South Carolina Cases October 12, 2022: Darby v. S.C. Criminal Justice Acad.

Case Description

1

FINAL ORDER

S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or court) pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed on February 9, 2022 by Malanie Darby (Appellant). The Appellant is appealing the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy's (SCCJA or Respondent) decision to permanently deny her a law enforcement certification in South Carolina.

BACKGROUND

On March 22, 2021, the Respondent received a Personnel Change in Status Report (PCS) Notification of Separation Due to Misconduct from the Goose Creek Police Department (Department) following the Appellant's termination as an officer with the Department. The PCS informed the Appellant that she was terminated for misconduct as defined in S.C. Code Ann. § 23-23-150(A)(3)(a) as conviction, plea of guilty, plea of no contest or admission of guilt to a felony, a crime punishable by a sentence of more than one year, or a crime of moral tuipitude, and S.C. Code Reg. 37-025, for willfully providing false, misleading, incomplete, deceitful, or incorrect information on a document, record, report, or form. The factual description provided in the PCS alleged that the Appellant had, on several occasions, asked other on-duty officers to drive to several locations to conduct surveillance on her boyfriend and her boyfriend's spouse. The Appellant also accessed the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles database to perform license or registration checks on her boyfriend and the boyfriend's spouse.

A contested case hearing was held on July 15, 2021. The Hearing Officer accepted into evidence the following: Personnel Change in Status Report (Notification of Separation Due to Misconduct) and Correspondence of Criminal Justice Academy; copy of text messages, e-mail correspondences from the Appellant's colleagues, the Appellant's typed Statement, e-mail

2

statement from the Appellant's colleague, and guidelines and policies. The Hearing Officer also accepted testimony from the following personnel: Thomas Richard Hill, Austin Rogers, Jessie Cramer, Mindy Waites, Danielle Fowler, and Lindsey Wright.

On October 13, 2021, the Hearing Officer issued his recommendation to the Law Enforcement Training Council (LETC or Council). The Hearing Officer found that substantial evidence supported the allegation that the Appellant committed misconduct by having willfully provided false, misleading, incomplete, deceitful, or incorrect information on a document, record, report, or form. However, the Hearing Officer found that the allegation the Appellant engaged in misconduct due to a conviction, plea of no contest, or admission of guilt to a felony, a crime punishable by a sentence of more than one year, or a crime of moral turpitude, was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Hearing Officer recommended that the LETC issue its final agency decision, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 37-107D finding that the allegation of misconduct filed against the Appellant by the Department has been proven by substantial evidence and impose such sanction as the LETC in its discretion deems appropriate pursuant to its authority set forth in S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 37-108A.

On November 15, 2021, the LETC met, and the parties were given the opportunity to present oral arguments. The LETC heard arguments, reviewed the Hearing Officer's recommendations and the hearing transcript and exhibits. The LETC then voted to adopt the Hearing Officer's Recommendation. On December 22, 2021, the LETC issued its final decision finding substantial evidence exists that the Appellant committed misconduct, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-23-150(A)(3)(a), by either being convicted of, pleading guilty, pleading no contest, or making an admission of guilt, regardless of withheld adjudication, to a felony, a crime punishable by a sentence of more than one year, regardless of the sentence actually imposed, or a crime of moral turpitude as alleged and reported by the Department. Therefore, the LETC found that pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 37-025, satisfactory evidence exists to support the denial of the Appellant's eligibility for certification as a law enforcement office in the State of South Carolina. The Appellant timely appealed this decision to the ALC.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy (SCCJA) is governed by the Law Enforcement Training Council (LETC or Council). S.C. Code Ann. § 23-23-20. The Council has the power to "certify and train qualified candidates and applicants for law enforcement officers

3

and provide for suspension, revocation, or restriction of the certification, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the council." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-23-80(6). The ALC has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a final decision of the SCCJA pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. S.C. Code Ann. §11. -23-600(D). Under the appellate standard of the Administrative Procedures Act, the court's review in appellate cases is limited to the record, absent irregularities in the procedure of the agency. S.C. Code Ami. § 1-23-380(4). Additionally,

The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(c) made upon unlawful procedure;

(d) affected by other error of law;

(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5).

A decision is supported by substantial evidence when the record as a whole allows reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion as the agency. Friends of the Earth v. Pub. Serv. Comm 'n of S.C, 387 S.C. 360, 366, 692 S.E.2d 910, 913 (2010). The fact that the record, when considered as a whole, presents the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence. Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm 'n, 321 S.C. 219, 226, 467 S.E.2d 913, 917 (1996). In applying the substantial evidence rule, "a reviewing court will not overturn a finding of fact by an administrative agency 'unless there is no reasonable probability that the facts could be as related by a witness upon whose testimony the finding was based.'" Sea Pines Ass'n for Prot. of Wildlife, Inc. v. S.C Dep't of Natural Res., 345 S.C. 594, 603-04, 550 S.E.2d 287, 292 (2001) (quoting Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 136, 276 S.E.2d 304, 307 (1981)).

4

DISCUSSION

The LETC permanently denied the Appellant's certification as a law enforcement officer in South Carolina based on its determination that the Appellant committed misconduct.

S.C. Code Reg. 37-025 provides, in relevant part:

A. The Council may deny certification based on evidence satisfactory to the Council that the candidate has engaged in misconduct.

The LETC's determination that the allegations of misconduct against the Appellant as reported in the PCS Report (Notification of Separation Due to Misconduct) provided to the SCCJA by the Department are supported by substantial evidence introduced at the contested case hearing on June 8,2021, and that the said allegations are deemed to be proven by the evidence.

ORDER

This court finds that the LETC acted within its scope of authority in denying the Appellant a law enforcement certification in South Carolina based on the finding that the Appellant committed misconduct.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Law Enforcement Training Council is AFFIRMED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.