June 2026
CHIEF ENTITLED TO DEFENSE: WHY NJSA 40A: 14-155 SUPPORTS SEPARATE COUNSEL FOR CHIEFS PERSONALLY NAMED IN CIVIL LITIGATION
Continued from page 10
quickly evolve into highly individualized claims. Once that occurs, the chief deserves legal representation that is singularly focused on the chief’ s interests alone. That principle is entirely consistent with the protections intended under N. J. S. A. 40A: 14-155.
Federal Civil Rights Litigation Intensifies the Need
The issue becomes even more significant in federal litigation under 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
Section 1983 claims frequently allege constitutional violations tied to:
• failure to train;
• failure to supervise;
• deliberate indifference;
• unconstitutional customs or practices;
• negligent policy implementation; or
• ratification of officer misconduct.
In these cases, plaintiffs intentionally target police chiefs individually to establish broader municipal liability under the standards established in Monell v. Department of Social Services.
Under Monell principles, plaintiffs seek to prove that alleged constitutional violations stemmed from official policy, custom, or command-level decisions. Because chiefs often serve as the highest-ranking operational authority within a department, they become central figures in the litigation strategy.
That creates substantial personal exposure.
The United States Supreme Court’ s ruling in City of Canton v. Harris expanded municipal and supervisory exposure involving alleged failures to train, while Connick v. Thompson further clarified the deliberate indifference standard applicable to supervisory liability claims.
These cases illustrate why chiefs are often individually targeted in litigation even where they had no direct physical involvement in the underlying incident.
Even when indemnification may ultimately apply, the chief still faces:
• personal reputational harm;
• extensive discovery obligations;
• sworn depositions;
• possible punitive damage claims;
• potential employment implications; and
• professional licensing and certification concerns.
Importantly, punitive damages are generally not indemnifiable against public entities under New Jersey law. This reality alone may create a direct conflict between the municipality and the chief.
Independent counsel ensures that the chief’ s defense strategy remains focused solely on protecting the chief personally rather than balancing broader municipal interests.
Continued on page 24
New Jersey Police Chief Magazine / 18