Utah Court of Appeals
Can a peace officer standards council modify an ALJ's legal conclusions on limited review? Guenon v. Division of Peace Officer Standards and Training Explained
Summary
Jack Guenon challenged the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council’s decision to suspend his peace officer certification for malfeasance. An administrative law judge found that Guenon submitted search warrant affidavits falsely claiming to be a certified Drug Recognition Expert when he had only completed the classroom portion of the training program, not the practical certification phase.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Guenon v. Division of Peace Officer Standards and Training, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the authority of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council to review and modify an administrative law judge’s legal conclusions when a petitioner seeks only limited review.
Jack Guenon, a peace officer, sought review of the Council’s decision to suspend his certification for malfeasance. The administrative law judge had found that Guenon submitted search warrant affidavits claiming to be a certified Drug Recognition Expert when he had only completed the classroom portion of the training, not the practical certification phase required for full certification. Importantly, the ALJ concluded Guenon had committed nonfeasance rather than malfeasance.
Guenon argued the Council lacked authority to determine he had committed malfeasance because his review request was limited to whether the ALJ correctly concluded he committed nonfeasance. The court disagreed, finding that because Guenon did not challenge the sufficiency of the ALJ’s factual findings, the Council was not required to review the entire record.
Under Utah Administrative Code R728-409-18(J), the Council had authority to accept the ALJ’s factual findings and make an independent determination about whether those facts constituted malfeasance or nonfeasance. The court applied the reasonable and rational standard, finding the Council could reasonably conclude that Guenon’s intentional misrepresentations about his certification status constituted malfeasance—defined as “the commission of some act which is wholly wrongful or unlawful.”
The court also declined to address Guenon’s constitutional challenges because he failed to properly preserve them before the ALJ or Council. This case demonstrates the importance of strategic pleading in administrative proceedings and the deference courts give to agency determinations that fall within the bounds of reasonableness.
Case Details
Case Name
Guenon v. Division of Peace Officer Standards and Training
Citation
2011 UT App 105
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100305-CA
Date Decided
April 7, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Peace Officer Standards and Training Council acted reasonably in accepting an administrative law judge’s factual findings and determining that a peace officer committed malfeasance rather than nonfeasance based on those findings.
Standard of Review
Reasonable and rational standard for agency determinations
Practice Tip
When requesting administrative review, clearly specify whether you are challenging factual findings, legal conclusions, or agency action to avoid limiting the scope of available review.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.