In re the Certifiability of Jarman
2015 SD 8
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Brett Jarman applied for Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training Commission certification to be eligible as a candidate for county sheriff; application disclosed prior arrests (aggravated assault, simple assault, disorderly conduct).
- The Commission issued notice of a contested hearing addressing a 2010 domestic incident and alleged falsification of an employment application; hearing occurred March 19, 2014.
- At the hearing the Commission heard conflicting live testimony from the alleged victim (Walleska Serafín) and Jarman (plus two character witnesses); Serafín testified Jarman kicked her causing a knee injury that required surgery; Jarman denied kicking her and described a different physical contact.
- After deliberation the Commission found Jarman had kicked Serafín as she described and denied certification for lack of the required "good moral character." Jarman appealed to circuit court, which affirmed; he appealed to the Supreme Court.
- Jarman argued (1) the Commission improperly relied on "expunged conduct" (he had been acquitted and related records expunged) and (2) the Commission’s findings were not supported by the proper burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Jarman's Argument | Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "expunged conduct" may be used to deny certification | Consideration is improper; acquittal/expungement means conduct should not be used | Commission may consider underlying conduct (distinct from expunged legal status) when assessing moral character | Court: Permissible — expungement affects legal status, not underlying conduct; Commission may consider conduct when assessing good moral character |
| Proper evidentiary standard for agency finding on certification | Agency and lower court used clear-and-convincing; Jarman argued higher standard not appropriate for initial certification | Agency applied clear-and-convincing but rules require preponderance for such applications | Court: Use preponderance of the evidence for initial certification; Commission’s factual credibility findings withstand review and preponderance was met |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y, 816 N.W.2d 843 (S.D. 2012) (standard of appellate review for agency decisions)
- Kermmoade v. Quality Inn, 612 N.W.2d 583 (S.D. 2000) (agency-review framework cited)
- Williams v. S.D. Dep’t of Agric., 779 N.W.2d 397 (S.D. 2010) (reversal standard for agency factual findings)
- Wright v. Tenn. Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm’n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (expungement erases legal status but does not erase underlying conduct)
- Kent v. Lyon, 555 N.W.2d 106 (S.D. 1996) (explaining higher clear-and-convincing standard applies to license revocation, not initial licensing)
- In re Zar, 434 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 1989) (announcing higher standard for license revocation proceedings)
- Green v. City of Sioux Falls, 607 N.W.2d 43 (S.D. 2000) (law enforcement expected to meet high standards of conduct)