MAYS LANDING – Superior Court Judge Michael Blee denied an attempt by Cape May County Detective Robert Harkins to have his case dismissed June 9.
Harkins was indicted Jan. 31 on two counts of third-degree tampering with public records and one count of conspiracy.
Background
The incident stems from a hit-and-run accident in the Walgreens parking lot, in Court House, involving Harkins’ mother-in-law as the victim, according to a previous Herald report.
The Middle Township police officer, who responded to the scene, was not thorough enough in his investigation to satisfy Harkins, who worked at the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office, so he took the matter into his own hands, per the report.
Court documents state Harkins produced an unauthorized grand jury subpoena from the Prosecutor’s Office. The subpoena threatened non-compliance with an arrest warrant and contempt charges, despite no investigation existing.
The demands Harkins made were invalid, but Walgreens complied, unaware of the details that later emerged, per court documents.
Harkins received the personal information of the customer. Creating a fake investigative case number and the details from Walgreens, he used that information to request and receive the individual’s driver’s license from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
After he received the information, Harkins went to the man’s address and surveilled his property, taking photos of his vehicle. He used the Prosecutor’s Office system to verify that the car was the one he was searching for, the court documents continued.
Harkins asked for facial recognition information from New Jersey State Police. He claimed it was a multi-agency investigation.
He asked for the photo array “in regard to assistance I am lending to the Middle Township Police Department in a hit-and-run motor vehicle crash investigation.”
To lend further credibility to his efforts, he documented his investigation using an outdated Prosecutor’s Office program.
State police returned the requested photo array to Harkins, but also provided the information to the Middle Township Police Department (MTPD). Harkins gave his findings to MTPD in January 2020. MTPD notified the Professional Standards Unit at the Prosecutor’s Office of the situation May 19, 2020.
The Prosecutor’s Office investigated and determined that Harkins acted alone and without the authorization of any supervisors.
Motion to Dismiss
In his motion to dismiss the case, Harkins’ attorney Andrew Smith argued against how seriously the state appears to be taking the situation.
Smith conceded that “he (Harkins) may have violated departmental polices and can properly be subject to administrative discipline,” per the court’s memorandum of decision.
He argued that the circumstances are “too trivial” to warrant criminal prosecution, suggesting that this conduct is not out of the ordinary. He contended that all actions were available to Harkins as a private citizen. He further held that no harm was done to anyone by Harkins’ actions.
Smith has characterized the charges as an intentional attack on a lengthy track record of law enforcement service to the community.
Although the charges carry a possible prison sentence, the arguments also highlighted the fact that Harkins would have to forfeit his employment, his law enforcement credentials and his state pension.
Harkins began his career as a member of the North Wildwood Police Department in 1991, at first working seasonally and eventually coming on full-time as a patrolman.
Smith did not respond to a request for comment.
The case is being prosecuted by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, which declined to comment.
Motion Denied
In the memorandum of decision in which he denies the motion, Blee focused on the triviality argument presented by Smith.
A previous New Jersey case determined a set of standards, which can be used to determine whether the situation qualifies as trivial.
The questions at hand include whether Harkins knew he was in the wrong; whether he knew what kind of impact his actions would have had; and whether he was aware of the circumstances surrounding the offense.
In denying the motion, the court highlighted that law enforcement officers’ conduct is scrutinized when their behavior is the result of an opportunity afforded them by their position.
Blee determined that Harkins used the opportunities of his position to circumvent the law.
The court’s decision points out that Harkins fabricated case numbers to acquire nonpublic information.
“There is nothing trivial about a law enforcement officer embracing an ‘ends-justify-the-means’ approach to policing,” the text concludes.
For now, it appears Harkins will have his day in court.
A status conference to review the progress of the case is scheduled July 15.
To contact Alec Hansen, email ahansen@cmcherald.com.
