ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
18A-067-POST · Peace Officers Standards and Training · 2020-03-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of the Hearing Regarding the Peace Officer Certification of:
Gabriel R. Guerrero
Respondent
No. 18A-067-POST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 12, 2020
APPEARANCES: Respondent Gabriel R. Guerrero appeared and was represented by Chad Smith. The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board was represented by Assistant Attorney General Paul Forshey.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Gabriel R. Guerrero (Respondent) completed peace officer training in May 1999 and received certification from the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST).
Respondent worked for the Globe Police Department (GPD) from February 17, 1999, through April 2, 2018.
In December 2017, AC reported to the GPD that her friend VC had been sexually assaulted by Respondent at his residence in 2016. GPD opened an internal investigation at that time.
On or about January 10, 2018, GPD issued a Notice of Investigation to Respondent. The Notice of Investigation indicated that Respondent had been named as a Principle in an investigation stemming from a violation of GPD Policy 100.5 and 320.1. According to the Notice of Investigation, “[t]he allegations of the complaint are that you followed, harassed, and intimidated this female citizen over an extended period-of-time.
On or about January 22, 2018, Lt. R. Folker interviewed VC. During the interview VC stated that she had known Respondent for most of her life. VC indicated that while Respondent was in the military and stationed in San Diego, California, they began to have a romantic and sexual relationship, but that they eventually ended their relationship. VC stated that for the next “several years”, from when Respondent got out of the military to when he started working for the GPD, the two would see each other sexually on and off. VC related that Respondent got married when he joined the GPD. However, Respondent would continue to occasionally text message or Facebook message her, they would meet and talk about his relationship with his wife, and they would have sexual contact without his wife being aware of the encounters. As to the reported incident of 2016, VC related that in December 2016, Respondent was going through a divorce and he had contacted her through Facebook to see if they could meet at the Globe Community Center while he was working. VC stated that when she met Respondent there, they talked for approximately 45 minutes, during which time Respondent to her to have sex with him because he had not had sex in a long time. VC represented that she refused to have sex with Respondent because she had a new boyfriend and had closed that chapter in her life. Respondent contacted VC later in the day asking her to come over to his house to talk about his divorce. According to VC, she told Respondent she would come over, but said several times on the phone that she was not having sex with Respondent. VC stated that once at Respondent’s house, they were talking when Respondent suddenly grabbed VC by the neck and puller her to him, kissing her. VC stated that she kept telling Respondent “no” but that Respondent picked her up, and walked to his bedroom. VC related that she kept telling Respondent that she did not want to have sex with him, but Respondent refused to listen to her, placed her on his bed, and started undressing her. VC indicated that she knew the only way she was going to get home was to “give into him,” so she started to pull her pants down so Respondent could finish. Once Respondent was done, VC left his house and that was the last time she talked to Respondent or saw him. VC denied feeling like she was “raped” but stated that she believed she was “violated.”
On or about February 15, 2018, immediately before Respondent was interviewed in relation to the investigation, GPD provided Respondent with his Garrity Warnings and an Updated Notice of Investigation. The Updated Notice of Investigation indicated that Respondent had been named as a Principle in an investigation stemming from a violation of GPD Policy 100.5, 320.1, and 605. The Updated Notice of Investigation, the allegations were detailed as follows:
The first allegation stems from a citizen complaint that was received on December 19, 2017 when Globe Resident [REDACTED] reported that her friend; [REDACTED] has relayed to [REDACTED] that [REDACTED] was sexually assaulted by [Respondent] sometime in 2016. [REDACTED] also stated [REDACTED] had relayed to [REDACTED], that she ([REDACTED]) had also been stalked and harassed by [Respondent] on a continual basis while [Respondent] was on-duty working as a Police Sergeant with the City of Globe.
The second allegation was on January 22, 2018, [REDACTED] was interviewed in-reference to these allegations. [REDACTED] stated that she was continually harassed by [Respondent] when he would continually stop and harass her, as he was on-duty as a police officer during these encounters, about having sexual intercourse with her when she told him “No” on several occasions. [REDACTED] also relayed that in December 2016, she was sexually assaulted by [Respondent] at his home in [REDACTED].
All errors in original.
Prior to the February 15, 2018 interview, Sgt. Abraham Castaneda was provided an Employee Observer Admonition in which Sgt. Castaneda was advised that he was “not to take any written notes or make any electronic recordings of this interview.”
In his Investigative Report, Lt. Folker stated that Sgt. Castaneda had been advised prior to the interview that he was allowed to make notes during the interview, but was not allowed to audio record the interview.
The transcript of Respondent’s interview provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Q: Um, initially, uh, this uh, complaint came up from, uh, [AC] in reference to, uh, information that she had received from [VC] about [VC] had expressed some concerns that, uh, you were harassing and sexually assaulted [VC]. Um, and that’s how [AC] came forward to say something to the police department and that’s how the investigation started.
A: Okay.
Q: Did you receive any of the information?
A: Today I did . . .
Q: Okay but not . . .
A: . . . not prior to, no.
. . . .
Q: Okay would consider [VC] a girlfriend . . .
A: Uh . . .
Q: . . . over time?
A: . . . uh, how – how do you define girlfriend? Sh- I would never say she was my girlfriend. She was more of a friend with benefits in a sense.
Q: What would that mean?
A: That we would have sexual relations from time to time. We – we would have a sexual relationship from over the last 20 years since we were adults, like, maybe once every three months or sometimes even we wouldn’t speak to each or see each other for a year and then we’d – we’d hook up or whatever.
Q: Okay.
A: And when I say whatever, I mean I’m not sayin’ whatever – we would hook up and we’ve a sexual relationship and then we’d go our ways again. And whenever we crossed paths or whatever, um, if it happened – a sexual relationship – it, uh, did. If not, there was no disgruntledness between the two of us. And we would go our ways.
. . . .
Q: Okay I mean – well let me ask you this before I ask that other question – what is your definition of sex or sexual intercourse?
A: Inserting a penis into the vagina
Q: Okay did you do that with her?
A: Yes – lots of time.
Q: Was it unconsensual?
A: Never
Q: Did she ever tell you, “No?”
A: No.
Q: At no point during your entire time that you were with her over the span of 25 years has she ever told you no?
A: No.
Q: So when you’ve had these sexual encounters with her as you say and you’ve been at different locations with her, I imagine.
A: Yes.
Q: Did she ever tell you, “I do not want to have sex with you?”
A: She told me after we were done that she didn’t want to be someone on a back burner to her – to me.
Q: And what did that mean?
A: I took it as, like, if – if she wasn’t gonna be my girlfriend then she didn’t wanna have nothing to do with me.
Q: Okay so each and every time that you’ve had sexual contact with her or had sex with her, how many times would you say that – that was over the span of the 25 years that you’ve known her.
A: Over the span – how many times we had sex?
Q: Yes if you can recall.
A: I would say 25 times . . .
Q: Total?
A: . . . if not more – if not – if not more.
Q: Okay and each one of those incidences that the – the sex that you’ve had with her 20, 25 times has all been – at no time during any time did she say, “I do not wanna have sex with you?”
A: Correct.
Q: She never told you no?
A: She never told me no.
Q: It was all consensual?
A: Correct.
Q: Okay. Um, do you differentiate the dif- the specifics between sexual contact and sexual intercourse?
A: No I kind of categorize it as a same – sexual contact, sexual intercourse.
Q: Okay so how would that – how would that be to you in your categorization of this?
A: That it was sexual.
Q: Meaning.
A: We had sex.
Q: Meaning.
A: We had inter- had intercourse.
Q: Meaning.
A: Penis with the – the vagina.
. . . .
Q: Do you remember a situation when you were met – you met her at the community center in the evening when you were working graveyard and you said that you wanted to talk to her about your upcoming divorce and the problems that you were going through with your divorce?
A: I remember talkin’ to her about my divorce at the community center. That was out in the open in the parking lot, um, and never got out of my car. She never got out of her car.
Q: At any point during that conversation did you tell her that you wanted to have sex with her that you didn’t think that you were much of a man anymore because you haven’t had sex in a long time?
A: I remember saying that, um, I wasn’t much of man no more. Um, I was joking around, you know? I wasn’t port- trying to say that I was one that right then. I mean I didn’t even talk to her after that.
Q: Did you push her and tell – well not physically push her – but push the conversation in reference to, “I haven’t had sex. I need to have sex. You need to have sex with me.” Do you remember that conversation?
A: I think that I told her when I was off-duty, like, on the phone. . .
Q: No specifically at the community center.
A: I don’t recall saying that at the community center.
Q: Okay did you ask her later i- when you got off of work if she can come by your house?
A: I – I may have.
Q: For what reason?
A: Um, probably to – to hook up.
Q: Okay but did you indicate that to her? ‘Kay it’s – it’s ex- it’s extremely important, Sergeant, that you are forthcoming with the information, okay?
A: I know that.
Q: I – I don’t want you to think that you need to exclude anything. I want you to be totally forthcoming with the information and the questions that I’m asking you.
A: Yes. Yeah, I, um, I may – I – I believe mighta said that, “Come to my house later.”
Q: For what reason?
A: To hook up.
. . . .
Q: Okay so when she came up to your house [in December 2016], what happened?
A: We had sex.
Q: Okay
A: And we talked – we talked in general – at first we hung out and then one thing led to another and we had sex.
Q: When you say one thing led to another . . .
A: Kind of flirtatiously, mutually message around and we . . .
Q: Did she tell you at any time during those two contacts that she had a boyfriend and did not want to have sex?
A: She told me she had a boyfriend. Um, she, uh – she, uh – I don’t recall her telling me that she didn’t want to have sex. We had sex.
Q: So she never told you prior to coming up to your house, “I do not want to have sex with you,” and when she was at your house, “I do not want to have sex with you?”
A: I think when she was at my house, I – I recall her saying she don’t wanna have sex but as we talked and mingled and one thing led to another, we had – we had sex.
Q: Okay on one of these meetings specifically do you remember when you were sitting on the couch in your living room . . .
A: Mm-hm.
Q: . . . and you reached over and kissed her and she said, “No, Gabe.”
A: No I don’t re- remember her telling me no then.
Q: Did she tell you at that point when she’s – when you didn’t hear that, did you hear anything from her that indicated that she did not want to do what you were – kissing her or leading up to?
A: I – I don’t recall, sir. She may have – I wasn’t payin’ attention.
Q: Okay do you remember kissing her? Do you remember the situation when you were sitting on your couch in your living room and you reached over and you kissed her?
A: I remember kissing her.
Q: Specifically in that . . .
A: I remember being in my living room and – and ‘cause that’s where it started at.
Q: Okay so when you kissed her, at some point did you pick her up and cradle her and take her into your bedroom?
A: Yeah I did. I – I – I picked her up and took her in my – my bedroom.
Q: Did she at any point say, “No Gabe, I do not wanna have sex with you,” or “No Gabe stop,” or “Stop,” or “No?”
A: I think at first she said that and as – but as we (unintelligible) visiting with each other and – and, um, talking there in the room – one thing led to another and we ended up having sex. To the point where she even gave me oral sex.
Q: Okay.
A: I was laying on my bed – she gave me oral sex. She even got on top of me. I never thought there was an issue other than that and . . .
Q: When you brought her into your bedroom and before the oral sex and the time that she got on top of you – did she tell you no as you started to undress her?
A: I – I don’t recall, sir.
Q: Did she tell you stop?
A: I remember she was giggling and laughing as we . . .
Q: Sergeant Guerrero, did she tell you to stop?
A: She may have, sir.
Q: When you say may have, is that a yes or is that a no?
A: Y – Yes she may have told me to stop?
Q: Okay so when you continue, what happened?
A: We – we – we continue messing around mutually and we had sex.
Q: Okay. All right. And was that on both occasions that she were – that I was referring to – the two times in 2016 that she – you said that she came to your house? That happened both times?
A: I just recall the last time.
Q: So what happened the first time?
A: We – we had sex.
Q: At any point during that time?
A: I don’t recall – I don’t remember her saying no at any time?
Q: Do you remember her telling you stop?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember her telling you, “I’m not gonna have sex with you?”
A: No and as a matter of fact I – I stopped because I – I have diabetes so therefore when my blood sugar’s up I don’t the – the best – it’s rather embarrassing – but, uh – uh performance, I guess you could say.
Q: Okay. All right. And both of those situations in 2016 – after both of those incidences, what did you say to her afterwards?
. . . .
A: No that’s . . . Um, what did I say to her after each i- instant?
Q: Yes, after you had sex with her and you said on the first one, you stopped. So you didn’t have sex with her, correct – according to you?
A: No I had sex with her. I didn’t get to finish. I didn’t . . .
Q: Okay you didn’t ejaculate.
A: Correct.
Q: Okay.
A: Because, um, and I think it was on both of them because my sugars were out of whack with my divorce – the stress and . . .
Q: Okay.
. . . .
Q: Okay so getting back to my question my original question . . .
A: Yes.
Q: . . . you didn’t finish meaning you didn’t ejaculate in . . .
A: Correct.
Q: . . . both of those situations?
A: Correct.
Q: Okay so on the first one when she – when you had sex, did you tell her or did she tell you, “Stop?” ‘Cause you never really answered my question.
A: In the sec- in the second one I – I believe she stopped and that’s when I stopped.
Q: And then on the first one?
A: I believe so – I stopped too because I – I wasn’t . . .
Q: Did she say to stop?
A: I – I don’t remember her to stop . . .
Q: Did she say no?
A: I don’t remember her saying no on the first time.
Q: Did she say I have a boyfriend?
A: She did say she had a boyfriend on the second – I knew she had – she told me she had a boyfriend prior to that.
Q: I’m talking about specifically the first incident.
A: The first incident – I don’t – I don’t remember if she told – I – I knew – I had already known prior to that she had a boyfriend.
On March 16, 2018, GPD issued a Notice to Terminate Employment to Respondent in which GPD advised Respondent that he was scheduled for a pre-determination hearing with Chris Collopy, Human Resources Director, at 11:00 a.m. on March 16, 2018, the same date as the Notice to Terminate Employment was issued. The Notice to Terminate Employment included as a Supporting Fact, in pertinent part, the following:
Additionally, I found that Sgt. Guerrero was initially untruthful about his sexual comments and innuendoes towards [REDACTED]. I found that Sgt. Guerrero had sexual contact with [REDACTED] in December 2016 while they were both at his residence in Claypool, Arizona against her consent. This occurred when [REDACTED] told Sgt. Guerrero that she was not going to have sex with “Gabe” and that she had told him “No.”
Neither of the Critical Facts related to the alleged sexual misconduct referenced Respondent making false statements to Lt. Folker during the investigation.
On March 16, 2018, the same date he received the Notice to Terminate Employment, Respondent submitted a Response to Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment. With respect to the alleged sexual misconduct, Respondent provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
It is telling that I never had any issues having sex with [REDACTED] until after I told her that I was not interested in having a serious relationship with her and was interested in someone else. Additionally, at no time was there any sexual contact while I was on duty or during my work hours. In fact, I never missed a call or neglected my duties, and I never used my patrol vehicle to stop or harass her. Further, all of our texts and conversations took place on my personal cell phone.
. . . .
[T]here is no credible evidence against me and there is significant evidence that supports my innocence. Notably, [REDACTED] came to my residence twice, and each time she had consensual sex with me, just as we have always done in the past. In fact, our whole relationship in the past has just been about sex. Importantly, [REDACTED] told me a few times that she wanted to be more than a hook up and to be in a more permanent relationship, but I eventually told her that I was not interested in a serious relationship with her and instead I was interested in someone else. After I told her this, she became extremely upset and told me she was not going to be put on the back burner to anyone.
On or about April 2, 2018, Mr. Collopy issued his decision as to Respondent’s employment. In the decision, Mr. Collopy stated that, while he felt the alleged sexual assault had not been proven, he found Respondent had made inconsistent statements during the February 15, 2018 interview. Mr. Collopy determined that, based on the inconsistent statements, Respondent’s employment was terminated effective immediately.
Respondent appealed the termination.
On or about June 25, 2018, Respondent’s appeal came on for hearing. Following the hearing, Hearing Officer Harold J. Merkow concluded that the City had proven that Respondent “was untruthful during his interview” and termination was an appropriate disciplinary measure.
On or about April 9, 2018, POST received a Termination Report from GPD informing POST that Respondent had been terminated and GPD was aware of conduct that may violate A.A.C. R13-4-109(A)(1-9).
POST assigned Compliance Specialist Lori Wait to investigate whether the circumstances of Respondent’s termination from GPD provided cause to discipline his peace officer certification under POST’s administrative regulations. After review, POST determined that cause existed to discipline his certification.
Respondent requested an administrative hearing on POST’s decision. POST referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On November 25, 2019, POST issued a Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing charged Respondent with violating A.A.C. R13-4-109(A)(8) and (12) by committing the following alleged misconduct:
On February 15, 2018, Sgt. Gabriel R. Guerrero was less than truthful with an investigator during an internal investigation interview when questioned if Ms. VC ever told Sgt. Guerrero she did not want to have sex with him or ever told Sgt. Guerrero no while he was initiating sexual activity with her.
At the hearing, Respondent testified that prior to the interview, he understood the issue to be limited to harassment and stalking. Respondent was presented with the Updated Notice of Investigation just before the interview and he did not have time to prepare for questions about sexual assault. According to Respondent, because the Updated Notice of Investigation alleged that he sexually assaulted VC, when he was asked questions about whether VC ever said “no” he was specifically answering whether VC has said “no” during the actual act of sex. Respondent acknowledged that VC had occasionally said “no” to sexual relations prior to the actual act, but that after the two would talk and interact, VC would change her mind and willingly engage in sexual intercourse with him. Respondent asserted that he had 16 months left until he could retire with his pension and he would never do anything to jeopardize his livelihood or pension by answering the questions dishonestly. Respondent argued that the leadership at GPD was “cleaning house” and attempting to get rid of the “old guard” in the Department.
Respondent presented the testimony of Patrol Commander Abraham Castaneda who testified as to Lt. Folker’s integrity issues and his perception of the atmosphere of the GPD. Patrol Commander Castaneda stated that a hostile work environment complainant had been filed against the previous chief Mark Nipp, who had hired Lt. Folker to get rid of the “cancer” in the GPD. Patrol Commander Castaneda testified that Lt. Folker’s mind appeared to have been made up prior to the interview and he had an aggressive tone throughout.
Respondent also presented the testimony of Chief Dale Walters who testified that he was hired after Chief Nipp retired and while Lt. Folker was acting as Interim Chief. Chief Walters stated that he knew GPD had some issues prior to accepting the position, but he had no idea how many issues until he got into the job. Chief Walters testified that Lt. Folker met with him prior to his start date and he was “taken aback” by Lt. Folker’s attitude about Respondent during the discussion. Chief Walters stated that Lt. Folker proclaimed to him that Respondent “raped that woman!” Chief Walters testified that he reviewed the internal affairs investigations that were ongoing when he took over and he found the GPD to be unnecessarily harsh and that most of the matters were training issues. Chief Walters stated that he would not believe anything that Lt. Folker stated, whether in person or in writing, and that Lt. Folker had zero credibility with him. Chief Walters testified that Lt. Folker was allowed to resign from GPD.
Lori Wait, former Compliance Specialist with POST, testified that she reviewed all of the documentation from the GPD investigation and agreed that Respondent was not truthful during his interview. Ms. Wait stated that she listened to the interview as well as reviewing the transcript, but due to technological issues, the recording could not be provided to the OAH as an exhibit in this hearing. Ms. Wait stated she did not find Lt. Folker’s questioning of Respondent to be problematic.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within POST’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 41-1821 et seq.
POST bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard. See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2).
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1220 (8th ed. 2004).
Under A.A.C. R13-4-109(A), POST may “[d]eny, suspend, revoke or cancel the certification of an officer” who does not comply with duly promulgated rules prescribing reasonable minimum qualifications for officers. See A.R.S. § 41-1822(C)(1). POST may discipline an officer’s certification under A.A.C. R13-4-109(A)(8) or (12) for any of the following violations:
8. Committing malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office; or
. . . .
12. Engaging in any conduct or pattern of conduct that tends to disrupt, diminish, or otherwise jeopardize public trust in the law enforcement profession.
Malfeasance is defined as “[a] wrongful or illegal act.” Misfeasance is defined as “[a] lawful act performed in a wrongful manner.” Nonfeasance is defined as “[t]he failure to act when a duty to act existed.”
Notably, Respondent has not been alleged to have sexually assaulted VC, but having been dishonest in his answers regarding his interactions with VC. Therefore, the analysis of Respondent’s answers must be based on an understanding that Respondent did not sexually assault VC.
In the instant matter, POST appeared to rely on Respondent’s answers to the following questions to conclude he was untruthful:
Q: Did she ever tell you, “No?”
A: No.
Q: At no point during your entire time that you were with her over the span of 25 years has she ever told you no?
A: No.
. . . .
Q: She never told you no?
A: She never told me no.
. . . .
Q: So she never told you prior to coming up to your house, “I do not want to have sex with you,” and then when she was at your house, “I do not want to have sex with you?”
A: I think when she was at my house, I – I recall her saying she don’t wanna have sex but as we talked and mingled and one thing led to another, we had – we had sex.
. . . .
Q: Did she at any point say, “No Gabe, I do not wanna have sex with you,” or “No Gabe stop,” or “Stop,” or “No?”
A: I think at first she said that and as – but as we (unintelligible) visiting with each other and – and, un, talking there in the room – one thing led to another and we ended up having sex.
. . . .
Q: Sergeant Guerrero, did she tell you to stop?
A: She may have, sir.
Q: When you say may have, is that a yes or is it a no?
A: Y – Yes she may have told me to stop?
Respondent’s answers during the interview with Lt. Folker were not wholly inconsistent. When listed one after the other as above, without any consideration for the questions preceding the first question or any of the questions that came between them, it appears that Respondent asserted that VC had never, in all the time he knew her, said “no” to anything he had ever asked her to saying that VC had, in fact, said she did not want to have sex on at least one occasion.
However, the questions surrounding those quotes above make it clear that the first questions were about sexual intercourse and whether Respondent had ever had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with VC. When asked if VC had ever, in the 25 years he had known her, said “no”, it is reasonable that Respondent understood the question to mean whether he had ever had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with VC.
When asked how he defined sex or sexual intercourse, Respondent answered “inserting a penis into the vagina.” When asked the difference between sexual contact and sexual intercourse, Respondent answered he viewed them as the same thing, again, “penis with the – the vagina.” Respondent consistently stated he did not have nonconsensual sexual intercourse with VC while acknowledging that VC may have initially not wanted to engage in sexual intercourse on a given occasion.
It is disingenuous to take the answers to specific questions out of context and conclude that one of Respondent’s answers had to have been untruthful because it was not exactly the same as a different question.
The evidence presented cannot be said to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent knowingly made a false or misleading statement to Lt. Folker on about February 15, 2018.
Thus, POST failed to establish that Respondent’s actions constituted malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in violation of A.A.C. R13-4-109(A)(8).
Further, POST failed to establish that Respondent’s conduct jeopardized public trust in the law enforcement profession in violation of A.A.C. R13-4-109(A)(12).
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, March 16, 2020.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Matt Giordano, Director
Peace Officers Standards and Training-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000