530 P.3d 557
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- Corey Brindley was a Logan City wastewater inspector in a DOT-covered, safety-sensitive position subject to random alcohol testing.
- In Dec. 2018 Brindley had a prior positive alcohol screen (.029) and was allowed to return to work per policy. On Dec. 9, 2021 he was tested again; machine-recorded results reflected .017 (initial) and .014 (confirmation).
- The technician who administered the tests (Technician) could not produce printed receipts; Technician completed and signed a DOT Alcohol Testing Form and allegedly emailed a statement about the test, but Technician did not appear at the Board hearing.
- Technician’s supervisor (Supervisor) read an email attributed to Technician and testified by Zoom about calibration and memory-recall results; Supervisor did not administer the test and acknowledged possible administration errors (e.g., foreign matter in the mouth) could affect accuracy.
- Brindley testified he used chewing tobacco the morning of testing and that Technician did not inspect his mouth; evidence suggested chewing tobacco could affect breathalyzer readings.
- The Logan City Employee Appeals Board upheld Brindley’s termination in a brief two-sentence ruling without findings; Brindley petitioned the Court of Appeals, which set aside the Board’s decision for violating his statutory right to confront witnesses and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Brindley’s Argument | Logan’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brindley’s statutory right to confront witnesses was violated | Board considered testimonial material attributed to Technician but denied opportunity to confront/cross-examine Technician | Technician’s absence was unavoidable; Board could consider substitute testimony and written statements; Brindley waived any right by not securing Technician | Held for Brindley: statute grants right to confront adverse witnesses; considering Technician’s statement and form without Technician present violated that right; decision set aside |
| Whether the Board properly relied on the breath test results despite Technician’s absence | Brindley: Board implicitly relied on Technician’s certification to establish test reliability, but Technician was not available to confirm proper administration; chewing tobacco may have invalidated results | Logan: Supervisor and other testimony (machine calibration, memory recall, general procedures) supported result reliability | Held for Brindley: Board must not rely on testimonial evidence it refuses to admit live for confrontation; record did not reliably establish correct administration |
| Whether Logan’s interpretation that any measurable alcohol is a “positive result” was enforceable | Brindley: Policy is vague; Handbook doesn’t define “positive” as any measurable amount; DOT thresholds differ | Logan: longstanding city practice of no-tolerance and Handbook procedures justified termination | Court did not decide on merits of this policy because resolution on confrontation ground was dispositive |
| Whether the Board’s two-sentence ruling without findings was adequate | Brindley: Lack of findings on material facts (reliability, procedures, chewing tobacco) made decision arbitrary and prevented meaningful review | Logan: Implicit reliance on evidence sufficed | Court noted inadequate findings and observed the deficiency could independently render the decision arbitrary, but relied primarily on the confrontation violation to set aside the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. St. George City Council, 427 P.3d 423 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (when due-process implicated, appellate review is for correctness)
- Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (statutory interpretation follows plain language to discern legislative intent)
- State v. Isom, 354 P.3d 791 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (discussion of confrontation and interpreting statutory language regarding witness confrontation)
- Envirocare of Utah v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 201 P.3d 982 (Utah 2009) (use of common usage to define statutory terms)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial evidence and requirement of confrontation/cross-examination)
- One 1980 Cadillac, 21 P.3d 212 (Utah 2001) (Sixth Amendment confrontation applies to criminal prosecutions; statutory/administrative confrontation distinct)
- Northern Monticello All. LLC v. San Juan County, 526 P.3d 829 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (agency failure to make adequate findings renders decision arbitrary and capricious)