We're suing for the 'racially charged' Spotswood bodycam footage the mayor wants destroyed

SPOTSWOOD – Mayor Jackie Palmer and the borough are arguing that police bodycam footage of a meeting between her and police officers about an incident at Borough Hall should be destroyed because she was "surreptitiously" recorded in violation of state law.

The mayor, through her attorney Matthew Moench, also contends in legal papers that she was "intentionally recorded by the police department in the hopes they would be able to obtain something useful to use against her."

But C.J. Griffin, a government transparency attorney and counsel to Gannett and MyCentralJersey.com which is seeking the release of the footage, argues in court papers that "all the public will learn from disclosure of this video is whether Mayor Palmer said the highly inflammatory and problematic things" that Borough Police Officer Richard Sasso alleges in a lawsuit.

"The video is a neutral account of what Mayor Palmer said and the public deserves to see it," Griffin argues.

Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Michael Toto is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday on Palmer's request for a restraining order to prevent the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, which has the video, from releasing the footage.

The Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, represented by Deputy County Counsel Michael Williams, argues in a letter to Toto that the footage should not be subject to immediate destruction but takes no position whether it should be disclosed under the state's Open Public Records Act (OPRA).

More: Why has Spotswood's mayor gone to court to have police bodycam footage destroyed?

What sparked the court battle

The controversy over the bodycam footage accelerated when Sasso, president of the Spotswood PBA, filed a Superior Court lawsuit on Jan. 15 against Palmer and the borough, alleging violations of the state's Whistleblower Law and other allegations.

Sasso's lawsuit is one of many that police officers have filed against the borough and even each other.

In the 45-page lawsuit, Sasso alleges Palmer repeatedly interfered in the police department and retaliated against him.

In one part of the lawsuit, Sasso details "racially-charged" April 2022 incidents when a Black resident came to the municipal building and was allegedly confronted by Palmer and a meeting between Palmer and police officers

Sasso alleges that in surveillance he reviewed. he saw Palmer "being extremely antagonistic" and telling the resident he had to listen to her because she "is the mayor."

The surveillance also shows Palmer ignoring a police captain's advice to stay in her office rather than approach the man, Sasso alleges.

When the resident returned to the municipal building six days later, police were dispatched to the building because unnamed municipal employees felt unsafe because the resident was there, the suit contends, and they asked for police escorts to their offices.

But, during that time, the suit says, Palmer went on a "verbal tirade" because the man was not removed from the building.

The mayor allegedly said, "everyone is going to get an (expletive) chewing because if I (expletive) call downstairs and say get this (expletive) guy out of here," according to the lawsuit.

"I don't give a (expletive) if (expletive) Spotswood is on fire, there's got to be someone downstairs that can two foot this (expletive) stairs to find out what's happening," the lawsuit quotes the mayor.

After police called the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office to confirm the resident could not be ejected from the building because it would a violation of his civil rights if he were not committing a criminal act, Palmer was told of that directive from the authority that oversees all police departments in the county, the suit says.

More: 'Personal vendetta': Spotswood mayor sues borough council as lawsuits keep piling up

But Palmer became "immediately hostile" and made "inappropriate comments," Sasso alleges, including "we need to control the perception of what's happening" and "I don't need BLM and the KKK fighting on our front steps over this."

The suit alleges that Palmer had the municipal administration initiate an Internal Affairs investigation into the police officers who were present because their bodycams recorded Palmer's comments.

That was done, Sasso said, as a legal strategy to block any potential OPRA requests for video footage of the meeting. One of the officers has since left the department.

Details of the Internal Affairs investigation that followed have been redacted from court papers.

'The video should have been destroyed'

Palmer maintains because it is "uncontroverted" that the footage was recorded in violation of state. And because it was illegal, "no explanation has been offered for why it was not destroyed."

"It was improper for the videos to be turned on at all," Moench says in papers to Toto, adding there is no "remotely applicable" criteria to support keeping the cameras activated.

The mayor also argues that the police officers failed to notify her that the bodycams were recording as required by state law and a state Office of Attorney General directive.

"If there is no penalty or impact for not notifying someone they are being recorded, why would officers be concerned about complying?" Moench argues.

"Notification is an essential part of the overall scheme to balance public privacy concerns with law enforcement needs," Moench writes. "It is not an afterthought or a pesky administrative issue."

Because the footage was "illegally obtained," Moench says "there is no question the video should have been destroyed."

Moench also contends there are "substantial policy interests weighing against disclosure" of the footage.

Palmer has a "reasonable expectation" that when she is having a meeting in her office that "she is not being secretly recorded and that such recordings would be subject to disclosure."

"If elected officials need to be concerned that every conversation they have in their office with staff is going to be recorded and subject to OPRA and common law right of access, it will stifle meaningful debate and impinge officials' ability to conduct business," says Moench, who has twice been elected mayor of Bridgewater.

More: Spotswood mayor trying to trample residents' constitutional rights, court papers charge

Kathryn Hatfield, representing the borough, joins with Moench's arguments and adds that releasing the video footage "is not warranted because there is no legitimate public interest."

"The public is unable to identify a compelling public interest in the body-worn camera, as there is no significant event of public importance that compels release of the footage," Hatfield continues.

'Enough taxpayer money has been wasted'

In the Gannett filing, Griffin calls "the Borough's claim that the public has no interest in seeing the video simply absurd."

Griffin argues that OPRA exists "so the public can learn the truth about allegations made by one public official against another and so that it can know whether an official has said something patently offensive or racist."

"All the public will learn from disclosure of this video is whether Mayor Palmer said the highly inflammatory and problematic things that the Sasso lawsuit alleges she said," Griffin continues.

Although the police officers failed to tell Palmer she was being recorded, there is no evidence it was done "surreptitiously" and there is no allegation that the cameras were hidden or the officers took any action to deceive her or keep her from knowing that she was being recorded, Griffin states.

The bodycam beeps at regular intervals to indicate they are recording, Griffin contends, adding that Palmer "holds herself as being fully familiar with police operations."

Purpose of the bodycams is "to build public trust and provide a watchful eye over police interactions with the public," Griffin writes.

But, the lawyer says, "the need to know about the misconduct or bad behavior of public employees or elected officials is just as important as the right to monitor the police."

State law requires the officers to keep their bodycams activated when they respond to a call for service and Palmer made a call for service when the Black man was in Borough Hall, Griffin says, and the cameras should remain activated until the event is "fully concluded."

What the case boils down to, Griffin writes, is that "Mayor Palmer obviously prefers that the public not see the video and enough taxpayer money has been wasted trying to keep this video from the public."

Email: mdeak@mycentraljersey.com

Mike Deak is a reporter for mycentraljersey.com. To get unlimited access to his articles on Somerset and Hunterdon counties, please subscribe or activate your digital account today.

This article originally appeared on MyCentralJersey.com: Spotswood NJ sued over police bodycam footage mayor wants destroyed