An appeals court upheld the Department of Law and Public Safety's denial of a request to defend and indemnify Salem County in a class action by county jail inmates who claim jail policies violated their rights.

In Stevenson v. Department of Law and Public Safety, the Appellate Division on Tuesday concluded that the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Wright v. State in 2001 did not apply to Salem County's claims for defense and indemnification.

"We have reviewed the County's contentions in light of the record and applicable law, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion," wrote Judges Jose Fuentes and Michael Haas in the per curiam opinion.

The judges said neither the Tort Claims Act nor Wright  "provides support for the County's contentions."

The Tort Claims Act states that "the Attorney General shall, upon a request of an employee or former employee of the State, provide for the defense of any action brought against such State employee or former State employee on account of an act or omission in the scope of his [or her] employment."

Fuentes and Haas said only the county was named as a defendant in the complaint.

"Because the Act plainly states that only an employee may seek defense and indemnification, the County was not entitled to do so under the Act, and the County was unable to offer any alternate statutory support for its claim," wrote the panel. "Under these circumstances, the Court's decision in Wright is simply inapplicable."

Lee Moore, spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, had no comment.

Michael Mulligan of Carneys Point, representing Salem County, couldn't be reached for comment.

The case was on appeal from the Department of Law and Public Safety's decision denying indemnification.

According to Tuesday's decision, on May 17, 2017, four inmates in the Salem County Jail filed a complaint against the county in the Law Division, alleging the county violated their federal and state civil rights by requiring them to be "classified as suicidal for no apparent reason, made to wear garments which exposed [their] private parts, and … routinely strip searched" several times a day.

The inmates sought compensatory damages and a judgment declaring the county's "policies, practices and customs to be unconstitutional and/or violations of their rights," the decision said.

On June 19, 2017, the county filed an answer to the complaint, and two months later, sent a letter to the attorney general and the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections demanding that the attorney general defend and provide indemnification to the county based on the TCA provision, and referencing Wright.

In the Wright case, the state's highest court had to decide whether employees of a county prosecutor's office should be treated as "state employees" eligible for defense and indemnification in a case where they were sued as individuals for alleged improper actions taken during their law enforcement activities. The Supreme Court concluded that county prosecutors held a "hybrid status" due to their "unique role" in performing a "function that has traditionally been the responsibility of the State and for which the Attorney General is ultimately answerable."

The attorney general rendered a written decision denying the county's demand on Sept. 21, 2017, explaining that Wright did not apply in the Salem County case because the county jail's strip-search policy was an administrative function, rather than a law enforcement action.

Salem County appealed, arguing, among other points, that the county sheriff and corrections officers were state agents hired for law enforcement purposes, and a county sheriff is subject to state government regulations administered by the attorney general and Department of Corrections.

The panel disagreed.

"In the present case, however, no county employees were parties to the underlying class action lawsuit, and no employees sought defense and indemnification from the State," according to the Appellate Court decision. "Therefore, and contrary to the County's assertions, there is no need to perform a Wright analysis in this matter."