JEFFREY SYKES, CSC Docket No. 2023-1222

BackgroundThe appeal of Jeffrey Sykes, Police Officer, Hillside, Police Department, removal, effective November 28, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Matthew G. Miller (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on July 1, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on August 13, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. The appellant makes myriad arguments, most of which were sufficiently dealt with by the ALJ in his eminently thorough and detailed initial decision, including claims of chain of custody issues, etc. These arguments need not be addressed by the Commission as it agrees with the ALJ's assessment of the credible evidence in the record in rejecting those arguments. In this regard, most of the ALJ’s findings were based on his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses as compared to the evidence in the record. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997). “[T]rial courts’ credibility findings .. . are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of the witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record.” See also, In re Taylor, 158 N.eJ. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). Additionally, such credibility findings need not be explicitly enunciated if the record as a whole makes the findings clear. Id. at 659

{citing Locurto, supra). The Commission appropriately gives due deference to such determinations. However, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission has the authority to reverse or modify an ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the appellant’s exceptions or the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s detailed findings and conclusions were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. As such, the Commission finds those determinations worthy of due deference and ascertains no basis in the record or the appellant’s exceptions to find otherwise.

Regarding the appellant’s contention that the ALJ improperly based his determinations on non-expert testimony, the Commission disagrees, The ALd found the credible testimony and evidence in the record sufficient to establish the proffered charges. In doing so, the ALJ painstakingly considered the appellant’s expert witness’ opinions as to several aspects of the drug test. The ALJ concluded that those opinions did not overcome the otherwise credible evidence in the record. Further, the ALJ found, after extensive review of the evidence and relevant caselaw, that any purported procedural irregularities in the testing process or chain of custody were not fatal. Upon its de novo review, the Commission agrees.

The appellant also argues that the penalty of removal is too harsh as, even if accurate, the test result would have been the result of an “accidental” ingestion. The Commission rejects this contention. Regarding the penalty, the ALJ stated:

Both the A.G. and H.P.D. guidelines call for the officer's termination (along with some attendant penalties) in situations such as this. Absent extraordinary circumstances, none of which are present (or argued) here, the only option is termination. While there are some cases that discuss either the allegedly reckless or inadvertent ingestion (and the fact pattern suggests that this could be at least a colorable defense), they are not presented here. (citation omitted).

However, the facts of this case are much more in line with the

Court’s analysis in In re S.D., 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 266 (App.

Div. Feb. 22, 2024). That case involved a petitioner’s claim that his positive drug test was caused by the passive inhalation of his wife’s medicinal marijuana smoke. The Court affirmed the ALJ’s analysis of the law, which is effectively mirrored above, noting specifically the higher standard of behavior to which police officers are held, the acknowledgement of the expressed consequences of a failed drug test in both the A.G. and Departmental regulations and_ the carelessness/recklessness which led to the positive result.

Administrative Law JudgeUltimately, I FIND that termination is the only appropriate penalty for Officer Sykes. New Jersey has taken an extremely hard line on drug usage by police officers (footnote omitted). Some might argue that the policy is unduly harsh, but no one argue that the consequences of a positive test are not well known. Further, the law is clear that the officer is responsible for what ends up in his body, no matter who provides it. Here, for whatever reason, I FIND that Officer Sykes tested positive for Oxycodone/Oxymorphone and he;

Analysisa. Failed to list it on his medication form b. Failed to provide a prescription for it c. Failed to have his split sample tested d. Took medication from his wife without knowing what it was

Even accepting his claim of naivety as truthful, all of the above, no matter his version of events, leads to a conclusion that he was reckless in how he handled himself when he knew that the ultimate penalty for a positive test was termination.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is de novo. In addition to its consideration of the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission also utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive discipline. West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (1962). In determining the propriety of the penalty, several factors must be considered, including the nature of the appellant’s offense, the concept of progressive discipline, and the employee’s prior record. George vu. North Princeton Developmental Center, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (CSV) 463. However, it is well established that where the underlying conduct is of an egregious nature, the imposition of a penalty up to and including removal is appropriate, regardless of an individual's disciplinary history. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 NJ. 571 (1980). It is settled that the theory of progressive discipline is not a “fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question.” Rather, it is recognized that some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal is appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007). Even when a law enforcement officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense may nevertheless warrant the penalty of removal where it is likely to undermine the public trust. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a law enforcement officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990).

In this matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ, and finds that the appellant’s infractions are egregious and inimical to what the public expects from a Police Officer, who is held to a higher standard. Clearly, the appellant's positive drug result cannot be excused or tolerated. As such, a penalty less than removal would serve to undermine the public trust. Accordingly, the Commission finds the penalty of removal] neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Jeffrey Sykes.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.