---

William H. Buckman Law Firm
Phone: 856-608-9797 / Fax: 856-608-6244

---

Gerrow: Mr. Hogan with regard to these particular charges it's my intention

to ask you a few questions...First of all sir, I'd like to ask you if you

understand the term "racial profiling."

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: One of the things that as a new trooper upon your graduation from

the state police academy, you participated in a mentoring and coaching

program, is that correct?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: This program as I understand it, consists of you being assigned to a

senior trooper or a coach with whom you patrol and in essence receive

on-the-job training in how to carrying out your responsibilities as a member

of the state police, is that correct?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: This is your practical introduction into real police work as I

understand it as well since at the academy, you received only approximately

two weeks of practical training in the course of a 23-week program, is that

also true?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: You have explained to me in our discussions that at the academy you

were provided the opportunity to participate in two mock motor vehicle

stops, is that also correct?

Hogan: That's correct sir.

Gerrow: These mock stops were extreme scenarios, carried out by your

instructors ending in gun battles obstensivly designed to teach you the

dangers inherent in conducting motor vehicle stops, is that correct?

Hogan: Correct, sir.

Gerrow: While you were under the supervision of senior troopers, were you

introduced to profiling or as I like to call it, selective enforcement?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: Can you please tell the court how that came about?

Hogan: Sir it was explained to me that in our area of patrol, stopping white

males operating pick up trucks after normal business hours would in all

probability yield a DWI or a driving while intoxicated arrest. We would

engage in this practice on a regular basis.

Gerrow: Beyond your coaching period, beyond that time when you were under

the supervision of senior troopers, were you made aware of selective

enforcement practices prior to your duty on the New Jersey Turnpike?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: How did that come about?

Hogan: For example, one area that I was assigned to patrol was known as an

``open air drug market.'' The area was populated largely by minorities. We

would routinely stop white motorists leaving this area in order to make drug

arrests. I was also stationed in an area where we had access to an urban

setting. I learned that those troopers who wanted a diversion from

patrolling the highways and enforcing the motor vehicle laws, would go into

the city. Routinely we would look for juveniles operating motor vehicles who

appeared to young to drive. Vehicles would be stopped, the occupants removed

and searches without consent would be conducted. If the search failed to

yield any contraband, the driver's would be released without police action.

I was told by senior troopers that this was the real world policing, unlike

what I learned in the police academy.

Gerrow: When you stopped those white motorists in the city in the drug

areas, what were you looking for once you made the stop?

Hogan: In an effort to make criminal arrests, which I considered an

important aspect of policing, I quote-unquote "picked the brains" of senior

troopers to learn what to look for. First, and foremost, we would not stop a

vehicle unless there was an articulable reason for effectuating the motor

vehicle stop, sir.

Gerrow: And did you learn to be suspicious of out of state vehicles, motors

who didn't make eye contact, and other things along those lines?

Hogan: yes sir.

Gerrow: prior to going to the turnpike did you believe that drug

interdiction was part of your responsibility as a trooper?

Hogan: Yes sir. Within the ranks of the state police, a trooper can pretty

much decide for him or herself, whether they want to get involved in

criminal arrests. I wanted to and considered it an important aspect of

policing. Do to the nature of the roll of a road trooper, my primary

responsibility as a member of the state police, the only criminal offenses

we would have the opportunity to investigate, were those that resulted from

motor vehicle stops, typically drug and weapon offenses. This is the reason

we became involved primarily in drug arrests.

Gerrow: With this background you were ultimately assigned to what you

referred to as ``The Big Road,'' that is the New Jersey Turnpike as it is

known among troopers, is that correct?\

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: How did you look upon your assignment to Troop D.

Hogan: I was happy to be assigned to the turnpike because that was where all

the action was. The troopers assigned to Troop D seemed more confident, more

street smart, more aggressive than those in other troops. At that time, the

turnpike troopers quote-unquote ``looked down'' on those assigned elsewhere.

I bought into this elitist attitude.

Gerrow: Were you immediately accepted by your peers on The Big Road?

Hogan: No sir, at first I felt excluded. I wanted to fit in. And I knew the

only way to do so was to begin making criminal arrests.

Gerrow: Was there generally any similarities between troopers stationed on

and off the turnpike in terms of they viewed their job?

Hogan: As with all stations I was assigned to, there were some who would

look for ways to avoid work. Generally there were those who wanted to write

tickets and those wanted to make criminal arrests. These groups worked

together to maintain good overall statistics for the station. Troopers

making arrests knew that the quote-unquote ``ticket writers" would cover

their numbers and the ticket writers knew the arrests would be made by the

more aggressive troopers.

Gerrow: On the turnpike, did you learn any methods for making an arrest.

Hogan: Yes sir. A good turnpike trooper would toss or quote-unquote ``Rip

and Strip,'' that is search and stop vehicles. In fact, some troopers would

dismantled some car parts and trucks, such as door panels, to gain access to

areas where drugs were sometimes hidden.

Gerrow: Did you become aware of any emphasis placed on drug interdiction by

the troopers who patrolled the turnpike.

Hogan: Yes sir. The Turnpike was the first station I was assigned to that

conducted formal daily briefings. These briefings concerned issues of

officer safety, drug interdiction and BOLOS, or quote-unquote ``Be On the

Lookout'' for certain types of vehicles and persons, etc. Additionally,

after I was accepted on the Turnpike, my supervisors would provide me with

investigations reports of senior troopers as a guide in how to interdict

drugs. They sent me to special training classes and seminars in drug

interdiction. They provided me with training tapes which other troopers were

not privileged to have access to.

Gerrow: Did you become aware of any concerns regarding the racial

characteristics of motorists stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike?

Hogan: Although it was not explained to us, we knew that statistics

regarding the racial characteristics of motorists stopped were being

compiled. Speculation among the ranks was that this had something to do with

the Soto decision or the racial profiling case in Gloucester County.

Gerrow: To your knowledge, was there misreporting of the racial

characteristics of motorists stopped by troopers on the Turnpike.

Hogan: Yes sir. From the time I first came to the Turnpike, I became aware

that this was occurring. It was so common, I just assumed that this was how

it was done. It was looked upon as a numbers game and this was a method of

circumventing it. Some troopers went as far as not to call the stop in at

all. It was common to hear phrases such as, "appears to be white" or ``looks

like a white motorists'' when a stop was called in. No one at the station,

including supervisors, seemed to be concerned when a minority arrestee was

brought to the station after the radio call had identified that motorist as

a white.

Gerrow: In regard to this numbers game you described, why was the game

played?

Hogan: Much my information came from the federal government itself _ EPIC

bulletins, DEA BOLOS. throughout all of this, minorities were emphasized and

highlighted as those most likely to be carrying drugs, especially those that

would result in big seizures. If you wanted to satisfy the demand for drug

arrests, we were led to believe as young troopers, that we had to stop

minorities. If you succeeded in making drug arrests it was well known that

you had an opportunity to be named Trooper of the Year. Many of my direct

supervisors had achieved this through drug interdiction arrests. If you were

named Trooper of The Year, you were fairly assured of your choice of

assignment within the state police. It was a coveted honor, and it was

awarded primarily on the basis of criminal arrests and drug seized. Based on

all this, minorities became the subjects of stops and the stops were

sometimes misreported.

Gerrow: What were some of the factors that you took into account in making a

determination as to who to stop.

Hogan: Once an articulable, justified reason was established to make a stop,

the number of occupants, the type of vehicle, the state of registration on

that vehicle, the vehicle operation, the occupant demeanor, whether or not

the vehicle was rented, and the direction of travel were all some of the

factors that were taken into consideration.

Gerrow: is it fair to say that you were trained that there were two

consistent factors in drug interdiction stops?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: Were those factors first an articulable basis for the stop, and

second, a minority occupant or occupant of the vehicle?

Hogan: Yes sir, that is what I was trained.

Gerrow: With regard to the official misconduct counts in the indictment,

violations of the new jersey state police standard operating procedures as

they pertain to the conduct of consent searches. I want to ask you a few

questions regarding that. You were aware, were you not sir, that the state

police procedure went beyond that of existing new jersey law.

Hogan: correct sir.

Gerrow: You knew the procedure required that members of the state police not

even ask for consent unless they had a reasonable suspicion that contraband

or something of evidential value would be found, is that correct?

Hogan: Correct sir.

Gerrow: You are also aware that the procedure requires that all consent

forms be turned in - even those that resulted in a refusal to consent or a

search that failed to result in the seizure of contraband, is that correct?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: You were aware that a section of the consent to search form required

you to identify the racial characteristics of the individual from whom you

sought consent?....

PAUSE IN TAPE

Gerrow: With regard to you in particular, in terms of the consent forms, did

you turn in all the consent forms.

Hogan: There was an occasion or two or three that I did not sir.

Gerrow: With regard to those occasions when you did not, why did you not

turn them in sir.

Hogan: It provided the motorists with information that they might use to

file a complaint. So in those instances when the motorist refused to consent

were the search was negative, I may not have turned in the form.

Gerrow: Were you aware sir of the practice whereby the patrolling turnpike

would pull along side or parallel to the vehicle prior to making the motor

vehicle stop and eyeball the occupants for a variety of reasons, one of which

by some might be to identify the racial characteristics with use of the

vehicle spotlight, were you aware of that practice?

Hogan: I had heard of that practice sir.

Gerrow: With regard to that practice, that would contrary to state police

standard operating procedures, would it not?

Hogan: I wasn't aware of the ? standard operating procedure of it sir.

Gerrow: Did you yourself practice that on occasion and if so, for what

reason?

Hogan: There was occasion where myself, my partner or other troopers would

pull along side of a motor vehicle to identity, for numerous reasons, to

ascertain the demeanor of the occupants, the actions of the occupants, as

well as the movements of what was going on inside of the suspect vehicle.

Gerrow: The accusation to which you were pleading guilty today charges that

you volunteered false information to law enforcement officers, that being

members of the new jersey state police major crimes unit who were

investigating the April 23, 1998 shooting incident in which you were

involved. You understand that sir?

Hogan: Yes sir.

Gerrow: I would like to ask you how it came about that you provided this

false information in the investigation, that you know had serious

consequences and one which criminal charges would derive if the shooting was

not justifiable under law. Can you explain to me how that came about?

Hogan: Yes sir. After the shooting had occurred, I had contact with at least

75 people, I was allowed to sit for hours upon hours and that is where

everything went sour prior to giving my formal statement. I was constantly

told what to say and how to say it. There was a great concern at the station

of a need to justify why Jimmy had fired into the van. Several troopers at

the station approached me and said they understood why I shot but they

needed to justify why Jimmy shot. I began to realize that there was a

concerted effort to justify Jimmy's actions possibly. At the station, Jimmy

told me he wasn't sure why he did what he did. The falsifications were

exaggerations because I was trying to protect my partner. Furthermore, there

were many people telling me that I had to justify what Jimmy had done.

Gerrow: These exaggerations and embellishments, these falsifications that

you referred to, had to do with among others, the speed of the van involved

in this incident, the actions of that van, and the positions from which

shots were fired. Is that correct, sir?

Hogan: yes.

Gerrow: You knew and appreciated at the time that this would serve to impede

the investigation being conducted in the shooting incident, is that so?

Hogan: Yes.

TAPE PAUSE

KENNA

Gerrow: Mr. Kenna with the term regarding racial profiling, do you

understand what that means?

Kenna: yes.

Gerrow: And can you explain to me sir, what that practice consisted of?

Kenna: Well often times several vehicles are being operated in violation of

motor vehicle law. The racial identity of the motorists in conjunction with

other factors such as a rental vehicle or out of state license plates would

be the predominant factor in deciding which vehicle to pull over.

Gerrow: Was racial profiling as you have explained it a matter of routine

practice for troopers patrolling the New Jersey Turnpike during your

assignments to troop D.

Kenna: Yes it was.

Gerrow: Did you develop that practice on your own initiative sir?

Kenna: No.

Gerrow: Is it accurate to say that from the police academy, that is the

state police academy, through to your on the job training with senior

troopers and then to your assignment to the new jersey turnpike, it was

repeatedly made clear to you that race was considered to be an appropriate

factor in deciding which vehicle to stop and in some cases searched.

Kenna: Yes.

Gerrow: How was this information conveyed to you sir?

Kenna: Reading senior troopers arrest reports, attending the troop

commanders daily briefings and a constant emphasis on the connection between

racial identity and drug interdiction in DEA BOLOS, reports and EPIC

bulletins.

Gerrow: One of the official misconduct counts in the indictment involves

violations of the New Jersey state police standard operating procedures as

they pertain to the conduct of consent searches. and I would like to ask you

some questions regarding that. You were aware that state procedure went

beyond then existing new jersey law, were you not sir,

Kenna: yes.

Gerrow: You knew that the procedure required that members of the state

police not even ask for consent unless they had a reasonable suspicion that

contraband or something of evidential value would be found, is that correct?

Kenna: Yes.

Gerrow: You were also aware that the procedure required that all consent

forms be turned in even those that resulted in a refusal to consent or a

search that failed to result in seizure contraband. you are aware that a

section of the consent to search form required you to identify the racial

characteristics for whom you sought consent, is that also correct?

Kenna: Yes.

Gerrow: At times, did you fail to turn in consent forms yourself?

Kenna: yes.

Gerrow: You were also required to provide the motorists with a copy of the

form, were you not?

Kenna: Yes

Gerrow: Was that done in all cases?

Kenna: No.

Gerrow: Why did you not hand in those forms?

Kenna: Initially I handed in a lot of consent to search forms for searches

that yielded little or no drugs. Other troopers were handing only a few of

those forms and yet their searches were much more productive than mine. They

began to complain about that disparity and so to maintain harmony with my

coworkers, I stopped submitted consent to search forms for unproductive

searches.

Gerrow: The accusation for which you pleading guilty today charges that you

volunteered false information to law enforcement officers, that being

members of the new jersey state police major crimes unit who were

investigating the April 23, 1998 shooting incident in which you were

involved....I'd like to ask you if I could how it came about that you

provided this false information in an investigation that you knew had

serious consequences and one in which criminal charges would be libel if the

shooting was not justifiable under law. Mr. Kenna when I talked to Mr. Hogan

he described certain false information as exaggeration and embellishment, is

that what occurred with you as well sir.

Kenna: Yes.

Gerrow: And how did that come about?

Kenna: I began to put the pieces together as to what happened from what

others had told me at the scene, the hospital, and at cranbury station. For

example, at the scene, I was in contact with at least 40 people. Some of

these people gave me advice on what to say to investigators and what aspects

of the incident I should emphasize. After the incident, I was driven to the

hospital. Upon my release from the hospital, I went home so that I could

personally advise my wife that I was not injured and as I knew she would be

concerned in light of the prior incident that I had been involved in

recently. I was then driven to the Cranbury station where I discussed with

multiple persons what had happened. I was also given access to the carport

where the van was being processed so that I could physically observe it.

Many people were giving me advice on what to say. I believe it may have been

with good intentions but it was misguided. I only wish that I had not talked

to anyone and was taken away from the scene immediately. My version of what

happened was contaminated by facts that I should not have known or could not

have known, and it is that which led to the exaggerations or embellishments.

Gerrow: Those exaggerations and embellishments, those falsifications, had to

do with the speed of the van involved in this incident?

Kenna: yes.

Gerrow: Additionally those falsifications had to do with the reasons for

stopping this particular vehicle, did they not?

Kenna: Yes

Gerrow: You knew and appreciated at the time that this would impede the

investigation that was being conducted into the shooting incident, isn't

that so?

Kenna: Yes.

GERROW in CLOSING

Gerrow: ....As Mr. Kenna alluded to judge, a little over a month before this

incident, he was involved in a situation where he had stopped some

individuals, one of whom was involved in the distribution of drugs and who

essentially overpowered him. He was called upon to use his weapon on that

particular occasion. And so a little over a month later, he is back

patrolling on the road, the very road where this happened. and his sense is

that point, not to lose control. Chief Ramsey said we can provide more and

more thorough counseling to our officers concerning their professional lives

on an ongoing basis, particularly after high-stress incidents such as

shootings. At times the police culture tends to push some officers back on

the street before they are ready....As police departments, police

organizations, we simply must do better. In talking about fear, he also

indicated that some of the fears on both sides of the relationship, that

being the citizens and the police are justified. Others I believe are

exaggerated and out of touch with reality. These fears are brought on by a

narrow view of the world. For many police officers, especially those working

in high-crime areas, their lives have become a good guys versus bad guys

drama, played out in the communities they serve. And these officers see so

many of the latter that they tend to lose sight of the former, the good, the

law abiding people who make up the vast majority of residents in even the

most crime infested neighborhoods. It is from these experiences and

attitudes and fears that we get metaphors like the thin blue line, an over

used clich and a misguided concept...it's that fear among police officers

and community members which tends to breeds mistrust which in turn fosters

stereotypes, which in turn leads to an exaggerated sense of the differences

between our two groups. It is in this whole environment of fear, I believe

that the incidents like the one on the New Jersey turnpike or in a myriad of

other jurisdictions take place...For the four people in the vehicle, their

actions could possibly have been driven by their fears and apprehension of

being stopped by two white police officers. for the troopers, their actions

could possibly have been driven by their fears and apprehension of stopping

a vehicle with four young black and Hispanic males. think about it for a

minute. it's regrettable but situations like this are a recipe for tragedy

waiting to happen. most time nothing does happen. But the ingredients are

there nonetheless. These situations do not take place in a vacuum, they take

place in an environment shaped by the experiences, the attitude and yes, the

fears of all the people involved....There was an organizational failure

judge as I see it on the part of the New jersey state police that led to Jim

Kenna being out on the road that night. It's unfortunate that he was not

provided the counseling that he had. He overreacted to the situation and in

turn that caused mr. kenna's partner to overreact to that situation as well.

As much as we can train young police officers against sympathetic fire it is

my belief that on this particular occassion, that's precisely what happened.

The state of New Jersey has accepted responsibility for that occurrence. We

have done so sir by settling a civil action that was brought by the four

young men who were in that van. We admit that there was an organization

responsibility, but what your honor is here today is to talk about

individual criminal culpability. And that's the reason why we are dismissing

this particular indictment, we don't believe that there is any criminal

culpability on the part of either Mr. Hogan and Mr. Kenna for that shooting.

That is a matter the state has accepted responsibility for as I've indicated

sir and continue to do so in that regard. Because it was state actors and

not these men who set those wheels in motion. With regard to the other

aspect of this case judge that being the federal aspect, the state of New

Jersey entered into a consent order involving federal oversight and there

continues to be federal oversight of the new jersey state police. That was

another prong of what I believe to be a total and what some have said global

settlement in this matter. In addition we have talked to federal

authorities, we have been Washington, they have conducted an independent

review of this matter and they are satisfied that no further actions need be

taken against these two individuals....The one thing that concerned them

(Hogan and Kenna) perhaps as much as anything else in this case is that they

did not want to be known as racist. I know I saw earlier today that the Rev.

Jackson is here today. Racial profiling is at its core, a racist idea and a

racist policy but you don't have to be a racist to carry it out. It comes so

neatly packaged that you've heard today for these young men. it's part of

law enforcement, DEA BOLOS, EPIC bulletins, the federal government continues

to talk about the role of the minorities in the distribution of drugs. it

comes to them, it's given to them,t his is how you should carry out your

function. again it is my belief, in the investigation of this case, sire

that again, there was an organization failure. These young men through their

supervisors and their training, were carrying out a policy that was more

than inappropriate. All of that being said, judge, I believe it is true the

investiga5tion that really was the offshoot of the shooting indictment, that

these two men are before you. Perhaps as they told me, there should be

others. But with regard to that, the investigation as your honor as well

aware of having seen the discovery in this case was enormously, I believe,

thorough. It involved an awful lot of men and women investigating these

cases. That simply cannot be done in every case...The impact on their lives

has been enormous as well. I think that pleading guilty here today,the order

of forfeiture of office, is more than sufficient punishment for what they

have done.

DELEHEY IN CLOSING

Delehey: This court cannot think of many endeavors that are more terrifying

then to stop motorists on a highway in an era of hand gun proliferation. The

daily stress of doing that cannot be imagine by anybody who dismisses it

quickly or puts it aside. At any moment with any stop an officer and

especially turnpike officers run the risk of being gunned down. Here these

defendants as the court sees it are before the court as the result of

misguided zeal and misguided loyalty born of an indoctrination into an

approach to law enforcement that can only be described as Machiavellian _

the end justifies the means. Despite that indoctrination, the conduct of the

defendants here doesn't justify the falsification of records, nor the

obstruction of an investigation. Nonetheless, the court concludes that they

are not only victims of their own conduct but victims of the system that

employed them.