Benson v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council
2011 UT App 220
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Benson, a former peace officer, sought POST recertification after leaving a prior corrections role.
- Garn told Benson he need not recertify if he maintained reserve officer status 2000–2004; Lucey provided a memo suggesting reserve status.
- Garn issued a 2003 letter certifying Benson as certifiable; 2004 re-employment followed.
- 2005 audit questions revealed inconsistencies; investigation suggested Benson’s reserve status wasn’t supported, rendering his certification potentially invalid.
- ALJ found Benson willfully submitted falsified information to obtain certification; POST Council adopted findings asserting lapsing and nonrecertification.
- Court ultimately affirmed lapse and nonrecertification while reversing the willful falsification finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable estoppel against the State | Benson relied on POST’s certification to his detriment. | Estoppel requires extraordinary facts; Benson aided and was partially responsible for the misunderstanding. | Equitable estoppel fails; no manifest injustice due to Benson's own role in the misunderstanding. |
| Willful falsification finding support | ALJ’s willful falsification finding not supported by the record. | Benson furnished or caused falsified information. | Reversed; no evidence Benson affirmatively misstated reserve status or submitted the Lucey Memo himself. |
| Disparate treatment argument | Lucey escaped similar recertification penalties while Benson did not. | Lucey’s status differed; Benson’s certification lapsed, justifying denial. | Not substantially prejudicial; no demonstrated similarly situated comparator; argument rejected. |
| Departure from prior practice on waiver exams | POST had allowed others to take waiver exams after lapses, so Benson’s denial was inconsistent. | Audit-directed policy realignment; Benson’s circumstances unique; time limits and statutory basis apply. | Not contrary to prior practice; rational basis supports denial of reinstatement by waiver exam. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Career Serv. Review Bd., 856 P.2d 678 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (equitable estoppel against state requires unusual circumstances)
- Anderson v. Public Service Comm'n, 839 P.2d 822 (Utah 1992) (written representations by authorized government entities create estoppel)
- Morgan v. Board of State Lands, 549 P.2d 695 (Utah 1976) (estoppel requires faultless reliance; delusion by wrongdoer)
- Road Runner Oil, Inc. v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2003 UT App 275 (Utah App. 2003) (relied on agency practice; rational basis for departures)
- Taylor v. Department of Commerce, 952 P.2d 1090 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (prima facie case to show agency practice deviation)