officer has been less than candid in a report, less than candid
in a recorded statement and/or less than candid in testimony
given before a jury. In other words, the law enforcement officer
was allegedly untruthful.
Rather than afford that law enforcement officer the due pro-
cess rights to which he or she is entitled before meting out dis-
cipline to him or her, said prosecutor or assistant prosecutor
believes he or she is professionally obligated under Brady to
alert all defense attorneys with whom that law enforcement of-
ficer has cases that said law enforcement officer has a pending
issue with candor and/or truthfulness.
The involved prosecutor or assistant prosecutor, in practice
(if at all), attempts to soften the blow to the career of the law
enforcement officer by adding to the Brady disclosure letter
the caveats that “these are only allegations” against the law en-
forcement officer and that “the administrative disciplinary pro-
cess is proceeding, but not finalized.” However, no matter what
kind of flowery language those caveats use, once a Brady dis-
closure letter has been issued to one or more defense attorneys,
it could ring the death knell for the career of the affected law
enforcement officer, even if he or she is subsequently cleared of
allegations of lack of candor or untruthfulness. In reality, rather
than being characterized as the “affected” law enforcement of-
ficer, the more apt term may be the “infected” law enforcement
officer.
The issuance of a Brady disclosure letter normally results in
the affected law enforcement officer being immediately trans-
ferred to a position that has no risk of having to write a report
and/or testify. The transfer is purportedly only temporary, but
in reality, there is a high probability that it becomes perma-
nent. Such a transfer into oblivion is normally accompanied
by the practical inability to be assigned overtime duty as well
as the practical inability to seek future promotion. Falsely, the
employer will claim that both overtime and promotion are still
theoretically feasible.
Being the subject of a Brady disclosure letter is the equivalent
of being donned with the modern-day scarlet letter. A fulfilling
career in law enforcement morphs into a mundane career of
filing paperwork or logging evidence or some other adminis-
trative task where the affected law enforcement officer cannot
“infect” a pending or potential case with his or her “disease” of
unsubstantiated claims of lack of candor or lack of truthfulness.
It could also result in removal proceedings.
It is imperative that law enforcement officers, their PBAs, and
their attorneys act prior to the issuance of a Brady disclosure
letter. Once a Brady disclosure letter has been issued, even vin-
dication in the administrative process or money from a lawsuit
may not be enough to resurrect an unfulfilling and lost career
in law enforcement.
We are working feverishly to stop this trend and will keep you
informed. d
A former municipal police officer, county corrections officer and
municipal prosecutor, Stuart J. Alterman has represented law
enforcement officers for more than 25 years in all areas of em-
ployment issues. He is a NJ State PBA Lifetime Silver Card recip-
ient. Arthur J. Murray, who has extensive practice in the Office
of Administrative Law in Law Enforcement Disciplinary Matters,
contributed to this report.
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ FEBRUARY 2018 27