ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023-152-POST · Peace Officers Standards and Training · 2024-12-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Hearing Regarding

the Peace Officer Certification of:

Ryun J. Deming,

Respondent.

No. 2023-152-POST

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 4, 2024

APPEARANCES: The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board was represented by Assistant Attorney General Joseph E. Dylo. Respondent Ryun J. Deming was represented by Steven J Serbalik.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board Exhibits 1-21 and Respondent’s Exhibit A were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ryun J. Deming (Respondent) completed peace officer training and received certification from the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST). Respondent worked for the Clarkdale Police Department (CPD) from July 13, 2019 until August 16, 2023.

On August 16, 2023, a termination report was received from the CPD with an effective date of August 16, 2023, regarding Respondent.

The CPD provided records and documentation to AZPOST regarding Respondent’s employment with the police department.

4 August 16, 2023, Respondent resigned from the CPD after an internal affairs investigation (IA 2023-2) sustained policy violations.

5. On or about May 17, 2023, POST issued a Complaint to Respondent.

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 October 3, 2024, 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 June 16, 2023, Officer Ryun Deming violated Clarkdale Police Department policy when he conducted a roadblock, using his patrol vehicle, and was subsequently untruthful in his post-NOI interview and his written statement when he said he did not conduct a roadblock.

At hearing, POST presented the testimony of Lieutenant Joe Candelaria, Sergeant Mike Brundridge and Mike Deltenre.

Lieutenant Candelaria conducted the internal affairs investigation. He testified to the following:

On June 16, 2023, Officer Fricke attempted to contact two vehicles in the area of Allen Springs Road. When one began to flee, he radioed to Respondent for backup. Respondent then stated over the radio that he would “block” the vehicle.

Respondent blocked the road, however the fleeing vehicle used the shoulder of the dirt road in an attempt to pass Respondent. However, the fleeing vehicle sideswiped Respondent’s vehicle, and the driver then fled the area.

As he and Sergeant Brundridge responded to the scene, Respondent informed them that he attempted to block the fleeing vehicle.

Lieutenant Candelaria also reviewed the “passdown report” from Respondent which were Respondent’s shift notes from that night. That report stated that Respondent, “positioned further down to block the road”.

In addition, Lieutenant Candelaria reviewed the CPD incident report from that night.

Lieutenant Candelaria also reviewed the body camera footage in which Respondent stated that he was “right in the middle of the road at a slight angle.”

Further, Lieutenant Candelaria reviewed Sergeant Brundridge’s Reports, and the photographs from that night.

When Lieutenant Candelaria interviewed Respondent, explained that it was a stressful situation and although the Respondent stated on the radio that he would block the road, it was “not what I actually physically did.” Respondent also referenced Officer Lee’s report which indicated that Respondent was on the right side of the roadway at slight angle.

Respondent also stated in the interview that he was unaware of the policy that a roadblock was considered deadly force, and again repeated that he “did not do a roadblock”.

Lieutenant Candelaria concluded in that:

It is clear that from Officer Demings original report, pass down, and body camera footage that during the incident he was attempting a roadblock. The explanation during his interview and in his written statement that he “did not mean what he said”, does not coincide with the evidence. During his interview he stated, that at the time of the incident he was not familiar with the roadblock policy.

Ultimately, Lieutenant Candelaria concluded that Respondent should be terminated for being untruthful during the investigation and not the policy violations, as it was important that officers were honest in what we do, as the public relies on that trust.

Sergeant Brundridge testified that he was the on-call supervisor that night and Respondent called him after the incident, and he responded to the scene.

Sergeant Brundridge testified that he prepared two memoranda to Lieutenant Candelaria. The first was on June 22, 2023. In that report, Sergeant Brundridge indicated that Respondent had “blocked the road”. Further, the memorandum stated:

... I got into Officer Deming’s vehicle and drove with him to the scene. I asked Officer Deming to park his vehicle at the location where the collision occurred. Officer Deming parked his vehicle in the roadway and said that he “canted” his vehicle so that the suspect vehicle could not get passed him. I took photographs of Officer Deming’s vehicle and forwarded them to Lt. Candelaria. Officer Deming showed me that the vehicle had left “skid marks” in the gravel dirt where the vehicles collided. I took a photograph of the tire marks in the gravel and forwarded that photograph to Lt. Candelaria...

Further, Sergeant Brundridge testified that he never provided roadblock training to Respondent and he found Respondent to be honest in general.

Michael Deltenre was a Compliance Specialist for POST. He testified that once POST received the termination report he began his investigation. After his investigation, Mr. Deltenre prepared his report and on October 18, 2023, presented the same in which the staff recommended that POST initiate proceedings.

Mr. Deltenre testified that truthfulness was the foundation of the law enforcement profession, as there was a duty to be honest as failure to do so diminishes the public trust. Mr. Deltenre also testified that dishonesty was considered malfeasance.

Respondent testified that he never received any roadblock training from the academy or the CPD.

Respondent also testified that while he said “roadblock”, he did not mean the same, as in actuality, he only created a partial obstruction. In his mind, “roadblock” meant a complete block with no way around.

Further, Respondent testified that he never conducted a roadblock, and only partially blocked the road. He also testified that he was never intentionally dishonest during the investigation.

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 Vazzano 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) if it determines that he has committed acts that constitute any of the following:

8. Committing malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office;

...

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.”

In this case, the tribunal finds Respondent could have and should have been clearer as to what occurred that night. The main problem for the CPD and Respondent was that nowhere is “roadblock” defined. It appears that Respondent and Lieutenant Candelaria each had different definitions as to what a “roadblock” was, and to hold Respondent responsible for what he said on the radio and in Respondent’s immediate subsequent reports seems unfair. However, with that being stated, Respondent never sought clarification from Lieutenant Candeleria as to what was meant by the term “roadblock” and therefore, could not perhaps accurately describe the position of his vehicle that night. What was clear, was that during the interview with Lieutenant Candelaria, Respondent relied on Officer Lee’s description of the vehicle in Officer Lee’s report which seemed to place the vehicle much farther to the right side of the road from what it actually was. This was much different from his statements at the scene of the incident that night, when his statements were undoubtedly much more accurate.

Therefore, POST established cause to discipline Respondent’s peace officer certification under A.A.C. R13-4-109(A)(8) and (12).

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, December 19, 2024.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Matt Giordano, Director

Peace Officers Standards and Training

Joseph Dylo

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

Steven J. Serbalik PLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff