ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
State of Ridgeway
IN RE
SteKing2008
Petitioner
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM NO. RSC-AD-268
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM INFORMATION
Please complete the following fields to the best of your ability.
Agency: Ridgeway Park Service; Law Enforcement Training Center
Type of Action DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE § 1.3
BLACKLIST § 1.7
IA Reference No. 5-22-0084-RPS
Responding Agent Solicitor General’s Office as State Counsel
MANDATORY DISCLOSURE
COMPLETE THIS DISCLOSURE AS PART OF YOUR RESPONSE
Internal Affairs Report: RPS IA - 5-22-0084-RPS.pdf
Violations: Ridgeway Park Service General Standards Policy
Ridgeway Park Service Off-Duty Carry Policy
Ridgeway Park Service Equipment Disposal Policy
LETC MI Memorandum #2, Page 3, Misuse of Equipment
Criminal Referral: The action was not referred for criminal prosecution.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) That on March 13th, 2022, Petitioner joined a small server and began to illegally
distribute weapons and other equipment issued to the Ridgeway Park Service to
Gavax_TM.
2) That on March 13th, 2022, Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs Lead Investigator
ConstantlyVerbal and Investigator xXBoomblast339Xx joined the same server Petitioner
was in and investigated Petitioner’s behavior after receiving drop logs due to Petitioner’s
actions.
3) That on March 13th, 2022, Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs Investigators placed
both Petitioner and Gavax_TM under arrest after a brief preliminary investigation in
which they gained probable cause for arrest on Petitioner and Gavax_TM for unlawful
distribution and possession of police-grade equipment, performing searches in which they
confirmed the distribution of Ridgeway Park Service equipment, in violation of the law
and Ridgeway Park Service rules and policy.
4) That on March 13th, 2022, Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs conducted an
interview of Petitioner while searching Petitioner’s private vehicles for evidence, with the
permission of Petitioner.
5) That on March 13th, 2022, Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs concluded their
investigation into Petitioner’s actions and found him to be in violation of the law and
Ridgeway Park Service rules and policy, issuing a dishonorable discharge and blacklist
from the Ridgeway Park Service as a result.
6) That on March 13th, 2022, Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs Investigator
AhmadKapalot referred the case to the Law Enforcement Training Center for
administrative action.
7) That on March 13th, 2022, following the results of the Ridgeway Park Service Internal
Affairs investigation, Law Enforcement Training Center Deputy Director xero_c
suspended Petitioner’s law enforcement certification and blacklisted Petitioner from
regaining law enforcement certification in the future for misuse of equipment.
8) That the unlawful distribution of police-grade equipment is a felony offense within the
State of Ridgeway.
9) That, according to the Law Enforcement Training Center Misconduct Investigations
Memorandum #2, issued on January 9th, 2022, any felony offense commissioned by
those with law enforcement certification will result in disciplinary action.
10) That, according to the Law Enforcement Training Center Misconduct Investigations
Memorandum #2, issued on January 9th, 2022, any felony commissioned by those with
law enforcement certification will result in a strike against that person’s certification or
the revocation of their certification outright.
11) That, according to the Law Enforcement Training Center Misconduct Investigations
Memorandum #2, issued on January 9th, 2022, any illegal firearms trafficking by those
with law enforcement certification will result in a revocation of certification and blacklist
from the Law Enforcement Training Center.
12) That the Inaugural Laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act and Public Safety
Act, were not considered enacted during the time on or around March 13th, 2022.
13) That after the enactment of the Inaugural Laws, the Ridgeway Park Service ended all
blacklists of previously blacklisted employees, including the blacklist of Petitioner, and
instead changed these blacklists to 4-month employment bans starting from the date of
their dishonorable discharge, as per the Ridgeway Administrative Procedure Act § 1.3(a).
ARGUMENT
Petitioner claims that under the Administrative Procedure Act contained within the
Inaugural Laws of the State of Ridgeway, Petitioner was and is entitled ex post facto to “an
internal affairs investigation and review by the administrative court” prior to being issued a
dishonorable discharge. Rid. Admin. Procedure Act § 1.3. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to
a reversal of all administrative actions against him due to the fact that he did not receive a
hearing in administrative court. His claim ignores the fact that, under the law at the time, no such
requirement existed, and the administrative court had not yet been formed. Thus, his argument is
obviously ridiculous.
I. THE CLAIM MAY NOT PROCEED
A. The Ridgeway Administrative Procedure Act And Public Safety Act Do Not
Apply Ex Post Facto.
Petitioner asserts that under the Ridgeway Administrative Procedure Act and Ridgeway
Public Safety Act, the administrative actions levied against him by the Ridgeway Park Service
and the Law Enforcement Training Center must have first been subject to a hearing conducted by
the administrative court before going into effect. This is a clear and obvious attempt to
circumvent appropriate administrative action taken against Petitioner for his misconduct while
serving with the Ridgeway Park Service; at the time of his offenses, the administrative court did
not exist, and neither did the requirement for a hearing before that court, due to the fact that the
State of Ridgeway’s Inaugural Laws (and thus the Administrative Procedure Act and Public
Safety Act) were not in effect at that time.
Thus, the only argument that could be made by the Petitioner for him to be offered the
protections prescribed under the Administrative Procedure Act and Public Safety Act is that the
Administrative Procedure Act and Public Safety Act apply ex post facto. However, this is clearly
not the case. The Administrative Procedure Act and Public Safety Act have absolutely no
language which would explicitly state or imply that the Acts were intended to apply ex post
facto, with all relevant language clearly indicating that the regulations established by the Acts
shall apply going forward. This assumption is backed by the general distaste for and
constitutional questionability of ex post facto legislation in the United States at large, with ex
post facto legislation being deemed entirely unconstitutional in criminal applications. See Calder
v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798). Ex post facto legislation is additionally heavily frowned
upon in civil and administrative applications; there has never been a civil or administrative law
which has been held to apply ex post facto which did not include explicit language deeming it so.
Since the Ridgeway Administrative Procedure Act and Ridgeway Public Safety Act
clearly do not apply ex post facto, Petitioner’s claim that the administrative actions levied against
him are invalid due to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and Public Safety Act
is entirely null. If such a claim were to be accepted, then any person who has received
administrative action from their department prior to the enactment of the Inaugural Laws would
be entitled to have that action reversed, despite the full legality and validity of those actions when
they were levied. Accepting this claim wrongfully gives a cause of action to hundreds of former
employees and opens the floodgates to litigation across the state—all in the absence of the
legislature’s permission.
B. Due Process Was Exercised In The Decision Against Petitioner.
Petitioner claims that “The petitioner was denied his rights to due process and
administrative review when dishonorably discharged and blacklisted from the Ridgeway Park
Service (henceforth the “RPS”), and again when the Law Enforcement Training Center
(henceforth the “LETC”) revoked his certification as a peace officer and blacklisted him from
regaining it in the future.” Petitioner’s Claim at 2. This is, however, is patently false, and refuses
to take into account the reasonable actions taken by the Ridgeway Park Service and Law
Enforcement Training Center in determining Petitioner’s guilt.
The Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs issued a full report on the incident. Appendix
A. In this report, they state the exact steps taken in investigating the incident, including
responding to the unlawful distribution of police-grade equipment as it was taking place,
conducting an arrest once probable cause of this distribution was ascertained, and then searching
the parties involved in the incident and finding direct evidence of this distribution. A recording of
the incident was taken from the perspective of Lead Investigator ConstantlyVerbal which fully
corroborates the findings of the Internal Affairs report. Appendix B. Despite the blatant
obviousness with which Petitioner committed offenses against Ridgeway law, Ridgeway Park
Service policy, and Law Enforcement Training Center policy, Petitioner was still given the
opportunity to speak in his own defense in an interview, coupled with a voluntary search of his
vehicles for further evidence. Careful note of his testimony was recorded, along with the results
of this search. Appendix C.
After the Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs unit had rightly come to the conclusion
that Petitioner had failed to properly secure his account, leading to him dealing police-grade
equipment to a civilian, they then made the decision to dishonorably discharge and blacklist
Petitioner from the Ridgeway Park Service, referring their findings to the Law Enforcement
Training Center. Once the Law Enforcement Training Center had received Ridgeway Park
Service Internal Affairs’ report, they proceeded to revoke Petitioner’s law enforcement
certification while blacklisting him from receiving one in future.
Under the law at that time, Petitioner was not entitled to any form of statutory due
process before receiving administrative action, and yet received due process in the form of a
thorough and detailed Internal Affairs investigation into his actions. As a result, not only is the
claim that the Petitioner did not receive due process incorrect, but a blatant fabrication; the
Petitioner in fact received due process which went above and beyond that which he was entitled
to. The decision reached by the Ridgeway Park Service and the Law Enforcement Training
Center is decidedly grounded in proven fact, reasoned judgement, and pre-established policy. The
proper course of administrative action according to departmental policy and established law at
that time was observed, and thus should not now be contravened by any decision of the court.
C. Petitioner’s Blacklist Has Already Been Revoked In Accordance With New Law.
Petitioner demands “The immediate removal of the ‘employment ban’ levied against the
petitioner by the Ridgeway Park Service.” Petitioner’s Claim at 2. Petitioner also demands “The
immediate removal of the blacklist levied against the petitioner by the Law Enforcement Training
Center.” Petitioner’s Claim at 3. Petitioner justifies these demands by claiming that “§1.7(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act, encoded within the Inaugural Laws of the State of Ridgeway,
states that “It is a violation of law to blacklist an individual from employment.”” Petitioner’s
Claim at 1 (quoting Rid. Admin. Procedure Act § 1.7(a)). Petitioner’s claims, however, outright
ignore the fact that his blacklist from the Ridgeway Park Service has already been revoked in
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act—and had been as soon as it was passed—and
that his blacklist from receiving certification with the Law Enforcement Training Center is not in
violation of the Ridgeway Admin Procedure Act § 1.7(a), as simply being blacklisted from
receiving law enforcement certification per his unlawful actions is not a bar from employment in
and of itself.
The Ridgeway Park Service, on the other hand, did blacklist Petitioner for a time, but
once the Administrative Procedure Act was enacted as law, this blacklist was undone in
accordance with the law, and was changed to a four-month employment ban starting from the
initial time of discharge, as is expressly allowed per Ridgeway Administrative Procedure Act §
1.3(a). Thus, the Petitioner’s claim that he has been unlawfully blacklisted or that he requires
relief from his employment ban are both entirely false, as the status of his blacklists was never at
any point unlawful, consistently changing with the law as necessary. Consequently, the
Petitioner’s demands for relief are plainly not based in statutory law, and should be denied
outright.
D. Blacklists From Law Enforcement Training Center Certification Are Lawful.
Petitioner claims that the blacklist that the Law Enforcement Training Center
implemented was unlawful because it is “a violation of law to blacklist an individual from
employment.” Rid. Admin. Procedure Act §1.7(a). But enrollment in the Law Enforcement
Training institute can hardly be considered employment. Students do not get paid for their
presence, they enroll on their own volition, and they do not render a service to anyone except
themselves. They sign up to learn and obtain a certification. And while it is true that this
certification is a prerequisite for employment within some law enforcement agencies, a blacklist
from obtaining a certification cannot be construed as a blacklist from obtaining employment if
the sole purpose of the blacklist is to prohibit certification.
The Law Enforcement Training Center has a clear interest in maintaining the
professional, lawful, and qualified image of individuals with certifications, and by extension law
enforcement as a whole. Allowing individuals who do not demonstrate those qualities to have a
certification ensures that those qualities are not tainted by the presence of undeserving people,
such as Petitioner in this case who misused the unique position offered by his certification and
employment to commit felony offenses. The Law Enforcement Training Center has high
standards to achieve this interest. Their application process is thorough and comprehensive. It
requires much more than just an expression of interest or proof of competency. Just to apply to
the facility and obtain admission, one must demonstrate their professionalism and aptitude in the
application process.
It reasons, then, that not just anyone is allowed to obtain a certification. And it follows
from there that the Law Enforcement Training Center has an interest not in prohibiting bad or
unqualified people from obtaining employment, but rather in prohibiting bad and unqualified
people from obtaining certification to act as law enforcement officers. Law enforcement
certification is the Law Enforcement Training Center’s seal of approval that a candidate is ready
to be employed in the capacity of a law enforcement officer, representing their jurisdiction as a
crucial wing of the justice system. They cannot take pride in that seal when it is bereft of
standards. The legitimacy of the institution and of law enforcement as a whole rides on the back
of the people that make up the institution. It cannot be denigrated so easily. The Law
Enforcement Training Center’s ability to blacklist protects that interest. Because blacklists by the
Law Enforcement Training Center are not prohibitions on employment, and instead, distinctly
prohibitions on certifications, the action cannot be overturned under §1.7(a).
CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s claim relies entirely on the application of laws which were not in effect at the
time of the administrative actions being levied against him being applied ex post facto, which
plainly contradicts the established jurisprudence when it comes to the application of laws ex post
facto in the United States. It is exceedingly obvious from the evidence gathered that the
administrative action against Petitioner was done with due consideration of the law, departmental
policy, and the evidence available to investigators, and that the conclusion reached by
investigators was just and fair in the circumstances. Petitioner now wants to be absolved of
responsibility for his actions by creating a loophole through ex post facto application of new
laws, which is a blatantly unacceptable and unsupported precedent to set. As a result, Petitioner’s
claim cannot proceed.
SHIGENOHARUMUNE
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
CLIFFORD2
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
TURNTABLE5000
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Dated: April 15, 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
A) Ridgeway Park Service Internal Affairs Investigative Report 5-22-0084-RPS
B) Recording of Original Incident from Lead Investigator ConstantlyVerbal’s Perspective
C) Recording of Petitioner’s Interview and Vehicle Search with Internal Affairs
