By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer
Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph L. Bocchini Jr. and an assistant told members of the Princeton Borough Council that a time-consuming criminal investigation involving three borough police officers was handled appropriately and remains unresolved because of the case’s unique and complicated circumstances.
The grand jury testimony process and prosecutor’s office investigation of charges against Sgt. Kenneth Riley, Sgt. Kevin Creegan and Patrolman William Perez took as long as it did because of “novel issues and extenuating circumstances in the case,” Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor Doris M. Galuchie told the council on Tuesday night.
”I know from your standpoint it was long and expensive, but given all of the facts and circumstances of this case, I don’t know if I had to do it all again that I would have done anything different, that the police would have done anything different,” Ms. Galuchie said.
Ms. Galuchie called the borough Police Department’s handling of the matter “professional and thorough and competent.”
”This just happened to be not the run of the mill. It was more of an anomaly, an aberration,” Mr. Bocchini said.
Ms. Galuchie, who has overseen the Princeton police officers’ case at the prosecutor’s office, and Mr. Bocchini appeared before the Borough Council at its meeting Tuesday evening. In recent months, members of Borough Council have grown increasingly critical of the financial drain on the borough having to pay the officers’ salaries while the case dragged on.
Mr. Bocchini said municipalities have the option of suspending officers with or without pay, but “that is an issue we will not take a position on.”
Following the meeting, Borough Administrator Robert Bruschi said the borough, with the advice of the Borough Council, decided to be conservative and keep the officers on the payroll. He said the decision was made at the administrative, not Borough Council level, because, at the time, it was considered a straightforward administrative decision. The assumption was the proceeding against the three officers would be wrapped up far earlier, he said.
The three borough police officers were suspended with pay in February 2008. None are receiving a borough paycheck.
In September, the Mercer County prosecutor’s office indicted Sgt. Riley 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. At the time of his indictment, the borough ceased paying Sgt. Riley.
Patrolman Perez resigned in mid-December ending his paid tenure, and neither the prosecutor’s office nor the borough is pursuing his case, said Mr. Bruschi. No charges were filed against Sgt. Creegan, and his case was sent back to the borough and is now the subject of a borough administrative proceeding.
The specific charges against Sgt. Creegan and Patrolman Perez have never been detailed in public. Sgt. Creegan stopped receiving his paycheck Jan. 29, said Borough Police Chief Anthony Federico at the council meeting.
Following the meeting, Chief Federico said the salary termination “was an agreement negotiated between the borough’s prosecutor and Creegan’s attorney.”
(At the time of the officers’ suspension, Chief Federico said the officers were suspended after a complaint was filed by another unnamed officer. A spokesman for the State Policeman’s Benevolent Association said at the time the charges stemmed from the trio’s questioning of the manner in which another officer handled a motor vehicle stop involving a minority driver.)
Councilman Roger Martindell asked what happened to the case in the ensuing months after it was referred to the prosecutor’s office in February 2008.
”During that period of time, there was information flowing to us, there was an investigation taking place, and there was additional information we were expecting,” Mr. Bocchini said.
Ms. Galuchie acknowledged “some of the dates did get pushed ahead” in the case both because of ’its complexity, involving many witnesses whose testimony needed to be scheduled before the grand jury and the fact some grand jurors were unavailable over the summer of 2008 because they were taking vacation time.
The prosecutor’s office ended its investigation in timely fashion, in September, she said. The matter of it taking a further five months for a borough motion to be heard to obtain grand jury transcripts “was up to the judicial side,” she said.
Asked by Mr. Martindell why the transcripts were important to obtain, Chief Federico said, for the administrative proceeding, “we needed the transcripts to finish the investigation, and that’s why we applied for them.”
Ms. Galuchie said the transcript of Sgt. Creegan’s testimony “does strengthen your case.”
”I wouldn’t get too much into this case. I think we are crossing a boundary of what is appropriate,” Mr. Bocchini said.
Mr. Martindell expressed frustration at the general lack of information available to the Borough Council and the public about the status of police officers on the force. Mr. Martindell said six or seven out of the borough police force of 34 were not on active duty, but no information on the number of officers relieved of their duties or the reason for the actions has been released.
Chief Federico said the Police Department publishes a list of cases upon their resolution and updates the list as new cases are resolved, which is available to the public.
”I am very uncomfortable talking about that because you represented one of the victims (in a case) that you are talking about,” said Ms. Galuchie to Mr. Martindell.
”That is a conflict,” she said.
Reached after the meeting, Mr. Martindell said long before Patrolman Perez’s case was presented by borough police to the prosecutor’s office, a man showed up at his law offices, saying the police were looking for him. Mr. Martindell said he confirmed with the borough police that they wanted to question the man, whose name he said he didn’t recall, and he invited them to do so at his office.
Borough Lt. Nick Sutter came to his office and interviewed the man with Mr. Martindell serving as a translator, Mr. Martindell said. He said he made it clear he did not formally represent the man as a potential litigant against the borough, but was acting as a go-between. Even if Patrolman Perez were still on the police force, the conflict charge would be tenuous, Mr. Martindell said.
At the Borough Council meeting Mr. Martindell said that given the approximately $500,000 spent on the three officers’ salaries after they were referred to the prosecutor’s office, in the future, if a similarly complex case came up, the borough should pursue its administrative action at the same time as the criminal investigation proceeded.
”In this particular case, I would have objected to that,” Ms. Galuchie said.
She said pursuing criminal and administrative cases in tandem isn’t typically done because things can happen in the administrative case, which compromise the criminal proceeding.
”We don’t care if the criminal case is jeopardized. We want a quick solution because we don’t want to be out hundreds of thousands of dollars,” said Councilman David Goldfarb.
Mr. Martindell said the prosecutor’s office should have shared more information with the Borough Council on the status of the case so it could have made its own determination on proceeding administratively.
”It is bad what the officers did, but we don’t want to pay a half million to prove it,” he said.
”I can appreciate your sentiment,” Mr. Bocchini said. “The way it works is the way we described it, and because it is a criminal investigation, you are not going to hear about it. I’m not trying to be callous.”

