ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023-214-POST · Peace Officers Standards and Training · 2024-07-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

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

Price A. D’Antonio,

Applicant.

No. 2023-214-POST

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 25, 2024

APPEARANCES: Price A. D’Antonio (Applicant) represented himself.

Assistant Attorney General Joe Dylo represented the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board (POST).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Applicant’s Exhibits 1 through 6.

POST Exhibits 1 through 12.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On April 16, 2024, POST issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on June 25, 2024. The Notice of Hearing notified Applicant that the “[t]he Administrative Law Judge will hear evidence and argument and render recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon which the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board will base its decision regarding the denial of your certification.”

2. A hearing was held on June 25, 2024.

3. At hearing, Applicant testified on behalf of himself. POST presented the

testimony of Richard Bradshaw, POST’s Compliance Specialist, and Deputy Amy

Jones, a recruiting training officer (RTO) at the Maricopa County Law Enforcement Training Academy (Academy).

4. On September 11, 2023, Applicant began training at the Academy in class #162. Applicant was an out of agency recruit from the Payson Police Department (PPD).

5. Prior to the start of training, Applicant was in possession of his gun and ammunition. Officer Gavin Erickson of the PPD instructed Applicant to give his gun and ammunition to his RTO. Applicant failed to do so. Applicant was assigned to RTO J. Haley.

6. At the beginning of the Academy, assigned staff read aloud the rules of the Academy. Academy staff emphasized the importance of the importance of being truthful at all times and providing specific answers to questions while enrolled at the Academy.

7. On October 26, 2023, RTO Haley asked Applicant and recruits Mukora, Perez, and Sodequist whether they could bring their guns and ammunition to the Academy on October 30, 2023.

8. Applicant advised that he would not be able to bring his gun until November 2, 2023, because he was planning to give the gun to the PPD armorer so that a red dot sign could be placed on the gun. A red dot sign helps a shooter to aim accurately. Recruits Sodequist heard Applicant make the statement to RTO Haley. RTO Jones advised Applicant that it was very important that he turn the gun in by the following Monday when the class was scheduled to go to the range. Applicant responded that if he did not have the red dot placed in time, he would bring the gun on time without the red dot. Recruits Mukora, Perez, and Sodequist were present when Applicant made the statement along with RTO Jones.

9. On October 30, 2023, RTO Haley and RTO Jones inquired whether any of the recruits from class #162 had gun and ammunition to turn in for the range. RTO Swanson, RTO Pipoly, and Sergeant Pocknell were present. Recruits Mukora, Perez, Sodequist, and Applicant advised that they had guns and ammunition to turn in for the range. Recruits Mukora, Perez, Sodequist, and Applicant were advised to wait next to their vehicles and RTO Haley would come and collect the items.

10. RTO Haley brought a car outside to collect the items. Sergeant Pocknell and RTO Jones were present with RTO Haley. Recruits Mukora, Perez, Sodequist, and Applicant were standing next to their vehicles.

11 RTO Haley approached Applicant and Applicant provided two cases of 9mm ammunition to RTO Haley.

12. RTO Haley and RTO Jones asked Applicant if he had his gun and Applicant replied, “No.” When they asked Applicant about the whereabouts of the gun, Applicant responded that the gun was at the PPD armorer for the placement of a red dot sign. Recruits Sodequist, E. Olivas, and Mukora, heard Applicant make the statement to RTO Haley. RTO Haley and Sergeant Pocknell then asked Applicant the name of the armorer who had his gun and Applicant responded that he gave the gun to a Commander of the PPD with the first name, “Josh”.

13. Approximately 1-2 minutes later, Applicant stated that he wanted to clarify that his gun was at his son’s home and not with the PPD armorer. Recruits Sodequist, E. Olivas, and Mukora heard Applicant make the statement to RTO Haley. RTO Jones immediately confronted Applicant for having made a false statement about the Commander having his gun. Applicant claimed that he misspoke and that he was correcting himself. RTO Haley and RTO Jones asked Applicant whether he had any other ammunition and Applicant responded that he only had some simunition rounds.

14. The Academy’s Sworn Rules and Regulations provide that “Recruits will be entirely honest and truthful in their communications with all persons” and “Recruits will truthfully answer training staff inquiries about their actions or the actions of others.”

15. The Academy concluded that Applicant made a false statement when he reported that his gun was with the PPD armorer.

16. The Academy notified Applicant that he was dismissed from the Academy effective October 30, 2023.

17. Applicant was terminated from the PPD for several reasons, including his statement about the location of his gun.

18. PPD notified POST of Applicant’s termination. POST also received a notification that Applicant was dismissed from the Academy.

19. Richard Bradshaw has been a Compliance Specialist for POST for a little over two and a half years. Mr. Bradshaw had 31 years of experience working for the Glendale Police Department. He retired with the Glendale Police Department as a Commander.

20. Mr. Bradshaw performs new hire audits. POST reviews at all certified police officer applications to assess whether they meet the minimum standards for POST. Mr. Bradshaw investigates report of alleged violations of POST rules. Anytime someone leaves an agency, the agency notifies POST. If the agency believes that there might be an POST violation, then POST opens a case. POST takes any reports generated by an agency. POST will also reach out to the academy to obtain documentation regarding the reasons for dismissal. POST will reach out through a phone conversation or by emails. Mr. Bradshaw will review the termination and determine whether there is a rules violation. If there is a rules violation, POST will move forward with a case overview that will be presented to the Board.

21. Mr. Bradshaw presented a case overview to the Board. The Compliance Specialists will make a recommendation to the Board. Thereafter, the Board will determine what if any action to take.

22. Mr. Bradshaw was assigned by POST to investigate Applicant’s termination from PPD and dismissal from the Academy. Mr. Bradshaw communicated with Commander Josh Haines of the PPD by e-mail. Mr. Bradshaw sent an email on November 30, 2023 to Mr. Haines asking for any information he had related to Applicant’s termination from the Academy. The November 30, 2023 email provided, in relevant part, as follows:

....................................................

Applicant was advised prior to going to the Academy that he needed to abide by all academy rules and regulations, that he would report directly to academy staff through their chain of command, and that RTO Gavin Erickson would be his liaison should he need advice, assistance, or logical assistance form the PPD.

....................................................

When Mr. D’Antonio was sent to the academy, he was sent with his department issued firearm and ammunition. He was instructed to have it in his vehicle on day one, to leave it in the vehicle, and to inform his RTO that his weapon and ammunition was in the vehicle so that he could turn it over to the academy staff. This was to comply with academy rules. [Applicant] failed to do that. The academy staff advised that when they asked him where his gun was at, he told them it was with a Commander at the Police Department being worked on. He then changed his story upon further questioning and advised them the weapon was at his residence.

23. Mr. Bradshaw reviewed the Academy’s Personnel Performance Record (PPR) for Applicant. Mr. Bradshaw explained at hearing that one of the RTOs or Sergeant Pocknell would have made the note entry on Exhibit 4, POST-016-17, dated October 30, 2023. The note reflects that one of the RTOs or Sergeant Pocknell received a call from Mr. Erickson inquiring whether Applicant has given his gun and ammunition to the Academy. Mr. Erickson told the writer of the note that Applicant was instructed, prior to the start of the Academy, to inform Academy Staff that he had his gun and ammunition and to turn it over to the staff as soon as possible.

24. The PPR also reflects that the following events occurred on October 30, 2023:

RTO Jones, Sergeant Pocknell, and the writer of the entry note went out to the parking lot to collect ammunition and firearms for recruits Perez, Soderquist, a, Mukor and Applicant.

After what appeared to be 2000 rounds of ammunition was collected from Applicant, Applicant was asked where his agency firearm was located and Applicant advised it was with the Payson PD armorer.

About 1-2 minutes later, Applicant said that he misspoke and that his firearm was at Applicant’s son’s home.

Sergeant Pocknell and RTO Jones discussed the matter and determined that Applicant knowingly made a false statement.

Sergeant Pocknell contacted PPD and informed them of the incident. PPD advised that they would be terminating Applicant’s employment for failing to provide his information in his background check. As a result, Applicant was dismissed from the Academy.

On October 30, 2023, the Academy notified Applicant that he was dismissed from the Academy.

25. Mr. Bradshaw prepared a case summary regarding his investigation to POST.

26. On February 21, 2024, POST issued a Notice of Denial to Applicant, notifying Applicant that POST voted to initiate proceedings to deny Applicant Arizona Peace Officer Certification to Applicant, because Applicant “was not truthful with academy staff when he told them that his Department issued firearm was at the Payson Police Department, so a red dot sight could be placed on it.”

27. Applicant requested a hearing to contest the allegation.

28. Applicant testified that when RTO Haley asked him about the whereabouts of his gun, he responded that he told RTO Haley that he dropped it off at the PPD the week prior to have a red dot installed, but they could not do it. Applicant stated that he reported that he dropped the gun off with Commander Heslow and not Commander Josh Haines. Applicant stated that after he saw that RTO Haley looked confused, Applicant stated, “let me be clear I have my handgun in my possession.” When asked again about the whereabouts, Applicant stated the gun was at his son’s home. Applicant testified that Mr. Erickson nor Commander Haines ever told him that he had to have his vehicle in all times. Applicant clarified that the red dot sight was optional.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within POST’s jurisdiction. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1821 et seq.

2. POST may “[d]eny, suspend, revoke or cancel the certification of an officer” who does not comply with rules prescribing reasonable minimum qualifications for officers. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1822(D)(1).

3. Ariz. Admin. Code section R13-4-109(A) provides that POST may deny certified status of a peace offer for the following reason:

***

12. Engaging in any conduct or pattern of conduct that tends to disrupt, diminish, or otherwise jeopardize public trust in the law enforcement profession.

4. Applicant bears the burden of persuasion to show that he is qualified to receive peace officer’s certification by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat § 41-1092.07(G)(2); Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

5. The standard of proof on all issues is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

6. A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

7. “Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B).

8. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)(citation omitted). Statutes and rules are construed using the same principles. Id.

9. Applicant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is qualified to receive peace officer’s certification. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Applicant was dishonest when he told Academy staff that his gun was with the Payson PPD armorer.

10. Because Applicant was dishonest with Academy staff, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Applicant has engaged in conduct that tends to jeopardize the public trust, which is a violation of Ariz. Admin. Code section R13-4-109(A)(12).

11. Applicant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is qualified to receive peace officer certification.

12. Therefore, grounds exist to deny certified peace officer status to Applicant.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, July 15, 2024.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Matt Giordano, Director

Peace Officers Standards and Training

By: OAH Staff