On October 13, 2026, the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office closed its internal affairs review of how three police departments handled my reports (PSU-25-0214). The letter was two sentences: every action taken was “consistent with department rules and regulations.” It did not say which incidents or officers were reviewed, or what was found about any of them.
On October 23, I wrote to the unit and asked, under the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures, for the disposition of each allegation, the dates the investigation opened and closed, whether anything was referred to the Division of Criminal Justice, and whether my eyewitness had been interviewed. The detective who interviewed me replied the same afternoon:
“Please be advised this investigation was an internal affairs/professional standards investigation which the MCPO PSU/IAU can only provide the complainant with information provided in the disposition letter which was mailed to you.”
This is what I wrote back that evening, in full.
Detective Cassie,
Thank you for your response. I understand your position regarding the confidentiality of internal affairs investigations, and I will follow the procedure outlined on your website to request the available records through OPRA and, separately, under the common-law right of access.
However, I want to formally document several concerns regarding the investigation, its duration, and its conclusions.
I was interviewed by your office on December 30, 2025. Your last substantive communication to me was January 21, 2026. On October 7, after another 259 days without an update, I sent a formal written request specifically asking about the investigation’s status, the extraordinary delay, and the applicable provisions of the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures. Six days later, your office issued a closure letter dated October 13.
That was 287 days after my interview, including 265 days without a substantive update. After nearly ten months, the explanation provided to me consisted of two substantive sentences, asserting that the actions of the officers involved across three separate police departments were consistent with departmental rules and regulations. The letter did not identify which incidents or officers were individually evaluated, distinguish the findings, or explain how those conclusions were reached.
The disparity becomes particularly concerning in light of another recent finding. On October 20, 2026, the Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department completed its own internal affairs investigation, IA-2026-0064, just 66 days after I filed my complaint. Detective Daniel Maio subsequently confirmed in writing that Officer Thomas Caccavale had violated departmental rules and regulations during both the June 4, 2025 and August 10, 2026 incidents. The department also confirmed that appropriate discipline would follow.
The June 4, 2025 incident was among the matters I brought to your office. I recognize that the two investigations had different scopes, but I find it deeply troubling that one agency identified actionable misconduct while your office issued a broad finding of compliance concerning the events I reported. I believe that discrepancy warrants substantive review.
I also want to emphasize what these complaints actually concern. During the summer of 2025, I was kidnapped on three separate occasions. I endured immense trauma, repeatedly sought police assistance, and tried desperately to present evidence and obtain protection. Instead, I experienced repeated refusals to assist me, failures to meaningfully investigate what I was reporting, and police actions that I maintain compounded the harm I was already suffering.
These were not minor misunderstandings or disagreements over procedure. I was a person experiencing extraordinary circumstances, asking law enforcement to do its job. The consequences of those encounters have been profound. I cannot reasonably be expected to regard an unexplained, two-sentence conclusion that every officer acted appropriately as a meaningful accounting of what occurred.
I recognize that an internal affairs investigation does not guarantee a particular outcome, nor am I demanding one. But the integrity of the process depends upon the evidence actually being examined, the allegations being individually evaluated, and findings being reached through objective review. The Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures, including Section 6.3.18, establishes requirements for explaining the outcome to complainants. I remain concerned that the October 13 letter does not adequately communicate the disposition of my allegations under those standards.
I therefore request that the conflicting Parsippany finding be brought to the attention of the appropriate supervisor, that the adequacy of the October 13 disposition notice be reconsidered, and that all records associated with PSU-25-0214, including investigative materials, body-worn camera footage, dispatch records, evidence submissions, and supervisory documentation, be preserved pending my records request and further review.
I will pursue the appropriate channels to determine what was actually investigated, what evidence was considered, how the findings were reached, and whether the significant delay was consistent with the procedures governing internal affairs investigations.
I have spent an extraordinary amount of time seeking a serious and impartial examination of these events. I am not asking for special treatment, nor am I asking your office to disregard legitimate confidentiality requirements. I am asking for accountability, procedural compliance, and an investigation whose conclusions can withstand meaningful scrutiny.
Sincerely,
Stephanie “Maddy” Blake
Sent October 23, 2026. As of November 6, 2026, there has been no reply to this letter.
My October 23 email also asked, under OPRA and the common-law right of access, for two records: the complainant notification letter and the investigation summary. The office’s records custodian logged it as OPRA 26-0243 and answered on November 6. My questions were “requests for information,” not records, and “invalid under OPRA.” As “a courtesy,” the response enclosed a copy of the October 13 letter I already had. It did not mention the investigation summary at all. “This OPRA request is now considered answered and closed.”
Leave a Reply