Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Court of Appeals of Indiana has reversed declaratory judgment entered in favor of a law enforcement officer facing discipline following his arrest, even though that arrest was expunged.
The officer, R.L., was arrested in July 2021 and charged with a criminal offense.
In April 2022, the Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board sent a letter to R.L. stating that it had “learned of the event that may lead to the revocation of [his] Indiana Law Enforcement Basic Training Certification and authority to act as a law enforcement officer.” Specifically, the board alleged that R.L. committed conduct that met the elements of Level 6 felony criminal confinement and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of .08 or more.
In July 2022, R.L. petitioned to expunge all records associated with his arrest. He claimed that he was charged with operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least .08 but less than .15, and it was dismissed.
The Martin Circuit Court expunged the records.
R.L. then sent a letter to the board claiming that the anti-discrimination statute, Indiana Code § 35-38-9-10, prohibited it from using the arrest as a basis to deny him his license. He further asserted that the board’s failure to immediately dismiss the disciplinary charges subjected it contempt proceedings under the anti-discrimination statute.
The board did not dismiss its action, so R.L. filed a motion requesting a declaratory judgment concerning the expungement of his arrest record.
In August 2022, the trial court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of R.L. When the trial court issued the judgment, the board was not a party to the cause.
The board then intervened and argued that it was entitled to an opportunity to be heard. It also argued that the trial court erred in entering judgment because, under Whaley v. Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind., 184 N.E.3d 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), the anti-discrimination statute does not apply, so the board was free to conduct disciplinary proceedings regarding the events of the day R.L. was arrested without relying on the expungement records.
The trial court vacated the declaratory judgment and held a hearing. The court then again granted the requested declaratory judgment in favor of R.L.
In its written judgment, the trial court determined that the anti-discrimination statute prohibited the board from using any facts from the expunged arrest as a basis to revoke or deny R.L.’s license to act as a law enforcement officer.
The board then appealed the trial court’s judgment.
The appellate court looked to Whaley in making its determination.
In that case, a physician was subjected to restrictions on her medical license due to a conviction that was later expunged. She argued that under the anti-discrimination statute, the restrictions were unlawful discrimination because her conviction had been expunged.
The appellate court ultimately concluded that the licensing authority could maintain restrictions on the professional license without running afoul of the anti-discrimination statute.
The COA reached a similar conclusion in this case, reversing declaratory judgment for R.L.
“We conclude that, although the Board must not consider the expunged arrest records in its proceedings, the Board may consider independent evidence of the facts underlying those arrest records,” Judge Peter Foley wrote.
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Melissa May concurred in In re the Petition for Expungement of R.L.: Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board v. R.L., 23A-XP-144.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.