A retired law enforcement officer is entitled to challenge internal affairs misconduct findings made against him, even after reaching a settlement agreement that led to his retirement instead of formal disciplinary charges. This was confirmed in an opinion released by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which affirmed earlier orders granting summary judgment in favor of the officer and denying similar relief to the county prosecutor’s office.
The complaint was filed by Fred Reck in Monmouth County Superior Court on August 28, 2023, naming the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) as defendant. The appellate opinion was argued on March 25, 2026 and decided April 15, 2026.
According to court documents, Reck served as Deputy Chief of Marlboro Township Police Department when an internal affairs complaint was filed against him in September 2022. Due to his rank, protocol required referral of the matter to MCPO for investigation under Attorney General Internal Affairs Procedures and Policies (IAPP). The MCPO’s investigation resulted in “sustained findings” of misconduct. These findings were documented in a Summary and Conclusions Report that referenced implications for public disclosure under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States as well as Attorney General directives.
Following these findings, Reck entered into a settlement agreement with Marlboro Township whereby he agreed to retire in exchange for no disciplinary charges being filed against him. As part of this agreement, Reck waived his right to a hearing and any litigation related to his employment but reserved his right to challenge MCPO’s sustained findings. However, only Reck and the Township were parties to this agreement; MCPO did not participate.
After retiring, Reck’s attorney contacted both the Township and MCPO seeking clarification on how he could contest the sustained findings. Counsel expressed concern that public reporting would “certainly damage [Reck’s] reputation and prevent him from gaining any future position with any law enforcement agency,” arguing that denying a means for challenge would violate due process rights.
The Director of Professional Responsibility at MCPO responded that because Reck had retired before challenging the finding through administrative channels—and because no disciplinary charges were ever formally filed—he had no recourse under existing procedures: “Directive 2019-6 and JAPP section 9.11.2 make clear that…the officer must challenge the findings on the merits in the administrative process…. Reck chose to retire in lieu of challenging the finding…through the administrative process.” The letter also noted that leaving employment while an investigation is pending triggers public reporting requirements.
In response, Reck filed suit seeking dismissal of MCPO’s sustained findings; expungement of his disciplinary record; removal of references from official reports; redaction from all Brady/Giglio disclosures; affirmation of his right to procedural challenge; direction for MCPO to establish or identify such procedures; and provision of relevant procedural documentation.
MCPO sought legal representation from the Office of Attorney General but was denied assistance and proceeded with its own counsel. Both parties moved for summary judgment while related appeals involving representation were pending elsewhere.
On November 22, 2024, a Law Division judge granted summary judgment for Reck and denied it for MCPO. The judge found IAPP §9.11.2 provides officers an avenue for review—even after retirement or settlement without formal charges—before their internal affairs finding becomes final or publicly disclosed: “Section 9.11.2 recognizes an officer’s right to challenge a sustained finding even in cases where…there is an administrative or civil settlement with the employer whereby the charge is dismissed.” The order gave Reck forty-five days to file an appeal before appropriate forums including hearing officers or courts.
MCPO appealed this decision arguing that IAPP does not allow challenges by retired officers where no charges have been filed and claimed it should not be compelled by court order to create new procedures outside regulatory mandates.
The Appellate Division reviewed de novo whether summary judgment was appropriate based on regulatory interpretation standards: “We agree JAPP §9.11.2 provides an avenue for challenging MCPO’s sustained findings under circumstances presented here.” While noting some language applies specifically when charges are filed then dismissed via settlement or plea, judges emphasized broader text requiring all misconduct findings be subject to review before becoming final—regardless of separation status: “Nothing in IAPP expressly provides retirement or settlement extinguishes an officer’s ability to challenge a sustained finding.” The panel rejected arguments that such reviews are unavailable post-retirement or require new processes beyond those already contemplated by regulation.
As a result, broader aspects about compelling new procedures became moot since Reck had already exercised his right by filing another action within prescribed time limits: “Reck’s request for an order dismissing sustained findings…may be addressed in [his] second action.” Any remaining relief regarding expungement or redaction will be determined during further proceedings now permitted by this ruling.
Attorneys involved include Sean J. Brennan (Dilworth Paxson LLP) representing MCPO as appellant and Richard J. De Fortuna (Markowitz & Richman) representing Fred Reck as respondent alongside Matthew D. Areman on briefs. Judges Mayer, Vanek, and Jacobs presided over this matter under Docket No. A-1734-24.
Source: A173424_Reck_v_Monmouth_County_Prosecutors_Office_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
