Fair Lawn Adding New Police Officer

The town will swear in Anthony Burgos as its newest police officer next week.

The , down to 54 officers since the , will swear in a new officer early next week to bring its force numbers back up to 55.

The new officer, Anthony Burgos, will be sworn in at next Tuesday's council meeting, Chief Erik Rose said.

Rose said Burgos, who previously worked in Paterson and is bilingual, will be a great asset to the department.

Like current , Burgos was laid off from Paterson's police force in 2011. Unlike Rodriguez, who decided to leave Fair Lawn and return to Paterson when offered his job back, Rose said Burgos has already indicated that he prefers to work in Fair Lawn and would not accept an offer to return to Paterson.


Follow Fair Lawn-Saddle Brook Patch on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to receive our daily newsletter in your inbox each morning

Badges grant extra rights around here September 05, 2012 at 05:15 PM
Its about time we added an officer. The part that bothers me here is why the hell can someone apply to be a police officer and if they fail a drug test that is not public information? Then again, we should legalize more drugs, after all tobacco and alcohol are drugs which are both worse than some banned substances. Mr Rose, what a silly question. What do you expect him to say, don't hire me?
Go Figure September 05, 2012 at 06:29 PM
I think I would get that guarantee not to return to Paterson in writing. How about reimbursing the taxpayers for equipment if he does (within a year or two)? I don't think that is unreasonable. My understanding of the police budget is that it is based on 60 officers, so the extra money is then transferred and used by the borough when it isn't used by year end. Nice game. Taxpayers are forced to play, but never win.
congrats September 05, 2012 at 06:57 PM
congrats to the new hire- hope everything works out. i recently got a new job and when interviewing i was often asked if i see myself working there for a long time. my obvious answer was yes even if i didnt actually think so, dont think id get a job offer if i said no. to all you commenters saying to get this in writing- did you do that at your place of employment? people have the right to change their mind.
Dorothy Kilgallen September 06, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Why MJM? Because your elected officials play politics with our force and our safety. Thats why. Fair Lawn's horrible political reputation is also the reason why former Managers left as well. Our local leaders have backstabbed and played favorites forever.
Tommy P September 07, 2012 at 02:28 AM
Did you vote for Mr Pace?
Tommy P September 07, 2012 at 02:31 AM
The town is bound by the same privacy laws as companies are. As for Chief Rose, sounds like a cya In case this officer quits too.
Tommy P September 07, 2012 at 02:32 AM
Reasonable is not allowed when dealing "civil servants", they have more rights than tax payers do.
Dorothy Kilgallen September 07, 2012 at 06:25 PM
of course I did.
Tommy P September 08, 2012 at 03:35 AM
MJM, the Internet is littered with examples of cops behaving badly. Even cases in NJ, one that comes to mind was an off duty cop was so drunk he fell asleep at the wheel at an intersection. Instead of being hauled to jail, his deptartment was called to come get him. No charges were filed by either deptartment. My nephew is on the job. A picture with the two of us is in my wallet. Earlier this year I "may have been" traveling a bit over the speed limit. The cop who pulled me over saw the picture, asked who he was, I handed him my nephew's card, he made a call and Uncle Tommy never even had to produce a driver license, registration nor insurance card. Cops take rights they don't deserve. There is no consequences to their actions. A court recently held they have immunity from prosecution even if they LIE UNDER OATH in a CRIMINAL case. The vast majority are great people and truely care, but even many of them behave poorly by looking the other way and respect the thin blue line or as my nephew calls it, the thin blue lie.
TP is for Toiletpaper September 08, 2012 at 01:16 PM
Tommy, apparently your not deserving of that picture in your wallet, because you should just shut your mouth for your nephew's sake, or be a man, hide the picture of your nephew in your wallet and told the officer who pulled you over to give you the ticket like a real man. You described the term discretion, which is what that officer gave as a result of what you described as you "may have been traveling a bit over the speed limit" . Your the same guy who would be crying if that officer gave you a ticket. I hope for your nepfew's sake he knows the person you really are.
Russell Hauptman September 08, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Let me get this straight. You're upset a police officer used his discretion and decided NOT to give you a ticket for whatever reason? Is that any different than PBA cards being used to get out of minor offenses. It basically says, "Hey this guys a friend of mine if he's not a real A-Hole take care of him.". Actually here's what it really says. "The bearer of this Safety Card has been cited as a safe and courteous driver of motor vehicles and is pledged to cooperate with the [PBA] in their safe and courteous driving campaign. This card is subject to forfeiture for any violation of the [MV] Laws of this state."
Russell Hauptman September 08, 2012 at 02:44 PM
And as an aside congratulations to the new officer, good luck to you and thank you for your service.
Tommy P September 08, 2012 at 02:48 PM
What about the 14th amendment? Equal protection should apply to those of us who don't have family or friends on the job.
Tommy P September 08, 2012 at 03:04 PM
How would you feel about a judge ruling "officers who testify in criminal trials enjoy absolute immunity for false testimony.". Way back last month, in Young v Cape May, Judge Joe Irenas said that in his decision In Civil Action 11-5353. I can provide many examples it's known as 42 U.S.C. 1983. My nephew pointed it out to me. Police example aside, let's talk about some of the others. Teachers have far greater protections and job security than most people in the private sector. Have you actually ever read a teacher's contract? How about our clerk, 140,000+ benefits and can't be replaced until she decides to retire. Do you need more examples, we have lots of employees. And guess who pays those salaries? Hint if you own your home or pay money to someone who does so you can live here, they are on your chair right now.
Russell Hauptman September 08, 2012 at 05:03 PM
TP I think the point becomes that an officer didn't look the other way while you were snorting coke and speeding while not wearing a seatbelt with an infant in the back seat. You didn't run a red light while drunk. You got caught by a speed trap and the officer was kind enough to "let you off with a warning" and it almost sounds like you're upset over it. That makes no sense.
Tommy P September 08, 2012 at 10:28 PM
I am not an anarachist. Far from it. Limited government and no government are two different things. Young never had a chance to prove his case he lost on a SUMMARY JEDGEMENT where the judge highlighted 42 U.S.C. 1983. Officials have immunity when they lie in criminal prosecution, police included. How that does not bother you is beyond me. Unless ofcourse you are an "official". There other examples, I just happened to pick a victimless crime that has been recently adjudicated in NJ. Aside from social interactions, a handful of unconstitutional dwi checkpoints, I have had 1 interaction with police since the 1960s. Clearly I have not and am not saying they are all bad. I also don't hold it against any of them for taking advantage of the lopsided system individually. But lying under oath is an extra right. Tenure, seniority, non-bankruptable pensions are too. So how about bigfoot, aliens or the appology you owe me?
Tommy P September 08, 2012 at 10:31 PM
It bothers me when the law is selectively applied. I suspect it's a large factor in the disproportionate number of African American inmates. Any idea how much time Swain's kid or Donovan's kid are going to get, her is a hint, it rhymes with hero.
Tommy P September 09, 2012 at 02:17 AM
So I substantiate my "pompous know it all rhetoric" with facts, including siting the specific law and digging up an example case per your request. And that is your response? It's okay to be wrong, I am the first to admit when I am. Maybe I owe you an apology for attempting to hold you to the same standard. I stand by my statement, civil servants have more rights than those who pay them. Particularly the police. Now a challenge for you, prove me wrong. 42 U.S.C. 1983 is very real. Off duty cops driving drunk are not treated like "civilians", then again despite their titles, cops are civilians too.
Tommy P September 09, 2012 at 09:31 AM
I have said it before and will say it again, not all civil "servants" are bad people, on the contrary most are decent hardworking people. I have no beef with "authority" just abuse of power. Like the case of Jeffery Lancaster. www.pressofatlanticcity.com/mobile/article_6ac206ac-0bff-11e1-96ee-001cc4c002e0.html. This one was reported and acted on not because of good police work, but because a private citizen found out. Two deptartments covered up a man operating a vehicle so drunk he passed out at the wheel. He could have killed you or me, his consequences none. Either one of us blows into a breathalyzer after having the wrong breath mint and we goto jail for a night, loose our license for a while and all kinds of fines. Those civil service laws you love so much protect ALL the people covering up that crime. The immunity law is a fact, I can produce additional examples. I just hope that neither of us wind up in contempt of "servant". With laws like 42 U.S.C. 1983, a jury could hear manufactured evidence which could put in jail for years and years. Then again, you could be the person testifying with immunity, so maybe I should fear you and your extra rights? Civil servants are paid with monies taken under threat of force. My clients voluntarily contract for our services. We negotiate terms at arms length. In the non-government world, if you don't provide value, your jobless. In the government sector you keep your job and get a guaranteed raise.
TP is toilet paper September 09, 2012 at 06:59 PM
MJM, TP is just a jealous paper pusher, looking for attention. I bet he was wishing he was a real man and took the same job his nephew did. You see TP, civil servants give of themselves, unlike yourself!
Tommy P September 10, 2012 at 02:45 AM
My firm is 0 paper company, we are 100% electronic except for contracts which legally are required to be hard copy. We do ethical hacking for corporate systems including 2 of the Top 10 Banks. No one is forced to use our services, people voluntarily pay us for them. There are no laws that "entitle" us to increases, the jobs we have nor payment for the rest of our lives. But what I do is not relevant. Civil "servants" are not servants. They are employed using money taken from taxpayers. They are free to quit, but it's expensive to get rid of them. They usually make far more than the productive part of the economy. This notion that you "give" of yourself is a farce if your collecting a pay check. We have people in this town volunteering for years in hope of getting of those coveted jobs, so save the nonsense for the ill informed. You don't know me, I don't advertise here how I "give back". That said, a stable safe banking system is far more important than a government pool. Until the day before my surgery last month I volunteered an average of 15 hours a week, which is just one way I give of myself.
Tommy P September 10, 2012 at 02:45 AM
I understand you would like to marginalize my perspective because you perceive it as a threat to your pay check. I know you hate to admit it, but I am right about the extra rights. Those rights should bother you, because they can be turned on you. I am not attacking police in general, I had dinner with three in Radburn tonight. I just abhor the bad ones that abuse the system. I despise the extra rights they (and you) unfairly have. Not only in practice but as a matter of law. Orwell summed it up well in one line. Some pigs are more equal. United States Code is not "skewed documentation" it's the law. I went so far as to point to an example. Any idea how many others show up in LexisNexis? At idea how many people just give up? Some countries practiced Karl Marx's idea, some people still don't recognize they are a failure. John Locke has been very influential, but this discussion is not about philosophers who have been dead for generations.
Mitch September 10, 2012 at 04:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cnOl04Ladk&feature=youtube_gdata_player Government employees don't have extra rights, non-government employees just have fewer rights.
Tommy P September 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Repetitive maybe, substantive definately. Thank you for the kind words, I look forward to you "serving" me. Let's scroll up for a trip down memory lane. I pointed out extra rights. You demand proof, I give an example. You challenge the example, I sited federal law and a recent NJ case applying such. You ignore the legal cite, mock me and continue mischaracterizing the case which apparently the legalese got by you. Understandable for someone without a criminal justice degree. You then come up with some example of cops doing the right thing when off duty cops break the law, I guess to "disprove" bad cops exist? You claim we can't have an "intellectual" discussion because of your believe that I have a "beef with authority" when the reality is I have a "beef" with the abuses and extra rights. I clear that up for you, remind you of a law granting extra rights. You continue on the bent that I'm attacking police, deny the law then try to belittle my thinking by invoking a man that has been dead for centuries. A relative of mine once said (paraphrasing), "to have a discussion with someone who has suspended reason is like administering medicine to the dead". So I'll ask again. Will you concede that 42 U.S.C. 1983 grants civil servants extra rights? Specifically the ability to lie under oath during a criminal persecution? Does that bother you?
Tommy P September 10, 2012 at 09:07 PM
I may not be able to educate you on legal matters in this forum, but I'll take a shot that I am almost certain will fail. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald. Section 1983 requires that the official be shown to have violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". The case law sets the standard so high, that its in essence a blanket immunity. Regular citizens testifying can be charged with perjury even if they a reasonable person wouldn't have known. In practice, judges protect other government employees. The Jones case highlights my point.
Toms'aPAIN September 11, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Tommy boy, or "TP" as they call you. History has always had people charged with having "POWER" or extra rights as you call it, for if this is not the case, tyranny would prevail. Your soapbox beating down the very system that provides your freedom is becoming quite exhausting. If your bored or unhappy with the Great USofA move to Cuba, Castro needs a friend!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something