C O N F I D E N T I A L

C O N F I D E N T I A L INTERVIEW of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Fedorko for the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE February 16, 2001 10:00 a.m. Committee Room 2 State House Annex Trenton, New Jersey PRESENT AT INTERVIEW: Eric H. Jaso, Esq. (Special Counsel to the Committee) Jo Astrid Glading, Esq. (Democratic Counsel to the Committee) Douglas Wheeler, Esq. (Democratic Counsel to the Committee) * * * * * * * * C O N F I D E N T I A L

C O N F I D E N T I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Lieutenant Colonel Michael Fedorko (Retired) New Jersey State Police 1 Jeffrey J. Miller, Esq. Assistant Attorney General 1 rs: 1-98 lmb: 99-158

MR. ERIC H. JASO, Esq.: Colonel, do you prefer to be called Colonel -- addressed as Colonel? L I E U T E N A N T C O L O N E L M I C H A E L F E D O R K O: Whatever. MR. JASO: That would be fine with me. Just stand for the oath please. Raise your right hand. (Oath administered) Thank you. Colonel Fedorko, my name is Eric Jaso. I m an associate at the firm of Latham and Watkins. We are outside counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In particular, Michael Chertoff, who is a member of the firm, has been appointed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, to conduct an investigation into the history of racial profiling in the State of New Jersey and related issues. If I could just have everyone introduce themselves, except for the witness, so that we ll have that on the record. MR. WHEELER: Douglas Wheeler. I m Assistant Counsel for the Senate Democratic Office. MS. GLADING: Jo Astrid Glading, Staff Counsel, Senate Democratic Office. A S S I S T A N T A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L J E F F R E Y J. M I L L E R: Jeffrey Miller, Assistant Attorney General, counsel for Colonel Fedorko. MR. JASO: Thank you. Colonel, if we could start by your telling me your educational 1

background and your history of employment with the New Jersey State Police, including dates, to the extent that you can recall them. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I have a bachelor s degree from Trenton State, which is now the College of New Jersey, and I have a master s degree from the University of Pennsylvania. And I attended a management seminar at the Kennedy School at Harvard University. I enlisted in the State Police -- graduated from the academy in February of 1969, and I retired November the 1st of 1999. MR. JASO: What positions did you hold within the State Police during your career there? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: For the first seven and a half years, I was a road trooper -- general-duty road trooper. MR. JASO: So until about 1976? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah, 76 or 77. I was transferred to the Executive Protection Unit-- I m sorry. I was transferred to the State House here for about nine months. And then I went back to the road for about six months. And then I was transferred to Executive Protection sometime in 77. And I stayed there until 1990. MR. JASO: And Executive Protection is what? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: It s the group that protects the governor and the attorney general, protects the houses -- the official residence. MR. JASO: Okay. Senator Gormley has joined us. Good morning. SENATOR GORMLEY: Good morning. 2

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Good morning. MS. GLADING: Good morning. MR. JASO: So after 1990, then what did you do? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: In 1990, I was transferred back to Division headquarters where I spent about six months in the operational section, with the Truck Enforcement Unit. Then I was transferred to the Special and Technical Section as a captain in charge of-- Well, I was in charge of three different bureaus while I was there -- Special and Technical Bureau, the-- I can t think of the other names. MR. JASO: That s okay. And that s approximately what time frame? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I was there till about-- Well, I was there exactly till October of 93, and then I was transferred to the State Police Academy at Sea Girt. And I left there in January of 96. I was promoted to major then. I was in charge of-- MR. JASO: Were you-- You were the commandant of the academy? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I was commandant of the academy. Then I was transferred to-- I m sorry, I was Division staff section -- major in charge of Division staff section for approximately six months, and then I was transferred to the administration section as the major in charge of that. And I was there until about August, I think, of 97, when I was promoted to lieutenant colonel as the executive officer. And then about a year later, I was promoted to the deputy superintendent. And then in February-- MR. JASO: I m sorry, the lieutenant colonel and the position of executive officer was what time period? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: About August of 97. 3

MR. JASO: Oh, okay. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Both of those are lieutenant colonel positions. And then February 28, 99, I was made acting superintendent until I retired November 1st. MR. JASO: Colonel, one of the terms that we will be referring to throughout this interview, from time to time, is racial profiling. And I wanted to ask you to start off with what your understanding of that term is, as you sit here today, and if it has changed over time, what about it has changed and approximately when. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: What it means to me? Because the problem with this issue -- with this racial profiling term, is it means different things to different people. To me it means stopping solely for the reason of the color of their skin or nationality. MR. JASO: Has that definition, in your mind, changed at all over time? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. MR. JASO: When was the first time that you remember hearing about the term racial profiling? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I guess around the time of the Turnpike shooting. MR. JASO: That was the first time you had ever heard of it? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, heard of it in connection with the State Police -- applied to the State Police is what I mean. MR. JASO: Had you ever heard of the term before -- used generally with regard to law enforcement or drug interdiction -- anything like that? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. It s not a term that s used 4

in police work -- in my experience. MR. JASO: Have you ever heard of the term law enforcement profiling-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. MS. GLADING: Have you ever-- MR. JASO: --or drug courier profiling? SENATOR GORMLEY: Let me, if I-- Do you know -- let me see -- Sergeant Gilbert -- Detective Gilbert? Do you know him? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: Did you interact with him in 1996? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. In 1996, I was in charge of Division staff section. Sergeant Gilbert was part of the Labor Relations Unit, which was directly under the superintendent. And I really had no interaction with him. SENATOR GORMLEY: Did you have-- Did you know that he was compiling a report at that time? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. I didn t know that until sometime in March of 99, when First Assistant Zoubek called me to his office and showed me a stack of reports and asked me if I knew anything about them. And I said no. That s the first time I had ever seen them. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. So the first time you ever saw these reports from -- the report that was done by Gilbert-- There was one done in 1997, and there was one done in the spring of 96. You had no knowledge of 5

them until 1999? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. The only two that I saw, and these are-- I saw these when Paul Zoubek showed them to me. They have my initials on them. But it s something that went through -- from Gilbert to Colonel Williams, and there s about six people that are -- that have initialed it. Two of them have my initials on it. One of them I wrote. The other one my assistant wrote. But generally, if something s going directly to the Colonel, it just passes through my office. SENATOR GORMLEY: What was your role in 1998? What was your title in 1998? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Deputy superintendent. SENATOR GORMLEY: So you were deputy superintendent in 1998. Okay. Were you aware of any information at that time, with false -- anything related to falsification of records by troopers? Was there a review in 1998 of that? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I don t remember when it was done, but as a result of the Turnpike shooting, which was -- what, 97, I think. SENATOR GORMLEY: That was 98. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Ninety-eight. Okay. SENATOR GORMLEY: So right after 98 -- right after the shooting in April of 98, do you know of a review that was commenced? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: So in 98-- Now, they did-- They re reviewing records in 98 to see if there was some form of falsification. 6

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: From the Turnpike. SENATOR GORMLEY: From the-- Well, the Turnpike-- Did it go beyond the Turnpike-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, what we did-- SENATOR GORMLEY: --or just the stations on the Turnpike? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Just the three stations on the Turnpike. SENATOR GORMLEY: All right. So that started in 98. Were you aware of that investigation? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: Were you a participant in gathering that information? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Were you ever at a meeting in which that investigation was discussed? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I m sure I was, but I don t-- I can t recall. SENATOR GORMLEY: Now, that investigation went beyond the -- beyond just the participants -- just beyond those people who, eventually, were charged with the Turnpike shooting. That dealt with the question of falsification of people calling -- of call-ins that emanated from those stations on the Turnpike. It wasn t just related to two individual troopers, it was related to troopers stationed in those barracks. Is that correct? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: That s correct. What we did is we confiscated all the records from the three stations on the Turnpike. 7

SENATOR GORMLEY: It was confiscated. Approximately what time was it confiscated? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Time of the year you mean? SENATOR GORMLEY: April, May-- Was it confiscated immediately after the shooting? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Fairly close to a time after. Yeah. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Was there a reason beyond the shooting why that information was confiscated, to the best of your knowledge? Was there any reason to suspect falsification-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. SENATOR GORMLEY: --beyond, merely, the hearing? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. (cellular phone ringing) SENATOR GORMLEY: If I learn how to turn off my phone, I ll even get better. (phone turned off) MS. GLADING: That will do it. SENATOR GORMLEY: It s dead now. Was there anything beyond the shooting that would lead you to believe, based on your knowledge, that there was falsification of records? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Who conducted that review? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I believe it was-- Well, what 8

we-- Let me think for a minute. I think what we did was we pulled troopers from different units and put them on, sort of, a task force, and they worked on that project. I think it was 15 or 30 troopers. I don t remember. SENATOR GORMLEY: So you had a task force to -- in 98 -- to review, as to whether or not records were being falsified. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Correct. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. When did they come back with a report? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I don t-- We were getting information regularly. SENATOR GORMLEY: How soon did you-- How soon did somebody suspect there was falsification? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Oh, within a few months. SENATOR GORMLEY: So it would be fair to say that approximately by July the 1st of 1998-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: --there was some knowledge that there was falsification of records. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Fine. When did this investigation conclude? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I m not even-- I m not sure if it was still going on after I left the State Police or-- SENATOR GORMLEY: But it started at that time? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. 9

SENATOR GORMLEY: So it s fair to say that in April of 1998, there was reason to believe -- or cause to believe that there was falsification of records of some form. And we re talking about falsification -- we re really talking about instances such as misidentification of race. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Right. Correct. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Who-- ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER: Senator, in April or July? SENATOR GORMLEY: Well, the suspicion started in April, and by July they were sure of it. That s how I-- Is that a fair way to characterize it? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I don t know if I would say that we were suspicious, but-- I mean, the reason we confiscated everything was to see what was going on out there. I guess you can say there was a suspicion. Yes. That s why-- SENATOR GORMLEY: I mean, I m not saying it was verified, but there might have been a cause-- There might have-- There was-- Maybe there was-- Was there a basis? Was there some rumor, hearsay, or whatever, or cause for concern that this misidentification was taking place -- this intentional misidentification was taking place? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: There was a concern, just as part of the investigation of that shooting. SENATOR GORMLEY: I understand. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER: I m just going to instruct the witness to stay away from discussing the Hogan and Kenna case. 10

SENATOR GORMLEY: And do you want to know something? This has nothing to do with Hogan and Kenna. Do you want to know something? We re not going to use that as a blanket. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER: Senator, all I was doing was instructing him to stay away from it. SENATOR GORMLEY: Oh, I understand that. And I m going to instruct him that what we re looking for is information that is not directed at Hogan and Kenna, it is directed towards information that was part of an overall review. When did people know things? And what we re looking for-- The gist of this is when people knew things and when decisions were made. And the question is, did the attorney general, in 1998, know there was a problem with misidentification, and why wasn t a grand jury called in 1999? Okay? So we won t even be vague about it now. Okay? So we won t play the Hogan-Kenna routine. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER: Senator, I don t think it s a routine. I m simply instructing the witness. SENATOR GORMLEY: Well, I think it s-- ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER: In all fairness to the witness, I think he s entitled to that instruction. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. He got that instruction. The question is, in 1998, after -- the best of your knowledge -- after people realized that there was a -- there was falsification taking place -- or misidentification -- intentional misidentification taking place-- What, to the best of your knowledge, occurred? What took place? What direction did the Department take with that information? 11

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: That, I have no idea. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. So they-- So, in effect, they had the information, but to the best of your knowledge-- When s the next time the issue came up? When did you hear about it again? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Hear about? SENATOR GORMLEY: The misidentification. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well-- SENATOR GORMLEY: Did it occur when you became superintendent? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. It s-- While that investigation-- Not the Hogan-Kenna-- But while the -- going over the records from those three stations, we were constantly being updated of potential problems -- potential misidentifications. Troopers were sent out to talk-- Traffic summonses were confiscated, patrol records. SENATOR GORMLEY: Who was the lead of this task force gathering this information? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Lieutenant Colonel Dunlop, actually, was the one who, as I recall -- who suggested to Colonel Williams that we do this. And he s the one who put all this together. MR. JASO: Who were you getting updates from? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I believe it was Lieutenant Sachetti. MS. GLADING: Was Lieutenant Sachetti in your chain of command at that time? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, he was part of IAB, which was Internal Affairs. But he was assigned to this task force, which was -- which 12

Lieutenant Colonel Dunlop was dealing with. MR. JASO: Do you know who Lieutenant Sachetti was updating? Who was he giving the updates to? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Colonel Dunlop, probably. MR. JASO: And who was Colonel Dunlop informing in turn? Who was he passing the information on to? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, he was-- I knew about it at times. And then Colonel Williams, I m sure, was also included. MS. GLADING: Was Lieutenant Sachetti giving daily updates to Captain Van Tassell? (phonetic spelling) LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I m sure he was. MS. GLADING: Was Captain Van Tassell giving you daily updates? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, because, again, that was -- not daily -- because that was -- Lieutenant Colonel Dunlop was overseeing that. Let me just explain something to you so you understand this. The way the State Police was broken down then, and I think it s still this way now-- I had the half of the State Police that deals with, for lack of a better term, the business end of it. Colonel Dunlop had the road troopers and the detectives. I had administration, Special and Technical, which is the labs. I had Records and Identification, and Division staff, which is Internal Affairs, the academy, State House security. MS. GLADING: This was an IAB function, wasn t it? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, some of the troopers working on it were from IAB, but again, this was a task force. Some of these troopers were from the Criminal Investigations Section. I think we took some 13

from intelligence -- from the intelligence-- A lot of them were detectives who knew how to do investigations. MR. JASO: Now, specify a time period here about when you said this structure was in place, because at some point in time you became-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: What structure? MR. JASO: The structure you just described. That you were only in charge-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I had that from the time I made lieutenant colonel, which was sometime in August of 97, up until the time I was made the acting superintendent. That s the sections that I was in charge of. So I never really had anything to do with the road troopers or the investigation part of the State Police -- the detectives. They were under the other lieutenant colonel. MR. JASO: Dunlop. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, at times it was Dunlop. Before that it was Lieutenant Colonel Roberson. Before him it was -- I think it was Lieutenant Colonel Littles -- I think -- before him. SENATOR GORMLEY: In 1999 you are made the acting colonel, and you re now confronted with all this information for the first time. Who was present when you were confronted with the information? Paul Zoubek -- he presented it? He said, We have these reports. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: The reports of the gathering of information? SENATOR GORMLEY: The Gilbert-- Let s just say the reports prepared by Gilbert. 14

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah, Paul Zoubek. SENATOR GORMLEY: The one in-- There was a Gilbert report the beginning of 97, which outlined the problem when you compared the barracks. You did the review of the statistics compared with the consent -- when including consent searches -- that when you compared it with the Maryland set of circumstances, it would appear that, at least, it was his conclusion that we had a problem. That s the first time you heard about it or saw it. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: That was sometime in March of 99. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. So you heard about it-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: From Paul Zoubek. SENATOR GORMLEY: Approximately 26 months after he prepared the report. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Right. SENATOR GORMLEY: What did Paul Zoubek say to you when he gave it to you? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: He handed us these reports and said, Do you guys know anything about these? Have you ever seen them before? And Dunlop and I-- MS. GLADING: I m sorry, who are you guys? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Dunlop-- Bob Dunlop and I, who was also a Lieutenant Colonel then. And we both said no. We had never seen these things and didn t know that this information was being compiled. 15

MR. JASO: I m sorry. Could you just state that again, because I-- I didn t quite get it. What did he say to you? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Paul Zoubek called us to his office sometime in the middle of March, showed us these reports, which were all the reports that were being done by-- And it was-- If I remember correctly, it was not only Sergeant Gilbert, I think it went back to Lieutenant Blaker and I don t know who else. But -- asked us if we had ever seen these before. MR. JASO: Hinkle? (phonetic spelling) LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: We both said no. MR. JASO: Hinkle? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, I don t think Hinkle would have been doing those. MR. JASO: Okay. SENATOR GORMLEY: When he presented you the report, what did he say? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Pardon me? SENATOR GORMLEY: What did he say? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: When we told him no, we had never seen it before? SENATOR GORMLEY: Yes. What did he say? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, he asked us again, as I recall. Are you sure you never saw these? We both said no. And then he told us what they were -- that they were reports that had been compiled-- I think they go back before 97, I think, if I remember correctly. SENATOR GORMLEY: Yeah. There was a 96 report, also. 16

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Okay. SENATOR GORMLEY: So after he gave them to you-- Approximately what date -- what time frame was this when he gave them to you? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I would say early to mid- March. SENATOR GORMLEY: Was this before-- This was during the time they were compiling a report on profiling? In 99, they were compiling a report on profiling. Was this before or after? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: The Attorney General s report? SENATOR GORMLEY: Yes. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: It was before. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. So was-- I guess-- I m not trying to put words in your mouth, so correct me. But approximately at a time frame before they started to compile the report -- you were first presented these documents. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: Did you ever inquire as to who had knowledge of these documents before 1999? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, when we went back, I remember asking Tommy Gilbert about it. He said, Yeah, I ve been doing them and giving them directly to Colonel Williams. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Did he mention anyone else he had prepared at any time about those documents -- met with or talk with about those documents? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. SENATOR GORMLEY: After you were given the documents, did you 17

review them? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: What happened after you reviewed them? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, that s when I saw the two with my name on them -- my initials. And again, the one I had initialed, the other one my assistant had initialed. And I was surprised that those were the only two that I had ever -- that ever passed through my office. SENATOR GORMLEY: What was your reaction to the 1997 report by Sergeant Gilbert -- the one that set forth the comparison with Maryland that indicated that there were concerns? MS. GLADING: Can we clarify which report you re talking about, Senator? SENATOR GORMLEY: The one at the beginning of 1997. MS. GLADING: February of 97. SENATOR GORMLEY: February 97. That was the report that also indicated certain -- made certain recommendations for reform, some of which, then, later appeared in the 1999 report. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I mean, I was surprised that I was never aware of this. SENATOR GORMLEY: We ll show you a copy of-- Can I ask you a question? Why were you surprised? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, because I was a lieutenant colonel, and I would have thought that somebody would have said something to me about this. MS. GLADING: I ve just handed the witness a copy of the memo from 18

Gilbert to Williams. Did that go through Blaker? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, this is just from Gilbert to Williams. MS. GLADING: On that-- Sergeant Gilbert dated it early February -- mid-february of 97. Do you have a copy? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: There s no date on it. MR. JASO: Well, I ve got this. Well, I think this includes it. This is the-- MS. GLADING: Does it? ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER: Ms. Glading, just so the record s clear, it s Bates stamped GC-2589. MS. GLADING: Was that among the documents you saw that day in Mr. Zoubek s office? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Honestly, I don t remember. I mean, there was just a thick stack of reports. MS. GLADING: What do you remember about the documents? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Just the fact that I was surprised I had never seen them before. MS. GLADING: Why? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Because I was a lieutenant colonel in the State Police. MS. GLADING: I mean, what about the documents was noteworthy that you should -- you would have thought you would have seen? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I mean, everything that s in it -- what it refers to. 19

MS. GLADING: Do you mean statistics? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I mean, I would have thought somebody would have sat down with me and told me about this. I explained what it was and why we were doing it. MR. JASO: So not only had you not seen the documents, but you had never heard of this information? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. MR. JASO: Had anyone discussed with you the fact that these audits were going on back in 96 and 97, before that point? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Audits are done by Internal Affairs. Those-- And that s a matter of routine. But this stuff-- I never knew this was being done. MR. HOLDEN: You have-- Excuse me. For the purpose of the record, you have two sets -- two documents in front of you. MR. JASO: Yeah, I was just going to-- MR. HOLDEN: I m sorry. MR. JASO: Let me just clarify. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: The one from Sergeant Gilbert I never had any knowledge of. The Internal Affairs one-- MR. JASO: Let me just, for the record, state that the second memorandum that you ve been handed is a memorandum and attachments dated 6/6/96 from Major Sparano to you, via Colonel Littles. OAG-5903 to 5911. And if you look at-- And I m referring to the number on the bottom, left hand side of the page -- OAG-5909 -- I believe the Senator had mentioned some remedial steps recommended, apparently, by Lieutenant Gilbert back in 20

96. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, there s two Gilberts here. There s Tom Gilbert, and there s Bernie Gilbert. MR. JASO: Okay. I understand. But I m-- SENATOR GORMLEY: Are they twins? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, not related. MR. JASO: But I think this is the remedial action that the Senator mentioned. Is that correct? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Oh, okay. SENATOR GORMLEY: That was the 97-- We were talking in the 97 report there were certain remedial actions. I m not saying it s verbatim what eventually came out of 99, but there is some similarity in terms of the recommendations that he made to what came out of the report in 1999. So-- MR. JASO: Was the second memo-- I m sorry, Senator, just to clarify-- Was the second memo that we ve just been looking at something also that Mr. Zoubek handed you that day? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I don t know. I don t know. I don t remember what was in-- Again, it was a thick stack of reports, and I don t -- I don t remember each individual report. I just remember that most of what I had seen were stuff from Sergeant Tom Gilbert to Colonel Williams. SENATOR GORMLEY: When you were there with Paul Zoubek, he said to you, Did you know about this? You said no. Did you say to Paul Zoubek, Did you know about this? Just out of curiosity, was there a conversation back and forth about when the Attorney General s Office found 21

out? Going forward from that date. To the best of your recollection, this occurred prior to the time that the Attorney General s Office commenced the preparation of the report on profiling -- the 1999 report. Is that correct? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: This was done before the-- SENATOR GORMLEY: No, you were handed that information. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Before the report was done. SENATOR GORMLEY: Yes. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: And you-- Did you participate in the gathering of information and data to put that report together that was presented in 1999? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, I did not. SENATOR GORMLEY: Who was in charge of that, Paul Zoubek? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: As far as I know, yeah. MS. GLADING: Who at the State Police was in charge of it? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I would think this probably-- Well-- MS. GLADING: You were superintendent at this point, right? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah. I mean, if they asked us for information, we gave them whatever they asked for. MS. GLADING: Who at the State Police gave them whatever they asked for? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: It depends what they were asking. 22

Zoubek, I m sure, would have sent something to me requesting information. And then, depending on what it was, you would contact the appropriate unit, ask them for the information, and then I would send a memo to Zoubek. SENATOR GORMLEY: Did you have any direct contact with Ron Susswein? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. Not until the day of the hearing. MS. GLADING: How about Alex Waugh? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Do I know him? MS. GLADING: Uh-huh. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. MS. GLADING: Did Alex Waugh ever discuss the State Police audit statistics? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: To me? MS. GLADING: Uh-huh. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Not that I recall. MS. GLADING: How frequently would you talk with Alex Waugh during the period of time when you were executive officer, deputy superintendent, and then superintendent? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Not very much. MS. GLADING: How often would you see him? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Not very much. I can t characterize it -- once a week, twice a week. I mean, if I went over to the Attorney General s Office or something, I might see him. I had known Alex 23

Waugh for a number of years. We had worked in the governor s office together. MS. GLADING: Were you friends? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, yeah, I guess. MR. JASO: Did you socialize outside? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, no. SENATOR GORMLEY: Did you ever meet with-- While they were putting this report together, did you meet with Attorney General Verniero? ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MILLER: On the issue of the report? SENATOR GORMLEY: Yes. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. SENATOR GORMLEY: Did you ever meet with Attorney General Verniero after you became colonel? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes, several times. SENATOR GORMLEY: Several times. Okay. Did you have occasion to meet with him on the issue of the -- what we talked about earlier on the misidentification issue? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, because by then all this stuff was-- I mean, if I remember correctly, the report came out in April. Is that the date? SENATOR GORMLEY: Yes, approximately. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: So we re talking-- You know, we re talking two months I was acting superintendent. They had the information. I never-- I never talked to him. My recollection-- I ve never 24

talked to him about the report until the day of the report. I was called down to his office around nine o clock. He gave me the report. He had it paper clipped in sections -- told me to read it. I read maybe 20 or 30 pages of the report. And that was my introduction to the report. The press conference was about an hour later. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Did he make any recommendations to you at that meeting in terms of any comments you should make at the press conference? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. We had a meeting the day before in the governor s office about the report. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Who was at the meeting? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Nobody told me to say anything. Nobody told me I shouldn t say anything. I made a comment about racial profiling that I thought they should not paint the whole organization as a bunch of racial profiliers. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. MR. JASO: Who was the they you were referring to? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Everybody that was in the room. MR. HOLDEN: Who were they, if you recall? This is the meeting the previous day in the Governor s Office, correct? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: This is in the Governor s Office, yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: This is the day before the press conference with the Governor regarding the-- 25

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Right. MR. HOLDEN: Who was at the meeting? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: The Governor, the Attorney General-- I think the Attorney General was there. I think Paul Zoubek was there. I think, I m not sure. I was there. There were a lot of people sitting around the table. I don t really remember who was there -- who all were there, but I know the Governor was there. I know the Attorney General was there. SENATOR GORMLEY: And that was, basically, giving the Governor -- prepping the Governor on the report-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Information. SENATOR GORMLEY: --the information on the report to prepare for the next day. You were available if she had any questions-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Right. SENATOR GORMLEY: --regarding the report that she wanted direct towards you. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Correct. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. MS. GLADING: I have a few questions on the records falsification issue. SENATOR GORMLEY: Oh, yeah. MS. GLADING: If you want to stay on this for the time being, that will be fine. SENATOR GORMLEY: Go-- Well, on the falsification issue-- You re aware of the review after the shooting. And we talked about how the information started to come in. This was in 1998. When you became colonel, were you apprised of an update on that review? 26

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. As I said, we were continually updated. And I don t remember when the review stopped. But we were given regular updates as to what-- SENATOR GORMLEY: Now you re the colonel. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Right. MR. JASO: Are we talking about colonel or superintendent -- acting superintendent? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Acting superintendent. SENATOR GORMLEY: Acting superintendent. MR. JASO: Okay. I just want to be clear, because you were already a colonel. SENATOR GORMLEY: This is a marine thing. Anyway, you are the superintendent -- acting superintendent. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Right. SENATOR GORMLEY: The information on the misidentification from the -- began being compiled in 98. Were you presented a report of the status of that information? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I don t think it was one big report, I think there were several that were generated as-- SENATOR GORMLEY: They were-- And they reflected on more than two people. I m not going-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Oh, yeah. It was every trooper that worked -- that was assigned on the Turnpike, as I recall, from January of 98 to the day of the shooting. SENATOR GORMLEY: Now, what had happened since the prior April, 27

information had started to come in -- had been compiled over, let s say, approximately that 10 or 11-month period until you became the acting superintendent? So at the point you became superintendent, you reviewed collectively -- cumulatively, all this information. You reviewed it. And did it-- Was it demonstrative of a number of people who had, in effect, falsified records? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah. There were people who were putting down-- There were troopers who were putting down the wrong race. SENATOR GORMLEY: Once you looked at those records, when did it become apparent then that the records indicated that someone had falsified the records? Was it April, was it May of 98. In other words, once you looked at it, you said, Boy, at this point they knew this -- they knew that there was falsification taking place. When, once you were able to look at this cumulatively, did it become apparent there was falsification taking place? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, not cumulatively, but we knew within -- probably within a month after the shooting that troopers were falsifying race. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: And the-- SENATOR GORMLEY: Let me ask you a question. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Okay. SENATOR GORMLEY: When you became aware of that-- And obviously a-- You became aware of it. Do you know of the process as to why action wasn t taken immediately in terms of-- For example, if you see 28

someone s falsifying something, and they re a public official, why don t you take action? I mean, the reaction anyone -- specific reason -- would have-- We ve got to take action. We can t have somebody falsifying public records. Why wasn t action taken in May of 1998, for example? Do you have a -- I mean -- an obvious-- Was a reason given to you why action wasn t taken? Why was it delayed? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I don t know. My recollection is we started doing internal investigations on that. And it was a fairly lengthy process because each of these people who were listed-- We sent a trooper-- First, they called them, and then they went out and saw them. And that took a great deal of time. SENATOR GORMLEY: Once that was confirmed-- Once that was confirmed that it was taking place, do you know of any discussions as to why-- And once you know one person s done it-- Was there any discussion as to why wasn t action taken immediately on an ongoing basis? As the information came up, why wasn t there ongoing disciplinary action of some sort, as it pertains to individuals, instead of this long process of gathering a group of names, because they were unrelated? I mean, it wasn t a conspiracy -- it would appear-- There were individual violations. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: But, Senator, the internal investigation process, from the time it s investigated until the time of discipline, is a fairly lengthy -- fairly lengthy process. I mean, it could take a year for all that to happen. SENATOR GORMLEY: But if it takes that long to put the case together-- But let us assume you have the information, you know the race of 29

an individual, you know what the person s called in, that is not a-- On its face, that is not a complex investigation. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. SENATOR GORMLEY: Once you-- Traditionally, once you had information like, in your experience as a member of the State Police, wouldn t action then be taken? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, but again, the action is the investigation and the leading up to the court-martial or whatever it is, which takes a-- It s not something that happens in a few weeks. SENATOR GORMLEY: No, no. I m not saying the overall process happens in a few weeks, but once you are aware of the information and once you know somebody has violated the rules, falsified, or whatever, doesn t the process -- some process begin in terms of discipline. You know, once you have the information-- I m not saying-- I m not talking during the investigatory process. But once you know-- In terms of Trooper A-- We found this information out. We have verified it. Once that occurs, don t you go forward with the disciplinary process at that time? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Now, we have a number of people for which this review is taking place. It is-- The facts are documented. The offense is documented. Why wasn t the disciplinary process commenced, at that time, on an individual basis, as this came in? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I don t know that it wasn t. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. It might have been. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah. See, the confusion here 30

is what you re calling the disciplinary process, and what it is in my mind. If you mean-- By that, do you mean why they weren t reprimanded officially, suspended, whatever? SENATOR GORMLEY: Or something, yes -- or more serious. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, but again, that takes a long period of time to-- SENATOR GORMLEY: So I guess my point is-- Let us assume-- I can understand if youre saying, Senator, it took 10 months to compile the information. You wanted to be sure of the case, as in any investigation-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah. SENATOR GORMLEY: Sometimes it can go on for a period of time. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Exactly. SENATOR GORMLEY: I m just going-- I m asking the question, if it was concluded -- the investigation-- I m talking about an investigation that s concluded. Why then didn t some process start. I would assume once an investigation is concluded, as it pertains to an individual, you would commence the process. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I think the process did start. MR. JASO: Let me ask this. You had said before that you knew, to a fair certainty, within about a month of the commencement of this inquiry, that some troopers were, in fact, falsifying records. Is that right? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. MR. JASO: I think the Senator s initial question was, and forgive me if you ve already answered, but I will ask it again-- Did you have any 31

conversations with any, at that time, as that information came in, about whether you should commence disciplinary proceedings against the individuals that had been identified as having violated these rules? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Again, it s not-- If you found out that there was one instance of a trooper falsifying a record-- I think the decision was made until that entire trooper s records were all looked at before you would go further with the disciplinary process. MR. JASO: And who made that decision? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: That s just the way it is. MR. JASO: Well-- MR. HOLDEN: Did their captain make that decision? Who made that decision? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I don t know. MR. JASO: Well, let me just ask-- Clearly-- So you did have-- Do you recall-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well-- MR. JASO: Did you have discussions with anyone with regard to, What are we going to do with this information that we re finding out about? Do we need to start proceeding against these individual troopers, or do we need to wait? That s the question. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I think just through-- Because of an investigation, you re going to wait until you get all the facts, because there s one infraction. If the trooper wrote 300 tickets between January and April, and you found one infraction, and you haven t reviewed the other 250 tickets, you re going to wait until you get through all those. 32

MR. JASO: Well, I m not asking about what ought to be done, I m asking-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, no. That s the process. MR. JASO: I understand. So the process was followed. Is that what your answer is? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah. SENATOR GORMLEY: So it was the normal, deliberative process that took place in reviewing the falsification of-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: The normal internal investigative process. Yes. SENATOR GORMLEY: Okay. Well, then we get to 1999. MS. GLADING: Before we get there, I wonder if I can ask some questions about the process-- SENATOR GORMLEY: Go ahead. MS. GLADING: --up until that date. Do you recall in the middle of May, 1998, meeting with Lieutenant Sachetti to be advised of his findings concerning Troopers Hogan and Kenna? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I know we met from time to time. I don t-- No, I don t remember that. MS. GLADING: You don t recall a May 11th, 1998 meeting. Do you recall learning, at that point in time, about his findings from the internal investigation into Troopers Hogan and Kenna? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Internal investigation with regard to-- MS. GLADING: A warnings audit -- Troopers Hogan and Kenna. 33

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. Well, at some point, we were aware of falsification of records by Troopers Hogan and Kenna. MS. GLADING: Now, do you recall, on May 13th, an IAB investigation being initiated into Troopers Hogan and Kenna? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Not specifically, but again-- MS. GLADING: But you oversaw IAB at this point, right? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yeah. MS. GLADING: Okay. Do you recall that happening about that time? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. MS. GLADING: Okay. Do you recall meeting with Lieutenant Sachetti on June 11th, 1998 and with Dunlop, Van Tassell, Cowell, (phonetic spelling) and Campbell -- and a decision is made to begin a Troop D audit to determine if there s race-based wrongdoing being conducted? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: What s the date? MS. GLADING: June 11th, 1998. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, that would have been-- Again, that would have been the result of confiscating all the records on the Turnpike. I assume that s what you re talking about. MS. GLADING: No, the records are collected, actually, on June 15th, 1998. Three teams of IAB personnel proceed to Moorestown, Cranbury, and Newark stations. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Right. MS. GLADING: So do you recall meeting beforehand to discuss-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. MS. GLADING: --collectively-- 34

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Just to lay out what was going to happen. MS. GLADING: Okay. Do you recall meeting with Lieutenant Sachetti on June 25th, as well as Dunlop and Campbell, on the direction the Troop D audit ought to take? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I remember we had a meeting on that. MS. GLADING: Do you remember meeting the next day with Lieutenant Sachetti, Van Tassell, Meddis, Bruncati, and Gallant regarding the audit detail? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, again, I don t remember the date, but I remember we-- MS. GLADING: But I guess this end of June period-- Do you recall a series of meetings with Lieutenant Sachetti about this audit detail that you attended? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Yes. MS. GLADING: And do you recall being briefed by Lieutenant Sachetti in an IOC to his chain of command on July 23rd on the status of the audit and another IOC on July 30th of 1998? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No, I mean, I don t remember the dates. MS. GLADING: All right. Does it sounds right that you were briefed? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I was briefed regularly. MS. GLADING: Do you recall being briefed by Sachetti, and on one occasion, Castillo, in 1998 on the progress of the audits? 35

LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Again, we were updated regularly. MS. GLADING: Do you recall Sachetti beginning daily informal briefings for you and Van Tassell on August 28th, 1998? Not formal IOCs, but where he was giving you the daily updates of what the statistics were showing? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, that s what I m talking about. We were given updates regularly. MS. GLADING: Okay. He represented that those were daily updates. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Okay. MS. GLADING: Do you recall that? I guess, earlier, you said you did not recall getting daily updates. I m trying to-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I don t know if they were daily or not, but I remember him briefing us on what was going on. MS. GLADING: If Lieutenant Colonel Dunlop was in charge of this detail, why was-- I just gave you one, two, three, four, five, six incidents over a two-month period where Sachetti was dealing directly with you. Why would he have been dealing directly with you if Lieutenant Colonel Dunlop was in charge of this detail? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, I used to meet with IAB regularly to discuss IAB -- what s going on in IAB. And it may have come up-- It might have come up during those meetings. MS. GLADING: Lieutenant Sachetti represented that these were outside of the regular IAB meetings, where he was occasionally asked to brief 36

you during those meetings -- that these were a direct contact to you. You don t recall this? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, again, I remember meeting with him, but I don t remember the dates. MS. GLADING: I m just confused about who was in charge of this audit. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well Lieutenant Colonel Dunlop, actually, was the one who put it all together. MS. GLADING: But Lieutenant Sachetti was reporting directly to you through June and July and August of 1998 on this. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Well, he was in IAB. That was under me. MS. GLADING: Okay. Do you recall Lieutenant Sachetti presented you, on September 10th, 1998, with a list of troopers for whom there were violations found or discrepancies found? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Again, we were updated regularly. MS. GLADING: September 10th, 1998. Okay. Don t specifically recall it? Apparently, this is the first time the discrepancies were actually presented to-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: I don t remember the dates. No. I mean-- Look, there s other things going on in the State Police that I dealt with every day. And I don t remember these dates that you re-- I don t remember what I was doing on September the 15th. 37

MS. GLADING: Do you recall meeting with Lieutenant Sachetti, Dunlop, and, I guess, Balinski? (phonetic spelling) Is there a Balinski at the State Police at this time? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Who? MS. GLADING: Balinski? Brodowski? Do you recall a discussion-- LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Brodowski? MS. GLADING: Maybe it was Brodowski. Do you recall a discussion in which Dunlop is upset because the focus of the audit is starting to shift into administrative issues and getting away from race-based wrongdoing? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. I don t remember that. MS. GLADING: You don t remember that? Okay. Do you recall Dunlop instructing Sachetti to try to stick to the initial focus of race-based wrongdoing? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: No. MS. GLADING: Do you recall meeting with Lieutenant Sachetti, Dunlop, Mattos, Meddis, Campbell, Van Tassell, Gallant, Castillo, and Vuono to discuss Phase III methodology for the audit? LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Discuss what? MS. GLADING: Phase III methodology for the audit. LIEUTENANT COLONEL FEDORKO: Faced? MS. GLADING: Phase III. MR. JASO: Do you remember that there were various phases of the audit set up? Phase I, Phase 2, and Phase III? 38