Opinion ID: 2071833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: codes of conduct and ethics

Text: Hauser argues that the district court erred in finding that the State Patrol's codes of conduct and ethics and his oath of office could be taken into consideration in determining whether he neglected his duties or lacked the emotional capacity to possess a law enforcement certificate. He claims that these policies should not have been considered because they were not adopted pursuant to the APA. Hauser asserts that our decision in McAllister v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 253 Neb. 910, 573 N.W.2d 143 (1998), prevents the use of the State Patrol codes of conduct and ethics and the oath of office in evaluating his conduct because they have not been filed with the Secretary of State. McAllister involved an agency's disciplinary regulations that had not been filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to the APA. We held that agency rules and regulations that prescribe a penalty must be filed pursuant to the APA. The disciplinary regulations applied in McAllister contained a penalty provision, and therefore, we held they were invalid. Hauser's argument ignores the fact that the district court did not use the State Patrol's internal policies or the oath of office to prescribe a penalty. Instead, the court based its decision to affirm the revocation of Hauser's certificate on the statutory grounds set forth in § 81-1403(5). The court merely used the codes to determine whether the grounds described in § 81-1403(5) had been violated. The only agency rules used to prescribe a penalty were the Commission's rules for revocation of law enforcement certificates, and evidence was presented which showed that these rules had been established pursuant to the APA. The duties of the Council and the Commission are currently set out in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 81-1401 et seq. (Reissue 1999 & Cum.Supp.2004). At all times relevant to this case, § 81-1403 provided: Subject to review and approval by the commission, the council shall: .... (5) Revoke such certificates according to rules and regulations established by the council which shall include, but not be limited to, revocation for (a) incompetence, (b) neglect of duty, and (c) physical, mental, or emotional incapacity. Such rules and regulations shall include a procedure for hearing appeals of any person who feels that the revocation of his or her certificate was in error. The district court found that the code of conduct, the code of ethics, and the oath of office were guidelines for evaluating and making determinations as to the duties and conduct expected of a State Patrol trooper and that they could be used in deciding whether a certificate should be revoked under § 81-1403(5). Throughout 1998, Hauser engaged in numerous acts of domestic violence against his wife. On September 26, Hauser slapped his wife's face multiple times and grabbed her around the neck, causing her to fall to the floor. A call was made to the 911 emergency dispatch center because Hauser's wife was unresponsive. When law enforcement officers arrived following the call, Hauser denied having had any physical contact with his wife. This directly contradicted her testimony and the physical evidence. The court also found that Hauser had numerous opportunities during 1998 to extricate himself from this pattern of domestic violence. The district court concluded that a certified law enforcement officer who violated the laws of the State of Nebraska by assaulting his wife and who then gave false information to police officers about that assault had violated § 81-1403(5) by neglecting his duties and conducting himself in a manner that demonstrated emotional incapacity to be a certified law enforcement officer. In concluding that these codes and Hauser's oath of office were properly taken into consideration in determining whether Hauser neglected his duties, the district court relied upon Scott v. State ex rel. Board of Nursing, 196 Neb. 681, 244 N.W.2d 683 1976), overruled on other grounds, Langvardt v. Horton, 254 Neb. 878, 581 N.W.2d 60 (1998). The Board of Nursing of the State of Nebraska denied Hazel Scott's application for a professional nursing license. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 71-1,132.29 (Reissue 1971) provided in part that the board could deny a license upon proof that the applicant was guilty of unprofessional conduct. Nebraska statutes did not define the term, but the board had adopted general standards as to what constituted unprofessional conduct. We affirmed the denial of Scott's application and cited Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Foote, 200 Kan. 447, 436 P.2d 828 (1968). The Kansas Supreme Court had answered a similar contention by stating: `It would indeed be difficult, not to say impractical, in carrying out the purpose of the act, for the legislature to list each and every specific act or course of conduct which might constitute such unprofessional conduct of a disqualifying nature....' Scott, 196 Neb. at 690-91, 244 N.W.2d at 689. In In re Complaint Against Jones, 255 Neb. 1, 581 N.W.2d 876 (1998), we examined the Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct in regard to the conduct of a county judge. The penalty for violation of the code was set forth in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-722 (Reissue 1995), which provided: A ... judge of any court of this state may be reprimanded, disciplined ... or removed from office for ... (6) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. The special master concluded that the judge's conduct had violated the code, and the Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications recommended that the judge be removed from office. The judge petitioned this court to modify or reject the commission's recommendation. Our inquiry was whether the charges were supported by clear and convincing evidence, which canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct had been violated, and which subsections of § 24-722 had been violated. We examined the actions of the judge in light of the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to determine whether such conduct violated § 24-722(6). Both Scott and In re Complaint Against Jones support our conclusion that the Council, the Commission, and the district court did not err in relying upon the State Patrol's codes and oath of office to determine whether Hauser's conduct violated § 81-1403(5). These codes were properly used as a guide to evaluate whether Hauser neglected his duties. Hauser's first assignment of error has no merit.