NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3546-18T1 IN THE MATTER OF DAWN SHYNER, LIEUTENANT #5217 _____________________________ Submitted July 14, 2020 – Decided September 1, 2020 Before Judges Sabatino and Susswein. On appeal from the New Jersey Division of State Police, Docket No. 2015-0002. Attorneys Hartman Chartered, attorneys for appellant Dawn Shyner (Mark Alan Gulbranson, Jr., on the briefs). Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey State Police (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dipti Vaid Dedhia, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Appellant, Dawn Shyner, is a Lieutenant in the New Jersey State Police (the Division). She appeals the Division's final agency decision, issued by the Acting Superintendent, finding she committed two disciplinary violations and imposing a forty-day suspension. Both violations involve lack of candor during an internal affairs investigation. Shyner was charged with being untruthful when she represented to an internal affairs detective that she was not aware that an earlier investigation had been classified as a domestic violence investigation as distinct from a "reportable incident" investigation. She also was charged with refusing to divulge the identities of other troopers she claimed had operated State Police vehicles while on restricted duty in violation of a State Police Standing Operating Procedure (SOP). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the evidentiary hearing recommended that these charges be dismissed. The ALJ had found that some of the testimony presented by the Division was not credible. After carefully reviewing the record in view of the applicable legal principles, we are constrained to reverse the Acting Superintendent's determination that Shyner lied when she claimed that she was not aware she had been the principal of a domestic violence investigation. The Acting Superintendent has not offered adequate justification for rejecting the ALJ's findings that were based on the judge's firsthand assessment of witness credibility. We believe the remaining evidence relating to that charge, viewed in its entirety, is insufficient to prove Shyner willfully lied. Accordingly, we A-3546-18T1 2 vacate that violation. We affirm, however, the Acting Superintendent's conclusion that Shyner improperly refused to divulge the identities of other troopers who operated State Police vehicles in violation of an SOP. We remand the matter for the Acting Superintendent to determine the appropriate penalty for the single violation we affirm. I. We presume the parties are familiar with the procedural history of this matter and the facts that were adduced at the evidentiary hearing. Much of that evidence pertains to a charge that Shyner operated an unmarked State Police vehicle while on weapons-restricted duty. The Acting Superintendent dismissed that charge, and it is not before us. We therefore briefly summarize only those circumstances we deem ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals