Google image
A long-troubled liquor store on West Front Street was the subject Wednesday of a City Council hearing on whether the owner's license renewal for 2013 should be denied.City Corporation Counsel David Minchello began by telling the governing body the evidence presented by police "will no doubt shock you." Present and past members of the Plainfield Police Division's Narcotics Bureau then detailed proof that the owner of the liquor store himself admitted selling alcohol to an underage buyer, that the owner's daughter was arrested once on drug charges and again for flouting an order not to be on the premises and that the owner did not comply with special conditions of a past license renewal.
Sgt. Ronald Fusco, who served in the Narcotics Bureau for 10 years before his present assignment on the Union County Homicide Task Force, testified on the Feb. 22, 2013 arrest of Williamah Naicken on four charges after police observed a drug transaction. She allegedly attempted to conceal the action by filling a cup with vodka and drinking it while she had drugs in her hand. The drink itself was a breach of liquor laws and led to another charge.
Although she was issued a "Drug Offender Restraining Order" barring her from the premises, Williamah Naicken was found on the premises on Feb. 28, 2013 by Detective Troy Alston and was again arrested. In addition, she was again charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance after police found a pill in her pocketbook.
Detective Adam Green testified that on Aug. 20, 2012 a 20-year-old police officer working undercover was able to buy beer without being asked for ID by the owner, Vadrajan Naicken., who later pled guilty in Municipal Court to underage sale of alcohol. Attorney John Motta of the Corporation Counsel's office, who was serving as the hearing officer, asked Mr. Naicken whether he had any questions for any of the officers, but he did not.
Police also said there were 136 calls to the premises in the past year, which were detailed in a six-page report. Nineteen resulted in police reports, 11 for drug offenses and eight for infractions including unlawful possession of a weapon, simple assault, aggravated assault and violation of the Drug Offender Restraining Order Act.
Police testimony also revealed that the special conditions imposed on Mr. Naicken for license renewal previously were not obeyed. Police found no evidence of the mandated dusk-to-closing armed security nor of exterior security cameras. In addition, the owner and employees did not cooperate with police or call for help.
Four council members, Adrian Mapp, William Reid, Rebecca Williams and Council President Bridget Rivers, were present for the hearing. After the testimony, the council members went into closed session to deliberate.When the meeting reopened, the facts of the case were reviewed and Naicken was offered a chance to ask questions or present witnesses, which he declined. The council will vote on the matter at the next regular meeting, 8 p.m. Aug. 19 in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
--Bernice
The evidence presented by Corporation Counsel Minchello was very compelling, as was the testimony of the three police officers. Mr. Naicken declined to question the witnesses, present any of his own in defense, or offer any comments.
ReplyDeleteWith the sworn testimony and all, this very much had the feel of a trial. Under the circumstances, should the 'defendant' have been offered an attorney if he couldn't afford one? Will the three council members who were not in attendance be forced to recuse themselves from voting on the matter next month?
With the toll of WBLS still ringing in some ears, due process ought to be a concern. Holding hearings and investigating the affairs of the city is one of the Council's powers that is utilized entirely too little, especially for purely informational purposes. But when the proceedings lead to punitive action resulting in separating someone from their property or ability to act, such as the fine imposed on the mayor, the removal of an employee or public official, or of their liquor license, the proceedings should be airtight lest they become more like a kangaroo court and easily overturned.
All the evidence was presented in a comprehensive way. I did not detect any loopholes. Mr. Naicken is free to challenge whatever decision comes out on Aug. 19.
DeleteThese were procedural questions separate from the evidence, which in this case seemed pretty damning. Had it been a trial, the defendant would also be able to challenge the decision on up to the Supreme Court, with the assist of legal counsel. I think the point about recusal is valid. Jurors don't get to vote on a verdict having missed the trial.
DeleteAlan, this is not Mr. Naicken's first time at this dance. He knows very well his rights.
ReplyDeleteIf this person appeals, is there a way for Plainfield citizens to have some input. The board in Trenton could care less as none of them live in Plainfield. I want to be there to talk to them and let them know that this guy is no friend to Plainfield, and if Trenton says OK, Trenton's board cares nothing about anything except money.
ReplyDeleteRemember when we had good places to hang out like Moon Face on Muhlenberg Place?
ReplyDelete