Last week, the 45-year-old Sicklerville resident filed an appeal to a ruling that upheld Camden Police Chief Scott Thomson's decision to fire him. An administrative judge had found that Carter, who joined the force in 1997, had shown disrespect and ignored rules.
It was the opposite of a conclusion reached in 2009 by a hearing officer who found that Carter deserved to be reinstated. Carter, he said, was within his rights to question a 2008 command to release a motorist, an unlicensed felon with outstanding warrants.
"I respect the findings of the court regardless of its favorable or negative implications," Thomson said this week. "We will continue to hold our officers to the highest standards."
Carter also has filed a civil lawsuit. He is one of a number of officers who have sued the department alleging discrimination and a hostile environment, adding significant legal costs to a financially struggling city. Thomson has said in the past that the suits are the result of the transformation of a troubled department.
"I have lost faith in the Office of Administrative Law," Carter said of the state board that handles disputes between government agencies and employees.
In his lawsuit pending in Superior Court in Camden, Carter — who is African American — alleges supervisors subjected him to hostility and racial discrimination. He is seeking an overturning of the charges, reinstatement, and unspecified damages. The 116-page administrative decision, if it were to stand, could undermine his case.
"What I have been going through is something out of a movie — cops lying on reports, lying under oath, and me telling the truth and no one believing me," said Carter, now a private security guard.
According to court testimony, the officer's personnel file in Camden included disciplinary actions as well as commendations.
In 2007, Carter raised concerns about his supervisor, then-Sgt. Dan Morris, in the department's drug-fighting Special Operations Unit. Morris was verbally abusive and had him patrol alone when most officers rode with partners, he said.
Carter was transferred from the unit — which he believes was retaliatory — and replaced by Officer Jason Stetser. Morris and Stetser subsequently admitted they planted drugs and falsified reports. They and two other officers in the unit have been convicted on corruption charges.
The department alleged that Carter later abused sick leave in 2007 and 2008. Carter said he had headaches and nausea after his brother‘s death in July 2007.
Carter's problems peaked in 2008, during the car stop. The driver, an informant for the state police, had just completed a drug transaction, authorities said. State police came to the scene and asked Carter to release the driver, who had been stopped for using a cellphone. When Carter failed to comply, a Camden supervisor ordered him to let the driver go and Carter questioned the legality of releasing an unlicensed driver wanted on warrants. Eventually, the driver was released.
Carter was suspended for insubordination and fired in June 2009. Police documented infractions involving the sick time, parking, and his uniform, which Carter says became issues only after the car stop.
Carter said negotiations to settle his civil case and resolve the administrative charges last year ended when he rejected two offers to settle for about $300,000. At that time, the administrative hearing in Trenton had already begun.
In February, Administrative Law Judge Susan Scarola detailed years of bickering between Carter and his supervisors.
Carter's behavior, Scarola wrote in her decision, was indicative of an "officer who refuses to submit to the authority" of his superiors. She ruled that he deliberately parked in unauthorized spaces and abused sick time. In 2007, she wrote, he took 41 sick days — plus four weeks' vacation and 14 holidays — and never provided a proper medical note.
"A patrol officer cannot pick and choose the rules and regulations that apply to everyone else, but not him," Scarola wrote. "If he or she did, the department would become chaotic, and the public interest would be substantially impaired. Under the circumstances in this matter, the appropriate penalty is removal."