes continued to pursue the relationship and never told superiors until he was contacted by the advisory committee, the report said.

After the case was finally transferred, Martinez’s lawyer called the Clark prosecutor and explained the relationship between Montes and the woman. The domestic violence case was ultimately resolved through an agreement and the Clark judge contacted Montes, but came away believing their relationship had been sexual, the reports stated.

The advisory committee found Montes failed to maintain high standards of conduct to preserve integrity of the judiciary, and failed to maintain conduct promoting public confidence.

"We find such conduct inexcusable and an affront to the judicial office," the committee report stated.

Montes, the committee said, should have ended his contact with the woman after learning her identity. Failing to do so, "placed his judicial office at risk of being compromised and demonstrated a lack of respect for the dignity of his judicial station."

Although the Supreme Court issuance of the censure is a public declaration of the committee’s decision, it does not effect his ability to continue as judge, said Tammy Kendig, spokeswoman for the state Division of the Judiciary.