Justin Hopson Case Summary

Summary of the Incident Only eleven days into his new job as a New Jersey State Police trooper, Justin Hopson witnessed an act by his training officer that would challenge his moral convictions and change his life forever. During a traffic stop in March 2002, Hopson watched his partner arrest a woman for drunk driving who had not even been behind the wheel. Throughout the court proceedings in this case, Hopson chose not to violate his principles, and refused to validate his partner’s version of events surrounding the arrest. From that point forward, Hopson was targeted by fellow officers in an effort to silence him about this event, and other alleged police misconduct. Filing a lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police in December 2003,

Certainly, he expected to find it readily applied in his position with the state police, who exercise authority, and are sworn to uphold the law. Hopson’s expectation for this was shattered as a rookie trooper, and as a result, he experienced moral stress. Geuras and Garofalo (2011) state, “...moral quandaries cannot be denied. At the same time, however, organizational structures and cultures, expectations and reward systems, often tend to ignore or invalidate moral stress, leaving conflicted individuals with a Hobson’s choice: silence or whistleblowing” (p. 134). Hopson made the choice to remain congruent with values that aligned with ethical behavior and eventually elected to become a whistleblower; he could not remain

According to the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Whistleblower Protection Programs, Hopson should have been received protection from workplace retaliation. However, this was not the case; he did not receive workplace protection, so he pursued legal action. As the result of the lawsuit filed by Justin Hopson, the state attorney general’s office conducted an investigation into the state police and found only seven officers guilty of harassment. Punishments ranged from reprimands to 45-day suspensions. The report also concluded no evidence of the Lords of Discipline existed. William H. Buckman, Hopson’s lawyer, said that the state had tacitly endorsed the Lords of Discipline by denying its existence. As proof, Buckman pointed to the testimonies of Hopson and all the other troopers who complained (New York Times, 2007). Unfortunately, in the case of Justin Hopson, whistleblowing protection did not