By: Stephanie Prokop
BORDENTOWN TOWNSHIPJohn Carter, a former Bordentown Township police officer, is appealing a decision made recently by the state Supreme Court to uphold his firing in 2004.
Mr. Carter said Wednesday he filed an appeal last week with the court asking for reconsideration.
In June, the state Supreme Court reversed last year’s Appellate Division of Superior Court ruling that the township’s 2004 firing of the patrolman for sleeping on duty was too severe a punishment.
The state Supreme Court instead agreed with a prior decision made by the Office of Administrative Law and the Merit System Board, which found that John Carter slept in his patrol car three times while on duty in June 2001, that he had a history of violating rules and regulations, and that he was properly fired by the township.
Mr. Carter, who joined the Police Department in 1991, was originally issued a notice of termination from the department in November 2001 for being asleep in his patrol car on Route 130 during three night shifts the previous June and for several unauthorized absences. He continued to work as a patrolman during the time between 2001, when the termination was issued, and 2004, when the judge found him guilty of misconduct.
The case was heard by Judges Mary Catherine Cuff, John S. Holston Jr. and William P. Gilroy, and in their opinion, which was posted online, said that there was evidence that Mr. Carter was guilty of the charges, but because of his illness he had Lyme disease then remanded the case to the Merit Board.
The township had appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard the case on Jan. 17 and issued its decision on June 20, with the opinion written by Judge Helen E. Hoens.
The opinion stated "we find nothing arbitrary or capricious about the imposition of the sanction of removal."
Township Committeeman Mark Roselli said in a former statement that the township was happy with the decision to uphold the firing.
"To think that a police officer that’s charged with protecting the residents can sleep on duty and (that it’s) somehow not a basis to terminate (him) is mind-boggling," he said.
Calls to the Bordentown Police Department were not returned before the Register-News deadline.
