Becker v. Sunset City
2013 UT 51
Utah2013Background
- Stewart Becker, a Sunset City police officer, reported for a second shift and smelled of alcohol; he admitted drinking and used a portable breath test (PBT) that read .045.
- Becker asked to wait until sober and use his own PBT; supervisors removed him from duty and later terminated him for reporting with a BAC of .045 in violation of Sunset City policies.
- Sunset City policy defines “under the influence” to include a BAC of 0.04 or greater and generally requires urine testing, but the manual allows deviation when circumstances require.
- At the appeals hearing, the PBT .045 reading and testimony about PBT accuracy were undisputed; a trooper testified PBTs often read slightly lower than an intoxilyzer/blood test.
- The Sunset City Board of Appeals and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the termination; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari on PBT sufficiency and applicability of Utah Code § 34-38-7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PBT result provided substantial evidence to support termination | Becker: PBTs do not directly measure blood alcohol and .045 is too close to .04 to justify termination | Sunset City: PBT reading and evidence of its accuracy sufficiently indicate BAC ≥ .04 to trigger policy | Held: PBT reading and supporting evidence constitute substantial evidence that BAC met the policy threshold; termination upheld |
| Whether Utah Code § 34-38-7 barred city from deviating from its urine-testing policy | Becker: § 34-38-7 requires testing per a written policy, so deviation was prohibited | Sunset City: deviation was justified by operational necessity (single officer on duty) | Held: § 34-38-7 does not apply to municipalities/local political subdivisions; city not prohibited from deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ivory Homes, Ltd. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 266 P.3d 751 (Utah 2011) (defines substantial-evidence standard)
- Prinsburg State Bank v. Abundo, 296 P.3d 709 (Utah 2012) (review of court of appeals decisions on certiorari)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (due process protections for property interests in continued public employment)
- Utah Ass’n of Cntys. v. Tax Comm’n ex rel. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 895 P.2d 819 (Utah 1995) (deference in substantial-evidence review; fact-finder resolves conflicting inferences)
- Johnson v. Bd. of Review of Indus. Comm’n, 842 P.2d 910 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (substantial-evidence is more than a scintilla)
- State v. Manwaring, 268 P.3d 201 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (noting close correspondence between PBT and blood test readings)