Miss. Dep't of Public Safety Bd. On Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00330-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-21-2011 Opinion Author: Judge Barnes Holding: Reversed and rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Reinstatement of certification - Due process - Board’s authority - Doctrine of laches - Recall of certification Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-04-2010 Appealed from: Leflore County Chancery Court Judge: Jon M. Barnwell Disposition: REVERSED BOARD’S REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION AND REMANDED FOR A HEARING Case Number: G08-0157 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Department of Public Safety Board On Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training |
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Augustus Johnson | ALSEE MCDANIEL | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Reinstatement of certification - Due process - Board’s authority - Doctrine of laches - Recall of certification |
| Summary of the Facts: | After pleading guilty in 1999 to a felony charge of embezzlement, Augustus Johnson, a police officer with the Itta Bena Police Department, was discharged from employment. Pursuant to regulations, his certification as a law-enforcement officer was returned to the Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training for the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. Nine years later, Johnson applied for a position as a patrol officer with the Mississippi Valley State University campus police, which requested that the Board reinstate Johnson’s certification. The Board denied the request. Johnson appealed the Board’s decision, and after a hearing, the Board recalled Johnson’s certification. Johnson appealed to chancery court which reversed the Board’s decision and remanded for a de novo hearing. The Board appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process The chancery court reversed the Board’s decision and remanded for a hearing to afford Johnson an opportunity to present additional evidence for consideration by the Board. However, the Board argues that Johnson was provided appropriate due process and a chance to present such evidence at the hearing. Administrative agencies must afford minimal due process consisting of notice and an opportunity to be heard. In the Board’s letter notifying Johnson of the denial of his request for certification, the Board informed him of the opportunity to request a hearing before the Board, which Johnson promptly submitted. Furthermore, at the start of the hearing, the Board asked Johnson if he understood the opportunity to have counsel, bring people to speak, submit documents and other related materials, and Johnson indicated he did. Johnson then proceeded to testify regarding his successful completion of the pre-trial diversion program and the expungement of his criminal record. Johnson also presented a witness, the former Itta Bena deputy chief of police. Thus, the Board afforded Johnson sufficient due process prior to the recall of his certification. The Board also contends that it was not required to conduct a hearing to recall Johnson’s certification. Nowhere in the Board’s policy regulations does it require that the Board conduct a hearing for those actions outlined in section 102.05. Issue 2: Board’s authority The Board argues that it has “ample statutory authority . . . to determine whether or not to reactivate and/or revoke a certificate[,]” and its decision to recall Johnson’s certificate was supported by such authority. It is apparent from the statutes and regulations that the Board has considerable discretion as to its actions regarding a returned certification. The Board’s policy manual states that a certification may be inactivated, reassigned to a new officer, revoked, or the Board might simply delay any consideration. Johnson’s main argument is that since his hearing was, unbeknownst to him, for the recall and cancellation of his certification, it warranted a different standard of review by the Board. However, Johnson has not cited to any authority to support this assertion, nor has he shown how the hearing would have been conducted differently. Issue 3: Doctrine of laches The Board argues that the doctrine of laches does not bar the Board’s actions. The doctrine of laches prevents one from pursuing a claim after an inordinate and unjustified delay that works to the disadvantage of the responding party. Nothing in the Board’s regulations required the Board to conduct a hearing or take immediate action on Johnson’s certification that was returned. Also, Johnson suffered no prejudice from the Board’s failure to take action until 2008. It was Johnson’s decision not to attempt to re-enter law enforcement for nine years, likely due to his desire to have his record expunged before doing so. Also, it is a well-settled principle that a governmental entity is not charged with the laches of its officials. Issue 4: Recall of certification The Board argues that the chancery court’s reversal of the Board’s decision to recall Johnson’s certification was an abuse of discretion. The chancery court’s assumption that a “de facto” recall of Johnson’s certification occurred prior to the hearing is not based on any evidence in the record. The Board has the discretion under statutory and policy regulations to take a variety of actions regarding a certificate, including delaying consideration, inactivation, or revocation. Nowhere does it state that the failure by the Board to take affirmative action on a returned certificate constitutes a “de facto” recall. Johnson clearly failed to uphold the “Law Enforcement Code of Ethics,” contained in the Board’s Policy and Procedures Manual. Accordingly, the Board was well within its authority and discretion to recall Johnson’s certification, and its decision was supported by the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
