JUDGE LONGHI SOLD HIMSELF TO POLICE UNION

FEDERAL & STATE LEGAL PRECEDENTS FOR RELEASE OF FILES OF INTERNAL AFFAIR INVESTIGATIONS IN CRMINAL MATTERS BY POLICE

There were 2 separate Internal Affair investigations ordered by the Edison Mayor Choi one for July 4th incident and Aug. 2, 2006 arrest of Mr. Parikh by ICE and role of Police Department in that. In the July 4th investigations Mayor Choi absolved Patrolman Dotro of all accusations of Police Brutality under racial bias. For the second enquiry in a Press Conference he along with Police Chief said every thing was done properly and legally accept 2 junior officers (names not disclosed) failed to report about the ICE plans to arrest Mr. Parikh to their seniors and they will be given counseling. It was very obvious how a coded matter concerning security from Department of Homeland Security DHS can be concealed from the detective bureau. The fact is Police Chief George Mieczkowski who also has a brother in detective bureau Ronnie in the police force got the information. Mayor Choi, Chief Micezkowski’s and PBA President Michael Schwartz’s stand they were not aware of it is a very pathetic joke because a dispatcher has no ability to decode or is allowed to keep a coded message from DHS. Their fraudulent claims of not knowing were blown apart by Star Ledger in their Dec 2006 news that Mr. Parikh’s arrest was a result of the conspiracy by Patrolman Dotro accused of brutality and his brother Sam Dotro who works as an attorney for ICE in Newark.

On Feb 13, 2007 after deliberate, intentional & inordinate delays Municipal Judge Hoffman Ruled that both Internal Investigation reports concerning Parikh’s arrest on July 4th by Dotro and Aug. 2, 2006 by ICE be released to him with in 20 days. In an unprecedented move before the deadline of March 6, 2007, the Police Union PBA, which is not a government entity, but rather a private lobbying and collective agency for the private interest of individual police officers, a group neither vested with nor entrusted with the public interest, filed a motion seeking to intervene and making demands not to release the Internal Investigation Reports of victims arrest on July 4th & his subsequent arrest on Aug. 2, 2006 by Immigration and Custom Enforcement ICE from the venue Municipal Compounds of Edison where Parikh along with few supporters protesting against the Police Brutality under Racial Bias done to him on July 4th by Patrolman Michael Dotro. Judge Hoffman denied them by saying they have no standing. It must be noted PBA has a membership of 190,000 in voters term it is over 300,000 voters and in the last election PBA gave more than $1 million to Democrat Candidates Election Campaigns, which is not possible any where else in the world.

Retiring Superior Court Democrat Judge Robert Longhi after breaking all rules of notification calling the victims Counsels around 9.00 A.M. to be present in his Court at 10.30 AM the same day, entertained PBA’s contention despite Assistant Prosecutor Abromowitz objections that PBA has no standing whatsoever in this matters and their contentions of unrest in the community on account of release of IA files are unfounded and baseless. He was appearing on behalf of the State to prosecute Parikh on false & fabricated criminal charges framed by Patrolman Dotro on July 4, 2006. Judge Longhi misrepresented in Court there are 2 cases where intervention was granted and stayed the delivery of the IA files to the victim and asked Judge Hoffman to put his reasons for denial to PBA to intervene in writing.

LEGAL SUMMARY 2

Parikh’s attorney Paul wrote in his brief to oppose PBA, “The right of a party to intervene in a criminal case is extremely rare and extremely circumscribed. Indeed, there is only one reported case in New Jersey that found such right. NJ Super 244 (Appell. Division 1995) a case involving a confidential informant in a homicide case.

On the questions raised by PBA of confidentiality of Internal Investigations and claims of concern about unrest of a community. Paul has written, “The very section of Attorney General’s guidelines on Internal Affairs investigations cited by PBA provides that any confidentiality of records shall be overridden by a “Court Order.” In addition, the Municipal Prosecutor has not filed an Appeal to Judge Hoffman’s original orders of Feb 12, 2007 to release Internal Investigation reports to the victim Parikh. Nor has any other official law enforcement authority such as the Edison Police Department or the State of New Jersey sought to join in the PBA’s motion or sought to persuade the Municipal prosecutor to file an appeal. In addition, Middlesex County Prosecutor’s office through its Asst Prosecutor Abromowitz has already stated before Judge Longhi that the PBA has no standing whatsoever in this matter. Accordingly, since there is no allegation or proof of confidentiality or privileged information by a third party directly affected, as required by the relevant case law, the PBA’s motion to intervene should be denied.

The right of a defendant to obtain Internal Affair investigation reports and other similar evidence is well established under both United States and New Jersey Law. State v. Harris, 316 N.J. Super 384 (App. Div. 1998) The right of confrontation requires disclosure of (police personnel records) where a defendant advances some factual predicate making it reasonably likely that information in the file could affect the officer’s credibility. Id 387. The Court noted that “[t]he Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (citation omitted) and that “[t]he essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the defendant the opportunity of cross examination. Cross examination is the principal means by which a witness’ credibility is tested.”

Thus, under New Jersey Law, so long as defendant shows “some factual predicate” that would make it reasonably likely that information in the desired file is relevant or could affect a witness’s credibility, disclosure shall be made. The review and release of such records is now fairly common. State v. Ewtushek, App. Div. 2005 WL 1802099 (7-1-05)

Likewise, the same principle has been established in Federal Law since at least UNITED STATES V. RICHARD NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) where a ‘generalized interest in confidentiality” by even the President of the United States was insufficient to prevail over the “fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” Id at 713.

In the case of July 4, 2006 arrest of Raj Parikh, the records relating to the Internal Investigation which allegedly cleared officer Dotro involved taking of statements from witnesses as well as a statement from patrolman Dotro himself. As per PBA’s providing

LEGAL SUMMARY 3

News report that 12 Edison Police officers responded to the scene. In contrast, the limited discovery provided to date (March 28, 2007) to the defendant by the prosecutor includes a report of Dotro but does not contain any reports from these officers. Presumably, each of these officers as well as other witnesses and on, on information and belief, the defendant himself provided statements to the Internal Investigation. Such statements are clearly discoverable to the defendant for use in cross examination.

Likewise the records of the second Internal Affair investigation relating to the arrest of Rajnikant Parikh on Aug. 2, 2006 are discoverable. Based on Star Ledger of 12-11-06 news report, it appears that Patrolman Michael Dotro had a brother working for Immigration and Custom Enforcement ICE and that the arrest of Mr. Parikh was planned between Patrolman Michael Dotro, his brother Sam Dotro and possibly other officials. Such actions raise classic credibility issues, such as racial bias and other improper motives, for cross examination of Patrolman Dotro. The involvement of Patrolman Dotro in the ICE arrest of the defendant may be an attempt to deny him the right to a Public Trial, the right to Clear His Name, and the right to pursue allegations of Police Misconduct and Brutality under Racial Bias. These areas clearly go to the credibility of Patrolman Dotro’s description of the events of July 4, 2006, which Patrolman Dotro has claimed was self defense.

In addition, Patrolman Dotro’s credibility has been placed at issue by the decision of the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s office to downgrade the Indictable Charges in this case. Patrolman Dotro signed complaints alleging the Indictable Offense of Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer. However, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, upon reviewing same, has chosen to downgrade or reduce this charge, there by explicitly rejecting some of the claims of Patrolman Dotro.

The PBA’s rationale to withhold discovery, namely possible reprisals by the Asian-Indian community against those members of Edison Police Department involved in the arrest of Mr. Parikh, does not rise to the good cause necessary to justify non-disclosure of the internal affairs reports. Under R. 3-313 (f) (1) and R. 7:7 (e) (1), a court, on a motion and for good cause, may consider an application for a protective order to withhold evidence from discovery under only certain circumstances.

In the instant case, the factual basis underlying the production of the Internal Affairs reports does not present sufficient confidentiality concerns to justify withholding them from discovery. The Edison Police Department investigation concluded that there was no impropriety on the part of the arresting officers. If the police officers involved in Mr. Parikh’s arrest committed no wrongdoing, the PBA has nothing to fear by releasing the contents of the report. Where a law enforcement investigation has been completed, the State’s interest in confidentiality of Internal records related to the investigation is substantially reduced. Shuttleworth V. Camden, 258 N.J. Super. 573, 585 (App. Div. 1992), certif. den., 133 N.J. 429 (1993). In the instant case, the police have completed their investigation. Any police need for confidentiality pales in comparison for Mr. Parikh’s discovery needs to present an effective defense.

LEGAL SUMMARY 4

PBA’s application is a generalized concern for speculative unrest that may occur in the community. Fact is PBA’s application is not supported by a single law enforcement agency such as the Prosecutor of Middlesex County, the Municipal Prosecutor handling the case, the Town of Edison, or the Edison Chief of Police. In short, the individuals and entities actually entrusted with public safety have not joined in this motion. Nevertheless the PBA with this motion seeks to place on itself the mantle of determining what is good for the community of Edison and what should or should not be seen by its citizens, taxpayers and employers. Moreover, it is the alleged actions of the officers themselves, Patrolman Dotro on July 4, 2006 in arresting defendant as well as the actions of Patrolman Dotro and possibly others in arranging the re-arrest on Immigration Charges of the defendant before a large crowd on Aug. 2, 2006 that caused the unrest. Like wise based on news paper reports it was member/supporters/member families of the PBA that have resorted to name calling in Edison by taunting Indian protesters as “Cockroaches, Animals, Illiterates, Illegal Go Home.” Also used racially derogatory statements, profanity and racial slurs. Yet throughout it all there has been no violence there by undermining the PBA’s very stated reason to block Internal Affair Reports. It is also interesting to note that although the PBA claims to be concerned about unrest in the community and danger to its officer, it is the PBA itself that conducted several of the rallies at issue in this case. Indeed, the PBA called the latest rally on Aug. 14, 2006 seeking the resignation of the Edison Mayor Choi. Counsel Brickfield wrote “For the aforementioned reasons, the Court should deny both PBA’s motion to intervene and the motion to block access to the defendant Parikh of internal investigation reports.

DAVE MAKKAR:

When the authorities realized Mr. Parikh is entitled to all the internal investigations including 1 by ICE also, they deported him on April 12, 2007 at a cost of more than $100,000.00 and gross misuse of State and Federal resources just to save a racist patrolman. It was also done in blatant disrespect to US constitution, Pledge of Allegiance and The Bill of Rights which applies to everyone, even illegal immigrant. An immigrant, legal or illegal prosecuted under criminal code has the Right to Due Process, a Speedy and Public Trial and Rights protected by the Fifth & Sixth Amendments. Mr. Parikh has been denied a Trial in the criminal matters arising out of his accusations of Police brutality and cover up. When the Cops & New Jersey were loosing in the Courts, ICE deported him. ICE in the first place in a conspiracy with local cops arrested Mr. Parikh on Aug. 2, 2006 on a more than 10 year old Deportation orders by a Texas Judge also violated his freedom of Free Speech Rights on that day. Then in violation of the US Laws that “Immigration proceedings are matter of Administrative Law, not Criminal Law. As a result, the consequence of Mr. Parikh violating his immigration status is not Jail but Deportation. Why ICE in a conspiracy kept Mr. Parikh in Jail for almost 9 months and also conspired to deny him a fair Trial for his pending Criminal Matters by deporting him before the legal conclusion of his pending Trial?