Irrazary Oscar nomination

[novillero]

Stop harassing Freehold Borough police

Wouldn't it be great if the Latino Leadership Alliance (and the op ed page of the News Transcript) were as concerned about the illegal immigrants, who break the law on a daily basis just by being here, as they are over castigating the men and women in blue who serve on our fine police department?

Rather than being upset over the drain the illegal (immigrants) are on our public school system and social services, the Latino Leadership Alliance persecutes the police.

The internal investigation went from the police department, the prosecutor's office and back again. What else do they (the Latino Leadership Alliance and the News Transcript) want? The result was not what they were hoping for so the incident will never go away.

My son participated in the Youth Police Academy last summer. The police officers who were involved could not have been better, including officer Chris Colaner.

Police Chief (Mitchell) Roth should be very proud of his department.

As Holly Weiss stated in a letter to the editor ("Disagreement Is Not Over Immigrants Who Came Legally," News Transcript, June 10), legal immigrants deserve our respect, they pay their fair share of taxes, they learn our language, they follow the same laws the rest of us follow; the illegals do not.

That is what the Latino LeadershipAlliance should be addressing, not aiding and abetting lawbreakers and certainly not continually harassing our wonderful police department.

Joan Stein
Freehold Borough
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0617/letters/015.html

[novillero]

Why did this become an illegal immigration topic? Ms. Irizzary, to my knowledge, is not illegal.

I think there are legitimate concerns as addressed in the past week's editorial, and Marc Rosman's comments below. I do not think it is beating up the police department, but asking legitimate questions. Unfortunately, failing to answer questions by those in the know only provides fuel to the theories that something is not quite right. The best way to address the problem is to hit it head-on, and that is only fair to Sgt. Colaner as well. He should not have to be under this cloud if he is cleared by all investigations.

[novillero]

Town owed answers about investigation

In the News • MARK ROSMAN
I have to admit that my reliance on common sense can sometimes get me in trouble. Not everyone sees common sense in the same way. That is what has brought us to a difference of opinion with the Freehold Borough Police Department on what I believe is a matter of public interest.

On a night in January 2008, a Freehold Borough police officer stopped a vehicle that matched the description of a vehicle that was being sought. Before the matter was concluded, a Freehold Township woman and her son had been arrested and charged with various offenses, and they in turn had made allegations of improper conduct against a police officer.

The vehicle that was stopped by the officers, as it turned out, was not the vehicle that was being sought.

Shortly after the incident occurred, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office determined that Freehold Borough Patrolman (now sergeant) Chris Colaner — who was accused by the adult woman of improper conduct — had not committed a crime during the incident.

That finding by the prosecutor's office does not answer the question of whether Colaner or any other officer acted improperly — without committing a crime — or whether police department policies were followed, or whether any officer was disciplined for his actions at the scene of the incident.

In the wake of the allegations that Migdalia Irizarry — the adult who was in the vehicle at the time an officer stopped it — made against the police officers following the Jan. 29, 2008, incident, the police department launched an internal investigation of what had taken place.

It was no secret that the police department was investigating its own officers. The News Transcript published articles in February 2008 and July 2008 in which Police Chief Mitchell Roth acknowledged that an internal investigation was under way.

Common sense — and here is where I am going to get into trouble — would seem to dictate that when the investigation was completed, the residents of Freehold Borough would be informed of what police had learned about the alleged official misconduct.

Saying nothing leads one to wonder why no results have been announced.

After all, this was a publicly announced investigation that was not assumed or presumed to have anything to do with Colaner's personnel record. It was — or should have been — an investigation of police officers' conduct during a motor vehicle stop that occurred in public.

The News Transcript filed an OPRA (Open Public Records Act) request with the Freehold Borough Police Department last week seeking the investigation report, which we believed would state the results of the internal investigation.

Freehold Borough police Lt. Mark Wodell denied the newspaper's OPRA request for the investigation report, stating, "The information you are requesting relating to the internal affairs investigation is covered by OPRA as a personnel record and thus listed as confidential. I am denying your request."

I fail to see how the report of an investigation is a personnel record.

When asked at a Borough Council meetingwhy the police chief has not said anything publicly about the results of the internal investigation, the borough attorney explained that the chief is prevented from doing so.

I do not believe that explanation is 100 percent accurate. Police chiefs in New Jersey have tremendous independence from political bodies, and I fail to see why Roth — who acknowledged in this newspaper that the Jan. 29, 2008, incident was being investigated by his department— has not told residents what the examination determined.

In an email to the News Transcript on June 5, Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins said she had no comment about a claim that Irizarry has filed against the borough seeking damages as a result of the 2008 incident.

The News Transcript published an article about Irizarry's claim for damages, as well as an article about Colaner's promotion to sergeant, and an editorial about this situation in its June 10 edition.

Is it just a coincidence that Higgins is quoted in a June 13 article in a local daily newspaper as saying that a disciplinary hearing has been scheduled against an unnamed person because the internal investigation uncovered something?

When was this disciplinary hearing scheduled? After the issue was raised in public on June 1? After borough officials realized it has been 18 months since this occurred and perhaps it is time to wrap it up? Or after the News Transcript questioned the way this situation has been handled?

Common sense on the part of borough officials has been lacking in this matter. Common sense was missing at the council meeting on June 1 when the issue was raised in public and the public was given a "we can't talk about it" response. Sure you can. It may be uncomfortable, but you can do it.

Common sense was missing in the email response from the borough attorney that the News Transcript received on June 5.

Common sense was missing in the June 13 article in the daily newspaper when the borough offered no real information about what is going on and officials said they did not want to wait any longer to hold a disciplinary hearing. Wait any longer? That would be funny if this wasn't such a serious matter.

These questions remain to be answered: Did police officers act properly on the night of Jan. 29, 2008, or did they not act properly? If they did not act properly, will they be disciplined or have they been disciplined? Did borough officials promote an officer who did not adhere to department policy?

These are straightforward questions that should yield straightforward answers to the public — if common sense prevails.

Mark Rosman is the managing editor of the News Transcript.


newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0617/editorials/020.html

[admin]

Jun 17, 2009 19:43:19 GMT -5 novillero said:

Why did this become an illegal immigration topic? Ms. Irizzary, to my knowledge, is not illegal.

I think there are legitimate concerns as addressed in the past week's editorial, and Marc Rosman's comments below. I do not think it is beating up the police department, but asking legitimate questions. Unfortunately, failing to answer questions by those in the know only provides fuel to the theories that something is not quite right. The best way to address the problem is to hit it head-on, and that is only fair to Sgt. Colaner as well. He should not have to be under this cloud if he is cleared by all investigations.

You bring up some good points that I did not think of when I read Joan's letter. I was just happy to see someone calling out the LLA. Lets face it, the only time we hear anything from them is when they are looking to beat up the town or someone in it. When do they ever take the lead with a positive initiative that really helps all the town? Never. Unless you want to consider the LLA festival. Which explains why that does not do well. Why would the people of this town want to whoop it up for one day with a group that always puts us down the rest of the year? That is the problem with the festival, the organizers. the people in this town have good memories.

[novillero]

Brian, just as I do not see this as an illegal immigration issue, I also do not see this as an LLA issue. The News Transcript even editorialized in the same direction as the LLA. And tell me, what role has the LLA played in this? Ms. Irizzary created this headline, not the LLA. They are just audience, while in many other instances they are the front-line players.

It is not often that the News Transcript decides to take on a controversial issue. So to get them out of their shell to make a difficult stance like this should say something.

From the papers, here is the information I have about the LLA's involvement.
(1) when everything first happened, Frank Freyre declined to make any substantial comment other than the LLA would be monitoring the matter.
(2) in the most recent brew-ha-ha, Frank asked what is going on with the investigation, and Kerry Higgins replied that she was not at liberty to discuss.
(3) the LLA issued a press release saying that it was "premature" to promote Coloner with all this other stuff going on.

Now, the LLA did not condemn Colaner, and made no finding of fact.

I happen to agree with the LLA. It's not the promotion - it's that they left this mess lying around for over a year - all of these open issues. They should have cleaned it up before Colaner's promotion.

And I have said this a couple of times, it is a dis-service to Colaner and his family that this is happening.

[admin]

Jun 18, 2009 7:40:01 GMT -5 novillero said:

Brian, just as I do not see this as an illegal immigration issue, I also do not see this as an LLA issue. The News Transcript even editorialized in the same direction as the LLA. And tell me, what role has the LLA played in this? Ms. Irizzary created this headline, not the LLA. They are just audience, while in many other instances they are the front-line players.

It is not often that the News Transcript decides to take on a controversial issue. So to get them out of their shell to make a difficult stance like this should say something.

From the papers, here is the information I have about the LLA's involvement.
(1) when everything first happened, Frank Freyre declined to make any substantial comment other than the LLA would be monitoring the matter.
(2) in the most recent brew-ha-ha, Frank asked what is going on with the investigation, and Kerry Higgins replied that she was not at liberty to discuss.
(3) the LLA issued a press release saying that it was "premature" to promote Coloner with all this other stuff going on.

Now, the LLA did not condemn Colaner, and made no finding of fact.

I happen to agree with the LLA. It's not the promotion - it's that they left this mess lying around for over a year - all of these open issues. They should have cleaned it up before Colaner's promotion.

And I have said this a couple of times, it is a dis-service to Colaner and his family that this is happening.

Your points are good and articulate. I agree, this is not an illegal immigration issue. You were right to begin with to point that out.

Your points that this is not fair to the Sgt are also right on. His promotion should not have been marred with this cloud hanging over his head.

I would like a more thorough answer to your question of what role does the LLA play in this? But, they are mentioned along the way, so it is now an LLA issue. Again, why do we never hear them involved with more positive initiatives? I suppose their past history is what makes me defensive and cautious about them.

Your observations about the NT are also right. I do take some issue with them, though. If this case is so big, why haven't they been publicly on top of it all along? I believe they should have been, as a service to their readers. To read about these things after the fact seems to Johnny come lately to me. I like the NT, but they have been dropping the ball on this. For them to get tough now loses credibility, even if they and the LLA have very valid points.

[admin]

Jun 9, 2009 19:45:26 GMT -5 admin said:

In an ongoing matter of public interest, the News Transcript stands with the Latino LeadershipAlliance of New Jersey and we join its attempt to find out what has transpired in a matter that has lingered over Freehold Borough since Jan. 29, 2008.


newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0610/editorials/020.html

Time to reveal details of internal investigation
In an ongoing matter of public interest, the News Transcript stands with the Latino LeadershipAlliance of New Jersey and we join its attempt to find out what has transpired in a matter that has lingered over Freehold Borough since Jan. 29, 2008.

On that night Freehold Borough police officers stopped a vehicle that matched the description of a vehicle that was being sought.

Before the matter was concluded, a Freehold Township woman and her son had been arrested and charged with various offenses, and they in turn had made allegations of police brutality against an officer.

The vehicle that was stopped by the officers was not the vehicle that was being sought.

The incident made headlines and generated intense interest at the time it happened and then it faded away. It should not be allowed to disappear without a trace.



Shortly after the incident occurred, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office determined that Freehold Borough Patrolman Chris Colaner — who was accused of police brutality — had not committed a crime during the incident.

If only the wheels of justice turned that quickly for Migdalia Irizarry and her son. The charges that were brought against them that night by the police have never been adjudicated.

Why? We don't know. Inquiries made by a News Transcript reporter about this situation have been bounced from municipal court to the prosecutor's office, and back to municipal court. No one, it seems, knows anything.

In the wake of the allegations that Irizarry made against the Freehold Borough police officers following the Jan. 29, 2008, incident, an internal investigation was launched by the department.

The News Transcript published articles in February 2008 and July 2008 in which Freehold Borough Police Chief Mitchell Roth acknowledged that an internal investigation was under way.

Was that internal police department investigation ever completed? If it was completed, what did that investigation conclude? If it wasn't completed, why not? These questions deserve answers, and no one in a position of authority in Freehold Borough seems to want to answer any questions about this case.

Why? We don't know.

On June 1, Colaner was promoted to the rank of sergeant and that prompted the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey to release the following statement: "The decision to promote Patrolman Christopher Colaner was premature and insensitive and sends a terrible message to the community at large. Chief Roth has yet to publicly comment on the outcome of an internal investigation of Patrolman Colaner with regard to allegations that he acted improperly during a motor vehicle stop in January 2008.

"The public deserves to know the outcome of the investigation before a promotion is given to Patrolman Colaner. The failure to address such an issue speaks to the arrogance of power by borough officials."

It is time for the Freehold Borough police brass to reveal the findings of the internal investigation.

It is time for the charges against Irizarry and her son to be heard in court. If they are guilty as charged, they should pay the penalties.

This case has gone unresolved for an unacceptable amount of time. It is time for answers to be presented in a public forum.

Here is a great response from the governing body and the Chief. They answered my questions and were right in challenging the NT editorial.


newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0701/letters/020.html


Readers are owed responsible reporting and commentary
One thing News Transcript Managing Editor Mark Rosman is right about in his column ("Town Owed Answers About Investigation," News Transcript, June 17) — not everyone sees common sense the same way. For instance, common sense and responsible journalism would seem to dictate that newspapers would report the news and ascertain the facts and the law before commenting erroneously on both.

The facts are that on Jan. 29, 2008, based on information from witnesses, the Freehold Borough police stopped a motor vehicle in order to determine whether one of the occupants had been involved in a serious assault that took place a few blocks away just before the motor vehicle stop. Contrary to the (column), the vehicle that was stopped was, in fact, the vehicle they intended to stop. A passenger in that vehicle had been involved in an altercation the previous night (Jan. 28) with members of the same family as that night's (Jan. 29) victim.

The motor vehicle stop resulted in criminal charges filed against the driver and a juvenile passenger. The driver of the vehicle made allegations of police brutality, which allegations were not sustained by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office.

The Freehold Borough Police Department undertook its own internal affairs investigation which resulted in minor charges being levied. A hearing on those charges was requested. The hearing has been scheduled and adjourned several times because the driver and juvenile would not testify while their criminal charges were pending.

The borough, desiring to present all sides at the hearing, carried the hearing while awaiting resolution of the criminal matters. Unfortunately, those criminal matters have yet to be heard.



The disciplinary hearing, originally scheduled in 2008, had been scheduled for May 28, 2009, but was adjourned to June 17 due to scheduling conflicts. It has since been heard. The alleged victims were again given the opportunity to appear and testify, and through their attorney, declined.

As the editor points out, the matter has been pending for 18 months. It is not fair to the police officers, the police department, the borough or the public to continue to delay the matter indefinitely. In answer to the (column's) question, the decision to hold the hearing and bring the internal disciplinary action to a conclusion was made well before the June 1 Borough Council meeting.

So initially the editor holds the borough to task for delaying the disciplinary hearing - and then similarly chastises the borough for scheduling it. And he talks about common sense? Did he even think to confirm with Migdalia Irizarry's attorney that she would not testify until her charges were resolved?

Isn't it common sense to delay as long as possible so that the hearing officer could hear her side of the story? Of course it is equally perplexing why Ms. Irizarry would appear at a public meeting and complain that the disciplinary matter had not yet been resolved when her refusal to testify until her criminal charges were resolved was the reason for the delay.

Mr. Rosman claims common sense was missing at the public meeting when the

council refused to give specific information about a specific employee.

A public employee has a right to privacy and their personnel record is not a public record. Legally, the borough cannot release the name of any individual under investigation. The council can and did confirm that as a result of the incident of Jan. 29, 2008, an internal affairs investigation was conducted and minor charges were levied.

A hearing had already been scheduled and has since been held. The hearing officer will issue a decision on whether the charges were sustained or not in approximately 45 days. If the charges are sustained, the requisite discipline will be imposed.

The borough is not at liberty to disclose information about any specific officer or employee. The editor was not at the meeting, never contacted any borough official or professional for comment or an explanation of the process and appears to be relying solely on the opinion of Ms. Irizarry and her supporters.

The editor irresponsibly mentions terms such as "official misconduct." At no point was there ever an allegation of official misconduct - a rather serious criminal charge. That is just blatantly irresponsible journalism. Apparently, a newsperson's common sense does not include fact checking before making baseless allegations about the governing body and police department.

As the (column) points out, the borough immediately acknowledged that it would conduct an internal affairs investigation into the incident and take the requisite action. The public has been kept informed to the extent that it is legally authorized.

The borough acted responsibly in delaying the hearing as long as possible in order to give all parties the opportunity to be heard. Freehold residents deserve responsible leadership. That would include refraining from releasing information about an employee that would result in liability to the borough and expense to its residents. The public will be advised of the hearing officer's decision as soon as it is received.
Freehold Borough Mayor
and Borough Council
Police Chief Mitchell Roth
Freehold Borough PBA Local 159
Freehold Borough

[novillero]

I agree that the Transcript should have done some investigation. It certainly appeared that they failed (and I think usually fail) to do any real follow up or ask any questions, request records etc.

Also, a lot of facts have been cleared up with this letter - esp. regarding the cirucumstances of the stop and the reasoning behind the delay. Here is what I see is a problem still:

The council can and did confirm that as a result of the incident of Jan. 29, 2008, an internal affairs investigation was conducted and minor charges were levied.

A hearing had already been scheduled and has since been held. The hearing officer will issue a decision on whether the charges were sustained or not in approximately 45 days. If the charges are sustained, the requisite discipline will be imposed.

What minor charges were levied and against whom? Why?

And the point of the article and some others was that Officer Colaner was promoted while there is a pending investigation. Couldn't the promotion of Officer (now Sgt.) Colaner have waited a few weeks so we didn't have to go through this nonsense? Couldn't he have been an "acting" sgt., or some other similar "acting" title while this was being cleaned up?

Lastly, I think the article comes off angry in the middle. They should have taken a bit more of the high road. And when questioned at the council meeting, it seems that some of this could have been sufficiently explained wihtout violated any privacy/personnel records.

[admin]

I cannot answer all your questions, but I do have my own thoughts.

And the point of the article and some others was that Officer Colaner was promoted while there is a pending investigation. Couldn't the promotion of Officer (now Sgt.) Colaner have waited a few weeks so we didn't have to go through this nonsense? Couldn't he have been an "acting" sgt., or some other similar "acting" title while this was being cleaned up?

On the surface, your question is right, but there could be things we do not see. Remember, our department is a civil service one. Assuming Colaner was promoted off of a list, they could not have put him, or anyone else, into an acting or provisional title. If there is an active list, all promotions have to come off of that. This leads me into my own question, could Colaner have been promoted because the list was to expire soon? That is one possibility and would explain things a bit. I also do not see them promoting him if the thought him guilty of the accusations. That would be stupid and leave egg on the face of the department, emboldening the usual suspects who like to beat our town up.

Lastly, I think the article comes off angry in the middle. They should have taken a bit more of the high road. And when questioned at the council meeting, it seems that some of this could have been sufficiently explained wihtout violated any privacy/personnel records.

I see your point there about the anger. We have seen similar resonse letters from the governing body that were too driven by emotion. On the whole, I think it is a good letter. I am glad they wrote this and they were right to in light of the NT editorial.

[casualreader]

Brian Dude:

You have always been the muddled moderator must I now add befuddled before your name?

The problem with the borough response is that it comes after the promotion of Officer Colaner and after the serious pounding applied to borough officials.

If it were up to Mayor Michael "Chupacabra" Wilson and his trusty sidekicks, lackeys and toadies on the Borough Council we would all be in the dark about the brutality allegations raised against Colaner.

This explanation comes after Mark "the enforcer" Rosman broke their thumbs. It should have come before. When did they come to the realization that they could speak in public about the issue?

I just hope Ms. Irizarry organizes a protest this summer. I miss the chants of "Si se puede" ringing through the town.

Casually Unimpressed with Borough Response

[admin]

My letter did not make it into the NT this week, but the following is an interesting read.

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0708/editorials/023.html

For the Record


In regard to police activity in Freehold Borough on Jan. 29, 2008, Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins said there were two motor vehicle stops of interest made on that date.

One of those two motor vehicle stops later came to be of interest to the public.

Higgins said one vehicle was stopped on Jan. 29, 2008, because it was believed to have passed by the scene of an incident that occurred that night.

That police stop was not a vehicle that was being driven by Migdalia Irizarry of Freehold Township.



Higgins said Irizarry's vehicle was stopped on Jan. 29, 2008, because a police officer saw a person in Irizarry's vehicle and believed that person may have been involved in an incident that occurred in Freehold Borough the previous night, Jan. 28, 2009.

A civil lawsuit filed by Irizarry against the Freehold Borough Police Department has arisen out of incidents that allegedly occurred during the Jan. 29, 2008 stop of Irizarry's vehicle.

With information provided by Freehold Borough police, the News Transcript reported in February 2008 that Irizarry's vehicle had been stopped because it was the vehicle that had passed by or was within close proximity to the scene of the Jan. 29 incident.

Police did not say that the stop of Irizarry's vehicle on Jan. 29 had anything to do with an incident that had occurred on Jan. 28.

Until Higgins spoke with the News Transcript recently, no one had questioned the newspaper's reporting of the matter.

Saying that she was not speaking for the police or their reporting of the Jan. 29, 2008, incident, Higgins reiterated that Irizarry's vehicle was stopped on the night of Jan. 29 because a police officer saw a person in the vehicle and believed that person may have been involved in the incident that occurred on Jan. 28

[admin]

www.app.com/article/20091007/NEWS/910070360/1285/LOCAL09/Woman+disputes+charges+that+she+resisted+arrest

Woman disputes charges that she resisted arrest
Testimony continues in Freehold trial
By KIM PREDHAM • FREEHOLD BUREAU • October 7, 2009


FREEHOLD — When Freehold officer Chris Colaner approached her vehicle on Jan. 29, 2008, Migdalia Irizarry said she was afraid.




Irizarry knew who Colaner was. She had met him just the day before — and it had not been a pleasant encounter, she testified Wednesday.

Irizarry, 35, of Freehold Township, took the stand Wednesday to testify at her ongoing trial on charges that she obstructed the administration of law and resisted arrest after police pulled her vehicle over. She is being tried with her son, now 17, who was charged on a juvenile complaint with aggravated assault, resisting arrest and obstruction.

Superior Court Judge Eugene A. Iadanza — who is in the Family Division — is presiding over the trial.

Irizarry's arrest has been a source of controversy in the borough; a rally was held last year to protest the incident.

Irizarry has claimed Colaner, now a sergeant, hurt both her and her son during the arrest. The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office closed its investigation into the matter last year. A hearing officer determined in July that charges brought after an internal police investigation could not be sustained because the borough did not meet the burden of proof.

In both cases, Irizarry and her son were advised by their attorney not to give statements, Irizarry has said.

Irizarry broke little new ground in her testimony Wednesday. What was new was the assertion that she met Colaner the night before the incident when she was at a local school for a basketball game. After witnessing a fight, Irizarry testified she told another Freehold officer that the people responsible were not being arrested.

Colaner came up to Irizarry and told her, while cursing, to go inside the school before she got arrested, Irizarry testified under questioning from her attorney, Michael Hobbie.

Upset, Irizarry went to the borough police station the next morning to tell Police Chief Mitch Roth about Colaner's perceived disrespect. She left a message with Roth's secretary. She did not hear from him before the police stop that night, Irizarry said.

Wednesday's court hearing follows three days of testimony in August, during which eight witnesses were presented, Iadanza said.

Irizarry has claimed that Colaner ordered her from her vehicle without telling her why she was stopped, then twisted her arm behind her back. He then reached into the vehicle to punch her son, who had been shouting at Colaner to stop "disrespecting" his mother.

Two passengers in Irizarry's vehicle that night — Jamar Powell, now 18, and a 14-year-old girl — also testified Wednesday.

The trial is to resume Oct. 27.
Kim Predham:

[admin]

www.app.com/article/20091126/NEWS/911260343/1285/LOCAL09/Freehold+woman+files+civil+suit+against+cops

Freehold woman files civil suit against cops
By KIM PREDHAM • FREEHOLD BUREAU • November 26, 2009

FREEHOLD — A Freehold Township woman who claimed police brutality by a Freehold police officer has fired her latest salvo: a federal civil suit.





Migdalia Irizarry and her teenage son have filed suit against Freehold, the borough's police chief Mitchell Roth, now-Sgt. Christopher Colaner, Patrolman Shaun Hobbs and various "John Doe" borough police officers and personnel, some of whom serve in a supervisory capacity.

The suit — which calls for the officers and personnel to be banned from patrol duty and from making or assisting with arrests — was filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton.

"The officers involved clearly violated the rights of my client by using excessive force," said Irizarry's attorney, Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold.

The suit is just the latest in an ongoing controversy that began after Irizzary and her son, then 15, were arrested in Freehold on Jan. 29, 2008.

Colaner initiated the motor-vehicle stop that evening and, says Irizarry, proceeded to hurt her and punch her son in the face.

The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office closed its investigation into the allegations last year. Charges brought after an internal review were later deemed unsustainable.

Among the claims made in the suit are that Colaner, Hobbs and several other officers were retaliating against Irizarry and her son because she tried to report Colaner's "prior inappropriate demeanor" toward her during an encounter the day before. The officers also violated department policy by not recording the stop, according to the suit.

The suit also alleges that the borough, Roth and other supervisors failed to take corrective or disciplinary action against Colaner, Hobbs or other officers despite being aware of "numerous" episodes of misconduct against citizens.

The demands made by Irizarry and her son include: regular and consistent training sessions for borough police officers, and the implementation of a system for prompt, appropriate action against any borough officer who "engages in, teaches and/or condones falsely arresting, maliciously prosecuting, maliciously abusing process and/or using excessive force against citizens and/or arrestees."

Borough attorney Kerry Higgins did not return a call for comment Wednesday

[admin]

freeholdvoice.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=letters&action=display&thread=4767


The above link is about a letter of support that I had written to the police and governing body. Contained in that link is also a letter from the LLA as they continue the assault on Freehold borough. I post this here as a way of keeping all of the information together.

[admin]

The web site of the lawyer for the plaintiff:

www.policebrutalitynj.com/