ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

19A-188-POST · Peace Officers Standards and Training · 2021-09-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Hearing Regarding the Peace Officer Certification of:

John L. Santiago,

Respondent.

No. 19A-188-POST

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 10-12, 2021.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mark Brachtl, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (“POST”) with Amanda Faust, Thomas Steffa, Scott Carpenter, Timothy McClary, and David Moore as witnesses. Edmundo Robaina, Esq. appeared on behalf of John Santiago (“Respondent”) with Vanessa Imperial, Johnte Jones, Daniel Glover, William Abbiati, and Cory McDowell as witnesses. Matt Giordano, Ben Henry, Michele Blanco, Mike Giammarino, William Caldwell, Darcy Nichols, Gino Duran, Michael Crose, Dave Toporek, Dan Ciernia, and Dan Wilson observed.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) §§ 41-1092.01 and 41-1822(B)(1) and the Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R13-4-118, and issues such findings to the POST Board (“the Board”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

After honorably serving in the United States Navy for 6.5 years, Respondent enrolled in the Mesa Police Academy on or about March 19, 2001. On or about August 03, 2001, Respondent completed peace officer training and received certification from POST. Respondent was hired by the Mesa Police Department (“MPD”) as a Patrol Officer. On or about June 27, 2008, Respondent completed Instructor Training. For the last 14 years, Respondent served MPD as a Patrol Officer and Field Training Officer.

In the early morning hours of May 16, 2018, Respondent and a number of other officers effectuated the arrest of 2 dangerous suspects. Based on their conduct during the apprehension of the suspects, the officers’ commanding officer planned on issuing commendations to all involved.

Later that same day, however, MPD’s Chief of Police was alerted to concerns of possible departmental policy violations; specifically, alleged unnecessary or improper force used by Respondent, based on a review of body camera footage captured by involved officers.

On May 17, 2018, the matter was referred to POST to investigate the allegations against Respondent. Amanda Faust, Compliance Specialist, (“Investigator Faust”) was assigned as the investigator. POST served a Notice of Investigations to Respondent.

The investigation was placed on administrative hold pending the outcome of a related criminal investigation.

On June 05, 2018, POST was granted permission to proceed with a concurrent administrative investigation.

On June 08, 2018, MPD requested that an independent third party, John McMahon & Associates, LLC, complete a review and provide a report regarding Respondent’s conduct on May 16, 2018.

On September 27, 2018, the report was submitted to MPD.

Per MPD’s request, the Scottsdale Police Department conducted a related criminal investigation against Respondent. On July 27, 2018, three charges regarding Respondent’s alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1204(A)(4) were submitted to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”).

On August 29, 2020, MCAO issued a Decline Prosecution Notification letter for Respondent, whereby it noted “no reasonable likelihood of conviction” for the charges submitted.

After reviewing all relevant documentation and speaking with a number of witnesses, Investigator Faust presented Respondent’s case to the Board.

On April 15, 2020, the Board notified Respondent that it intended to issue discipline against his peace officer certification; which could include suspension, revocation, or cancellation.

Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding POST’s decision.

Per the Notice of Hearing, POST referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on the following allegation:

On May 16, 2018, during the arrest and search of Mr. [GR], Officer John Santiago used unnecessary and unreasonable force when he placed his foot on the neck of Mr. GR, applied the Mandibular Angle pressure point pain compliance technique and raised the handcuffed arms at a 45 degree angle for pain compliance.

The conduct is alleged to violate Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A) as follows:

The Board may deny certified status or suspend or revoke the certified status of a peace officer for:

(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.

From August 10, 2021, through August 12, 2021, a hearing was held on the issue of whether cause existed for POST to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification. POST called Investigator Faust, Det. Thomas Steffa, Det. Scott Carpenter, Lt. Timothy McClary, and Lt. David Moore as witnesses, and submitted Exhibits 1-13 and a Prehearing Memorandum into the record. Respondent testified on his own behalf and called Sgt. Vanessa Imperial, Ofc. Johnte Jones, Ofc. Daniel Glover, Dep. William Abbiati, and Sgt. Cory McDowell as witnesses, and submitted Exhibits A-Q into the record.

Hearing Evidence

During the relevant time period, Respondent worked the overnight graveyard shift. Respondent’s patrol area included the north-west area of Mesa; an area notorious for gang activity and criminal conduct, in large part, committed by members of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community whose reservation is located just north of Mesa.

On May 16, 2018, at approximately 2:04 a.m., MPD dispatch received a 911 call regarding a male subject, GR, with a gun located at a convenience store, Circle K, on 1550 N. Country Club Drive in Mesa. Dispatch was advised that GR was attempting to break into a vehicle parked in front of the store, and that he also had a sawed-off shotgun. GR was described as an 18 year old Native American, approximately 5’8” tall, 160 pounds, and wearing a white shirt and black pants. GR was also described as possibly intoxicated.

The first officers to arrive at the scene reviewed the store’s video surveillance footage. GR was observed to be in possession of the alleged weapon, and in the company of a female companion, NH. Additional information regarding their travel direction were provided over police radio.

GR and NH were apprehended at a nearby apartment complex located at 1645 N. Date Street in Mesa; a housing multiplex where multiple violent gang members, known associates, and possible sympathizers resided.

At the time of apprehension GR was approximately 125 pounds and 5’5”. Unbeknownst to responding officers, including Respondent, GR was 15 years old at the time.

Respondent self-dispatched to the location to provide assistance taking the suspects into custody.

No less than eight officers, including Ofc. Echols, Ofc. McDowell, Ofc. Glover, and Ofc. Imperial also dispatched themselves to the scene.

Body camera footage captured the following:

Upon his arrival, both suspects were already lying face down on the sidewalk. A police helicopter hovering above the scene illuminated the dark sky with its spotlight. GR was directly in front of Respondent’s pathway, and NH was laying perpendicular to him about two feet away. As he approached with his AR-15 rifle extended, Respondent shouted “Coming up on your right!” and “Stay down!” As he closed in on GR he shouted “Show me your hands, mother fucker!” and “Hands out to your side!” Respondent instructed GR to “look down” and advised that “I’m not here to talk to you” and ordered GR to “look straight down at the fucking ground!” GR lifted his head several times to offer that he was “just trying to get home.”

Respondent instructed another officer, Ofc. McDowell, to “go cold,” and he continued to point his rifle at GR while Ofc. McDowell handcuffed GR and other officers handcuffed NH. Once complete, a declaration of “clear” was given.

As soon as officers made physical contact with GR, GR yelled derogatory remarks such as “Bitch ass, pussy ass police!” and “All of ya’ll bitches!” Respondent then placed his right foot vertically in the center of GR’s back, then readjusted it horizontally across the top-center of GR’s shoulders. GR then accused an officer of pushing him in the eye and exclaimed “It’s all good,” and “OGI ‘til the day I die, pussy! Eastside!”

Respondent was 270 pounds and is 6’3”. Respondent wore a size 15 shoe.

Almost immediately as officers begin to rotate GR to conduct a Prone search, GR screamed out as if he was in pain. During GR’s rotation, Respondent’s foot moved upward onto GR’s neck.

Once the Prone search was complete, Ofc. Glover lifted GR off of the ground while GR repeatedly shouted “I’m just trying to get home!” Respondent swung his rifle across his back. Ofc. Glover and Respondent escorted GR to a nearby patrol vehicle so that GR could be searched more thoroughly.

During the escort, Ofc. Glover pressed his left thumb into GR’s left ear and asked GR, “Are you done talking?” twice. Contemporaneously, Respondent pressed his right thumb behind GR’s right ear and his index and middle fingers against GR’s right temple. GR cried out as if he was in pain.

Once at the patrol vehicle, Respondent pushed GR’s head down onto the hood of the vehicle, while Ofc. Glover asked “Are you finally done talking?” GR repeatedly shouted “I’m just trying to get home to my grandma!” In response, Respondent wrapped his left hand around GR’s neck, and pressed his left thumb behind GR’s right ear. Respondent also placed his right hand on top of his left hand and applied additional pressure. GR cried out as if he was in extreme pain.

Ofc. Glover asked GR “Are you done talking?” and GR replied “I’m done talking. I’m sorry.” Respondent retorted, “Stop yelling like a little bitch,” and asked “Where’s the gun at?”

Ofc. Imperial arrived at the patrol vehicle to search GR.

Respondent raised GR’s handcuffed arms upward while Ofc. Glover pressed his right hand into GR’s back and asked “Where’s the gun?” GR yelled “No gun” repeatedly. GR can be heard offering a weak “I’m sorry.”

GR’s right leg raised up against the grill of the vehicle, and was pressed down by Respondent who ordered GR to “Get off my truck.”

Ofc. Glover continued “Where’s the gun at? We saw you in the video with a gun.” GR lifted his head and replied “All ya’ll trippin’. No gun.”

Respondent pulled GR upright by his neck bandana. Ofc. Glover wrapped his left hand around GR’s neck and pressed his thumb behind GR’s left ear. GR made a gurgling noises as if he was struggling to breathe. Ofc. Glover continued to ask “Where’s the gun?” while applying pressure to GR. GR replied “No gun” and continued to wail.

GR plead “Officer call my parents, I’m sorry!” and “I don’t have no gun, I just have bud on me. That’s all I had.” Respondent raised GR’s arms higher with his left elbow and pressed the palm of his left hand against the back of GR’s head, warning “You need to stop flexing on me! We’re not here fucking playing games! If you try and move on me one more time I’m going to fuck you up! You understand that? You need to sit still. She is searching you right now.”

GR conceded with “Okay, I’m sorry. That’s my fault.”

As Ofc. Imperial concluded her search, GR’s handcuffed hand inadvertently opened and unintentionally grazed her to which she replied “Don’t fucking touch me, bro.”

Ofc. Imperial informed Ofc. Glover and Respondent that GR was “clean” and safe for placement in her patrol vehicle.

Respondent escorted GR from the front of the patrol vehicle to the passenger side backseat. As he entered the vehicle, GR stated “I’m sorry. I didn’t mean disrespect you guys.” Once seated in the back of the patrol vehicle GR continued to apologize, adding “I ain’t mean to be disobeying you guys like that. That’s my fault and shit.” Inexplicably, GR’s stated that things would have “been different” if he would have had his AR-15 during the arrest.

GR sustained minor bruising as a result of this arrest.

Officers transported four eye witnesses from Circle K to Date Street to positively identify GR and NH.

The sawed-off shotgun observed in the Circle K video surveillance footage was never recovered by MPD.

GR was charged with Armed Robbery with a Deadly Weapon, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Criminal Damage, Theft of Means of Transportation, and Carrying a Deadly Weapon in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1904(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1602(A)(1), 13-1814(A)(1), and 13-3102(A)(2). Ultimately, on March 18, 2018, GR was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of Aggravated Assault, a Class 3 Felony, and Attempted Aggravated Assault, a Class 4 Felony. GR was sentenced on October 11, 2018.

Additional Evidence

MPD Training Manual cites Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386 (1989) regarding “reasonableness” regarding a police officer’s use of force. Factors to be taken into consideration when determining reasonableness include the type of crime(s) at issue and the suspect’s criminal history, whether weapons are involved, the environment of the arrest, the suspects behavior and compliance, the type of force employed, and the proximity of backup for the officer.

POST Pressure Point Training notes that the application of the Mandibular Angle should only be used in limited amounts, against high levels of resistance, for no more than 5 seconds at a time. Application should be used concurrently with clear commands in order to gain compliance. After control is obtained, de-escalation techniques should be employed.

Initially, as a result of the aforementioned incident, Respondent was administratively reassigned. Later, however, Respondent was placed on 60 hours leave without pay and a Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) with monitoring by MPD. On June 03, 2019, after a successful appeal, Respondent and the City of Mesa entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release whereby Respondent’s leave without pay hours were reduced to 40 hours and the CAP was removed. Respondent did not receive any additional training upon his return to work.

Closing Arguments

POST

In closing, POST argued that Respondent’s police badge carried with it an honest accounting to the public at large, and that Respondent’s conduct on May 16, 2018; specifically, Respondent’s boot on GR’s neck, Respondent’s application(s) of the Mandibular Angle, and Respondent’s raising of GR’s handcuffed arms to an approximate 45° angle, demanded that he be held accountable for actions that amounted to violations of related training and rules, including malfeasance.

POST argued that Respondent had been trained in the use of force and de-escalation techniques in 2001, 2014, and 2017 so he knew or should have known how to preserve the dignity of citizens and their constitutional rights.

POST opined that Respondent’s alleged belief that GR had not been in pain during his arrest was unreasonable under the circumstances. POST argued that GR was under MPD’s custody and control once he had been handcuffed, and that GR was subjected to painful compliance techniques as a means to cease his use of derogatory language toward officers and also to force GR into confessing the location of the outstanding weapon; as evidenced by the fact that body camera footage captures Respondent failure to provide GR with any direct commands before or during excessive Mandibular Angle application.

POST also noted the disparities between the number of officers present on the scene versus the suspects, the approximate 150lb size difference between the Respondent and GR, and the fact that GR was subjected to pain techniques after an initial search revealed he possessed no weapon(s).

POST called into question what information, if any, could be used against GR in court as Respondent and his fellow officers had failed to provide GR with his Miranda warning.

POST concluded by arguing that the case at bar bears similarities to two cases with binding authority over this matter, Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372(2007) and Hulstedt v. City of Scottsdale, 884 F.Supp. 2d 972 (2012). In Scott the Supreme Court determined, in pertinent part, that when the record contains a videotape recording capturing events in question, that the Court need not accept a party’s version of a story, but should instead rely on the facts as presented in the recording. In Hulstedt the Ninth Circuit essentially concluded that law enforcement officers took unjustifiable action(s) toward a suspect based on the totality of the circumstances in the case. POST asked the Tribunal to affirm violation(s) of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and (A)(12).

Respondent

In closing, Respondent argued that he was on “high alert” when he arrived on scene May 16, 2018, because of the dangerous location, GR’s description as a gang member and alleged conduct, and the unknown whereabouts of the shotgun. Respondent reasoned that all of his actions the morning in question were decided in seconds, to the best of his professional ability. Respondent offered that he would not change his actions if he had to make the same decision(s) all over again. Respondent vehemently denied that any of his actions amounted to malfeasance, but argued that if they did, then-existing mitigating circumstances justified his conduct and rendered them “honest mistakes.”

To that end, Respondent argued that GR’s refusal to keep his head down amounted to noncompliance, and that Respondent’s responses were not born out of anger but used as a means to garner GR’s compliance and respect. Respondent also reiterated his belief that GR’s yelling was a means of solicitation for help, as well as a display for potentially dangerous observers of his conduct at the apartment complex.

Respondent argued that he only placed his foot on GR’s back to stabilize him so that GR’s waistband could be searched for weapons. Although Respondent denied that his foot was ever atop GR’s neck during the Prone search, he argued that if he did in fact make contact during the effectuation of GR’s arrest, it was unintentional, brief, and did not cause GR pain or injury. Respondent opined that GR’s continued yelling and derogatory commentary from the ground exemplified GR’s ability to breathe freely.

Respondent further argued that the Mandibular Angle was only briefly applied during GR’s escort to the patrol vehicle; in an effort to propel GR’s movement forward, because GR was resisting arrest. Respondent argued that his use of force could not have caused serious injury, and noted that at the time of the occurrence the technique was not a reportable use of force.

Respondent argued that because GR continued to resist at vehicle, he employed the use of the Mandibular Angle again. Respondent opined that GR’s screams were not due to pain, but instead due to his accomplice’s yelling; as supported by GR’s admission during his subsequent forensic interview.

Respondent opined that there was no “pretty” way to use force on a suspect, but that it was sometimes a necessary part of being a law enforcement officer. Respondent admitted that he knew his body camera was on during the events at issue, and noted that even though he did not have to, he filed a Use of Force report. Respondent argued that the record was devoid of evidence that he had hurt GR or intended to do so.

Respondent concluded by opining that the only reason his conduct had been scrutinized at all was because the Chief of Police brought attention to the body camera videos and demonized them during a press conference he called, prior to any internal affairs investigation, which Respondent decried as “unheard of.” Respondent beseeched the Tribunal to hold that no violation(s) of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and (A)(12) were committed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within POST’s jurisdiction and was properly brought before OAH.

POST bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” 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.”

Under Ariz. Admin. Code 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. POST may also discipline an officer’s certification under Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8), or (A)(12) if it determines that the officer has committed acts that constitute any of the following:

Committing malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office;

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 “[a] wrongful or unlawful act; esp. wrongdoing or misconduct by a public official.” The Arizona Supreme Court in Holmes v. Osborn, 57 Ariz. 522, 540, 115 P.2d 775, 783 (1941) held that “[m]alfeasance is doing that which officer has no authority to do, and is positively wrong or unlawful.

Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-202(C) outlines POST’s Code of Ethics, which provide in pertinent part that an officer “[w]hether on or off duty, in uniform or not, shall conduct [himself] in a manner that will not bring discredit or embarrassment to [his] agency or the state of Arizona.”

Here, the material facts are clear and will be identified in a triparted manner.

POST factual allegation – part 1: On May 16, 2018, during the arrest and search GR, Respondent used unnecessary and unreasonable force when he (i) placed his foot on the neck of GR, in violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).

The preponderance of evidence establishes that POST’s allegation against Respondent is false.

Upon review of body camera footage from multiple officers at the scene on May 16, 2018, including Respondent’s, it is clear that Respondent’s foot placement on GR’s neck during his arrest was incidental and unintentional. GR’s arrest photos clearly depict Respondent’s footprint in the middle of GR’s back, and body camera footage captures Respondent’s foot move only when GR’s body is rotated during the Prone Search incident to arrest. Moreover, Respondent’s foot placement on GR’s neck was momentary and placed back atop GR’s upper shoulders once GR was placed back onto his stomach. Respondent’s knee was bent and there was no indication that Respondent was using additional force other than the natural application of his standing weight. This is supported by the fact that GR is heard using a clear and strong voice to cry out and use pejorative terms against Respondent and other arresting officers.

Here, Respondent’s conduct does not rise to the level of malfeasance, nor would it lead a reasonably prudent citizen of ordinary intelligence to believe Respondent had disrupted, diminished, or otherwise jeopardized the public’s trust in law enforcement.

Therefore, POST has not established cause to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification under Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).

POST factual allegation – part 2: On May 16, 2018, during the arrest and search GR, Respondent used unnecessary and unreasonable force when he (ii) applied the Mandibular Angle pressure point pain compliance technique to GR, in violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).

The preponderance of evidence establishes that POST’s allegation against Respondent is true.

Respondent argued that he initially employed the use of the Mandibular Angle to prompt GR’s movement to the patrol vehicle for search incident to arrest. Respondent also argued that GR “should have known he was under arrest and needed to comply” is flawed. The Tribunal is not in agreement.

Respondent outweighed GR by at least 150lbs and was 7in taller. GR was handcuffed with his arms behind his back at the time. Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent had a reasonable basis to be fearful of GR in those moments. What the record reflects is that no command or instruction was issued to GR by Respondent. Most notably, Respondent’s compliance technique was utilized during another officer’s use of the same technique on GR. Under the circumstances, Respondent’s use of force during GR’s escort to the patrol vehicle was unnecessary and excessive.

The record also reflects that once GR was at the patrol vehicle, Respondent continued to use force. Not only did Respondent wrap his hand around GR’s neck to employ the Mandibular Angle, he also placed his free hand on top to apply additional pressure. GR can clearly be seen and heard on the body camera footage crying out in extreme pain while Respondent yells at GR to “[s]top yelling like a little bitch” and questioned GR about the whereabouts of the missing shotgun. Under the circumstances, Respondent’s use of force on GR at the patrol vehicle was unnecessary and excessive.

Respondent could have, and should have, used alternative de-escalation tactics to obtain GR’s compliance.

Here, Respondent’s conduct rises to the level of malfeasance as it was in clear violation of his training on use of force. Respondent’s cumulative length of Mandibular Angle application, absent any affirmative compliance commands, are not consistent with POST or MPD policy or procedure. Respondent’s conduct would lead a reasonably prudent citizen of ordinary intelligence to believe Respondent had disrupted, diminished, or otherwise jeopardized the public’s trust in law enforcement.

Therefore, POST has established cause to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification under Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).

POST factual allegation – part 3: On May 16, 2018, during the arrest and search GR, Respondent used unnecessary and unreasonable force when he (iii) raised GR’s handcuffed arms at a 45 degree angle for pain compliance, in violation of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).

The preponderance of evidence establishes that POST’s allegation against Respondent is true.

Per body camera footage recorded on May 16, 2018, GR can be observed bent over the patrol vehicle and heard apologizing and pleading for officers to call his parents. It is at this moment Respondent can be viewed raising GR’s arms up to a 45° angle with one arm, with his free hand pressed against the back of GR’s head, while Respondent yells at GR to “stop flexing” on him, along with other curses, threats, and derogatory language.

Respondent’s argument that he remained committed to obtaining GR’s compliance during the search incident to arrest is unreasonable under the circumstances. Again, Respondent could have, and should have, used alternative de-escalation tactics to obtain GR’s compliance.

Here, Respondent’s conduct rises to the level of malfeasance as it was in clear violation of his training on use of force. Respondent’s use of pain compliance techniques, absent any affirmative compliance commands or warnings, are not consistent with POST or MPD policy or procedure. Respondent’s conduct would lead a reasonably prudent citizen of ordinary intelligence to believe Respondent had disrupted, diminished, or otherwise jeopardized the public’s trust in law enforcement.

Therefore, POST has established cause to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification under Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).

OPINION

The decision to use force when conducting official law enforcement responsibilities is among the most critical decisions made by officers. Such decisions must be made quickly and often under difficult and unpredictable, rapidly changing, and unique circumstances. However, these common stresses do not authorize officers to forgo or disregard lessons learned during training, nor do they grant officers carte blanche immunity from discipline stemming from transgressions of established policies, procedures, rules, and/or statutes.

After careful consideration of the evidence presented at hearing and relevant Arizona law, as well as the arguments of both parties, this tribunal finds that the POST Board has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it has cause to take disciplinary action against John L. Santiago’s peace officer certification for violation(s) of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A).

Notably, however, given all of the underlying facts and circumstances of this matter, as well as the minimal number of established violations, discipline beyond a brief suspension is not suggested.

Done this day, September 08, 2021.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Matt Giordano, Executive Director

Peace Officers Standards and Training