Inmate kiss warrants jail guard's removal, New Jersey Supreme Court rules • New Jersey Monitor

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated a recommendation by the Department of Corrections that a jail guard be fired over his admission that he kissed an inmate, rejecting a decision by the Civil Service Commission that he face a six-month suspension instead.

The justices found the lesser punishment for senior correctional police officer Brian Ambroise was insufficient in light of the department’s stance that he could no longer be trusted as a corrections officer.

“We agree with the DOC that there is no situation more severe and contrary to the public interest than when a correctional officer tarnishes the institution by knowingly compromising the safety and security of himself, his fellow officers, and the inmates,” Justice Michael Noriega wrote for the unanimous court.

Their ruling will remand the matter back to the Civil Service Commission.

The Supreme Court’s decision is the latest in a saga of shifting penalties for the alleged abuses at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility, the lone New Jersey women’s prison the state is moving to replace. More than a dozen officers and supervisors were charged for severely beating inmates during 2021 late-night cell extractions prohibited by department policy. That same year, the prison entered into a consent decree with the Department of Justice after federal authorities found the facility failed to protect its inmates from sexual abuses there.

The Department of Corrections sought to oust Ambroise after an inmate, referred to as J.O. in the opinion and related court documents, told investigators they kissed and he performed oral sex on her in a closet.

Ambroise admitted to kissing her and to performing oral sex, though he later recanted the latter, saying he had no choice but to tell investigators “what they wanted to hear.” He also admitted to passing messages from J.O. to another inmate.

The department argued either of those findings ought to have been enough to dismiss Ambroise, alleging he admitted to violations that ended his ability to be trusted as a corrections officer.

Officials noted the department has a zero-tolerance policy for inmate abuse and undue familiarity with inmates. They said Ambroise had violated both and should be removed, adding he failed to report the kiss under a department policy that requires officials to detail unusual incidents.

Ambroise alleged he was retrieving supplies from the closet when J.O. entered and quickly kissed him on the lips. He said he did not report the incident because he did not believe it was unusual enough to warrant reporting. The justices disagreed.

“Intimate contact between an inmate and a corrections officer whether initiated by the inmate or the officer can never be anything but unusual,” Noriega wrote. “In this regard, Ambroise had no choice but to report that incident.”

Ambroise’s case stretches back to 2016 and has been investigated by the jail’s internal affairs unit and county prosecutors, heard by a jury that found Ambroise not guilty of sexual assault and official misconduct in 2018, and considered by an administrative law judge and the Civil Service Commission in the years since.

The administrative law judge in 2021 rejected the department’s request to remove Ambroise after finding J.O.’s testimony was not credible and tossing out the officer’s confession, saying it was coerced and involuntary because of the interrogation techniques used.

The judge ruled Ambroise should be suspended for 20 days after finding he failed to report the kiss.

On appeal, the Civil Service Commission extended Ambroise’s suspension to six months and awarded him back pay and benefits. An appellate court affirmed the commission’s decision.

The Supreme Court found previous adjudicators failed to lend proper weight to the department’s view of the severity of Ambroise’s offenses.

The high court’s justices said his failure to report the incident spawned questions about his trustworthiness that were only reinforced by his willingness to pass messages on the inmate’s behalf.

“His affirmative obligation — indeed, his duty — was simply to report the incident. His failure to do so risks the safety and security of the inmates, his fellow officers, and the institution,” Noriega wrote. “It amounts, in short, to an offense warranting termination of the officer’s employment.”