Charges stem from internal police probe
By Katie Wagner, Staff Writer
Princeton Borough Police Sgt. Kenneth Riley was indicted on six felony charges for allegedly accessing his department’s video record database without authorization and showing other officers what he saw in order to adversely affect another officer’s standing, the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office announced in a news release Friday.
Sgt. Riley, who’s been an officer for the police department for 17 years, was charged with two counts of computer criminal activity, two counts of unlawful access and disclosure of computer data and two counts of official misconduct.
The criminal charges stem from an internal affairs investigation that led to the suspensions with pay of Sgt. Riley and two other Princeton Borough police officers, Sgt. Kevin Creegan and Patrolman William Perez.
The suspensions, which began at the end of February, resulted from a complaint filed by another borough police officer. Not-guilty pleas were entered by all three officers.
”Riley was the only one charged by the grand jury,” said Casey DeBlasio, a spokeswoman for the Prosecutor’s Office. “They found insufficient evidence to charge anyone else,” Ms. DeBlasio said.
Typically, a case like this will go back to a police department for any administrative charges, she added.
”The other officers could still face administrative charges or disorderly persons charges in municipal court,” Ms. DeBlasio said.
Sgt. Riley’s attorney, Jeff Garrigan, said the charges resulted from Sgt. Riley’s viewing a videotape of a sergeant, whose name he declined to provide, stopping a motor vehicle of a driving-while-intoxicated suspect in January. In the videotape, the unnamed sergeant allowed the suspect to urinate on public property, which is contrary to police procedures, Mr. Garrigan said.
According to the news release, Sgt. Riley accessed the police department’s Mobile Vision Recorder database on two separate dates in January “in excess of authorization” and showed the tape to other officers in an effort to adversely affect another officer’s standing in the department. When asked about when and why he accessed the database, Mr. Riley was untruthful with his answers, according to the news release.
”Mr. Riley has asserted innocence as he has from day one and he’s going to defend himself in court against the charges,” said Mr. Garrigan, of the Jersey City law firm Cammarata, Nulty and Garrigan. “I’m curious to see how they’re going to prove that he accessed the footage in excess of authorization,” Mr. Garrigan said. “It turns out the chief and internal affairs did everything they could to protect the sergeant who should’ve been the target of the internal investigation. There are political forces at work, which will be brought out at trial,” he said.
Mr. Garrigan added that Sgt. Riley did not lie about his reasons for accessing the database.
”They (the police department) are well aware of why he was accessing it,” Mr. Garrigan said. “It wasn’t in violation of any rule or any regulation of the department. He accessed it because the sergeant involved in the original motor vehicle stop couldn’t locate the incident in the database.”
Mr. Garrigan said he didn’t know how many times Sgt. Riley accessed the videotape.
Princeton Borough Police Chief Anthony Federico declined to comment on Sgt. Riley’s indictment.
The charges against the three officers were filed approximately one month after an “unfair practice” complaint was filed with the state’s Public Employment Relations Commission by attorney James Mets on behalf of PBA 130.
The complaint document alleged inappropriate administrative action against various members of the union had occurred and pointed to consistent disputes between the police department’s administration and PBA 130 members.
Chief Federico has said that the internal investigation that led to the suspensions of three officers in his department began well before the filing of a February grievance by the police union representing the officers.
In early April, the police union withdrew its allegations as part of a settlement.
James Ryan, a spokesman for the State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, which had become involved in the case at the request of the local union, had said the charges against the three suspended officers stem from the their questioning of “the handling of a motor vehicle stop involving a minority.”

