01-2-8945 In the Matter of Denial of Prequalification Application of Johnson Specialized Transp., App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Appellant moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of his appeal challenging the Turnpike Authority’s denial of his requests to be prequalified to bid on contracts for routine towing services on the Turnpike. Appellant had complained that the authority had denied its applications without a hearing. The panel found that an informal hearing or conference should have been held but that the matter was moot, since the contracts for which Johnson had sought prequalification were awarded to other bidders over a year before. In light of subsequent information that the authority had the ability to appoint additional contractors in the zones at issue under the prequalification for bids to which Johnson responded, the panel granted the motion for reconsideration; reversed the authority’s decision to deny prequalification without a hearing; and remanded the matter for an informal hearing pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:9-2.12(b) to resolve Johnson’s protest.
46-2-8995 Crawford v. State of N.J., App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) On Jan. 15, 2010, plaintiff Don R. Crawford Jr. suffered injuries, including a fractured ankle, while being arrested by a New Jersey State Police trooper. Plaintiff filed a complaint including a claim for excessive force and a claim for violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff’s NJCRA claim alleged that defendants ratified and maintained a practice, custom and/or policy of failing to train, discipline and/or supervise the trooper defendants in conformity with clearly established constitutional principles that govern their conduct, including proscriptions against the use of excessive force in effecting seizures of unarmed persons. The state was granted leave to appeal from an order of the Law Division compelling it to produce 373 Internal Affairs files of the New Jersey State Police requested by plaintiff. The IA files included complaints against troopers for excessive force and assault and complaints against troopers investigating domestic violence incidents. The order permitted plaintiff to inspect, redact and copy the IA files. The appellate panel found that the trial court’s decision that plaintiff was entitled to a full review of all documents that might lead to discoverable evidence, not just documents that may be used at trial, was a mistaken exercise of its discretion. The trial court did not explicitly weigh the balancing factors in its ruling or order with respect to each of the IA files. More importantly, the court did not conduct an in camera review of the IA files. Rejecting the state’s blanket rationale as to why the IA files should not be disclosed, the panel remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to review the IA files in camera and render a decision making specific reference to particular documents or groups of documents and provide factual findings, if necessary, in the form of a separate sealed decision.
