Jacob Custis, CSC Docket No. 2025-2716

BackgroundJacob Custis appeals the promotional examination for Sheriff’s Officer Sergeant (PC5087F), Gloucester County.

The subject examination was administered on May 20, 2025 and consisted of 80 multiple choice questions.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant requests a review of his score as he maintains that certain questions on the subject examination “may have been inaccurate or unfair in a way that impacted [his] performance.”

AnalysisAn independent review of the issues presented under appeal has resulted in the following findings:

Question 47 indicates that you are the supervisor of the department’s communications division. You learned through the grapevine that when two particular officers (a male and a female) work together as dispatchers, the officers are inattentive, slow to respond to radio calls, and are rumored to be having “a fling.” The question asks, based on this information, for the action you should take next. The keyed response is option d, “Monitor the productivity and response times of the officers to determine if there is a problem.” The appellant, who selected option c, “Meet privately with the officers involved and explain that this type of conduct is inappropriate,” argues that “by just monitoring the situation, you are potentially allowing the behavior to continue, and by addressing them you are at a minimum advising them that such behavior is not acceptable during working hours.” The question indicates that you learn “through the grapevine” that the work performance of two officers is affected when they work together due to a rumored “fling” between them. As such, at this point, this information is unsubstantiated. Thus, the next step that you, as a supervisor, should take is to determine whether there is an issue with productivity and response times. Option c makes the assumption that the information received through the grapevine is accurate. However, without verification of the rumored information, it would be inappropriate to confront the officers. Accordingly, the question is correct as keyed.

Question 49 indicates defense attorney walks into the holding cell area of the courtroom to confer with her client. She immediately comes out, calling for help because her client has hanged himself in the cell. An officer (who happened to be walking into the courtroom) responds to the cell and, after calling for assistance from other officers, successfully cuts the prisoner down. The prisoner, still breathing, is transported to the emergency room where he fully recovers. Your investigation finds that the officer who was assigned to watch the prisoner had left the courtroom to buy a coffee. You have the officer assigned to prisoner watch submit a report for his failure to properly observe the prisoner. The question asks what you should do next to address the officer’s failure to properly observe the prisoner. The keyed response is option c, “Submit a report to internal affairs recommending formal charges be filed against the officer.” The appellant, who selected option b, “Since the prisoner made a full recovery, use the incident as a teachable moment and admonish the officer on the perils of a lax prisoner watch,” contends that the keyed response is vague as this does not list the types of “formal charges.” In this regard, he inquires, “Would they be criminal charges? Would they be administrative charges? This makes it difficult to select the correct answer that truly reflected an accurate understanding of the material.” The appellant does not explain how the omission of the type of formal charges made “it difficult to select the correct answer.” In addition, candidates were instructed to choose the best answer of those provided. Nevertheless, it is noted that option b ignores the officer’s infraction. The fact that the prisoner recovered is irrelevant to the officer’s neglect of duty. Thus, option b is not the best response.

Question 50 indicates that you are the supervisor of a street-crimes unit comprised of six male officers. After one officer from the unit gets promoted and moved to a new assignment, his position in the unit is filled by a female detective. After one week, the female detective complains of inappropriate comments by the other members of the unit. She says the comments make her feel ostracized, inadequate, and the comments are often of a sexual nature. The question asks for the least appropriate action to take at this time. The keyed response is option b, “Address the issue with the entire unit present at the next roll call.” The appellant appears to have misremembered this question as asking for the appropriate action to take. The appellant argues that option b “is inaccurate as this can make those who are not involved feel blamed and accused, and create an even more tension filled work environment. Addressing the group as a whole undermines trust and safety for the female officer, and punishes the group as a whole.” He indicates that the correct answer choice should be “to speak to each officer individually get to the root of the issue.” Since the question asked for the least appropriate action to take, it is correct as keyed.

Question 51 indicates that your supervisor hands down an order that he wants you to relay it to the officers and enforce it. While the order is lawful, you do not agree with it. The question asks what you should do first. The keyed response is option b, “Respectfully ask for clarification and express your concerns.” The appellant asserts that option d, “Follow the order because it is lawful, even though you don’t agree with it,” is the best response. He contends that “by not following an order immediately[,] an officer could be written up for insubordination. They should follow the lawful order and then respectfully speak with the lieutenant at a later time.” It is noted that respectfully speaking first with your lieutenant for clarification may make the order, and/or the rationale behind the order, clearer to you which may lead you to agree with it. It would also allow you to explain the order to the officers, if needed. Further, speaking with the lieutenant first would provide the lieutenant with the opportunity to address your concerns and/or allow the lieutenant to see the order from a different perspective and may agree with your concerns. Option d does not allow for these opportunities. In addition, option d does not indicate that you are going to voice your concerns at a later time. As such, option d is not the best response.

Question 57 indicates that you are a supervisor observing officers who are working the main entrance to the courthouse and there is a long line for entry. A woman, who is wearing a hijab and is accompanied by two young children, enters the courthouse. She does not seem to understand the commands of Officer Graham who is trying to tell her to let her children walk through the scanners one at a time and that she needs to put her pocketbook through the scanner. Officer Graham, clearly frustrated, then says loudly, “This is why we need to build that wall.” Several people in the line tell Officer Graham that what he said was uncalled for and inappropriate, which only irritates him more. The question asks what you should do next. The keyed response is option d, “Assist the woman through the entry process, and then pull Officer Graham aside to tell him his demeanor and comments were indeed inappropriate.” The appellant, who misremembered the keyed response as “remove the officer from the scene,” maintains that option c, “Apologize to the woman and others in line for the conduct of Officer Graham,” is the best response. In this regard, he contends that “by apologizing first and helping the woman, you are keeping tensions from rising with her and the crowd.” Option d takes action to resolve the situation by both assisting the woman to enter the courthouse and stopping Officer Graham’s inappropriate behavior. Option c is not proactive as it does not help the woman through the entry process and does not address the officer’s conduct. Thus, option c is not the best next action to take.

Question 59 indicates that there is a call for an individual with a knife threatening suicide in the courthouse parking lot. When you arrive, you find Officer Johnson in a dialogue with the suspect and another two officers sufficiently covering the individual. Candidates are presented with four actions. The question asks, as the responding sergeant, for the best course of action. The keyed response is option c, statement II, “Listen to what the individual is saying and if you hear statements (‘hooks’) that could be used to deescalate the individual, let Officer Johnson know,” and statement IV, “If the dialogue between Officer Johnson and the individual deteriorates, be prepared to take over communication with the subject”; and does not include statement I, “Take over dialogue as the highest-ranking officer on scene.” The appellant, who selected option a, I only, maintains that “per Incident Command System policy[,] the highest ranking officer is to take control upon their arrival.” It is noted that the appellant does not provide any information or documentation to support his assertion that you, as the responding sergeant, should immediately take over the dialogue with the suspect under these circumstances.

Question 63 indicates that during the day shift, a 40-year-old male entered a police department to register under Megan’s law. He has his court order with him. The question requires candidates to complete the following sentence, “According to Title 2C, the department must . . .” the keyed response is option b, “forward the registration to the county prosecutor within three days.” The appellant misremembered the keyed response as option d, “first run a comprehensive criminal history check on the male.” He asserts that option c, “first advise the male of his rights under the law,” is correct as “this does not only pertain to Miranda [r]ight[s], as these individuals have the right to challenge registration, petition for removal, representation, etc. All persons must be advised of their rights prior to arrest and any other legal process involving law enforcement.” N.J.S.A. 2C:7-4 (Forms of Registration) provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin three days of receipt of a registration pursuant to subsection c. of section 2 of this act, the registering agency shall forward the statement and any other required information to the prosecutor who shall, as soon as practicable, transmit the form of registration to the Superintendent of State Police.” The question specifically refers to Title 2C. In this regard, the appellant does not cite any provision of Title 2C to support his argument.

CONCLUSION

A thorough review of the appellant’s submissions and the test materials reveals that the appellant’s examination score is amply supported by the record, and the appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

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