TRENTON—The N.J. Department of Corrections unit that investigates alleged abuse of incarcerated people and other misconduct often failed to conduct thorough and fair investigations, a report by the Office of the State Comptroller said.

OSC examined how the Special Investigations Division (SID), the internal affairs unit within the Department of Corrections (DOC), probed allegations of assault, excessive force, and/or violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act by staff against incarcerated people in three state prisons from January 2018 until August 2022. A review of 46 case files found significant deficiencies in many cases, with investigators failing to interview eyewitnesses, losing evidence, and failing to draw even preliminary conclusions about whether allegations of abuse were substantiated.

Additionally, OSC found two cases at Bayside State Prison, one in 2019 and the other in 2018, in which surveillance footage showed that the correctional officers seemed to use excessive force against incarcerated individuals without visible provocation. In both instances, the officers alleged that the incarcerated individual threatened them.  The surveillance video had no audio, and eyewitnesses – who might have shed light on the facts -- were never interviewed. The officers involved didn’t receive any discipline.

“Often these investigations were not real investigations,” said Acting State Comptroller Kevin Walsh. “Some investigators were clearly just going through the motions. It’s also possible some were using their positions to protect one of their own and prevent accountability.”

OSC initiated its investigation after receiving complaints about the quality of SID’s investigations and record-keeping practices. Examining 46 case files from the New Jersey State Prison, East Jersey State Prison, and Bayside State Prison, OSC reviewed all recorded interviews, available surveillance footage, medical records, and other documents, as well as conducted interviews with DOC officials.  In 22 percent of the cases, OSC found the most basic investigative step of interviewing eyewitnesses was not taken. In 13 percent of cases, key evidence was missing. Of the 38 cases that involved correctional officers, just two resulted in an officer being disciplined.

The two cases at Bayside State Prison were glaring examples of improper investigations, OSC found. In the 2019 case, a corrections officer punched the incarcerated person in the face multiple times, wrestling him to the ground. In the 2018 case, a correctional officer pepper-sprayed an incarcerated person. In both cases, the officers alleged their use of force was justified because they were threatened. The footage didn’t show the incarcerated persons displaying physical aggression or crossing security lines.     

Witnesses who were nearby and might have heard the alleged threats were not interviewed.  In the 2018 case, the case file contained just two brief reports that had scant details of the incident or the incarcerated person’s actions. In the 2019 case, the case file report does not summarize the surveillance video, raising questions as to whether the investigator ever watched it. Additionally, the investigator’s video-recorded interview of the officer was just eight minutes long and filled with leading questions that seemed designed to exonerate, such as, “I believe (the incarcerated person) verbally threatened you, didn’t he?”  

In both cases, the incarcerated person faced disciplinary charges – the officer did not. In the 2019 case, the incarcerated person was disciplined with 30 days of administrative segregation and a loss of 10 days of recreation privileges. These cases show some of the harsh consequences that can follow from deficient investigations. 

In interviews with OSC, the investigators of these two cases subsequently acknowledged that their investigations were deficient and they should have interviewed witnesses. One expressed a sense of futility, saying officers “like to stick to each other’s stories.”

OSC made 11 recommendations, including that DOC should reopen and reexamine these two Bayside cases and engage an independent monitor to examine SID’s case files at other facilities operated by DOC.

During OSC’s investigation, the Department of Corrections advised that it was adopting policy and process changes, such as outfitting correctional officers with body-worn cameras that have audio. “Some of these changes are a step in the right direction,” said Walsh, “but more robust reforms are needed to change the culture and ensure investigations of misconduct and abuse are independent, fair, and thorough.” 

OSC has referred its findings to the Office of the Corrections Ombudsperson, an office tasked with providing independent prison oversight to protect the safety and well-being of incarcerated people.

Read the full report, and watch the surveillance footage of the two Bayside State Prison incidents.  

Sign up now for OSC's newsletter.  

To report government fraud, waste, mismanagement, or corruption, file a complaint with OSC or call 1-855-OSC-TIPS.