Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sastokas v. Borough of Freehold

Decided: June 3, 1946.

MICHAEL J. SASTOKAS, PROSECUTOR,
v.
BOROUGH OF FREEHOLD IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, DEFENDANT



On writ of certiorari.

For the prosecutor, Roberts, Pillsbury, Carton & Sorenson (Lawrence A. Carton, Jr., of counsel).

For the defendant, McDermott & Finegold (James D. Carpenter, Jr., of counsel).

Before Justices Parker, Donges and Oliphant.

Oliphant

The opinion of the court was delivered by

OLIPHANT, J. Prosecutor, by resolution passed at a regular meeting of the mayor and council of the Borough of Freehold, on November 20th, 1944, was appointed "to the regular police force for a six months' probationary period beginning December 1st, 1944." No other action was taken by the borough authorities until January 21st, 1946, when the appointment was revoked and his employment terminated as of February 1st, 1946. During all that time he performed the duties of

a member of the police force and received his salary of $1,800 per year as specified in the resolution.

An ordinance of the borough approved January 16th, 1922, amended December 7th, 1942, provided as follows:

"The aforesaid police shall be appointed by the Mayor upon the recommendation of the police committee, with the approval of the Council, and shall hold office during good behavior, efficiency and residence in the Borough, provided however, that each policeman shall be first employed for a term of at least six months so that his fitness for the duties he is to perform may be determined before he is permanently attached to the Police Department. These periods of employment shall be deemed 'probationary periods', and the policemen so employed shall be deemed 'probationers' and they may be dropped from the rolls or discharged at any time during such probationary period; or upon the recommendation of the Police Committee, may be permanently attached to the Police Department by the Mayor with the approval of the Council."

While much testimony is contained in the depositions attached to the return concerning the age of prosecutor, his qualifications for the job and the fact that an emergency had existed at the time of his appointment and occupancy of the position the fundamental questions are, did he become a permanent member of the police force at the end of his probationary term, the appointing authorities having failed to take any action during that time and consequently did he attain a tenure status which prevented his removal except for cause and pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 40:47-5/6 and R.S. 40:47-60/61, the latter by reason of his being an exempt fireman?

The statute R.S. 40:47-1 gives general powers to a municipality to, by ordinance, establish rules and regulations for the appointment, terms and removal of members of its police department but such must be within statutory limitations. The only provision for the appointment of other than permanent members of the police force is that empowering the governing body "to employ officers or men temporarily in case of emergency, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.