LIEUTENANT JOHN KAMINSKAS VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ETC.(DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY)
A-3528-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Lieutenant John Kaminskas and Chief Daniel Vaniska (Union County Police Department officers) were named as defendants in a §1983 and related state-law civil suit by Emmanuel Mervilus arising from his arrest, conviction (later reversed), and acquittal on retrial.
- Kaminskas administered a polygraph and testified at Mervilus's first trial; this Court reversed the conviction for plain error in admitting that testimony; the defendant was acquitted at retrial where polygraph evidence was not used.
- After suit was filed, the Union County defendants asked the New Jersey Attorney General to provide defense and indemnification; the Attorney General agreed to defend prosecutors but denied representation and indemnification to Kaminskas and Vaniska.
- The Attorney General based the denial on the statutory scope of the Attorney General’s indemnification/defense authority (N.J.S.A. 59:10A-1 et seq.), the county-police statute requiring the county to provide defense (N.J.S.A. 40A:14-117), and the limited Wright v. State exception for county prosecutors and their employees.
- Kaminskas and Vaniska appealed the Attorney General’s legal determination; the Appellate Division reviewed the denial of representation as a legal question and affirmed the Attorney General’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Attorney General must provide defense to county police officers sued for conduct arising from investigation/prosecution | Kaminskas/Vaniska: AG should furnish defense | AG: Statutes limit AG defense to state employees; county statute requires county to defend county police | Held: County statute (N.J.S.A. 40A:14-117) obligates county to provide defense; AG properly denied defense |
| Whether Wright v. State’s rule for prosecutors extends to county police officers | Kaminskas/Vaniska: Wright’s rationale should apply to county law‑enforcement in investigatory/prosecutorial suits | AG: Wright applies narrowly to county prosecutors and their staff only; extending it would conflict with statutes | Held: Court refuses to extend Wright to county police; Wright limited to prosecutors and employees |
| Whether the Attorney General must indemnify county police officers for such claims | Kaminskas/Vaniska: AG indemnification required | AG: Indemnification statutes govern state employees; local entities indemnify local officers | Held: AG correctly denied indemnification; local indemnity statute applies to county officers |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422 (2001) (limits AG duty to defend to county prosecutors and their employees)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (clear statutory language governs legislative intent and application)
- Prado v. State, 186 N.J. 413 (2006) (standards for judicial review of administrative denials based on employee conduct)
- N.J. Ass'n of School Adm'rs v. Schundler, 211 N.J. 535 (2012) (courts should harmonize statutes to avoid conflict)
- Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85 (1973) (no deference to agency or officer legal interpretations)
- State v. Mervilus, 418 N.J. Super. 138 (App. Div. 2011) (appellate decision reversing Mervilus's original conviction for admission of polygraph testimony)