TOMS RIVER – Mayor Daniel Rodrick is accusing Ocean County Prosecutor Bradley D. Billhimer of taking control of the Toms River Police Department’s Internal Affairs function for political reasons, claiming the move was intended to prevent township officials from identifying employees responsible for leaks and other alleged misconduct.
Rodrick said the timing was no coincidence. The decision came as the township was pursuing several Internal Affairs investigations, including one involving photographs of Police Chief Guy Maire’s missing office nameplate that circulated on social media while the chief was on medical leave.
“They’re taking over because they don’t want to solve who it was that released those images,” Rodrick said during an interview. “It’s pretty clear to me that they are continuing to protect their friends.”
Billhimer offered a different explanation, saying the decision was made to protect the Internal Affairs process. “To safeguard the confidentiality, independence, and integrity of the internal affairs process, we assumed command and control of the Toms River Police Department’s Internal Affairs function,” Billhimer said in a text message.
The prosecutor confirmed his office assumed command and control effective Friday, July 17. He said no formal press release was issued.
Mayor Points To Timing
The mayor named several people he views as political adversaries or allies of the prosecutor to support claims of political motivation. They are not identified here because Rodrick offered no evidence connecting them to the Internal Affairs decision.
The prosecutor’s intervention followed reports that police intended to investigate the disappearance of Maire’s nameplate from outside his office. Maire had been on medical leave for about five weeks when a photograph showing the missing nameplate appeared on social media alongside claims he had cleared out his office and would not return. Rodrick disputed those claims, and Maire later returned to duty.
No finding has been made identifying who removed the nameplate or determining whether the incident constituted theft, property damage or a policy violation.
Rodrick characterized the incident as more than a workplace prank. “Could you imagine the audacity of removing the chief’s name from the wall and lying and saying he packed his desk and posting it on social media?” he said. “That’s insubordination. It’s theft.”
The mayor also alleged that internal emails, police schedules and information about the chief’s whereabouts have circulated outside the department. “The police are there to protect and serve,” Rodrick said. “They should not be engaging in politics, and they should certainly not be leaking the chief’s whereabouts or damaging public property.”
Rodrick predicted the prosecutor’s office would not resolve the investigations. “I’m going to go on the record and say that Brad Billhimer is not going to solve the case, and that’s the reason he’s taken on this role, no more, no less,” he said.
Prosecutor Powers
Rodrick said the action is not a takeover of the police department itself. “It’s not a takeover,” he said. “Toms River has not been taken over.”
The prosecutor’s office has assumed command and control of Internal Affairs, not the department’s patrol, investigative or administrative operations.
Internal Affairs generally investigates alleged misconduct by police officers or employees. Rodrick said Toms River has the personnel to conduct its own investigations, while the prosecutor’s office performs that function for many smaller departments.
“They do Internal Affairs for most towns,” Rodrick said. “We’re just big and have the capacity to do our own.”
He also defended the Toms River department’s Internal Affairs lieutenant as fair and capable of protecting confidentiality. “Our Internal Affairs lieutenant is absolutely fair,” Rodrick said. “He’s a person with strong integrity, and he would absolutely protect the confidentiality.”
Security Concern Investigation
Rodrick said another Internal Affairs matter stemmed from a Township Council meeting where an attendee stood close to the dais. He said he asked Police Chief Guy Maire to ensure attendees maintained a safer distance.
At a subsequent meeting, the same person announced that he had learned the mayor raised the concern with the chief. It has not been determined how the attendee learned of the request or whether confidential information was improperly disclosed.
Rodrick said he requested an Internal Affairs investigation to determine how the information reached the individual whose proximity had prompted the concern.
“If the mayor or the business administrator are concerned about the safety and well-being of ourselves and the council, how did that get back to the very person that we were concerned about?” Rodrick said.
Billhimer’s statement did not identify a particular investigation, describe any deficiencies in the township’s Internal Affairs process or indicate how long the arrangement would remain in place.
Dispute Already In Court
The Internal Affairs fight comes amid a lawsuit filed by Toms River, Rodrick and former Business Administrator Jonathan Salonis against the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, Billhimer, First Assistant Prosecutor Michael T. Nolan Jr., the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and other state entities.
The complaint accuses the prosecutor’s office of interfering with the administration’s authority over the police department. The disputes include access to the department’s Facebook page, a request for a police dispatch radio and the prosecutor’s authority to intervene in personnel investigations.
The township is asking a judge to declare that Toms River officials are entitled to access the police Facebook page and radio and to restrict the prosecutor’s intervention in personnel investigations except in cases involving criminal or serious administrative misconduct.
The Attorney General’s Office has moved to dismiss the claims against the state defendants, arguing the complaint contains virtually no factual allegations involving the Attorney General or Division of Criminal Justice and seeks no specific relief against them.
The state also argues the township has not identified a valid private right of action or grounds for an injunction limiting the prosecutor’s oversight. Its brief characterizes the case as a dispute over social media access, police radios, hiring standards and the authority to investigate misconduct.
Attorneys for the prosecutor’s office have separately asked that the case be transferred from Mercer County to Ocean County, where the parties are located and the underlying events occurred.
Both motions are scheduled for decision Aug. 14, with no oral argument requested.
