South Carolina Cases August 15, 2024: Parks v. S.C. Criminal Justice Acad.

Case Description

1

ORDER OF REMAND

Ralph King Anderson, III Chief Administrative Law Judge

This matter comes before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC Court) pursuant to an appeal by Keith Parks (Appellant) from the decision of the Law Enforcement Training Council (LETC), which permanently denied Appellant's law enforcement certification in the State of South Carolina. The ALC has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to section 23-23-150 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023) and section 1-23-600(E) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023). Upon consideration of the briefs and the Record, I conclude the matter must be remanded to the LETC.

BACKGROUND

In September of 2021, Appellant was employed as a police officer with the Pine Ridge Police Department (Department). While employed, Appellant received a complaint regarding his conduct that resulted in the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) conducting an investigation that began in March 2020. Thereafter, on April 29, 2020, Frankie Neeley, on behalf of the Department, submitted a Personnel Change in Status (PCS) Report indicating Appellant's separation from the Department. However, almost immediately after, Mr. Neeley was informed of the SLED investigation and, on May 1, 2020, submitted a second POS form indicating the separation was routine, but Appellant was under investigation. As a result of the investigation, on October 30, 2020, the Department, through Mayor Robert M. Wells, Jr., of Pine Ridge, reported Appellant was terminated due to misconduct to the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in a

2

third POS form. Mayor Wells specifically stated Appellant was terminated for willfully making a false, misleading, incomplete, deceitful, or incorrect statement to a law enforcement officer or agency in violation of section 23-23-150(A)(3)(i) of the South Carolina Code. On November 12, 2020, the Criminal Justice Academy served Appellant with its misconduct allegation. A contested case hearing was held on January 6, 2021. Mayor Robert Wells, Lt. Carroll W. Bledsoe, Jr., Chief Terrence Green of the Lexington Police Department, Agent Tricia Stoner of SLED, Elizabeth Sturkie, and Frankie Neeley testified at the hearing. On May 27, 2021, the Hearing Officer issued his findings and recommendation.

The Hearing Officer's recommendation included, in part, sections entitled "Documentary and Testimonial Evidence," "Analysis," and "Recommended Findings of Fact." In the "Analysis" section, the Hearing Officer concluded that the LETC was given the authority to determine when extenuating circumstances exist under section 23-23-150(F) and that when the LETC accepted the POS on November 12, 2020, it made a determination of extenuating circumstances. The Hearing Officer also concluded that circumstantial evidence supported a finding that Appellant committed misconduct. Specifically, the Hearing Officer concluded that the evidence adduced reasonably supported the Department's allegation that, in the course of applying for employment, Appellant willfully made false, misleading, incomplete, deceitful, or incorrect statements pursuant to section 23-23-150(A)(3)(i). In evaluating whether the statements were willful, the Hearing Officer looked to Black's Law Dictionary, which defined "willful" as "[v]oluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious. A voluntary act becomes willful, in law, only when it involves conscious wrong or evil purpose on the part of the actor, or at least inexcusable carelessness, whether the act is right or wrong . . . ." Willful , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

As a result of his analysis, the Hearing Officer recommended the LETC issue the following findings of fact:

1. The allegations of misconduct against Keith Parks, as reported in the Personnel Change in Status Report (Notification of Separation Due to Misconduct) to the Criminal Justice Academy (Academy) by the Pine Ridge Police Department (Department), are supported by the evidence adduced at the contested case hearing on January 6, 2021; and

2. The Department has met its burden of showing by "substantial evidence" that Keith Parks engaged in misconduct by "[w]illfully making false, misleading, incomplete, deceitful, or incorrect statements to a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement agency, or a representative of the agency, except when required by departmental policy or by the laws of this State."

3

The Hearing Officer also recommended the LETC issue the following conclusions of law:

1. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-23-80 (6), the South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council ("Council") is authorized, inter alia , to "provide for suspension, revocation, or restriction" of law enforcement certification in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Council;

2. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 37-025, Council may deny law enforcement certification "based on evidence satisfactory to the Council that the candidate has engaged in misconduct";

3. A review of the record in this matter discloses substantial evidence that Keith Parks committed misconduct, as defined in S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-23-150 (A) (3) (g), by "[w]illfully making false, misleading, incomplete, deceitful, or incorrect statements to a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement agency, or a representative of the agency, except when required by departmental policy or by the laws of this State," as was alleged and reported to the Academy by the Department; and

4. The misconduct allegations against Keith Parks reported by the Pine Ridge Police Department should be deemed supported by substantial evidence.

On July 21, 2021, the LETC met to discuss Appellant's case and voted to adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendations and to permanently deny Appellant law enforcement certification. The Final Agency Decision was issued on August 30, 2021. In the Final Decision, the LETC included, almost word for word, the Hearing Officer's recitation of testimony set forth in the section entitled "Documentary and Testimonial Evidence." The LETC also included the Hearing Officer's recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the LETC did not include the Hearing Officer's analysis section when it issued its decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

According to section 23-23-150(D) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023), the LETC enters the final agency decision. "Review by an administrative law judge of a final decision in a contested case, heard in the appellate jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Court, must be in the same manner as prescribed in Section 1-23-380 for judicial review of final agency decisions . . . ." S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(E) (Supp. 2023). Section 1-23-380(5) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023) provides the standard used by appellate bodies to review agency decisions. See § 1-23-600(D) (directing administrative law judges to conduct appellate review in the same manner prescribed in section 1-23-380). That section states:

The court may reverse or modify the decision [of an agency] if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,

4

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.

§ 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)). When applying the substantial evidence rule, the factual findings of the administrative agency are presumed to be correct. Rodney v. Michelin Tire Co ., 320 S.C. 515, 519, 466 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1996). Furthermore, the reviewing court is prohibited from substituting its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Grant v. S.C. Coastal Council , 319 S.C 348, 353, 461 S.E.2d 388, 391 (1995). Finally, the party challenging an agency action has the burden of proving convincingly that the agency's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence. Waters , 321 S.C. at 226, 467 S.E.2d at 917.

DISCUSSION

Here, the LETC's Final Agency Decision recounts verbatim the hearing officer's recitation of the testimony presented, but it contains no analysis supporting its grossly conclusory findings of fact. "An administrative body must make findings which are sufficiently detailed to enable

5

this Court to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been applied properly to those findings." Porter v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm 'n, 333 S.C. 12, 21, 507 S.E.2d 328, 332 (1998) (emphasis added); S.C. Code Ann. § 58-9-1160 (1976). Although an administrative agency is not required to present its findings of fact and reasoning in any particular format, it is better practice is to present them in an organized and regimented manner. Id. Furthermore, "a recital of conflicting testimony followed by a general conclusion is patently insufficient to enable a reviewing court to address the issues." Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, "[w]here material facts are in dispute, the administrative body must make specific, express findings of fact ." Id. (emphasis added); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-350 (2005) ("Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings.").

In this case, the LETC's decision is based upon findings of fact that are so conclusory, they merely state that substantial evidence supports the allegations of misconduct. The decision does not state which specific facts were relied upon or why the facts relied upon indicated misconduct. The Court is left without any ability to determine what specific testimony or other evidence the LETC relied on when making its findings. As Porter instructs, the LETC s recitation of testimony followed by general conclusions is "patently insufficient" to enable this Court to review the LETC's decision. Porter, 333 S.C. at 21, 507 S.E.2d at 332. Because the LETC's findings of fact are insufficient, the Court cannot determine if substantial evidence supports the decision.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the matter is REMANDED to the Law Enforcement Training Council to redraft its final agency decision in compliance with this Order and Porter.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.