Krueger v. North Carolina Criminal Justice Education & Training Standards Commission
230 N.C. App. 293
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Jay Krueger, a Raleigh Police officer, admitted signing Form SMI-15 for two officers certifying radar training they had not completed.
- The North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission initiated certification action; rules allowed a mandatory five-year suspension for such misconduct but permitted reduction or probation after hearing.
- The Commission reduced the sanction and imposed a 180-day suspension instead of a five-year suspension; Petitioner claimed he should have been offered a consent agreement with lesser sanctions.
- After remand and additional discovery about ~30 other officer cases, an ALJ and the Commission found Krueger’s conduct violated the regulations and that similarly situated officers were treated alike.
- Superior Court affirmed the final agency decision; Krueger appealed arguing violations of due process and equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency had to make findings explaining refusal to offer a consent agreement | Krueger: agency violated due process by not making findings explaining why it declined a consent agreement | Commission: no legal requirement to make findings about sanctions it did not impose; agency made ample findings supporting suspension | Court: No finding required about declined sanctions; existing findings support suspension and comport with authority |
| Whether agency’s discretion to grant consent agreements is unconstitutional (void for vagueness/unfettered discretion) | Krueger: lack of rules on when consent agreements are available vests unfettered discretion | Commission: regulations define violations and permissible reductions; discretion is bounded and authorized | Court: Regulations limit discretion; vesting some discretion in agency is lawful and not unconstitutional |
| Substantive due process — whether 180-day suspension shocks the conscience or is arbitrary | Krueger: denial of consent agreement/substantial sanction infringes substantive due process | Commission: suspension rationally relates to preserving credibility of law enforcement certifications and public safety | Court: Action not arbitrary; 180-day suspension rationally related to substantial state interest and does not shock the conscience |
| Equal protection — whether similarly situated officers received disparate treatment; level of scrutiny | Krueger: he was denied a consent agreement while others (some allegedly worse) received lesser sanctions; right to earn a living is fundamental so strict scrutiny applies | Commission: no suspect class or fundamental right infringement; comparisons show many unlike violations; where similar violations existed, most received comparable or harsher sanctions; distinctions rationally related to preserving credential credibility | Court: Applied rational-basis review (state standard for occupational regulation); Krueger not similarly situated to those who got lesser sanctions in all relevant respects; distinctions rationally related to state interest; no equal protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Krueger v. North Carolina Criminal Justice Educ. & Training Standards Com’n, 198 N.C. App. 569 (2009) (prior appellate opinion describing factual and procedural posture)
- Cameron v. North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 95 N.C. App. 332 (1989) (agency must make adequate findings to support license suspension)
- Shackleford-Moten v. Lenoir County Dept. of Social Services, 155 N.C. App. 568 (2002) (standards for appellate review of agency decisions)
- Bashford v. North Carolina Licensing Bd. for General Contractors, 107 N.C. App. 462 (1992) (courts are bound by agency findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Treants Enters. v. Onslow Cty., 320 N.C. 776 (1987) (state regulation of occupations tested for rational relation to substantial government purpose)
- City-Wide Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Alamance County, 132 N.C. App. 533 (1999) (arbitrary government action assessed by rational relation to valid objective)
- Matter of DeLancy, 67 N.C. App. 647 (1984) (disciplinary suspension of licensed professional upheld as rationally related to public protection)