Kodi Pollock worked as a correctional officer for the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) from 2016 until her termination in 2022. During her tenure she was assigned to housing unit H1-2R, which housed inmate Elijah Blanton until his release on August 29, 2020. Pollock supervised Blanton as his housing unit officer.
In March 2021, DOC launched an investigation into Pollock after receiving two anonymous tips that she had an intimate relationship with Blanton since his release and passed messages from Blanton to his former cellmate, who was still incarcerated. Surveillance video confirmed that Pollock met with Blanton’s former cellmate. DOC proceeded to obtain mobile phone records for Pollock and Blanton, which revealed that they called each other about 250 times and texted over 10,000 times since Blanton’s release. On March 22, 2021, DOC searched areas of H1-2R under Pollock’s supervision, while she was on-duty. In her jacket were food items, vehicle keys, and other items from outside of the prison. In a locked cabinet to which Pollock had the only keys, DOC found beard trimmers, immersion heaters, and the controlled substance Suboxone. Two more immersion heaters were found bundled in a sock in the housing unit officer’s podium.
DOC interviewed Pollock about its findings. At first, Pollock denied having a relationship with Blanton, but explained that he unexpectedly called her after his release looking for a job, and she spoke with him ten times or less. Despite supervising him for more than a year, she claimed not to know Blanton’s name. After investigators confronted Pollock with evidence of their nearly 250 phone calls, she claimed to remember that Blanton’s nickname was “E,” but continued to deny knowing his name or having a relationship. The investigators then confronted Pollock with evidence of her 10,000 text messages with Blanton, and she admitted that her initial interview responses were false, but denied having a sexual relationship with Blanton and described the texts as “flirting.” She also admitted to bringing in the contraband found in her jacket, but not the more serious contraband discovered in the locked cabinet.
Pollock was dismissed by DOC for a host of charges relating to her inappropriate relationship with Blanton, her false statements during the investigatory interview, and the discovery of contraband in her coat and in areas under her control in H1-2R. She challenged her termination, and the administrative law judge granted summary judgment to DOC. Pollock appealed, arguing (1) that she did not knowingly violate DOC’s staff/inmate familiarity policy because she believed the policy ceased to apply upon an inmate’s release; and (2) that DOC failed to prove that she possessed the contraband Suboxone, knowingly or otherwise. Pollock did not challenge the rest of the charges against her, including her false statements during the interview, her divulging confidential information to Blanton, and her possession of other contraband besides Suboxone.
The Court affirmed Pollock’s termination, finding that the ALJ properly granted summary judgment, because “it is undisputed Pollock engaged in an unduly familiar relationship with a former inmate within weeks of his release, provided false information to the investigators, possessed contraband in the prison, and provided sensitive information regarding prison operations – all in violation of the applicable rules, regulations, and procedures. These violations are plainly sufficient to support the Commission’s determination that Pollock engaged in conduct unbecoming a public employee.”
The Court rejected Pollock’s arguments on appeal because the ALJ properly determined that her conduct warranted termination regardless of whether (1) she knowingly or accidentally violated the inmate/staff familiarity policy; or (2) she knowingly possessed Suboxone while on-duty. Again, the Court’s reasoning was that the undisputed evidence in the record revealed so many other, serious policy violations that Pollock’s arguments – even if the Court were persuaded by them – would have no effect on the outcome.
In re Kodi Pollock, DOCKET NO. A-4042-21, 2024 WL 358318 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).