KENNETH M. JOHNSON VS. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE (NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1795-17T2
KENNETH M. JOHNSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE,
Respondent-Respondent.
___________________________
Argued January 30, 2019 – Decided February 13, 2019
Before Judges Alvarez and Reisner.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Police.
Daniel Louis Grossman argued the cause for appellant.
Erica R. Heyer, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Erica R. Heyer, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Kenneth Johnson appeals from a November 8, 2017 final
decision of the Superintendent of the State Police, adopting the initial decision
of an administrative law judge, denying appellant's application for a private
detective license. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the initial
decision and the Superintendent's final decision.
On this appeal, appellant raises the following points of argument:
POINT ONE
NJSP IS ADMINISTRATIVELY ESTOPPED FROM
DENYING APPELLANT HIS P.I. LICENSE
BECAUSE THE STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE ARE
IDENTICAL.
POINT TWO
THE DECISION WAS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS.
After reviewing the record, we find that the Superintendent's decision is not
arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial credible evidence. See
Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995);
Mattia v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 455 N.J Super. 217, 221
(App. Div. 2018). Appellant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant
further discussion beyond the following brief comments. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
A-1795-17T2
2
Appellant retired from the State Police after admitting, as part of a
negotiated settlement of disciplinary charges, that he abused sick time,
concealed his misconduct, and committed other related infractions. After he
retired, he obtained a license to work as a security officer (a SORA license).
However, as the State's witness explained at the administrative hearing, the State
Police engage in a much more in-depth investigation when considering an
application for a private detective license as opposed to a SORA license.1
Further, the regulatory requirements pertaining to a private detective license are
somewhat different in terms of the applicant's character and background. See
N.J.A.C. 13:55-1.11(a)(2) (a private detective license may be denied based on
the applicant's "bad moral character, intemperate habits or a bad reputation for
truth, honesty and integrity[.]"); N.J.A.C. 13:55A-3.7(a)(7) (a SORA license
may be denied based on the applicant's "bad moral character, incompetence, or
untrustworthiness[.]"). The investigation for the private investigator license
revealed appellant's disciplinary history preceding his retirement from the State
Police, and the application was denied based on that history.
1
The SORA license was issued after a routine criminal background
investigation. Appellant's qualifications for that license were not the subject of
an administrative hearing or other adversarial proceeding.
A-1795-17T2
3
We conclude that the Superintendent's decision was amply supported by
the record and was not arbitrary or capricious. The Superintendent was not
estopped from denying the private detective license based on the earlier issuance
of the SORA license. Collateral estoppel requires a showing that the "identical"
issue was "actually litigated" in a "prior proceeding." Olivieri v. Y.M.F. Carpet,
Inc., 186 N.J. 511, 521 (2006). The previous issuance of the SORA license did
not meet any of those standards.
Affirmed.
A-1795-17T2
4