ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2022-112-POST · Peace Officers Standards and Training · 2025-06-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of the Hearing Regarding
the Peace Officer Certification of:
Ian U. Murton,
Respondent.
No. 2022-112-POST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: Convened March 26, 2025, March 28, 2025, April 01, 2025, and April 08, 2025, followed by review of the official hearing transcript created by Google Drive on April 09, 2025, and review of Closing Arguments received from both parties on May 06, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mark Brachtl, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (“POST” and the “Board”).
Kathryn Baillie, Esq. of Napier, Baillie, Wilson, Bacon & Tallone, P.C. appeared on behalf of Ian Murton (“Respondent”).
WITNESSES:
Norm Owens – Commander, City of Surprise Police Department (“Cmdr. Owens”)
Charles Morin – Assistant Police Chief, City of Surprise Police Department (“Asst. Chief Morin”)
Thomas Hale – Sergeant [retired], City of Surprise Police Department (“Sgt. Hale”)
Benny Piňa – Chief, City of Surprise Police Department (“Chief Piňa”)
Terri Kopronica – Detective Sergeant, City of Surprise Police Department (“Detective Kopronica”)
Kevin Cyrnek - Detective Sergeant, City of Surprise Police Department (“Detective Cyrnek”)
Arlene Heckel – POST Compliance Specialist (“Ms. Heckel”)
Ian Murton (“Respondent”)
Nicole Florisi – Director of Content and Curriculum Development, Force Science (“Director Florisi”)
Matthew Jacobs – Polygrapher (“Mr. Jacobs”)
John Bacon – Commander [retired], Grand Canyon University Police Department (“Cmdr. Bacon”)
Benito “Benny” Nava – Reserve Sergeant, Hayden Police Department (“Sgt. Nava”)
Brian Marquez – Chief, Hayden Police Department (“Chief Marquez”)
HEARING RECORD: The Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) digitally captured the official hearing record for these proceedings.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Stipulated Facts submitted August 12, 2024, POST Exhibits 1 (pgs. 4-733), 2, 3 (pgs. 735-749), and 4 (pgs. 751-752 and 785-813), Respondent Exhibits A-C, F-L, and N, and Closing Arguments received by both parties on May 06, 2025, were substantively admitted into the evidentiary record.
The March 20, 2024, Notice of Hearing, and Minute Entries – Granting Continuance dated March 27, 2024, August 20, 2024, December 12, 2024, December 30, 2024, and April 01, 2025. April 01, 2025, were also admitted into the record for administrative purposes.
Notably, Further Hearing record on April 01, 2025, at 2:45 PM – 3:01 PM is confidential and not subject to public disclosure.
_____________________________________________________________________
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
On January 25, 2023, POST issued Complaint No. 2022-112-POST wherein the Board alleged Respondent violated Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and (A)(12) based on the following factual allegations:
On March 21, 2022, former Surprise Police Department Lieutenant [Respondent], provided a false and misleading statement, and was not truthful, in his answers during a post Garrity internal affairs interview. During the interview, [Respondent] said he had made one printout, [sic] of a document about a Brady List report, when, in actuality, he had made more than one copy, and had in fact, distributed the document to more than one person.
On March 24, 2022, former Surprise Police Department Lieutenant [Respondent] provided a false and misleading statement, and was not truthful, in his answers during a second post Garrity internal affairs interview. During the second interview, [Respondent] did not disclose everyone who was present during a luncheon meeting at Buffalo Wild Wings (“BWW”). During this luncheon meeting around October 4 or October 5, 2022, [sic] there was a discussion about the potential application for a lieutenant position being on the Brady List. Knowing the identities of everyone who was present at the meeting was material to the administrative investigation at hand.
On March 20, 2024, pursuant to a timely appeal and request for administrative hearing received by Respondent, the Board issued a Notice of Hearing and referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
Hearing Evidence
On December 19, 1996, Respondent was awarded a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology from the University of Arizona (“UofA”). On December 19, 1998, Respondent was awarded a Master’s Degree in Education from UofA.
On or about August 05, 2003, Respondent began his career as a peace officer with the Avondale Police Department as a Police Officer, and left that employment on or about July 27, 2007.
On or about May 20, 2004, Respondent completed peace officer training and received certification from POST.
On or about July 30, 2007, Respondent was hired by Surprise Police Department (“SPD”) as a Police Officer. During his tenure, Respondent was promoted through the ranks to Detective, Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force Officer, Sergeant, and finally Lieutenant.
For approximately ten (10) years, Respondent also served on special assignment within SPD as a Hiring & Recruitment Officer. In that role, Respondent’s primary duty was to perform background investigations on potential candidates for employment. While Respondent oversaw the division, Sgt. Hale was Respondent’s immediate subordinate; who supervised Ofc. Jennings and civilian counterpart Ryan McNeil, and Cmdr. Rody oversaw the department.
Respondent also served as an observer for other officers who were the subject of Garrity interviews.
Respondent’s SPD performance evaluations between 2008 and 2021 reflect ratings of “meets” or “exceeds” commendation.
On an unknown date, Lieutenant Burt Anzini (“Lt. Anzini”) told then Lt. Owens, neither of whom oversaw or operated within SPD’s Hiring & Recruitment division, that potential employment candidate J.H. had been selected for SPD’s open Lieutenant position in the Patrol Operations division.
On March 04, 2022, Respondent met former SPD Commander James Jackson, then Assistant Chief of GCU PD (“Asst. Chief Jackson”), at BWW for lunch. Asst. Chief Jackson’s wife and Lt. Owens were also present. During casual conversation, Lt. Owens shared that SPD’s open Lieutenant position was likely going to be filled by J.H., to which Asst. Chief Jackson replied that J.H. was on the Brady List. Per Asst. Chief Jackson, J.H. had also applied for an officer position with GCU PD, but had pulled his application after accepting a position with SPD. Asst. Chief Jackson continued that it was good J.H. had pulled his name from GCU PD consideration, as the agency lost interest in pursuing him after discovering J.H.’s name on the Brady List.
Lt. Owens, who was on duty, left the lunch early due to receiving a call, but later that same day he shared what he had learned at lunch with Lieutenant Jeremy Robertson (“Lt. Robertson”). In turn, that same date Lt. Robertson used his office computer to search the internet on his work computer to determine whether J.H. was on the Brady List. Lt. Robertson discovered a local investigative news article that J.H. was indeed on the Brady List. Lt. Robertson shared his discovery with Lt. Owens and Garrick Boxberger (“Lt. Boxberger”). Lt. Boxberger then informed Officer Antonio Martinez (“Ofc. Martinez”) that J.H. was on the Brady List.
On March 05, 2022, Ofc. Martinez told Officer James Jennings (“Ofc. Jennings”), Hiring & Recruitment background investigator, that J.H. was on the Brady List. That same day, while off duty, Respondent conducted an internet search at his home to determine whether J.H. was on the Brady List. As a result, he found the same local investigative news article Lt. Robertson had discovered, and printed it out along with a corresponding cover page.
On March 06, 2022, Respondent reported to SPD on his day off in uniform. Respondent went to see Ofc. Jennings, who was also present on his day off, and provided him with a report titled “Brady List for [J.H.],” that included a cover page and 7-page Phoenix Police Department report dated November 25, 2003, about the underlying circumstances that led to J.H. being placed on the Brady List. Ofc. Jennings informed Respondent that he was aware of J.H.’s Brady List status, as Ofc. Martinez had informed him the day prior, but countered that he had not yet performed a background check on the candidate yet.
On March 07, 2022, Ofc. Jennings met with Chief Piňa and Asst. Chief Morin to inform them that J.H. was on the Brady List, and to ask whether he should continue his background investigation of the candidate. During that meeting, Ofc. Jennings incorrectly stated that Respondent provided Ofc. Martinez with a Brady List printout regarding J.H. Sometime during that same week, Respondent shared his concerns regarding J.H.’s potential hire and Brady List status with Comm. Rody, hiring commander. During that period of time, Sgt. Hale also found a “blacked-out” Brady List printout face-down on his desk, placed there by Respondent, which he shredded and discarded.
Due to concerns regarding recruitment selection process deviations regarding the J.H./Brady List incident, an internal affairs investigation, ADM22-003, was launched by the Professional Standards Unit (“PSU”) on March 09, 2022. , ADM22-003 was investigated through July 13, 2022. During that time, PSU was staffed with two (2) investigators: Detective Cyrnek, a 20-year veteran with 9 years of criminal investigation experience, and Detective Kopronica, hired January 18, 2022, with no prior investigatory experience. Detective Kopronica was assigned by PSU as the primary lead on the ADM22-003 investigation. The following individuals were interviewed by Detective Kopronica:
Ofc. Jennings.
Cmdr. Rody.
Ofc. Martinez.
Lt. Boxberger.
Respondent.
Lieutenant Evan Becher (“Lt. Becher”).
Lt. Robertson.
Asst. Chief Jackson.
Cmdr. Bacon.
Ryan McNeil.
Sgt. Hale.
Cmdr. Owens.
Chief Piňa.
On March 21, 2022, PSU issued a Notice of Investigation (“NOI”) in ADM22-003 to Respondent, which named him as a Principal. The NOI also advised Respondent that he was being investigated for suspected violations of Recruitment and Selection – ADM-24(B)(1)(b)(6)(a), Anti-Discrimination – EPM-3.1(A)(3)(d)(ii), and Neglect of Duty – ROC-02(Add)(1)(IV)(B)(1) as a member of the department, “outside of the recruitment unit” for “exploring information from internet websites to use against a potential candidate.” The NOI also included the following Garrity admonishment:
Failure to comply with this order will result in corrective or disciplinary action. Failure to answer questions completely and truthfully, or cooperate fully as directed during this investigation, will result in your termination.
(Emphasis in original.)
Respondent was interviewed by Detective Kopronica on March 21, 2022, March 22, 2022, and March 24, 2022.
On March 21, 2022, during his first interview with PSU, Respondent reported that Asst. Chief Jackson told him that J.H. was on the Brady List, and that he verified such at home by conducting online research. Respondent also reported that he shared the information he discovered with Lt. Becher, Lt. Owens, and Sgt. Hale. Respondent noted that he “believed” he had also spoken with Commander Randy Rody (“Cmdr. Rody”), but was uncertain.
PSU already knew that Respondent had spoken with Cmdr. Rody because Cmdr. Rody informed Detective Kopronica so earlier that same day. During Cmdr. Rody’s interview he told Detective Kopronica that Respondent had not indicated that SPD was failing to handle J.H.’s background investigation or hiring inappropriately, or that J.H. was unqualified for the Lieutenant position or should be excluded selection consideration. Instead, Cmdr. Rody informed Detective Kopronica that he believed Respondent informed him about J.H. being on the Brady List to "ensure [the information] made its way to the Chiefs."
On March 22, 2022, during his second interview with PSU, one that Respondent initiated, Respondent clarified that he recalled speaking with Cmdr. Rody about J.H. being on the Brady List. Afterwards, Detective Kopronica instructed Respondent to return to PSU if he recalled any further pertinent information.
During Lt. Becher’s interview with Detective Kopronica, conducted after Respondent’s second PSU interview, he denied speaking with Respondent about J.H. being on the Brady List.
During Lt. Robertson’s interview with Detective Kopronica, conducted after Respondent’s second PSU interview, he said that he “believed” he had spoken with Lt. Boxberger and Cmdr. Bacon about J.H. being on the Brady List. Cmdr. Bacon testified that he never spoke to Lt. Robertson about J.H.
On March 24, 2022, during his third and final interview with PSU, Respondent clarified that Ofc. Martinez mentioned J.H.’s Brady List status after his lunch with Asst. Cmdr. Jackson, and that the only person he gave a printout to was Ofc. Jennings. Respondent also told Detective Kopronica that he had not wanted to reveal Asst. Cmdr. Jackson as his source because he felt like it was “headhunting” about easily accessible public information. To that end, Respondent conceded that he likely “violated something,” but argued that he provided Ofc. Jennings with the information under the “see something, say something” policy because Ofc. Jennings was running background on the applicant. Respondent asserted that it was common knowledge that applicants on the Brady List would not be hired by SPD. Respondent also identified that he knew it was Chief Pina’s job to hire new officers.
Detective Kopronica did not ask Respondent to confirm or deny whether he placed the printout Sgt. Hale found on his desk.
During Asst. Chief Jackson’s interview with Detective Kopronica he denied knowing anything about J.H. being on the Brady List, but recalled having a conversation with Respondent where the subject was raised; which he conceded could have happened weeks prior during lunch where Lt. Owens was present.
On March 29, 2022, during an interview with Detective Kopronica, Lt. Owens confirmed that Asst. Chief Jackson had informed both him and Respondent that J.H. was on the Brady List during their lunch at BWW.
On March 30, 2022, Respondent was placed on Administrative Leave pending investigation by PSU.
On April 11, 2022, while on Administrative Leave, Respondent emailed Detective Kopronica to inform her that he remembered Lt. Owens had been present at his lunch with Asst. Chief Jackson and his wife at BWW, but that he had left earl due to receiving a call for service. After PSU received Respondent’s email, Detective Cyrnek instructed Detective Kopronica to question Respondent further. She did not.
Although Chief Piňa relied on Asst. Chief Morin to summarize Detective Kopronica’s investigation, Asst. Chief Morin was unaware of Respondent’s email to PSU April 11, 2022.
Both Detective Cyrnek and Asst. Chief Morin agreed that Detective Kopronica should have called Respondent back in to PSU for additional questioning upon receipt of his email.
Detective Cyrnek clarified that Respondent should have been asked whether he provided the printout discovered on Sgt. Hale’s desk, and noted PSU investigations were not “got you” traps for officers.
Asst. Chief Morin conceded that due to Detective Kopronica’s lack of experience, she failed to ask Respondent a number of pertinent questions.
On June 09, 2022, Respondent was terminated from employment by Chief Piňa in the wake of the ADM22-003 investigation.
On June 14, 2022, POST received Respondent’s termination report from SPD.
On June 29, 2022, Detective Kopronica drafted her final report for ADM22-003.
On July 26, 2022, Chief Piňa issued a Termination of Employment memorandum to POST regarding Respondent. The memo noted that Respondent had been terminated for the following three (3) reasons:
Respondent had allegedly untruthfully answered some of the questions posed to him during his interviews conducted by SPD PSU after signing the NOI.
During a meeting on June 01, 2022, Respondent had allegedly accepted that the investigation memorialized several of his inconsistent statements and behaviors, and as a result Respondent accepted a demotion to Sergeant.
During the same meeting on June 01, 2022, Respondent had allegedly become angry and told Chief Piňa he would not accept the hiring of an outside lieutenant because he had already experienced a poor working relationship with a lateral hire several years prior, and did not want to have a similar experience again.
Per Chief Piňa, Respondent had acted emotionally and “provided clarity of his intent to act subversively” to undermine his decision-making authority.
On August 22, 2022, POST received SPD’s internal investigation report from SPD.
On November 14, 2022, Respondent met with Ms. Heckel whereby he provided her with a flash drive containing documents and audio recordings related ADM22-003, which Ms. Heckle did not review until on or about January 18, 2023.
Stipulated Evidence
SPD identified that Respondent answered all questions posed by PSU in ADM22-003 honestly, save those at issue.
Additional Evidence
During the ADM22-003 investigation Respondent’s father was diagnosed with a terminal illness and hospitalized for several weeks due to COVID-19 related complications. In March 2022, Respondent sold his home and moved into his parents’ home so that he could assist in his father’s care and support his mother, who had been diagnosed with a central nervous system autoimmune condition and chronic pain.
Director Florisi testified that the grief cycle, care giver stress, and compassion fatigue affect persons both mentally and physically. She specified that the grieving process of caring for a terminally-ill parent could affect the encoding of an event, thus impacting memory. Director Florisi also testified that what is material or important to an individual may not be material or important to another; and if an event is not important, it may not be stored as a memory for memory-retrieval purposes. Director Florisi further testified that stress could impede memory retrieval, which differed from memory confabulation that occurred when a person was providing honest but inaccurate information.
On an unknown date, Respondent was hired by Grand Canyon University’s Police Department (“GCU PD”).
In December 2023, Respondent was hired by Hayden Police Department (“HPD”) as a Reserve Officer. Respondent also holds concurrent employment as a substitute teacher for the Peoria Unified School District.
When Respondent applied for employment with HPD, Sgt. Nava was assigned to conduct his background investigation. During his investigation Sgt. Nava reviewed SPD PSU’s ADM22-003 investigation file, including corresponding audio files and written transcripts, and interviewed Ms. Heckel regarding Respondent’s termination from SPD. Sgt. Nava also reviewed the Board’s Complaint No. 2022-112-POST and Case Summary.
During that time Detective Cyrnek shared his disbelief with Sgt. Nava that Respondent had not received lesser discipline, such as a Notice of Deficient Performance, which all other officers involved in ADM22-0003 received from PSU, and additional shock that Respondent had been terminated from employment as a result. Detective Cyrnek also shared his surprise with Sgt. Nava that the matter was referred to POST for investigation, as he did not believe Respondent’s conduct met the definition of dishonesty.
On November 24, 2023, Mr. Jacobs was hired by HPD to conduct a multi-issue pre-employment polygraph examination of Respondent. Sgt. Nava provided Mr. Jacobs with a copy of Complaint No. 2022-112-POST. During his examination of Respondent, Mr. Jacobs inquired about the Board’s investigation dishonesty allegations. Ultimately, Respondent’s individual scores showed no significant response(s) to indicate deception, including concealment of significant employment issues, and his global score passed with no significant indication of deception.
At the end of his investigation Sgt. Nava concluded that Respondent had not been afforded transparent due process during ADM22-003, and opined that Respondent had no benefit to conceal information. Sgt. Nava also found that Respondent had “fallen victim to interdepartmental politics,” and had neither purposely failed to disclose that he left a Brady List printout for Sgt. Hale, nor failed to disclose Lt. Owens’ attendance at the BWW lunch with Asst. Chief Jackson. As such, Sgt. Nava recommended that Respondent be considered for full authority.
On December 18, 2023, Chief Marquez approved Stg. Nava’s background investigation of Respondent.
Ultimately, POST signed-off on Sgt. Nava’s December 12, 2023, background investigation and noted that it met standards.
Per Ms. Heckel, if a peace officer affirmatively stated that they did not do something, and recanted an hour later, admitting to doing they very thing they initially denied doing, that POST would consider their initial statement to be dishonest. Per Asst. Chief Morin, however, information remembered by a peace officer at a later time is not a factor in aggravation or held against that officer.
Closing Arguments
Respondent’s Closing Argument
In closing, Respondent argued that he was under immense emotional and physical toil during the ADM22-003 investigation, which negatively impacted his ability to clearly navigate the administrative process. Respondent argued that his actions were due to the strain of overwhelming personal and professional burdens, and not rooted in dishonesty or misconduct. Per Respondent, the responses he provided Detective Kopronica during his interviews were made in good faith and to the best of his ability, given his circumstances.
Respondent vehemently denied providing PSU with false or misleading information during his Garrity interviews, and argued that any omissions were unintentional and due to stress-induced faulty memory.
Respondent opined that his integrity had been demonstrated when he asked for a second interview to clarify his prior statements and when he emailed PSU during his Administrative Leave after remembering an important detail he had unintentionally omitted from a prior interview.
Respondent noted that while he had no specific recollection of placing Brady List information regarding J.H. on Sgt. Hale’s desk, he did share with Detective Kopronica that he recalled speaking with Sgt. Hale about the matter.
Ultimately, Respondent opined that POST failed to establish that he knowingly or otherwise intentionally made a false or misleading statement to PSU during any of his Garrity interviews, which was supported by the fact that he passed a pre-employment polygraph examination that directly addressed the issue of honesty regarding who he recalled being in attendance at the BWW lunch, and how many Brady List printouts he made and who he gave them to.
POST’s Closing Argument
In closing POST argued that the evidence of record established that Respondent had committed misfeasance by engaging in “conduct or a pattern of conduct that tends to disrupt, diminish or otherwise jeopardize public trust in the law enforcement profession.” Specifically, POST argued that it was highly unlikely and improbable that Respondent forgot that Lt. Owens was present at the BWW lunch when questioned by Detective Kopronica during PSU interviews conducted March 21, 2022, March 22, 2022, and March 24, 2022. Per POST, Respondent had invited Lt. Owens to lunch at BWW, and he was present for most of the gathering and actively participated in the conversation with Respondent and Asst. Chief Jackson. POST further argued that it was also highly unlikely and improbable that Respondent forgot that he gave Sgt. Hale a Brady List printout regarding J.H.
POST noted that, during the relevant time period, Respondent had successfully performed multiple tasks in the execution of his duties, and did not have a reputation for forgetfulness or incompetence. POST opined that the contrary was true, as there was documented history of Respondent’s high-level work assignments, and nothing in the record to suggest Respondent ever sought modified duties or assistance with his mental health.
Per POST, Respondent’s alleged forgetfulness was not a plausible excuse for his conduct because he had been afforded time to prepare for all of his PSU interviews. POST noted that Respondent was provided copies of case materials including his NOI, SPD policies, and the Brady List printout – all of which Respondent could have relied upon to refresh his recollection. POST further argued that during his interviews with Detective Kopronica she provided cues to jog Respondent’s memory, but instead of answering her directly Respondent misdirected and evaded answering, conceding at one point that he did not want to comply and calling the investigation “absurd.”
Referencing persuasive authority, POST contended that Respondent failed to establish an affirmative defiance sufficient to rebut the credible evidence of record that established misfeasance. Citing People v. Barker, 96 P.3d 512 (2004), POST argued that an omission to act would not be willful if objective circumstances beyond one’s control prevented him from acting, and that o allow forgetfulness to excuse a failure to be truthful would serve as an incentive not to remember. POST noted that Respondent’s detailed testimony, long after the events in question took place, counter his own defense of forgetfulness and he failed to recall said events occurring close in time shortly after their occurrence.
As such, POST asked that Respondent’s conduct be found to constitute cause to find misconduct on his peace officer certification.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within POST’s jurisdiction and was properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
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.”
Pursuant to 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 (12) if it determines that he 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.” Misfeasance is “[a] lawful act performed in a wrongful manner.” Nonfeasance is “[t]he failure to act when a duty to act existed.” 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. Misfeasance by an officer is doing in a wrongful manner that which the law authorizes or requires him to do. Nonfeasance by an officer is the substantial failure to perform duty.”
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.”
Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”
Here, the material facts are clear and will be identified in a bifurcated manner.
Allegation #1
On March 21, 2022, Respondent provided a false and misleading statement to SPD PSU and was not truthful in his answers during a post Garrity internal affairs interview. During the interview, Respondent said he had made one printout of a document about a Brady List report, when he had made more than one copy and had distributed the document to more than one person.
The preponderance of the evidence establishes that this allegation is technically true to the extent that Respondent stated he only made one (1) copy of J.H.’s Brady List report, but false to the extent that he providing a misleading statement to PSU as he informed Detective Kopronica that he discussed the contents of his findings with Sgt. Hale. The record clearly established that Respondent made two (2) copies of the document at issue, giving a copy to Ofc. Jennings and another to, albeit indirectly, to Cmdr. Owens – both of whom acknowledge receiving said document from Respondent.
Here, Respondent’s conduct does not rise to the level of misfeasance let alone nonfeasance, 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. Respondent acted under the “see something, say something” officer training advisement and alerted Cmdr. Rody, Sgt. Hale and Ofc. Jennings – all of whom were in the recruitment unit. It cannot reasonably be argued that he initiated or otherwise fueled an unfounded rumor within SPD. As Sgt. Nava duly and independently noted, any concerns regarding Respondent’s conduct should have been quelled at the conclusion of ADM22-003.
Therefore, POST has not established cause to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification for this allegation pursuant to Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).
Allegation #2
On March 24, 2022, Respondent provided a false and misleading statement, and was not truthful in his answers, during a second post Garrity internal affairs interview. During the second interview, Respondent did not disclose everyone who was present during a luncheon meeting at BWW. During this luncheon meeting on March 04, 2022, there was a discussion about the potential application for a lieutenant position being on the Brady List. Knowing the identities of everyone who was present at the meeting was material to the administrative investigation at hand.
The preponderance of the evidence establishes that this allegation is false.
Respondent never denied that Lt. Owens was at the BWW lunch because he was never asked. And while it could reasonably be argued that Respondent should have, or was in fact required to, inform Detective Kopronica during that interview that Lt. Owens was present, Respondent sufficiently established that he simply and inauspiciously forgot. Notably, once he remembered Lt. Owen’s presence at the lunch, he immediately informed PSU by way of an email. Although Detective Kopronica was instructed to bring Respondent back to PSU for further questioning, she failed to do so. Detective Kopronica’s inexperience, coupled with Respondent’s frazzled mental state, resulted in an imperfect interrogation resulting in a number of subpar answers. Had Detective Cyrnek conducted ADM22-003, the questions he would have posed to Respondent likely would have yielded different responses due to his years of expertise. Regardless, it would be a misnomer to designate the information Respondent supplied during his interview as nonresponsive, deceptive, misleading, or patently false.
Again, given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s conduct here does not rise to the level of misfeasance or nonfeasance, 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 for this allegation pursuant to Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) and/or (A)(12).
OPINION
The public expects peace officers to apply the law equally, to not show bias, and to be truthful. There is not, however, an expectation by the public that law enforcement officers have perfect or otherwise infallible memories. Police officers are people, and people are not perfect. Officers should be afforded a modicum of grace to make noncritical errors or omissions, and should not face discipline for attempting to correct their mistakes in a timely manner.
As Director Florisi noted, “different things impact memory.” Respondent not specifically recalling providing Sgt. Hale with a Brady List, but remembering speaking about its contents with him, evince Respondent’s willingness to be forthright with what information he could recollect at the time. In kind, Respondent failing to inform PSU that Lt. Owens was present at the BWW lunch during questioning, but bringing it to their attention during his leave of absence once he remembered, is sufficient evidence to establish that Respondent acted truthfully – just not perfectly.
While the Tribunal is uncertain as to whether Respondent consequently fell “victim to interdepartmental politics” as Sgt. Nava opined, the Tribunal is certain that none of Respondent’s aforementioned behaviors satisfy the statutory definitions of prohibited conduct outlined in Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A)(8) or (12).
After careful consideration of the evidence presented at hearing and relevant Arizona law, as well as the arguments provided by both parties, this Tribunal finds that the POST Board has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it has cause to take disciplinary action against Ian U. Murton’s peace officer certification for violation(s) of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-109(A). The greater weight of Respondent’s evidence rebuts or otherwise overcomes the Board’s contentions that he acted untruthfully or knowingly mislead PSU during ADM22-003.
Given all of the underlying facts and circumstances of this matter discipline is not warranted.
IT IS ORDERED that the Board place Complaint No. 2022-112-POST on the agenda for its publically noticed June 18, 2025, meeting for review and discussion.
Done this day, June 04, 2025.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Matt Giordano, Director
c/o Arlene Heckel, Designated Agent
Peace Officers Standards and Training
2643 E. University Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85034
[email redacted]
Mark Brachtl, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General, Counsel for POST
2005 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Kathryn Baillie, Esq.
Napier, Baillie, Wilson, Bacon & Tallone, PC, Counsel for Respondent
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir., Ste. 135
Phoenix, AZ 85016
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff