TRENTON — Legislators are trying to close a loophole that makes it harder for judges to force public employees to forfeit their jobs when convicted of a crime. Identical bills were introduced in the Senate and Assembly this month, in the wake of the Aug. 3 state Supreme Court decision that allows a former Hunterdon County sheriff’s officer, who...
TRENTON
— Legislators are trying to close a loophole that makes it harder for judges to force public employees to forfeit their jobs when convicted of a crime.Identical bills were introduced in the Senate and Assembly this month, in the wake of the Aug. 3 state Supreme Court decision that allows a former Hunterdon County sheriff’s officer, who was convicted of a sex crime, to return to work in the public sector.
The 3-2 ruling means Jeremiah Hupka, 33, could return to police work. He pleaded guilty in 2008 to groping his ex-girlfriend. The justices said the crime occurred while he was off-duty, in a private home with a person he knew, and was not directly related to his sheriff’s position or his part-time job as a Frenchtown police officer. The law says an employee should lose their position if convicted of an offense "involving or touching such office, position or employment." But Sen. Thomas Goodwin (R-Mercer) and Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein (D-Middlesex) say their legislation would allow a judge to consider the gravity of the offense, its context, the victim’s identity and qualifications required for the position.
"The safety of the public and the integrity of the public employees should not be at risk due to legal loopholes," Goodwin said.
"Certainly, when you have a sheriff’s officer or a policeman, just about anything would touch upon the position," Greenstein said.
Under the proposed legislation, being off-duty would not be an issue. "That an offense did not take place during employment hours or on employment grounds does not preclude a determination by the court that the offense was related directly to the person’s performance in, or circumstances flowing from, the specific public office, position or employment held by the person," the bills state.
The statute amended in 2007 made it possible for the court to overlook the totality of Hupka’s case. He was originally charged with first-degree aggravated sexual assault and second-degree sexual assault amid allegations the incident occurred after the woman had been drinking at her Frenchtown apartment in 2006.
Hupka pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual contact for touching the woman’s private parts, but a pre-sentence report revealed more, according to the dissenting opinion. Hupka and another man arrived at her apartment and the victim fell asleep. The next day, she realized she had engaged in sexual activity. Both men denied having sex with her, but she later learned she was pregnant and a DNA test indicated that Hupka was likely the father. The pregnancy was later terminated.
In the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said a 1990 Supreme Court case established the appropriate standards to consider, and those are the standards referenced in the bills.
Somerset County Sheriff Frank Provenzano Sr., who is president of the Sheriff’s Association of New Jersey, said he and his colleagues agree the law needs to be changed and they hope to see the bill passed. "Whatever I do, either on duty or off duty, as a law enforcement officer, it’s a reflection on the organization and the position," he said.
Cranford Police Chief Eric Mason, who is president of the New Jersey Association of Chiefs of Police, said each case has to be weighed on its merits.
"If this legislation is in fact in response to one high-profile case, that doesn’t mean that this is a widespread issue," he said. "If there is a loophole in the law and this legislation closes that loophole, that is a positive."