Sean Lavin was a Sergeant with the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office in New Jersey (MCSO). On December 6, 2013, Lavin and other members of the Sheriff’s Office were assisting with security at an event at the Sun National Bank Center in Trenton. Three women, two of whom were visibly intoxicated, were denied entry due to their condition and became unruly. As a result, they were arrested for disorderly conduct. While one woman was handcuffed with her hands behind her back, Lavin allegedly pepper-sprayed her in the face. After the incident, Lavin allegedly instructed two subordinate officers at the scene to have their reports match his. Lavin’s report falsely stated that the woman was not handcuffed and was still struggling with the officers when the pepper spray was deployed.
Lavin was criminally prosecuted for official misconduct and tampering with public records. The MCSO suspended him indefinitely pending the outcome of his criminal trial. On October 5, 2015, Lavin was admitted to the Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) Program, without a guilty plea, subject to the conditions that “Lavin shall resign from his position as a Mercer County Sheriff’s Officer effective October 2, 2015, and shall not seek future employment with Mercer County.” Lavin resigned, and his indictment was dismissed at the conclusion of the PTI program.
Sometime later, Lavin petitioned the criminal court for post-conviction relief, seeking to vacate his entry into PTI based on newly discovered evidence. Specifically, Lavin argued that MSCO withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady and Giglio – several internal documents detailing potential dishonesty by Lavin’s superior officer and one of the other MSCO officers involved in the pepper spray incident. Lavin’s counsel requested internal affairs documents from MSCO throughout the original criminal proceedings, but never attempted to compel MSCO to provide them by motion. The judge denied Lavin’s petition, finding that (1) Lavin did not establish that these documents would alter the outcome of his criminal trial; and (2) Lavin’s counsel bore responsibility for failing to seek the compulsion of these documents.
Lavin applied for a disability pension, claiming several major injuries to his knees that occurred while on active duty. The pension board rejected his claim because (1) he left employment because of a disciplinary termination, not a disabling injury; and (2) according to the terms of his PTI, he was barred from returning to future employment at MSCO – which would be required by statute if his disabling injury was resolved. The full pension board upheld this decision on appeal.
Lavin appealed the determinations of the pension board and the judge, which were consolidated and heard together. The New Jersey court of appeals affirmed both decisions. With respect to the post-conviction relief petition, the Court dismissed the claim outright because Lavin’s participation in PTI did not require him to enter a guilty plea, and his charges were later dismissed. As a result, there was no “conviction” for which he could seek “post-conviction relief.” The Court further argued that even if this did not bar the claim, the documents identified by Lavin would not have changed the outcome of his criminal proceeding. Furthermore, the documents would not have even qualified as Brady material under the Attorney General’s internal rules, which allowed, but did not compel, the disclosure of internal documents sustaining a finding that an officer violated a law, regulation, or work rule.
With respect to the pension disability issue, the Court agreed that Lavin was ineligible for a service disability pension: “It is now settled law that ‘an irrevocable resignation from employment, in and of itself, renders a member ineligible for ordinary or accidental retirement benefits.’” The Court also agreed with the pension board that Lavin’s agreement not to return to MSCO barred him from receiving benefits under the state statute, and rejected Lavin’s response that he would still work as a law enforcement officer elsewhere in the state. The Court concluded that holding otherwise would be inequitable: “Lavin, who resigned from work and irrevocably agreed to forego future employment as a condition of his admission into the PTI program to resolve criminal charges ‘is not within the scope of the service disability statute’ and is not of a class intended to be benefited by the statute. Allowing Lavin to obtain benefits under these circumstances ‘would drain, weaken, and overburden the disability retirement system available to its participants.’”
New Jersey v. Lavin, DOCKET NO. A-0075-21, A-1880-21, 2023 WL 8651317 (Super. Ct. N.J.).