TRENTON — A state Supreme Court ruling that allows a former Hunterdon County Sheriff's Officer convicted of a sex crime to return to the public sector — including police work — could have far-reaching implications on law enforcement and other public workers, experts say.
In a 3-2 decision day, the state’s highest court said even though Jeremiah Hupka pleaded guilty to groping his ex-girlfriend without her permission, the crime occurred while he was off-duty and had nothing to do with his job as a sheriff’s officer or a part-time officer in Frenchtown.
"It signals to law enforcement officers that they can violate the law and still continue to stay on the job, which I think is a very detrimental message to police as a profession," said Maki Haberfeld, a professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York who specializes in ethics.
"It literally opens the door to the possibility that individuals who commit these kinds of crimes could find employment in the public sector," said William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
Hupka, 33, pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual contact for an incident that occurred in January 2006. He was originally charged with first-degree aggravated sexual assault and second-degree sexual assault amid allegations the incident occurred after the woman had been drinking.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE
• Hunterdon County sheriff's officer takes plea-deal in sex case
RELATED SUPREME COURT COVERAGE
• N.J. Supreme Court ruling allows informal hearing in drug court
• N.J. law firms that employ municipal court judges are banned from making political contributions
• N.J. Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriage case filed by 6 same-sex couples
Those details were not released in court when Hupka pleaded guilty on Jan. 17, 2008. Instead, he confessed to touching her private parts for his own sexual gratification. In a deal with the state, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offense and voluntarily agreed to resign from his law-enforcement jobs.
Superior Court Judge Edward Coleman originally ruled Hupka should be barred from holding a public-sector job.
But Hupka’s attorney, Darren Gelber, argued the state’s forfeiture of job statute only applies when there is a direct link between the offense committed and the public office.
Today, the justices agreed.
"This was never an issue about Mr. Hupka wanting to remain a law enforcement officer," Gelber said. "We thought the forfeiture issue was important enough to appeal and we’re gratified the Supreme Court has now interpreted the statue in the same way."
Steven Cohen, a 30-year veteran labor and employment lawyer, said the decision affects all public employees, not just police, and clarifies the forfeiture statute when it comes to disqualification of public office.
In 2007, the Legislature amended the statute with language that indicates the disqualification provision was intended to be contingent on a conclusion the conviction was related directly and specifically to the position.
"In earlier cases, under the forfeiture statute, people would agree to plea deals and not realize that they were going to be forfeiting their jobs," Cohen said.
Writing for the majority, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia said "there was no relationship between defendant’s employment as a police officer, the trappings of that office, or his work-related connections, and the commission of the offense to which he pled guilty." Also voting with the majority were justices John Wallace and Virginia Long.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner countered by wondering how Hupka could investigate sex crimes or domestic violence calls in light of his admissions. Justice Helen Hoens also dissented.
Hunterdon County Assistant Prosecutor Bennett Barlyn said Hupka should be permanently barred from public employment of any sort and said the decision will make it much harder to obtain forfeiture of office in future cases involving official malfeasance.
Hupka’s future jobs could include work with police or fire departments or any public position. He could also obtain an expungement, potentially giving himself a clean record.
"One can wonder whether an ordinary citizen would want Jeremiah Hupka to investigate crimes relating to a member of their family or themselves," Barlyn said.
Staff writer Bob Considine contributed to this report.