Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council
| Decision Date | 10 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20200329-CA |
| Citation | 507 P.3d 838 |
| Parties | Charles HOFFMAN, Petitioner, v. PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING COUNCIL, Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Jeremy G. Jones, Sandy, and Richard Willie, Attorneys for Petitioner
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Catherine F. Jordan, Attorneys for Respondent
Opinion
¶1 The Peace Officer Standards and Training Act (the Act) permits the decertification of a peace officer who "refuses to respond, or fails to respond truthfully, to questions after having been issued a warning issued based on Garrity v. New Jersey , 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967)." Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211(1)(d) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). Petitioner Charles Hoffman was decertified under this provision and now seeks judicial review. We decline to disturb Hoffman's decertification.
¶2 Prior to his decertification, Hoffman worked as a police officer for the Box Elder County Sheriff's Office (Box Elder). In May 2018, Hoffman learned that a neighboring law enforcement agency had been tasked with investigating an incident involving one of his fellow officers. Hoffman was not on good terms with the officer involved and, despite being prohibited from doing so, approached several officers from the neighboring agency and asked them about the investigation. Three of these officers reported Hoffman to their superiors, and word eventually reached Box Elder.
¶3 In response to those reports, Hoffman was interviewed by two of his superior officers on May 31, 2018. At the outset of the interview, Hoffman received a written statement of rights, captioned, "Box Elder County Sheriff Garrity Warning." The statement indicated that Hoffman was "to fully cooperate with the investigating official(s)" and that Hoffman's statements could "be used as evidence of misconduct or as the basis for seeking disciplinary action." It further provided, "Any statements made by you during these interviews cannot be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding, nor can the fruits of any of your statements be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding." One of Hoffman's superiors read the statement aloud to him, and Hoffman signed an acknowledgment of understanding.
¶4 Hoffman's superiors then asked whether he had discussed the officer-involved incident with anyone from the neighboring agency. Hoffman stated that the investigation had come up in conversation with two officers, but he denied having asked them for any specific information.
¶5 Hoffman was later re-interviewed after his superiors confirmed the stories of the officers who had reported him. This time, Hoffman admitted to discussing the investigation with four additional officers. He also indicated that he had asked the officers for the date and time of the incident, along with the name of the investigating officer. Based on those admissions, Box Elder gave Hoffman notice of potential discipline, but Hoffman left the agency before any discipline occurred.
¶6 Hoffman's case was then referred to the Division of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) for further action. Under the Act, POST "is responsible for investigating officers ... alleged to have engaged in" certain enumerated acts of misconduct. Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211(3)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). If POST believes that any of those acts have occurred, it "shall initiate [an] adjudicative proceeding[ ] ... by providing to the peace officer ... notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an administrative law judge" (ALJ). Id. § 53-6-211(3)(b). Then, if the ALJ finds that there is clear and convincing evidence of misconduct, POST must present the ALJ's decision to the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (the Council), which, in turn, makes the ultimate decision regarding "whether to suspend or revoke the officer's certification."2 Id. § 53-6-211(3)(d)–(e), (4)(a) (LexisNexis 2015).
¶7 POST initiated an adjudicative proceeding against Hoffman nearly a year after receiving Box Elder's referral, citing Hoffman's untruthful responses during the May 31st interview and "recommending that [Hoffman's] peace officer certification be revoked" under what is now subsection 53-6-211(1)(d) of the Act (Subsection (d)).3 Under Subsection (d), the Council may decertify an officer who "refuses to respond, or fails to respond truthfully, to questions after having been issued a warning issued based on Garrity v. New Jersey , 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967)." Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211(1)(d) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). Hoffman promptly obtained legal counsel, denied the allegations, and requested a formal hearing under the Act.
¶8 After the hearing, the ALJ found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Hoffman had given "incomplete and inaccurate information" to his superiors during "the May 31st Garrity interview." Consequently, the ALJ concluded that Hoffman had committed misconduct as set forth in Subsection (d) and, therefore, agreed with POST's recommendation that Hoffman be decertified. Following a review hearing, the Council adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law and revoked Hoffman's peace officer certification.
¶9 Hoffman seeks judicial review.
¶10 Hoffman raises "two broad issues in this case relating to statutory interpretation and application." He contends (1) that Subsection (d) is "unconstitutionally vague," and (2) that the Council "act[ed] beyond the jurisdiction conferred [on] it under" the Act.4
¶11 "The interpretation and constitutionality of a statute are questions of law that we review for correctness." Waite v. Utah Labor Comm'n , 2017 UT 86, ¶ 5, 416 P.3d 635. This same standard applies to our review of the Council's application of the statute. See Avis v. Board of Review Indus. Comm'n , 837 P.2d 584, 586 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) ().
¶12 In Garrity v. New Jersey , 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967), the Supreme Court held that a police officer's "statements obtained under threat of removal" are inadmissible "in subsequent criminal proceedings." Id. at 500, 87 S.Ct. 616. The case arose after several New Jersey police officers were criminally convicted for fixing traffic tickets. Id. at 495, 87 S.Ct. 616. Prior to their convictions, each officer had been interviewed by the State, and each was informed "that, if they refused to answer [the investigators’ questions], they could lose their positions with the police department." Id. The prosecution then used the officers’ statements against them at trial on their criminal charges. Id. The Supreme Court condemned this practice, recognizing that the State had effectively forced each officer to choose between continued employment and exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which "disable[d] him from making a free and rational choice." See id. at 497, 87 S.Ct. 616 (cleaned up). Accordingly, because the officers’ "statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning," they were inadmissible in a later criminal proceeding. Id. at 497, 500, 87 S.Ct. 616 (cleaned up).
¶13 "In response to [ Garrity ], police departments routinely engage in the practice of advising officers who are the subject of an internal investigation that their answers will not be used in any criminal prosecution ...." Dinger v. Department of Workforce Services , 2013 UT App 59, ¶ 33, 300 P.3d 313. Utah cases refer to these warnings as " Garrity warnings." See Macfarlane v. Career Service Review Office , 2019 UT App 133, ¶ 14, 450 P.3d 87 ; Dinger , 2013 UT App 59, ¶ 33, 300 P.3d 313 ; Kelly v. Salt Lake City Civil Service Comm'n , 2000 UT App 235, ¶ 32 n.9, 8 P.3d 1048. Such warnings remove the coercive pressure that the Supreme Court condemned, while still allowing police departments to compel officers "to answer questions concerning their conduct ... in a noncriminal investigation." See Harmon v. Ogden City Civil Service Comm'n , 2007 UT App 336, ¶ 17, 171 P.3d 474 ; see also Kelly , 2000 UT App 235, ¶ 32 n.9, 8 P.3d 1048.
¶14 All peace officers in Utah must meet certain minimum standards and be certified by POST. See Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-205 (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). Section 53-6-211(1) of the Act gives the Council the authority to revoke that certification if an officer engages in certain types of misconduct. Critical to this appeal, Subsection (d) applies where an officer "refuses to respond, or fails to respond truthfully, to questions after having been issued a warning issued based on Garrity v. New Jersey , 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967)." See id. § 53-6-211(1)(d). Hoffman argues that Subsection (d) is unconstitutionally vague, and that the Council lacked jurisdiction to decertify him based on his responses during the May 31st interview. We address each argument in turn.
¶15 Hoffman argues that Subsection (d) is unconstitutionally vague because of "two glaring ambiguities": (1) it fails to dictate "the form that a Garrity warning may take," and (2) it fails to identify "the actor who must administer the Garrity warning to trigger the statute."5 Neither of these alleged deficiencies renders Subsection (d) vague as applied to Hoffman's conduct.
¶16 "Vagueness questions are essentially procedural due process issues, i.e., whether the statute adequately notices the proscribed conduct." State v. Frampton , 737 P.2d 183, 191–92 (Utah 1987). A law is void for vagueness "when its prohibition is so vague as to leave an individual without knowledge of the nature of the activity that is prohibited." See State v. Mattinson , 2007 UT 7, ¶ 9, 152 P.3d 300 (cleaned up). Conversely, a law is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial