Can portable breath test results support police officer termination? Becker v. Sunset City Explained

In Becker v. Sunset City, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a portable breath test (PBT) result could provide sufficient evidence to uphold a police officer’s termination for reporting to duty under the influence of alcohol.

Background and Facts
Officer Stewart Becker finished a night shift at 6:00 a.m. and was scheduled to return at 2:00 p.m. the same day. When he reported for his afternoon shift, his supervisor immediately noticed a strong alcohol odor. Becker admitted to consuming five to eight shots of liquor before sleeping that morning. A PBT registered his breath alcohol content at .045 grams, exceeding the department’s policy threshold of .04 for being “under the influence.” Two Utah State troopers who arrived at the station also detected the alcohol odor and expressed safety concerns. Sunset City terminated Becker for violating its alcohol policy.

Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary questions: (1) whether the PBT result provided substantial evidence to support termination, and (2) whether Utah Code section 34-38-7 prohibited the city from deviating from its written policy requiring urine testing for alcohol detection.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court applied the substantial evidence standard, requiring “a quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.” The court found the PBT result constituted substantial evidence because: (1) testimony established PBTs accurately indicate blood alcohol content, (2) the specific device had been tested and deemed “very accurate,” and (3) expert testimony indicated PBTs typically produce slightly lower readings than blood tests. Regarding the statutory challenge, the court held that Utah Code section 34-38-7 does not apply to government employers, as local political subdivisions are expressly exempted from the statute’s requirements.

Practice Implications
This decision establishes that PBT results, when supported by proper foundation testimony regarding accuracy, can satisfy the substantial evidence standard in employment termination cases. The court emphasized the importance of due process notice, limiting its review to grounds specified in the termination letter. Practitioners should ensure termination letters comprehensively state all grounds for discharge, as additional reasons cannot be considered later without proper notice to the employee.