Safety (DPS), but he failed to disclose the 1995 border incident during the 

application process. Eleven years later, the border incident came to the 

attention of his superiors, and, after an investigation, Dutchover was 

terminated despite his contention that he had forgotten about the incident 

at the time he applied to be an NHP trooper. He appealed the termination 

to respondent State of Nevada Department of Personnel, State Personnel 

Commission, and a hearing officer determined that Dutchover had 

intentionally concealed the border incident during the application process 

and that his termination was warranted. Dutchover petitioned for judicial 

review in the district court, and the court upheld Dutchover's termination. 

This appeal followed. 

"This court's function when reviewing a district court's order 

denying a petition for judicial review is the same as the district court's: to 

determine whether substantial evidence supports the appeals officer's 

decision and whether that decision is affected by legal error." Holiday Ret. 

Corp. v. State, Diu. of Indus. Relations, 128 Nev. 274 P.3d 759, 

761 (2012). "Neither this court nor the district court may substitute its 

judgment of the evidence for that of the administrative agency," and 

review is limited to the record that was before the agency. Nev. Emp't Sec. 

Dep't v. Cline, 109 Nev. 74, 76, 847 P.2d 736, 738 (1993); NRS 

233B.135(1)(b), (3). 

At the administrative hearing, the hearing officer found that 

Dutchover intentionally concealed the border incident and thus committed 

"fflraud in securing appointment" pursuant to NAC 284.650(8), and 

"[d]ishonesty" pursuant to NAC 284.650(10). Based on our review of the 

record before us, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

hearing officer's findings. The evidence presented demonstrated that two 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
and one-half years prior to applying to be an NHP trooper, Dutchover was 

detained at the Mexican border. At that time, a search of his vehicle 

resulted in the discovery of illegal substances, which were confiscated and 

caused his car to be impounded. The personal history report Dutchover 

was required to complete during the application process inquired 

specifically about the use, possession, and transportation of controlled 

substances, including steroids, and Dutchover failed to disclose this 

incident on his application. Finally, during the NHP's internal 

investigation, Dutchover was interviewed and asked whether he failed to 

disclose the incident because he believed there would be no record, to 

which he answered "[t]here was no record of it[,] that is according to what 

they told me." 

We conclude that the hearing officer's decision that 

Dutchover's violations warranted termination was not arbitrary or 

capricious. See Holiday Ret. Corp., 128 Nev. at , 274 P.3d at 761; State 

ex rel. Whalen v. Welliver, 60 Nev. 154, 159, 104 P.2d 188, 190-91 (1940) 

(explaining that dismissal of a law enforcement officer must be supported 

by "legal cause, . . . one touching the qualifications of the officer or his 

performance of his duties"); NRS 284.385(1)(a) (providing that a state 

employee may be "[d]ismiss[ed] . . when the appointing authority 

considers that the good of the public service will be served thereby"). 

This court has previously recognized that honesty is 

fundamental to a law enforcement officer's ability to effectively perform 

his or her job. See Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep't, 129 Nev. 

, 302 P.3d 1108, 1115 (2013) ("A police officer's job is to uphold the law, 

and the act of lying. . . could plausibly bear directly upon [his or her] 

fitness to be an officer."). Because NHP officers are often called upon to 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A .02ajz• 
testify in court, Dutchover's dishonesty may allow his credibility to be 

impeached, thus rendering him a liability on the stand and unable to 

perform a vital function of his duties as a law enforcement officer. See 

id.at , 302 P.3d at 1115 (noting that since officers are often summoned 

as witnesses at trial, an officer's "untruthfulness could be used to impeach 

[the officer's] credibility"). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

- 

, J. 

Hardesty 

ieSS J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Paul H. Schofield, Settlement Judge 

Law Office of Daniel Marks 

Attorney General/Transportation Division/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A les.