450 P.3d 87
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Bradley Macfarlane, a POST-certified employee who taught ethics and investigated officers, admitted to multiple extramarital affairs and served as a POST investigator and trainer.
- In 2015 Macfarlane denied (but later admitted he lied about) having affairs when asked by his director; he apologized to supervisors for being deceptive about the 2015 interview.
- Macfarlane had an affair with a woman ("Amy") and, after learning she reported improper conduct by a Draper PD detective, delayed or minimized providing identifying information to Draper PD, though he later located her quickly.
- In 2017 supervisors gave Macfarlane a Garrity warning and, after initial denials during that interview, he ultimately admitted to five affairs; IA investigated and found he misled supervisors and another agency and created conflicts of interest.
- DPS terminated Macfarlane for dishonesty and conduct undermining public trust; CSRO upheld the termination, and Macfarlane sought judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Macfarlane's Argument | DPS/Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Macfarlane lied in the 2015 interview | He answered the specific question truthfully (denial re: "Kay") and cannot be faulted for not volunteering broader info | Macfarlane admitted multiple times he lied/deceived in the 2015 interview; that admission supports the finding of dishonesty | Court: substantial evidence supports finding he was dishonest in 2015 |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding he failed to cooperate with Draper PD | Sergeant’s statements are speculative; Draper Deputy Chief thought Macfarlane was helpful | Macfarlane repeatedly minimized knowledge, withheld identifying info, bragged he could have found Amy but chose not to; Draper could not locate Amy for nearly a year | Court: substantial evidence supports finding he did not cooperate |
| Whether POST violated its prior Garrity practice by disciplining despite truth by interview end | POST’s practice: if truthful by interview end, officers are not punished for Garrity misstatements; thus termination was improper | POST did not act on certification and its practice relates to certification revocation; DPS relied on other dishonest conduct and withholding from another agency | Court: POST did not violate prior practice; even if it had, Macfarlane failed to show prejudice |
| Whether CSRO made adequate proportionality/consistency findings | CSRO merely listed factors without explanation | CSRO tied factors to factual findings (dishonesty, conflict of interest, harm to credibility, inability to train/investigate, willfulness) | Court: CSRO findings are sufficiently detailed for meaningful review |
Key Cases Cited
- WWC Holding Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of Utah, 44 P.3d 714 (Utah 2002) (standard for stating facts and inferences in reviewing agency findings)
- Provo City v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 345 P.3d 1242 (Utah 2015) (substantial-evidence review of administrative findings)
- Burgess v. Department of Corr., 405 P.3d 937 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (factors for proportionality in disciplinary actions)
- Pen & Ink, LLC v. Alpine City, 238 P.3d 63 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (deferential review to administrative factfinding)
- Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (court will not reweigh evidence and defers on credibility)
- Milne Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Comm’n of Utah, 720 P.2d 1373 (Utah 1986) (agency findings must disclose steps to conclusions)
- Bailey v. Retirement Board, 294 P.3d 577 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (findings must be detailed enough for meaningful judicial review)
- First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. County Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County, 799 P.2d 1163 (Utah 1990) (definition of substantial evidence)