Fuller v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards

In a substantial reason review, the courts look to whether the agency has “articulate[d] a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them.” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195, 335 P3d 828 (2014). An agency order regarding a contested case that lacks such reasoning requires the Court to reverse and remand for the agency to correct the deficiency. Id.

Petitioner sought judicial review of a final order of the Department of Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) who revoked Petitioner's certifications to carry out his duties as a police officer. DPSST determined Petitioner had engaged in "dishonesty”, which is one of the categories of "discretionary disqualifying misconduct" pursuant to OAR 259-008-0070(4)(b). On appeal, Petitioner raised two arguments: (1) Petitioner argued that DPSST legally erred in interpreting the term "dishonesty" as it is used in the rule and (2) Petitioner argued that DPSST failed to support its decision to revoke his certifications with "substantial reason." In a substantial reason review, the courts look to whether the agency has “articulate[d] a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them.” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195, 335 P3d 828 (2014). An agency order regarding a contested case that lacks such reasoning requires the Court to reverse and remand for the agency to correct the deficiency. Id. The Court held that DPSST’s explanation for its conclusion does not comport with substantial reason because Petitioner’s act of "dishonest conduct" does not impact his ability to assist in future prosecutions or otherwise carry out his duties as an officer. 

Reversed and remanded.