In the Matter of the Certificates of Casey (Birchett) Blaha, State Board of Examiners, 2/26/26 (#68-26)

68-26
State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 2223-132
OAL Dkt. No. EDE 01477-23
Agency Dkt. No. 10-07/24A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of Casey
(Birchett) Blaha, State Board of Examiners, New
Jersey Department of Education
Order of Suspension by the State Board of Examiners, dated June 27, 2024
For the Respondent-Appellant, Philip Feintuch, Esq.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, David L. Kalisky, Deputy
Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and papers filed in connection with appellant
Casey Blaha’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board) dated June 27, 2024,
suspending her Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced
Standing and Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 certificate for a period of two years.
On June 5, 2022, appellant was arrested and charged with four counts of Endangering the
Welfare of a Child – DWI (2 nd degree). 	It was alleged that appellant had four children in her
vehicle while she was intoxicated after a carnival event. 	It was further alleged that law
enforcement observed appellant stumbling while she walked to her vehicle following the event,
and that she and the four children entered the vehicle. It was alleged that when law enforcement
approached her, she stated that she intended to drive her vehicle. Appellant’s blood alcohol level
was 0.27%.

2
On October 5, 2022, appellant pled guilty to Driving Under the Influence, and the four
counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child – DWI (2 nd degree) were dismissed. Thereafter, on
January 31, 2023, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why appellant’s
certificates should not be revoked. On February 13, 2023, appellant filed an answer to the OSC.
Appellant admitted that she was charged and acknowledged the outcome of the criminal charges
but opposed the OSC. Appellant also contended that, “[s]tanding alone, a conviction of driving
while intoxicated is not sufficient to put [appellant’s] license in jeopardy.” Answer to Board’s
Order to Show Cause at 2.
Following 	a 	contested 	hearing 	at 	the 	Office 	of 	Administrative 	Law 	(OAL), 	the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the evidence was overwhelming that appellant
committed conduct unbecoming a teacher when she had four children in her car, while
intoxicated, and “undeniably started the engine of the vehicle.” Initial Decision at 5. The ALJ
further concluded that appellant’s conduct “adversely affects the morale or efficiency of the
School Board and has a tendency to destroy public respect for public employees and confidence
in the operation of its services.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). 	In reaching his
determination, the ALJ found that the facts stated in the OSC were uncontested, as the parties
had conceded that the penalty is the only issue in the instant matter. In addition, the ALJ found
that appellant’s testimony was not credible, particularly her claim that she only had two glasses
of wine prior to attending the carnival and no drinks at the carnival, yet had a blood-alcohol level
of 0.27% upon leaving the event just 90 minutes later.
Next, the ALJ found that appellant’s unbecoming conduct was aggravated by 1)
appellant’s persistent attempts to evade admitting the full truth of her condition, such as blaming

3
her dizziness on an asthma attack rather than from her being intoxicated, and involving her
mother and child in her efforts to avoid the consequences of her actions; 2) appellant’s persistent
attempts to minimize her conduct; and 3) appellant’s “obviously contradictory statements”
about why her vehicle was turned on and whether she intended to drive home. Id. at 4-6
Regarding the penalty, the ALJ determined that a revocation of appellant’s certificates
was 	“too 	severely 	punitive 	and 	inappropriate” 	and 	found 	that 	there 	were 	mitigating
circumstances warranting a six-month suspension of appellant’s certificates. 	Id. at 10.
Specifically, the ALJ noted that appellant admitted her offense in municipal court, admitted that
she was an alcoholic, attended daily Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and had an unblemished
record of 20 years as a schoolteacher. The ALJ further noted that the district chose to suspend
her for three months rather than bring tenure charges, and she was already penalized by the
district and the community.
After considering the exceptions filed by both parties, the Board adopted the ALJ’s Initial
Decision with modification as to the penalty. 	The Board agreed with the ALJ that appellant
engaged in unbecoming conduct when she placed four children at serious risk by getting behind
the wheel of her vehicle with a blood-alcohol level at more than three times the legal limit. The
Board further found that appellant’s conduct was “certainly unacceptable and certainly
unbecoming of a teacher” and did “not comport with ‘role model’ behavior.” 	Order of
Suspension at 5. 	However, the Board disagreed with the ALJ that the mitigating factors
warranted only a six-month suspension. The Board explained that although appellant had a long,
unblemished career, she continued to “downplay her conduct” and “failed to acknowledge the
potential danger that could have occurred had an officer not witnessed her staggering to her

4
vehicle” Id. at 5-6. 	Accordingly, the Board ordered that appellant’s teaching certificates be
suspended for two years.
On appeal, appellant contends that the Board erred in increasing the suspension penalty
since her DWI offense was unrelated to her performance as a schoolteacher, did not involve any
of her students, and did not take place on school premises. 	Appellant further contends that the
two-year suspension is excessive when compared to prior cases with similar facts. 	Lastly,
appellant argues that in rendering his Initial Decision, the ALJ improperly considered the child
endangerment charges that had been filed against appellant and later dismissed at the municipal
court. 	Specifically, appellant contends that “by including the unproven allegations of child
endangerment as part of its decision regarding ‘conduct unbecoming’ and in the penalty phase
of its decision, the ALJ wrongfully engaged in speculation and supposition, regarding allegations
that [appellant] did not admit and which the Board did not prove.” Appellant’s Brief at 8.
In its opposition brief, the Board contends that the ALJ did not improperly consider the
child endangerment charges. The Board argues that the parties’ joint stipulation of facts includes
the fact that child endangerment charges were filed against appellant and then dismissed in
municipal court. The Board also argues that the analysis section of the Initial Decision did not
mention the charges. Furthermore, citing case law, the Board contends that the ALJ can consider
any relevant fact in the record when determining an appropriate penalty, and the fact that the
charges were dismissed does not prevent the Board from considering that children were exposed
to potential danger when determining an appropriate penalty. Next, the Board argues that the
caselaw appellant cites are inapposite because 1) none of the teachers in those matters engaged
in behavior that posed an immediate risk of physical harm to children, and 2) the teachers in

5
those matters expressed remorse. Finally, the Board contends that precedent indicates that a
two-year suspension is the minimally appropriate penalty for a teacher who operates a vehicle
with minors while intoxicated.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner
may not substitute his judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant received due
process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The
Commissioner’s role in reviewing appeals is constrained by N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), which specifies
that “the Commissioner shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence in the record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated
the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.” See Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., 478 N.J. Super. 229, 238 (App. Div. 2024) (citing
N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a)).
“[T]eachers . . . are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care
and custody of . . . school children . . . . This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and
controlled behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” IMO Tenure Hearing of
Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321. Teachers “hold positions demanding public trust, and in such
positions they teach, inform, and mold habits and attitudes, and influence the opinion of their
pupils.” IMO Tenure Hearing of Tordo, 1974 S.L.D. 97, 98-99.
“Conduct unbecoming” is an “elastic” concept that includes “conduct which adversely
affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public
respect for [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services.” In re
Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960). Accord Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa,

6
228 N.J. 4, 13 (2017). A finding of unbecoming conduct “may be based merely upon the violation
of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye
as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct.” Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J. at
14 (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)). Unfitness to hold a position
in a school system may be demonstrated through just one incident, “if sufficiently flagrant.”
Redcay v. State Bd. of Educ., 130 N.J.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff’d, 131 N.J.L. 326 (E & A 1944).
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that the Board’s
determination — that appellant committed unbecoming conduct when she placed four children
at serious risk by getting behind the wheel of her vehicle with a blood-alcohol level at more than
three times the legal limit — is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. As noted by the Board
in its Order of Suspension, the ALJ found that the allegations in the OSC were uncontested, as the
parties conceded that the only issue in this matter is the penalty. Thus, the Commissioner finds
no basis to overturn the Board’s determination.
As to the penalty, the Commissioner finds that the Board’s decision to increase the
suspension of appellant’s certificates from the six months recommended by the ALJ to a period
of two years was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Relevant factors to consider when
deciding whether revocation or suspension of certificates is warranted “include the nature and
gravity of the offense, any evidence as to provocation, extenuation or aggravation, and any harm
or injurious effect that the teacher’s conduct may have had on the maintenance of discipline and
the proper administration of the school system.” In re Certificates of Maffucci, OAL Dkt. No. EDE
06423-2021, Initial Decision at 29 (June 29, 2023) (citing In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. 404, 422

7
(App. Div. 1967)), adopted, St. Bd. of Exam’rs, Dkt. No. 2021-163 (Oct. 27, 2023), affirmed,
Commissioner Decision No. 179-24 (May 6, 2024).
The Commissioner finds that a two-year suspension of appellant’s certificates is
appropriate given the nature and the extent of the unbecoming conduct at issue. 	The
Commissioner agrees with the Board and the ALJ that appellant’s unbecoming conduct was
aggravated by her behavior both on the night of the incident and throughout the hearing.
Appellant misled law enforcement investigating her conduct by claiming that she only had one
glass of wine prior to attending the carnival event, despite having a blood-alcohol level three
times the legal limit for operating a vehicle. Appellant also attempted to minimize her conduct
during the hearing by blaming her dizziness on an alleged asthma attack that she suffered prior
to getting into the vehicle, and by stating that she turned on the engine for the air conditioner
and not to drive home. 	The ALJ found that appellant’s claim that she had an asthma attack
contradicted 1) her admission to an investigating officer on the night of the incident that she
turned on her vehicle for the radio, 2) her statement in her certified response to the OSC that
she started the engine in order to roll down the window to speak to the police officer; and 3) her
admission, on cross, that she “most likely” would have driven home. The ALJ also noted that he
did not believe appellant’s testimony that she told the police officer, when he approached her
vehicle, that she would walk her kids home. Another factor aggravating appellant’s unbecoming
conduct was her attempt to avoid arrest by informing law enforcement that she had a “gold card”
and that her husband is a Corrections Officer. 	Lastly, appellant failed to acknowledge the
potential danger that could have occurred had an officer not witnessed her staggering to her car,
nor has appellant expressed remorse for her conduct.

8
Turning to the specific points raised in her brief, appellant contends that the two-year
penalty is excessive when compared to prior cases with similar facts. 	Appellant cites the
following Board decisions in support of her claim that teachers who engaged in similar conduct
received shorter penalties: In re Certificate of Erika Caceres, St. Bd. of Exam’rs, Dkt. No. 2223-173
(May 23, 2024) (school counselor received a six-month suspension for engaging in unbecoming
conduct after reporting to work while intoxicated); In re Certificate of Shannon M. Kennedy, St.
Bd. of Exam’rs, Dkt. No. 2223-178 (May 23, 2024) (teaching staff member received a three-month
suspension for unbecoming conduct because she came to work intoxicated); In re Certificates of
SarahJane Melick (Freeman), St. Bd. of Exam’rs, Dkt. No. 2223-125 (June 29, 2023) (teacher
received a one-year suspension for unbecoming conduct after coming to school inebriated).
Appellant contends that the teachers in the cited matters were intoxicated in the presence of
staff or students and some or all drove themselves to school, yet they received less serious
penalties.
The Commissioner does not find appellant’s argument to be convincing. While the staff
members in the decisions cited did engage in unbecoming conduct on school grounds, the Board
found that their penalties should be mitigated because they all displayed remorse for their
conduct, they all took measures to avoid a reoccurrence of their behavior, and they all had
unblemished careers prior to reporting to work drunk. 	While appellant had an otherwise
unblemished career as a schoolteacher, and has taken steps to address her alcoholism, unlike the
teachers in Kennedy, Caceres, and Melick, appellant has failed to take responsibility for her
actions or display remorse for her unbecoming conduct. Rather, appellant attempted to mislead
the police by providing contradictory reasons as to why she turned on her vehicle, attempted to

9
avoid the consequences of her actions on the day of the incident by invoking her husband’s
position as a Corrections Officer, and continued to minimize her conduct during the hearing.
Lastly, none of the teachers in Kennedy, Caceres, or Melick engaged in conduct that involved
getting behind the wheel of a vehicle filled with minor children while intoxicated.
Furthermore, even if those staff members were given less severe penalties, the
Commissioner reviews each matter carefully on a case-by-case basis and does not find that the
outcomes of other matters involving teacher discipline require a particular result here. Because
the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient, credible evidence, and appellant has failed to
establish that it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, the Commissioner has no grounds
to disturb it. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
Next, appellant contends that the ALJ improperly considered the child endangerment
charges that had been filed against her and later dismissed at the municipal court. Appellant
further contends that the Board should not have adopted the Initial Decision to the extent that
it considered issues and drew factual conclusions where no evidence or testimony was provided
in that regard. 	The Commissioner is not convinced by appellant’s arguments. 	The fact that
appellant was charged with child endangerment, and those charges were later dropped, is
included in the parties’ joint stipulation of facts. Furthermore, the parties’ joint stipulation of
facts include the fact that appellant entered her vehicle with four children, turned the vehicle on,
that she twice confirmed to the Cedar Grove Police Officer that she was “in shape to drive,” and
that her blood alcohol level was 0.27%, which is more than three times the legal limit. In addition,
appellant testified on cross that she most likely would have driven home. 	The ALJ did not
mention the child endangerment charges in the analysis section of the Initial Decision; rather, he

10
discussed the aforementioned facts and the danger that might have befallen the children had the
police officer not seen appellant stumbling to her vehicle. To the extent that appellant suggests
that the dismissal of child endangerment charges requires the ALJ and the Bord to ignore the
potential harm to the children, no support is provided for that contention. 	As such, the
Commissioner does not find that the ALJ improperly considered the child endangerment charges
that had been filed against appellant and later dismissed at the municipal court; nor does the
Commissioner find that the Board was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in adopting the
Initial Decision as modified.
Accordingly, the Order of the State Board of Examiners suspending appellant’s certificates
for a period of two years, effective June 27, 2024, is affirmed.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 26, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	February 26, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

IN THE MATTER OF 	: 	NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATES OF 	: 	STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
CASEY (BIRCHETT) BLAHA 	: 	ORDER OF SUSPENSION
_______________________ 	: 	DOCKET NO: 2223-132
At its meeting of December 29, 2022, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed
information it received from the Office of Student Protection (OSP) regarding Casey (Birchett)
Blaha. On June 5, 2022, Blaha was charged with four (4) counts of Endangering the Welfare of a
Child – DWI (2nd degree), N.J.S.A. 2C: 24-4A(2). It was alleged that Blaha had four (4) children
in her vehicle while she was intoxicated after leaving a carnival event at which law enforcement
observed her stumbling while she walked to her vehicle. 	It was also alleged that, when law
enforcement approached her, she stated that she intended to drive her vehicle. 	Blaha’s blood
alcohol level was 0.27%.
On October 5, 2022, the charges were heard in municipal court. 	Blaha pled guilty to
Driving Under the Influence, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and the four counts of Endangering the Welfare of
a Child – DWI (2nd degree), N.J.S.A. 2C: 24-4A(2) were dismissed.
Blaha currently holds a Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 Certificate of Eligibility with
Advanced Standing and a Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 certificate. 	After reviewing the
above information, at its January 26, 2023 meeting, the Board voted to issue an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Blaha as to why her certificates should not be revoked.
On January 31,2023, the Board sent Blaha the OSC by regular and certified mail. The OSC
provided that Blaha must file an Answer within 30 days pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.6(b). On
February 13, 2023, Blaha submitted an answer in which she admitted she was charged, as well as
the outcome of the criminal charges, but denied the allegations as to her conduct. As there were

2
material facts in dispute, on February 15, 2023, the Board transmitted the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing.
The hearing in this matter was held in-person on November 27, 2023. The record closed
on February 7,2024. On March 25, 2024, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ernest M. Bongiovanni
issued an Initial Decision in the case. 	In the Matter of the Certificates of Casey A. (Birchett)
Blaha, OAL Dkt. No. EDE 01477-23 (Initial Decision, March 24, 2024).
After the hearing in this matter, the ALJ found that the evidence was overwhelming that
Blaha committed conduct unbecoming a teacher, warranting a six-month suspension of her
certificates. Id. at 6, 10. In so doing, he found that the parties agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and
as a result the facts as stated in the Order to Show Cause were uncontested. Id. at 2. Blaha was
charged with four counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child – DWI after she had four children
in her vehicle with her while her blood alcohol level was .27% and stated to law enforcement that
she intended to drive her vehicle to leave a carnival event. Id. at 2-3. Subsequently, Blaha pled
guilty to DUI and the endangering charges were dismissed. Id. at 3.
Further, the ALJ found that Blaha’s testimony was not credible, particularly that she only
had two glasses of wine prior to attending the carnival, when she tested more than three times the
legal limit upon leaving the carnival, and that she had an asthma attack prior to getting into the
vehicle. 	Ibid. 	Further, she minimized her conduct and misled law enforcement. 	Ibid. 	During
cross-examination and questioning by the Court, Blaha admitted that she “most likely” would have
driven home. Id. at 4. Moreover, the ALJ found that if Blaha had admitted the obvious – that she
intended to drive her car when she entered it and turned on the engine – her conduct would appear
less egregious. Ibid. However, her conduct unbecoming was aggravated by her persistent attempts

3
to evasively not admit the full truth and her obviously contradictory statements. Id. at 5-6. The
ALJ concluded that Blaha committed conduct unbecoming an educator. Id. at 6.
As to penalty, the ALJ found there were mitigating circumstance that warranted less than
revocation of her certificates. Id. at 10. He found that she admitted she was an alcoholic when
she committed the DWI, she sought rehabilitation through daily attendance at AA, she had an
unblemished record of 20 years as a teacher, the district chose not to suspend her rather than bring
tenure charges, and that she was already penalized by the district as well as by the community by
the penalties imposed in municipal court. Ibid. He concluded that due to the mitigating factors a
penalty of six-month appeared fair and reasonable. Ibid.
The Deputy Attorney General (DAG) representing the Board filed Exceptions which argue
that Blaha’s established conduct warrants a four-year suspension of her teaching certificates. See
Exceptions at p. 2. 	The DAG argues that the facts determined in this matter, when measured
against the standards of conduct expected of an educator, clearly demonstrates a four-year
suspension is warranted. 	Id. at 5. 	The DAG argues that “Blaha’s undisputed conduct, coupled
with her obfuscation and evasive tactics, fell far below the level of honesty and behavior that is
expected.” 	Ibid. Next, the DAG argues that the Board has consistently ordered lengthy
suspensions for teachers who operate a vehicle with minors while intoxicated as evidenced by the
cases cited in his summation brief. Ibid.
Further, the DAG asserts the ALJ afforded too much weight to any potential mitigating
factors given that “Blaha repeatedly failed to acknowledge, let alone express remorse for, the level
of her demonstrated drunkenness and intent to drive minors while intoxicated” and tried to
obfuscate the truth, with a pattern of immoral and dishonest attempts to avoid the consequences of
her action, such as invoking her husband’s position as an officer of the law. Id. at 8. Lastly, the

4
DAG argues that the Board has revoked the certificates of educators who failed to express remorse
or take responsibility for the consequences of their unbecoming conduct. Id. at 9.
Blaha filed Exceptions which argue that the ALJ was clearly influenced by Blaha’s attitude,
and that the ALJ’s “use of pejoratives throughout the Initial Decision was uncalled for” and made
the ALJ biased. (Reply Exceptions, p. 1). Further, Blaha argues that the parties were before the
Court to determine the penalty to be imposed for a DUI. Id. at 2. And a simple DUI has never
warranted revocation of certificates. Id. at 3. Blaha further argues that she was not guilty of DUI
because her vehicle never moved. Id. at 4-5. And that although she entered a plea as to the DUI,
she is not guilty of DUI with children in her vehicle. Id. at 5. Lastly, Blaha argues that “certificates
of teachers who are found guilty of a sole charge of Disorderly Conduct are not affected.” Id. at
6.
The Board must now determine whether to adopt, modify, or reject the Initial Decision in
this matter. 	At its meeting of May 23, 2024, the Board reviewed the Initial Decision, and
Exceptions filed by both parties. 	After full and fair consideration of the Initial Decision and
submissions, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision, with modification as to penalty.
The Board, in reviewing the matter, does not find that the ALJ’s findings to be arbitrary or
not based on sufficient credible evidence. 	The ALJ’s credibility determinations were well
supported and based on his first-hand observations. Accordingly, the Board is constrained by the
ALJ’s findings of facts and credibility determinations in this matter. The Board does not find a
sufficient basis by which it could overturn same. N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6(b).
The Board’s long-standing belief is that teachers must serve as role models for their
students. “Teachers… are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care and
custody of … school children. This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled

5
behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” Tenure of Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302,
321. A “violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands
in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct” may provide the basis
for a finding of unbecoming conduct. 	Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 14
(2017) (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). 	The “elastic” concept of “conduct unbecoming” includes “conduct which adversely
affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public
respect for . . . [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services.” 	In re
Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see
also Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J. at 13.
As noted above, after reviewing the record, the ALJ found that the allegations in the OSC
were uncontested and concluded that Blaha’s actions here placed her child and three other minors
in great danger after being seen staggering to her vehicle and failing all the field sobriety tests. In
this case, Blaha’s conduct was certainly unacceptable and certainly unbecoming of a teacher. The
Board agrees that Blaha’s conduct, placing four children at serious risk by getting behind the wheel
of her vehicle to leave a carnival with a blood alcohol content at more than three times the legal
limit, does not comport with “role model” behavior. 	Thus, the Board finds Blaha engaged in
unbecoming conduct.
The ALJ determined that a six-month suspension was appropriate for the conduct.
However, the Board disagrees that the mitigating factors here warrant only a six-month suspension.
Although Blaha had a long, unblemished career, she continued throughout this matter to downplay
her conduct. She has failed to responsibility for the four minors in her vehicle at the time of her
DUI and has failed to acknowledge the potential danger that could have occurred had an officer

6
not witnessed her staggering to her vehicle and stopped her before leaving the carnival event.
Thus, the Board finds that a two-year suspension is warranted in this matter.
Accordingly, on May 23, 2024, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision with
modification as to penalty and ordered a two-year suspension of Blaha’s certificates from the date
of this Decision. On this 27th day of June, 2024, the Board formally adopted its written decision
to adopt, with modification as to penalty, the Initial Decision in this matter and it is therefore
ORDERED that Casey A. (Birchett) Blaha’s Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 Certificate of
Eligibility with Advanced Standing and Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 certificate are hereby
SUSPENDED for a period of two years, effective immediately. If is further ordered that Blaha
return his certificates to the Secretary of the State Board of Examiners, Office of Certification and
Induction, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 within 30 days of the mailing date of this
decision.
_______________________________
Rani Singh, Secretary
State Board of Examiners
Date of Mailing:
via certified and regular mail
Appeals may be made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
18A:6-38.4.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 2223-132
IN THE MATTER OF THE TEACHING
CERTIFICATES OF CASEY A. (BIRCHETT)
BLAHA.
__
David L. Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
General of New Jersey, attorney) for petitioner
Philip Feintuch, Esq., (Feintuch, Porwich and Feintuch attorneys) for
respondent
Record Closed: February 7, 2024 	Decided: March 25, 2024
BEFORE ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, the New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners
(Petitioner/Board) seeks to permanently revoke the Teaching Certificates of respondent,
Casey A. Blaha (Respondent/ Blaha). 	Because the Board gave sufficient reason in
showing that respondent committed egregious conduct unbecoming a teacher, I agree
that her teaching certificates should be suspended, but not revoked.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
2
By Order dated January 26, 2023, the Board directed Blaha to show cause why
her certificates should not be revoked. Respondent filed her Response on February 13,
2023. . The contested case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on
February 15, 2023. 	An in-person hearing was held before me on November 27, 2023.
The record was held open until post hearing submissions could be received, the last being
on February 7, 2024 at which time the record closed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND, DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The parties agreed that the issue in this case is the penalty sought by the Board
and not the facts as stated in the Order to Show Cause. Furthermore, the parties agreed
to a Stipulation of Facts, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, as if set forth
at length as part of my FINDINGS OF FACTS. Further, as the penalty is conceded to be
the only issue, I FIND that the Facts as stated in the Order to Show Cause are
uncontested. 	Furthermore, many of the relevant facts were admitted to in Request for
Admissions. 	(J-2), and accordingly, most of the relevant facts are uncontested. 	After
reviewing the Joint Exhibits, stipulated facts and after hearing the testimony of the
witnesses, and having assessed the credibility of same, I also summarize and FIND the
following as FACTS:
1. 	Blaha and been employed as an elementary school teacher by the Jersey City
Board of Education for twenty years.
2. 	She holds a Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 Certificate of Eligibility with
Advanced Standing and a Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8 Standard
Certificate. 	She has no prior employment disciplinary history.
3. 	Blaha was charged with 4 counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Minor-DWI
(2nd degree) after she had four children with her in her vehicle while she was
intoxicated.
4. 	Blaha was leaving a carnival event when a law enforcement officer observed
her stumbling toward her vehicle. 	Four children entered the vehicle with her.
Blaha admitted to the police officer she intended to drive the vehicle.
5. 	Her Blood alcohol level was .27%

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
3
6. 	On October 5, 2022 the Endangering the Welfare of Minors charges were
dismissed, and Blaha pleaded guilty to operating her vehicle while under the
influence.
7. 	During the officer’s investigation of the incident, respondent told him she was
“in shape to drive.” 	She also told the officer she put the engine on “for the
radio…I didn’t start it to run.”
8. 	The officers conducted the standardized field sobriety tests.
9. 	Blaha failed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the walking heal to toe test,
and the one leg stand test.
10. Blaha admitted to drinking alcohol prior to getting in the car with the four
children and I FIND she minimized her conduct and misled the law enforcement
officers investigating her conduct by claiming she had only one glass of wine
prior to coming to the carnival event, when in fact she was heavily intoxicated,
being more than three times the legal limit for operating a vehicle when she
operated the vehicle in full view of the officer.
11. The Alcotest reading is uncontested and showed Blaha’s blood alcohol level
was.27% when she entered her vehicle with the four children.
12. As stated in the Joint Stipulation of Facts, Blaha admits that her conduct
precipitating the guilty plea to and conviction of DWI subjects her teaching
credentials to a penalty but disagrees that revocation of same if the appropriate
consequence for such conduct.
13. Although 	Blaha 	testified 	she 	is 	an 	alcoholic, 	and 	has 	been 	receiving
appropriate treatment for same since, August 8, 2022, the date she plead guilty
to DWI, and presented herself appropriately as a sympathetic witness, she still
claimed, incredibly, that she had just two glasses of wine (although in cross
examination, she had to admit the alcohol reading contradicted her story about
having only two glasses of wine).) before arriving at the carnival event. 	Her
testimony overall was severely and overwhelmingly contradicted by her filed
sobriety tests and alcohol breath test readings. That, and the remaining
evidence shows Blaha’s testimony was not credible.
14. Consequently, I disbelieved her story that she had an asthma attack prior to
getting in the car, which caused dizziness, that she turned on the engine of the
car to get air conditioning (which contradicted her admission to the investigating

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
4
officer that she wanted to turn on the radio, as her reason to start the car, and
that she had no intention of driving the vehicle. I also disbelieve her claim she
told the officer “when he first approached the vehicle” that she would walk the
kids home.
15. Further, Blaha’s story that she told the officer as he approached the vehicle
she would walk the children home is proof only that she knew she was caught
red-handed trying to drive while intoxicated, which was further evidenced by
her trying to avoid being arrested for her conduct, by her immediate reaction to
the officers in advising them she had a “gold card” and that her husband was a
Corrections Officer (“a CO ..a sergeant”)
16. Blaha admitted to the Court’s questioning that if she hadn’t had the so-called
asthma attack, that she “most likely” would have driven the children home.
17. Although Blaha’s 14-year-old son testified his mother asked him to call her
mother before they got it the vehicle, he said Blaha stated she “didn’t feel well”
and did not mention the so-called asthma attack.
18. Blaha’s mother testified that Blaha’s son called her only when the field sobriety
tests were being conducted.
19. Blaha admitted (reluctantly) under cross and under questioning by the Court,
that she “most likely” would have driven home, despite her obviously highly
inebriated state had she not had the alleged “asthma attack.”
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
As the parties stipulated the only issue was the penalty, I understood Blaha’s
complaint that the Board focused unnecessarily on the details of the DWI investigation.
However, it was Blaha who caused that focus by minimizing her conduct, first to the police
officers when arrested, and much worse during her less than credible testimony. If she
had simply admitted the obvious that she intended to drive her car when she entered it,
and turned on the engine, her conduct would appear less egregious. Having been caught
red handed in placing her son and three other minors in great danger, first, by driving two
of the children to the carnival after consuming what is obviously untrue just “two glasses
of wine” then in attempting approximately an hour later to drive four of the children home
after being seen staggering to her vehicle and failing all the field sobriety tests followed

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
5
by an uncontested and therefore valid .27% alcohol reading, she demonstrated clearly
that her desire for alcohol outweighed her concern for the welfare of children, at least on
this occasion, which is highly disturbing conduct for any parent, mother, neighbor and
more pertinently a teacher.
Although the burden of proof the Board has to meet is only proving its claims by a
preponderance of competent and credible evidence, here the evidence is overwhelming
that Blaha was guilty of conduct unbecoming in that her conduct “adversely affects the
morale or efficiency” of the School Board” and has “a tendency to destroy public respect
for [public] employee” and confidence in the operation of its services. In Re Emmons, 63
N.J. Super 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960). Conduct unbecoming does not require the conduct
occur in a school or school setting, nor that the behavior be in any way within the scope
of her employment. I disagree with petitioner’s closing argument that DWI can never be,
or in respondent’s words “certainly not conduct unbecoming a teacher”. (emphasis
supplied). To the contrary, rarely could a DWI incident constitute, in these circumstances
not constitute conduct unbecoming. Here, the respondent had four Intermediary school
age children in her car, waiting for a ride home with her and she undeniably started the
engine of the vehicle before being forcibly removed from an alert, caring and professional
police officer. 	Further, all three children, although in my view did not appear shaken or
disturbed by the incident, (possibly because Blaha was prevented from driving on the
road while “triple drunk”) were put in circumstances of great and unnecessary risk by
Blaha. 	Those children are members of a neighboring community to the school district.
The police officers stop, and required field sobriety tests of Blaha, were performed in
broad daylight for members of the public most probably attending and many just leaving
or arriving at an entertainment event, and doubtless, this exposed to the public that Blaha,
a school teacher was arrested for trying to drive with four school age children in her car.
Thus this is “textbook case” of conduct which “adversely affects the morale or efficiency”
of the School Board and had “a tendency to destroy public respect for [public] employee”
and confidence in the operation of its services. In re Emmons, supra. 	Further, here the
conduct unbecoming was aggravated by Blaha’s persistent attempts to minimize her
conduct, to evasively not admit the full truth of her condition (e.g. blaming her “dizziness”
on an asthma attack rather than from being “triple drunk”, involving her child and mother
into her efforts to escape the consequences of her actions.) This conduct was worsened

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
6
by her obviously contradictory statements as to why the engine was turned on, first telling
the officer she turned on the engine for “the radio”, but stating in her certified Response
to the OTSC that she started the engine in order to roll down the window to speak to the
police officer, then finally testifying in court that, using the radio story again, stating the
inconsistency about the air conditioning could be explained that when you turn the radio
on the air conditioning comes on, which all add up to a completely unconvincing
fabrication. They were several other unconvincing aspects of her story regarding whether
she had the intent to drive home, such as her testimony that she her told the officer she
could walk the children home rather than wait for the grandmother, when there is no video
evidence of that, the statement appears in none of the police reports, and Blaha had two
years to come up with this explanation. There is the possibility that Blaha believes some
of her implausible stories because she was so drunk at the actual time she can’t recall
clearly, and she candidly admitted that heavy alcohol consumption causes memory
problems. But there is no excuse for her most incredible story initially given to the police
and then reiterated to the court, that she had only two glasses of wine to drink before
going to the carnival, had nothing to drink at the carnival and about 90 minutes after
leaving her home to go from the carnival, she had a ,27% alcohol reading. That is either
blatantly untrue or she has wine glasses the size of which, when full, only weightlifters
would find easy to drink from. I FIND and CONCLUDE that Blaha was guilty of conduct
unbecoming a teacher.
PENALTY
The Board bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate
that it has valid reasons to revoke or suspend an individual’s teaching certificate. State v.
Bd. Of Exam’r v. Ferreira, 2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 313 AT 8081 (July 5, 2005) See also
In Re Certificate of Papadanill, EDE 08821-00 Initial Decision (March 13, 2002) adopted
State Bd. Of Exam’rs (May 9, 2002). Many cases, some which emphasize the teaching
abilities of the respondent and the lack of disciplinary history against him or her, have
resulted in a finding that the State has not met its burden and the individual’s certificate
should not be revoked or suspended. In some cases, the charges were dismissed. See
e.g. in the Matter of the Teaching Certificates of Jennifer Rome, EDE 0403718 (Initial

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
7
Decision August 4, 2022; In the Matter of Kathleen Valencia, EDE 13241-19 (Initial
Decision October 28, 2021);
Also, In the Matter of the Certificate(s) of Johnathan Coniglio, EDE 04282-2019
(Initial Decision June 14, 2022, a teacher with a Teacher of Elementary School, Grades
K-8 Certificate and Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing, and a Teacher of
Elementary School with Subject Matter Specialization, Social Studies in Grades 5-8
Certificate and Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing , had received 12 months
Pre-Trial Intervention after charged with a third degree crime by cashing a check of
$2.044.92 to which he had no legal claim to when the future of the League was in doubt.
Citing his effectiveness as a teacher, no tenure charges were brought. However, despite
having been charged criminally with a third-degree theft, and having served 12 months
PTI and repaying the money wrongfully taken as a Condition of PTI, the Court dismissed
the case for revoking his Teacher’s Certificates.
See also, In the Matter of the Certificate of Dawn M. Karpinski, EDE 04108-18
(Initial 	Decision 	June 	21, 	2021) 	where 	the 	teacher 	was 	charged 	with 	Conduct
Unbecoming, and In the Matter of the Certificates of Randi Drogin, EDE 00599-20 (Initial
Decision May 31, 2023) See also In the Matter of Certificates of Gaeton C.
Luciello, EDE 10578-22 (Initial Decision September 7, 2023) 	and see In the Matter of
Brandon E. Lighten, EDE 03604-21 (Initial Decision February 9 2023).
On occasions the Court, rather than dismissing a petition altogether has imposed
a much less draconian measure than revocation. 	In a recently decided case, 	In the
Matter of the Certificates of Antoinette Terlizzi, EDE 08114-21 (Initial Decision, December
16, 2022), a somewhat troubled teacher had smacked the hand of the Superintendent
while telling him not to bite his fingernails, and later refused to undergo a justified medical
examination. 	The Court denied the request to revoke her teacher’s certificates and
imposed instead a suspension of those certificates for three months; In the Matter of
Certificates of Rita O/Mailey, EDE 10769-16 (Initial Decision, August 31, 2020, where the
teacher admitted she submitted inaccurate mileage records on at least four occasions,
out of the several occasions alleged by the Board and $949.79 in reimbursements were
claimed by the Board. 	A myriad of other charges were filed and sustained by the court

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
8
such as administering reporting on subtests erroneously as well as administering Writing
Samples incorrectly. 	It was not disputed that such conduct and her other failures to
maintain records within school protocols could have affected the services to which the
students were entitled. She also used violated protocol when using vacation days instead
of personal days (although inadvertently). The court noted “extensive documentation to
rebut the charge that on a wholesale basis [the teacher] had submitted false requests (for
mileage reimbursements) 	The Court noted the teacher had already been penalized
through the loss of her tenure and position with Woodbridge schools, and imposed a
suspension 	of 	three 	years 	and 	reinstatement 	upon 	successful 	completion 	of 	an
educational program on testing procedures. See also In the Matter of the Certificates of
Barbara L. Moazamian, EDE 06425-17 (Initial Decision July 30, 2020) a teacher of French
and Spanish for 17 years was found to have been teaching Spanish from 2002-2016
without obtaining the required Teacher of Spanish Certificate. Despite the 15-year period,
was a lack of evidence of fraudulent intent. The Court rejected the case for revocation,
but “it was incumbent upon [the teacher] to be aware of the job requirements,” and
imposed a six-month suspension of her teaching certificates.
Here, and despite my strong disagreement with respondent that her actions did
not constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher, I do not see her conduct, even with all of
her somewhat pitiful attempts to obfuscate the truth about her alleged lack of intent to
drive while drunk, an offense which admitted to in municipal court, as warranting the
extreme penalty of revocation of her teaching credentials.
While the case cited by the Board, In re Emmons, supra, dealt with DWI of a public
employee, that employee was a police officer, who not only was possibly drunk but
refused to cooperate into the investigation of an accident investigation by refusal to submit
to a sobriety test. That was considered a breach of the public trust where that employee’s
job was to investigate accidents and incidents of DWI, and to not commit such conduct is
necessity to maintain respect for law enforcement and law and order. There the conduct
was by one whose very public employment depended on him comporting himself in such
a way as was the complete opposite of how he behaved. Here while it is important that
public teachers set a good example for children, teachers are not required as part of their
job to conduct investigations into drunk driving or car accidents caused by them. Although

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
9
the offense committed by the teacher in this case did (as they usually will) occur in public,
and this time in broad daylight at a time and place where the school children in her district
could easily learn of her behavior, there is no indication that this case became notorious.
To the contrary the fact that the School District treated the matter 	with a three months
suspension, rather than by tenure charges or dismissal, indicates the community’s lack
of interest in revoking her credentials or even indicates tolerance and understanding of
this one time only incident of bad behavior by respondent.
While petitioner maintains that Boards have consistently found teachers who
engage 	in 	operating 	vehicles 	with 	minors 	while 	intoxicated 	are 	guilty 	of 	conduct
unbecoming, warranting suspensions, e.g. for two years, four years, etc. even where the
teacher presented mitigating circumstances, no case of permanent revocation was noted
in the Boards’ previous findings. Further, none of the cases involving teachers and DWI
convictions involve judicial proceedings such as a summary decision or Initial Decision
by a decision from the OAL, nor a final decision by an Agency, nor a decision of an upper
court reviewing same. Thus, the revocation of a teacher’s credentials for DWI can literally
be said to be without judicial precedent.
Contrarily, I disagree with respondent’s summation argument that, in drawing a
distinction to her conduct here, the Court need take “judicial notice that a criminal
conviction automatically results in a revocation of teacher credentials.” 	There was
insufficient evidence or precedent for such a belief. Moreover some criminal conduct by
teachers have doubtless led to lesser penalties than revocation especially where as here,
the conduct (not criminal anyway) has nothing to do with behavior by a teacher involving
students nor did it happen on school property or during school activities. In the case of .
IMO 	of 	John 	McCabe, 	OAL 	DKT. 	No. 	EDE 	15745-17 	(August 	2, 	2018),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/ 	OAL Judge Cookson found, where the actual
criminal charges against the teacher had been conditionally dismissed, made her own
evidentiary findings and determined petitioner did indeed engage in public lewdness by
being observed masturbating in public on two occasions. None of the conduct took place
on school grounds, there was no finding the teacher intended his conduct to be seen and
there was no evidence presented that minors observed the conduct. 	Although this was
found to be conduct unbecoming of a teacher, the court modified the penalty from

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
10
revocation to three years suspension of the teaching certificates, notwithstanding the
teacher’s criminal behavior. 	Here, unlike the situation in McCabe, where there was a
finding that the respondent did in fact commit criminal charges, there was a driving
offense, although a serious one. Again, in contrast to McCabe, where the ALJ noted that
“no mitigation evidence” was presented, here I find a strong and persuasive mitigating
factor, in that Blaha was an admitted alcoholic when she committed the DWI, and
presented convincing, even unrefuted evidence that since the DWI conviction, she
obtained necessary rehabilitation through daily attendance at AA. 	Further she has an
unblemished record of 20 years as a school teacher except for this one incident, and here
the District chose not to bring tenure charges and terminate her but rather suspended her
from teaching for about three months. I find it a mitigating factor in that while the District
chose to perhaps treat the matter lightly (although probably evenhandedly), and therefore
Blaha is probably more valued by the District than can perhaps be considered in an
OTSC. 	Further, she has already been penalized by the District as well as by the
community by the penalties imposed in municipal court. Thus, I find it compelling that the
penalty be less than those cases cited by the Board and as documented in the cases
cited above. 	Therefore I CONCLUDE that a penalty of six months suspension of her
teaching credentials appears fair and reasonable under all the circumstances, whereas
revocation is clearly too severely punitive and inappropriate.
Were it not for Blaha’s extremely unwise and somewhat pitiful efforts to minimize
her conduct and obfuscate the clear misconduct, I would perhaps 	impose a still lesser
penalty. However, her conduct considering the incident does also include her admitting
the offense in municipal court, being suitably punished, most importantly perhaps making
the commitment to permanently change her alcoholism to reformed by daily participation
in AA and continuing to teach, after the suspension for as additional two school years
without any cited infractions. 	Thus I conclude for offense of conduct unbecoming a
teacher by committing a DWI with four children in her car, and one she should have more
fully admitted, a penalty of six months suspension of her teaching certificates, which is
additional to the District suspension is a strong, sufficient, and appropriate penalty. I also
CONCLUDE the extreme penalty of revocation, is not warranted and is without precedent.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
11
I note, however, I would still not impose a more severe penalty than a six months
suspension even if there were some yet unfound precedent for revoking a teacher’s
credentials for a single incident of DWI which did not involve the use of her position as
teacher nor involved a school activity or school grounds.
I therefore REVERSE and MODIFY the penalty of revoking permanently Blaha’s
teaching certificates for the conduct unbecoming a teacher and instead impose a six
months suspension on her teaching certificates.
ORDER
For the facts and reasons set forth above, I CONCLUDE that the Board has not
met its burden of proof by a preponderance of credible 	evidence to revoke the
respondent’s 	teaching 	credentials 	for 	conduct 	unbecoming 	a 	teacher. 	I 	further
CONCLUDE that the record does support MODIFYING the revocation to six months
suspension of her teaching credentials, and it is so ORDERED.
I hereby FILE my initial decision with the STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS for
consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the STATE
BOARD OF EXAMINERS, which by law is authorized to make a final decision in this
matter. 	If the State Board of Examiners does not adopt, modify or reject this decision
within forty-five days and unless such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended
decision shall become a final decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
12
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the SECRETARY OF THE
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, 100 Riverview Plaza, PO Box 500, Trenton, New
Jersey 08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be
sent to the judge and to the other parties.
March 25, 2024
DATE 	ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	03/25/24
Date Mailed to Parties: 	03/25/24
id

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
13
APPENDIX
LIST OF WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent
Casey Blaha
Claudia Hecht
M.B., a minor
JOINT STIUPULATION OF FACTS **
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE
Joint Exhibits
J-1 	Petitioner’s First Request for Admissions
J-2 	Cedar Grove Police Dept. report of Sgt. Rivers, dated June 5, 2022
J-3 	DVD
J-4 	Cedar Grove Police Dept., report of PO Grawehr
J-5 	DVD
J-6 	DVD
J-7 	Alcotest showing .27% reading
J-8 	Criminal Summonses, endangering the welfare of minors
For Petitioner
None

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
14
For Respondent
R-1 Letter affirming daily AA attendance of Casey Blaha
R-2 Professional endorsement of Blaha as a PS #31 elementary school teacher by
Lidia De Los Santos, “lead teacher” and Preschool Instructional Coach

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
15
**Joint Stipulation of Facts
1. 	Respondent Casey Blaha the holder of a Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8
Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing, and Teacher of Elementary Grades K-8
Standard Certificate.
2. 	On June 5, 2022, Respondent drove her minor son and three of his minor friends
to the Saint Catherine's of Sienna carnival in Cedar Grove, New Jersey.
3. 	Approximately 1 hour later, Respondent and the 4 children returned to her vehicle
which was parked in the nearby CVS parking lot on 387 Route 23, Cedar Grove, New
Jersey. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 5).
4. 	Upon Respondent and the 4 children entering her vehicle, Respondent turned her
vehicle on. (Exhibit J-1 at Nos. 6-7).
5. 	While Respondent was inside her turned-on vehicle, an officer from the Cedar
Grove Police Department (“CGPD”) knocked on her driver’s seat window and asked her
to step out of the vehicle, which she did. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 8; Exhibit J-2 at DOE022).
6. 	The CGPD officer then asked Respondent how much alcohol she had to drink.
(Exhibit J-2 at DOE022).
7. 	Respondent told the CGPD officer that she only had a glass of wine at her home
before arriving to the carnival event. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 10; Exhibit J-3 at 0:00:01).
8. 	Respondent twice confirmed to the CGPD officer that she was positive that she
was “in shape to drive,” and informed him that her home was nearby. (Exhibit J-1 at No.
11; Exhibit J-3 at 0:00:14).
9. 	The CGPD officer told Respondent that because he suspected her of being drunk,
he was not permitting her to drive her vehicle. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 12).
10. 	The CGPD officer also told Respondent to arrange a ride for the 4 kids, to which
she responded “ok.” (Exhibit J-3 at 0:00:35).

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
16
11. 	When the CGPD officer asked Respondent if she started her vehicle, Respondent
initially answered “yes.” (Exhibit J-3 at 0:01:32).
12. 	Shortly thereafter, Respondent told the CGPD officer that she “put the key in for
the radio. I didn’t start [the vehicle] to run, I started it for the radio.” (Exhibit J-1 at No. 13;
Exhibit J-3 at 0:01:43).
13. 	Respondent then told the CGPD officer “I will get everyone home safely.” (Exhibit
J-1 at No. 16; Exhibit J-3 at 0:02:17).
14. 	The CGPD officer reiterated that somebody else would have to drive the kids
home, to which Respondent answered “ok, and I will do that. . . I can do that.” (Exhibit J-
1 at No. 17; Exhibit J-3 at 0:02:40).
15. 	After the CGPD officer again reiterated to Respondent that she would need to
contact somebody “to get [the kids] a ride home,” Respondent answered “yes,” and went
to her car to retrieve her phone. (Exhibit J-3 at 0:03:13).
16. 	Upon returning from her vehicle with her phone, Respondent told the CGPD officer
that her mother was coming to the parking lot. 	(Exhibit J-1 at No. 20; Exhibit J-3 at
0:03:50).
17. 	Approximately one minute later, another CGPD officer arrived at the parking lot in
order to perform sobriety tests on Respondent. (Exhibit J-1 at Nos. 21 and 23; Exhibit J-
2 at DOE023; Exhibit J-3 at 0:04:20.
18. 	Respondent told the second CGPD officer that she was at the carnival for
approximately one hour and only had some wine prior to arriving but was “100% fine” to
drive. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 22; Exhibit J-4; Exhibit J-5 at 0:01:32).
19. 	The first sobriety test that Respondent was asked to perform is the Horizontal Gaze
Nystagmus Test. (“Exhibit J-4 at DOE026).

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
17
20. 	In order to perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the CGPD officer
instructed Respondent that she would need to follow with her eyes, without moving her
head, the golden tip of a pen that he would be moving with his hand. (Exhibit J-1 at No.
27; Exhibit J-5 at 0:02:38).
21. 	Despite 	Respondent 	confirming 	that 	she 	understood 	the 	CGPD 	officer’s
instructions, the CGPD officer reminded her multiple times to keep her “head still and
follow with [her] eyes and [her] eyes only” during her numerous attempts to take the test.
(Exhibit J-1 at Nos. 28 and 31; Exhibit J-5 at 0:02:56 to 0:04:55).
22. 	The second sobriety test that Respondent was asked to perform was the Walk and
Turn Test. (“Exhibit J-4 at DOE026).
23. 	In 	order 	to 	perform 	the 	Walk 	and 	Turn 	Test, 	the 	CGPD 	officer 	instructed
Respondent that she would need to “take [her] right foot, place it heel to toe in front of
[her] left foot . . . take [her] hands and place them down at [her] sides, and stay in that
position until [he] tells her to begin.” (Exhibit J-5 at 0:07:00).
24. 	Despite 	Respondent 	confirming 	that 	she 	understood 	the 	CGPD 	officer’s
instructions, she placed her left heel in front of her right foot and immediately began to
walk forward before being told to begin. 	(Exhibit J-1 at Nos. 36 and 37; Exhibit J-5 at
0:07:10).
25. 	As such, the CGPD officer immediately told Respondent to stop and repeated his
instructions on the correct standing position for the Walk and Turn Test. 	(Exhibit J-1 at
Nos. 39; Exhibit J-5 at 0:07:15).
26. 	The CGPD officer then told Respondent that to perform the Walk and Turn Test
she would need to walk a straight line using 9 heel-to-toe steps while counting her steps
out loud, and upon reaching the ninth step, she would need to turn around and take an

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
18
additional 9 heel-to-toe steps in the straight line back to her starting position. (Exhibit J-1
at No. 40; Exhibit J-5 at 0:07:24).
27. 	While attempting to assume the instructed standing position, Respondent found it
extremely difficult to maintain her balance and told the CGPD officer that it was due to
her shoes being too large for her feet. (Exhibit J-1 at Nos. 41-42; Exhibit J-5 at 0:09:04
to 0:09:42).
28. 	The CGPD officer then offered Respondent the opportunity to take the Walk and
Turn Test without her shoes, which she accepted. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 43; Exhibit J-5 at
0:09:44).
29. 	After Respondent took her shoes off, the CGPD officer performed a demonstration
of how to perform the Walk and Turn Test. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 44; Exhibit J-5 at 0:10:12;
Exhibit J-6 at 0:09:15).
30. 	Despite Respondent again confirming that she understood the CGPD officer’s
instructions for the Walk and Turn Test, she again began the test with her left foot in front
of her right foot and raised her arms. (Exhibit J-5 at 0:10:30; Exhibit J-6 at 0:09:42).
31. 	The third sobriety test that Respondent was asked to perform was the One Leg
Stand Test. (“Exhibit J-4 at DOE027).
32. 	After the CGPD officer described the One Leg Stand Test as “a simple balancing
test,” 	Respondent elected to wear the same shoes that she claimed were the cause of
her imbalance during the Walk and Turn Test. (Exhibit J-1 at No. 50; Exhibit J-5 at
0:11:03).
33. 	In order to perform the One Leg Stand Test, the CGPD officer instructed
Respondent that she would need to “stand with [her] feet together, hands down at her
sides . . . and when [he] tells [her] to begin, [she’s] going to pick up either foot of [her]
choosing, left or right, [and] lift it 6 inches off the ground keeping the bottom of [her] foot

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
19
parallel to the ground . . . count[ing] out loud . . . until [he] tell[s] [her] to stop.” 	(Exhibit
J-5 at 0:11:17).
34. 	Despite 	Respondent 	confirming 	that 	she 	understood 	the 	CGPD 	officer’s
instructions, 	“she continually raised her arms for balance,” and was twice reminded to
continue counting until she was told to stop. (Exhibit J-4 at DOE027; Exhibit J-5 at 0:12:24
to 0:13:04).
35. 	Respondent “placed her foot back on the ground a total of five times throughout
the thirty second [One Leg Stand] test.” (Exhibit J-4 at DOE027; Exhibit J-5 at 0:12:24 to
0:13:04).
36. 	The CGPD officer then handcuffed Respondent and placed her under arrest for
“driving while intoxicated.” (Exhibit J-5 at 0:13:07).
37. 	From the time Respondent was first stopped by the CGPD officer to the time she
was handcuffed, Respondent repeatedly told the arresting CGPD officers that she has a
“gold card” and that her “husband is a CO . . . a sergeant . . .” (Exhibit J-3 at 0:02:08;
Exhibit J-5 at 0:02:01 and at 0:13:20 to 0:14:15).
38. 	Despite being told by the CGPD officers that such information was of no concern
to them, before being placed in the CGPD vehicle Respondent asked the arresting
officers to let her “do one more [sobriety] test. My husband, my husband is a sergeant!
Ok, so please give me a little . . .” (Exhibit J-5 at 0:15:29).
39. 	After being taken to CGPD headquarters for processing that same evening,
Respondent was administered a breathalyzer test at approximately 8:00 p.m. (Exhibit J-
1 at No. 58).
40. 	Respondent does not contest the authenticity of the results of her June 5, 2022
breathalyzer test. (Exhibit J-1 at Nos. 60-61)

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01477-23
20
41. 	At the moment of her arrest, Respondent’s blood alcohol content was at least
0.27%, which is more than three times the legal limit of 0.08% under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.
(Exhibit J-7).
42. 	On June 6, 2022, CGPD charged Respondent with four counts of endangering the
welfare of child by operating a vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-
4(a)(2). (Exhibit J-8).
43. 	The charges were heard in municipal court on October 5, 2022, whereupon the
endangering the welfare of child charges against Respondent were dismissed after she
pled guilty to driving under the influence (“DUI”).
44. 	On January 26, 2023, the Board issued an order to show cause (“OTSC”) as to
why the behavior that precipitated Respondent’s guilty plea and DUI conviction did not
provide just cause for the revocation of her credentials and certificates.
45. 	While Respondent admits that the conduct precipitating her guilty plea and DUI
conviction subjects her teaching certificates and credentials to a penalty, she disagrees
that revocation would be the appropriate consequence for such conduct.