Tinton Falls suits expose 'blue wall of silence'

TINTON FALLS - Two whistleblower lawsuits claim to have exposed what a panel of appellate judges say is a “blue wall of police silence" in the borough Police Department, including a private meeting at a garbage dump that the court said “smacks of an illegal police cover up."

The judges recently reinstated one of the lawsuits after a lower court dismissed it. The borough recently settled the other lawsuit for $527,500.

The borough agreed to pay retired police Lt. Kevin Pierson that amount to settle his whistleblower lawsuit that claimed he was harassed and forced out of the department after he told the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office about a colleague’s alleged wrongdoing, according to court papers. The borough and Police Department admitted no wrongdoing in settling the case.

In the other whistleblower case, a panel of appellate judges reinstated a lawsuit brought by the department’s union delegate, who claims he was reassigned from the K-9 unit to a “punishment post" after he interceded with the Prosecutor’s Office on Pierson’s behalf.

The delegate, identified in the judges’ opinion only by initials, said he reported what he believed to be an improper internal affairs investigation by the Police Department that focused on Pierson rather than on the alleged wrongdoing that Pierson sought to expose, according to the appellate judges’ decision.

Water theft allegation

The whole matter started in 2008 with an allegation that a police sergeant may have been stealing water from New Jersey American Water Co., according to papers filed in both cases.

It ballooned into what the appellate judges said “smacks of perpetrating an illegal police cover up," when another police sergeant called the union delegate to a private meeting at a garbage dump to tell him he should have "tipped off" the officer who was under investigation, according to court papers.

The matter reached a point where the Prosecutor’s Office threatened to take over the Police Department’s internal affairs office, the court papers said.

“We cannot ignore the facts presented in this matter relate to allegations of illegal activities by police officers and implicate what is commonly referred to as a the ‘blue wall’ of police silence," Judges Marie E. Lihotz, William E. Nugent and Carol E. Higbee of the Appellate Division of Superior Court wrote in their Nov. 18 decision reinstating the case brought by the union delegate against the borough and its Police Department. A Superior Court judge previously dismissed the suit, saying it did not meet the criteria for a whistleblower claim.

“The term ‘blue wall’ is common parlance for police officers’ reluctance to incriminate their fellow officers," the appellate judges said.

Prosecutor investigation

Mayor Gerald Turning Sr., who was police chief at the time, said he could not comment on either case because the settlement with Pierson contains a confidentiality agreement, and the delegate’s suit is ongoing.

"I would love to tell my side of the story, but I cannot do that,'' Turning said.

In court papers, the borough's attorney argued that the suit should be dismissed because there was no evidence that the union delegate suffered an "adverse employment action" at the Police Department. The appellate judges, however, said they disagreed. They returned the suit o Superior Court, where there has been no trial date set.

The delegate’s suit identifies him only by the initials T.D. However, Pierson in his lawsuit, identified the officer who interceded on his behalf as Thomas Dennehy, state delegate of the Policemen's Benevolent Association, Local 251.

Pierson, in his lawsuit, claims he found out in 2008 that then-Sgt. David Scrivanic had put "a device on his home water pipes to divert water for his personal use without charge."

A New Jersey American Water Co. employee noticed the device on three occasions, the lawsuit said. Scrivanic used his position to intimidate the employee and, while in uniform, threatened the worker, , Pierson's lawsuit alleged.

Scrivanic, who has since been promoted to captain, did not respond to telephone messages and emails seeking comment.

Pierson reported the allegations about Scrivanic to the Prosecutor’s Office. The Prosecutor’s Office investigated the allegations and directed the Tinton Falls Police Department to bring a “major disciplinary action’’ against Scrivanic, Pierson’s lawsuit said.

“David Scrivanic was not criminally charged by our office," Charles Webster, spokesman of the Prosecutor’s Office, said when asked about the outcome of the investigation.

What ensued was an investigation to find out who brought the matter to the Prosecutor’s Office in the first place.

“The chief prompted (internal affairs) to conduct an investigation to locate who revealed the sergeant’s water diversion activities, even though it was clear the sergeant’s conduct was unlawful," the appellate judges said in the PBA delegate’s case.

Department charges filed

The Police Department in March 2009 filed departmental charges against Pierson for bypassing his chain of command in reporting the incident to the Prosecutor’s Office. The charges included misconduct and insubordination, his lawsuit said.

At that point, Pierson contacted his union delegate, Dennehy.

The delegate believed it was inappropriate to discipline Pierson for disclosing illicit activity to the Prosecutor’s Office, and he contacted the PBA attorney, who directed him to report the improper internal affairs investigation, according to the appellate decision in the delegate’s case. The Prosecutor’s Office consequently instructed the police chief to stop the investigation and drop the disciplinary charges against Pierson, the court papers stated.

The Prosecutor's Office "responded to the department's actions by threatening to take over the department's internal affairs unit if the department did not withdraw the disciplinary charges against (Pierson)," the suit filed by Pierson said.

Meanwhile, the delegate’s sergeant in March 2009 arranged to meet the delegate “outside of work at a local dump site,’’ and asked him if he was aware of the “water diversion criminal investigation," the appellate judges wrote in their recent decision in his case. The sergeant was not referred to by name.

“Plaintiff’s sergeant became upset and told plaintiff he should have ‘tipped off’ his fellow officer, or ‘at least put an anonymous letter in his mailbox’ informing him the (Prosecutor’s Office) was conducting a criminal investigation," the judges wrote.

When the delegate rejected the suggestion, the sergeant “vilified" the officer who reported the alleged wrongdoing and told the delegate, “everyone should start watching their backs," and “a certain lieutenant should start paying for cable and that guys should start getting the proper permits in town," the appellate judges noted in their decision.

Informing the prosecutor

The delegate directed the PBA attorney to inform the Prosecutor’s Office about what the sergeant had said to him at the dump. The sergeant, in a formal statement to the Prosecutor’s Office, said he told the delegate it “was the PBA’s responsibility to protect the officer by informing him of the criminal investigation or providing him with legal representation."

He said he became “very irate and stated some things he didn’t mean," including references to other officers not paying for cable or not obtaining permits, according to the appellate judges. But, the sergeant insisted he had no knowledge of any such illegal activity, and the Prosecutor’s Office closed its investigation, the appellate judges said.

The judges concluded, “The sergeant’s ‘suggestion’ plaintiff should have tipped off a fellow officer smacks of perpetrating an illegal police cover up."

Turning was asked about the judges’ critical comments about the blue wall of silence within the Police Department.

“That’s a dynamic they spelled out," he responded, indicating there was another side to the story that he is prohibited from talking about because of confidentiality agreements and the ongoing lawsuit.

“The answers you’re searching for are all sitting at the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office," he said.

When asked about the prosecutor’s investigation into the whole matter, including the allegation about Scrivanic diverting water, Webster, the prosecutor’s spokesman, said, “The matter was referred back to Tinton Falls for administrative review. That is the extent of our involvement in the matter."

Forced retirement claim

The departmental charges against Pierson were dismissed, but he claimed in his lawsuit that members of the Police Department continued to retaliate against him.

Pierson’s lawsuit said the retaliation included further internal affairs charges, being passed over for overtime, denied access to training classes, placed on “administrative psych leave," and passed over for promotion to chief in favor of David Scrivanic’s brother, John Scrivanic, who received the promotion instead.

John Scrivanic, now chief of the department, also did not respond to phone messages and emails seeking comment.

Pierson was electrocuted at work on May 7, 2014, and suffered nerve damage in his right arm, the suit claimed. On June 11, 2014, while still on injury leave, he was notified he was going to be demoted to sergeant as a result of more internal affairs charges. Pierson fought the demotion, and on Aug. 19, 2014, he agreed to instead retire and receive a written reprimand.

Pierson claimed he was forced to resign because of a hostile environment.

The union delegate, in his lawsuit, alleges the retaliation he faced for his whistleblowing activities included removal from the K-9 unit, denial of a promotion and a reassignment in 2012.

“He alone patrols the local mall, a duty assignment officers in the department term a ‘punishment post,’" according to the appellate judges who reinstated his case.

Andrew Ford: 732-643-4281; Aford3@gannettnj.com; Kathleen Hopkins: 732-643-4202; Khopkins@app.com