Will Scharf '08 will sue Borough

Scharf now intends to file a civil suit against Princeton Borough and its police department for “false arrest, malicious prosecution, and federal civil rights claims,” according to the statement.

Scharf, who is also the former Interclub Council chair, had been charged with serving alcohol to minors and maintaining a nuisance following an episode that occurred at Charter on Dec. 1.

In the incident, Paige Schmidt ’08 poured beer on Kara Murphy ’09. Murphy then struck Schmidt, who called the police. Charges against the two women involved in the incident were dropped.

Borough Police Lt. David Dudeck said the decision to drop the charges was “out of [his] hands.”

“All decisions relating to the case would be made by the prosecutor,” he said.

Princeton Borough prosecutor Kenneth Lozier did not respond to requests for comment.

Searching for evidence

According to Cipparone’s statement, Lozier decided to drop the charges after Cipparone “urged him to closely analyze the evidence.”

If Scharf proceeds with his plans to file his own suit, attorney Karen Cayci would likely represent the Borough in a civil suit, Dudeck said. Cayci also did not respond to requests for comment.

Lozier planned to call Murphy as a witness against Scharf, calling her a “key witness” during a March 10 hearing.

Cipparone said, however, that in a videotaped interview with the Borough Police, Murphy “clearly and unequivocally said that she was not served alcohol by any person affiliated with Charter Club.” Murphy told the police that she obtained alcohol from someone over 21 who went to the bar for her, Cipparone explained.

“My opinion is that the focus of [Murphy’s] interview was ‘OK, the charges against you have already been dismissed and we’re just going to use you as a way to get the Charter Club,’ ” Cipparone said.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

He added, however, that “her videotape, if anything, helped Scharf’s case. It was beyond me how they thought it could hurt Scharf.”

Suing the Borough

Cipparone said that Scharf has filed a tort claim notice — which is a prerequisite for filing a civil suit — against the Borough and the Borough Police.

Borough Councilman Roger Martindell, who is also a practicing lawyer, noted that a plaintiff who files suit against the Borough claiming false arrest would face a heavy burden of proof.

“New Jersey law invests substantial power in municipal government to maintain the peace and enforce state law,” he said. “Any plaintiff asserting a claim of false arrest must overcome a high hurdle to sustain a claim of liability against municipal police.”

If Scharf decides to pursue claims in New Jersey courts, the Tort Claims Acts requires him to wait before filing the suit. “There is a six-month waiting period to allow the public entity to evaluate and investigate the claim,” Cipparone explained.

Cipparone added that he and Scharf might decide to file the suit under the Federal Civil Rights Act, in which case the waiting period would not apply.

“There are equivalent civil rights violations that can be a basis for the lawsuit on the state and federal level,” Cipparone said.

The difference between the two options is that on the state level, Scharf’s claims would fall under common law rather than written statutes.

In the statement, Cipparone said that the Borough’s charges against Scharf were an attempt to gain “leverage against [Charter] Club, in derogation of Scharf’s individual rights and civil liberties.”

In the statement, Scharf said that the charges against him were not only groundless, but also personally damaging. “These charges were filed without a scintilla of evidence against me, and without any regard to the effect the baseless charges would have, and did have, on me,” he said.

“I was planning to go to law school next year, but now my applications have been put under review or revoked,” he said at a Borough Council meeting last month. “I’ve had one nervous breakdown. I am sure my thesis adviser thinks I am going crazy.”

Impact on Prospect Avenue

Scharf’s lawsuit marks the first time a club president has commenced legal action against the Borough in the recent past and addresses a growing concern among the eating clubs that the Borough and its police force may be unfairly targeting club presidents.

When the Borough dropped its charges against former Cloister Inn president Savannah Sachs ’08 last November, Cloister graduate board chair Mike Jackman ’92 said he thought police had not investigated sufficiently before initiating charges.

“I would like to see a process which was more thoughtful and careful on both sides of Nassau Street,” he said, “such that you don’t have a situation where a student like Savannah is charged when she did nothing wrong and Cloister Inn did nothing wrong.”

G. Robert Wills, who represented Cloister as well as Cottage Club and Tiger Inn — whose presidents were also charged in separate incident— told the ‘Prince’ that the Borough Police should go after the people who actually dispense alcohol to underage students in the clubs and that “the eating club presidents are just sitting targets.”

The charges against Scharf follow the Borough’s pattern of charging club presidents with serving alcohol to a minor and maintaining a nuisance, only to dismiss or settle after transferring the charges to the graduate board or the club membership as a whole. No club president has been personally convicted of alcohol charges in the recent past.

In 2006, charges against then-Terrace Club president Patti Chao ’07 for serving alcohol to a minor were transferred to the Terrace graduate board, which pled guilty and paid a fine. In May, then-Colonial Club president Tommy Curry ’08 was charged with serving alcohol to a minor, but his charges were transferred to the club as a collective entity, while the charge of maintaining a nuisance was dropped.

“Apparently it has been a pattern of the Borough Police to charge an individual officer of an eating club, only to later dismiss the charges when the eating club itself agrees to take responsibility and admit liability for the charges originally levied against the individual,” Cipparone said in his statement.

In an interview with the ‘Prince’ Cipparone explained, “In my opinion, and certainly Mr. Scharf’s, [the Borough’s action] was an abuse of the system.”

Scharf’s suit may prompt the Borough to “review its relations with the University in general and the eating clubs in particular,” Martindell said.

Martindell added that “the eating clubs absorb a disproportionate share of the Borough government’s attention, especially in light of the University’s small contribution to the Borough’s annual operating budget.”

To remedy this problem, the Borough could ask the University to start policing the clubs itself or to contribute more to the cost of maintaining the Borough’s police force, Martindell said.