589 S.W.3d 560
Mo.2019Background
- On Sept. 26, 2013, Justin O’Brien (a licensed peace officer) assaulted his then-wife—pushing, choking, and hitting her in front of others, including a small child.
- O’Brien pleaded guilty to peace disturbance (§ 574.010); sentence was suspended and he completed probation.
- The Director of the Department of Public Safety filed a complaint under § 590.080; the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) found cause to discipline under § 590.080.1(2), concluding O’Brien committed peace disturbance and third‑degree domestic assault.
- By statute the AHC determines whether cause exists (factfinding) but not the severity of discipline; the Director holds a separate hearing to set discipline and permanently revoked O’Brien’s peace officer license after a hearing.
- O’Brien appealed, arguing (1) § 590.080.1(2) violates separation of powers by letting an administrative body determine commission of a criminal offense, and (2) the Director’s revocation was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 590.080.1(2) violates separation of powers by authorizing the AHC to determine that a peace officer "committed any criminal offense" | O’Brien: AHC (executive) cannot decide whether a criminal offense was committed; that is a judicial function | State: AHC only makes a factual finding whether conduct fits a statutory offense for licensing purposes; it does not convict or impose criminal punishment | Court: Statute constitutional — AHC factfinding does not usurp judicial power to adjudicate criminal liability |
| Whether Director’s permanent revocation is supported by competent and substantial evidence | O’Brien: Record shows rehabilitation, military service, positive testimony — insufficient evidence to justify permanent revocation | State: Record contains credible evidence of violent domestic conduct (involving a child) and Director may reasonably conclude public protection requires revocation | Court: Affirmed — AHC findings and Director’s revocation are supported by competent and substantial evidence; Director’s disciplinary discretion upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Younge v. State Board of Registration for Healing Arts, 451 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1969) (licensing revocations are regulatory, not criminal; double jeopardy inapplicable)
- City of Springfield v. Belt, 307 S.W.3d 649 (Mo. banc 2010) (municipality lacked statutory authority to create administrative adjudication for traffic violations)
- St. Louis Cnty. v. Prestige Travel, Inc., 344 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. banc 2011) (statutes enjoy strong presumption of constitutionality; challenges reviewed de novo)
- Bird v. Mo. Bd. of Architects, Prof’l Eng’rs, Prof’l Land Surveyors & Landscape Architects, 259 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. banc 2008) (appellate review examines agency decision, defers to agency credibility findings)
- Psychcare Mgmt., Inc. v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Div. of Med. Servs., 980 S.W.2d 311 (Mo. banc 1998) (reviewing courts may not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for the agency’s)
- Cocktail Fortune, Inc. v. Supervisor of Liquor Control, 994 S.W.2d 955 (Mo. banc 1999) (administrative body lacks authority to declare a statute unconstitutional)
- Nichols v. Blake, 418 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. 1967) (guilty plea is admissible as a declaration against interest)