Opinion ID: 1101286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: does the board on law enforcement officer standards and training have the authority to grandfather into certification an employee of a law enforcement agency who was serving in an out-of-state jurisdiction on july 1, 1981?

Text: ¶ 9. Section 45-6-11(1), the grandfather clause, provides in pertinent part as follows: (1) Law enforcement officers already serving under permanent appointment on July 1, 1981 and personnel of the division of community services under Section 47-7-9, Mississippi Code of 1972, serving on July 1, 1994, shall not be required to meet any requirement of subsections (3) and (4) of this section as a condition of continued employment; nor shall failure of any such law enforcement officer to fulfill such requirements make that person ineligible for any promotional examination for which that person is otherwise eligible. Miss.Code Ann. § 45-6-11(1) (Supp.1997) [1] . The term law enforcement officer is defined at section 45-6-3(c), as follows: (c) Law enforcement officer means any person appointed or employed full time by the state or any political subdivision thereof, who is duly sworn and vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests, and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals and the enforcement of the criminal and traffic laws of this state and/or the ordinances of any political subdivision thereof. Miss.Code Ann. § 45-6-3(c) (Supp.1997)(emphasis added). ¶ 10. The Board contends that it has no statutory authority or jurisdictional basis to grandfather a law enforcement officer serving in a foreign jurisdiction on July 1, 1981. The Board cites Mississippi case law for the proposition that it is vested only with the statutory authority conferred by statute and that which is necessarily implied. Mississippi State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Steele, 317 So.2d 33, 35 (Miss. 1975); Mississippi Milk Comm'n v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 235 So.2d 684 (Miss.1970). The Board applies a strict, literal interpretation and asserts that without question the statute defines and contemplates that those eligible for grandfathering are law enforcement officers in service in Mississippi on July 1, 1981. The Board submits that the chancellor's liberal interpretation of the statutes was an abuse of discretion that should be reversed. We agree. ¶ 11. In contrast, Voyles contends that the Board made a overly narrow interpretation of the statutes which the chancellor correctly remedied. Voyles points to Section 45-6-3, designated Definitions, and its preamble which states, For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed herein, unless the context shall otherwise require ... Miss.Code Ann. § 45-6-3 (Supp.1997). Since the term law enforcement officer is defined in this section, as above, Voyles contends that the chancellor correctly interpreted the statutes in their proper context to grandfather him. ¶ 12. The Board responds that the proper context would be to grandfather him if he had successfully completed an equivalent academy in another state. It is uncontested that Voyles never received training from an officer training academy in any state. The Board argues that this is where the chancellor clearly erred. The chancellor stated that subsequent amendments to Miss.Code Ann. Section 45-6-1 et. seq. revealed the Board's narrow construction of the statute as unwarranted. The Board thinks that the chancellor was likely alluding to Section 45-6-11(6), which provides as follows: (6) The board shall issue a certificate evidencing satisfaction of the requirements of subsections (3) and (4) of this section to any applicant who presents such evidence as may be required by its rules and regulations of satisfactory completion of a program or course of instruction in another jurisdiction equivalent in content and quality to that required by the board for approved law enforcement officer education and training programs in this state, and has satisfactorily passed any and all diagnostic testing and evaluation as required by the board to ensure competency. Miss.Code Ann. § 45-6-11(6) (Supp.1997). The Board argues that this express grant of authority in subsection 6 does not equate into legislative authority to grand-father out-of-state officers as of July 1, 1981. We agree. ¶ 13. Voyles directs this Court's attention to the instructive case of Mississippi State Bd. of Veterinary Examiners v. Love, 246 Miss. 491, 150 So.2d 532 (Miss. 1963). In Love, the Board of Veterinary had refused to license Mr. Love under a grandfather clause, a decision the chancellor reversed and this Court affirmed. Id. at 534. The Veterinary Board hearing revealed that Mr. Love had practiced veterinary medicine for approximately ten years part-time. The Veterinary Board interpreted the grandfather clause to require exclusive practice. Id. This Court held, as follows: The additional revenue was necessary and we do not think he should be condemned for undertaking to do this work. The Board seemed to put a good deal of emphasis on this feature of the case, and it seems to be the principal argument regarding his qualification under the grandfather clause. However, this clause does not say that he must have exclusively practiced, and it is not necessary that he exclusively devote his time to the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery and dentistry. As said in one of the other cases, we think this was the type of men whom the legislature intended to cover by the grandfather clause. Id. Voyles argues that the statute in the case sub judice also has no exclusivity clause, and thus, the question of interpretation of the statute is for this Court. ¶ 14. Moreover, Voyles states that he was serving as a full-time law enforcement officer in July of 1981, albeit in a foreign jurisdiction; however, he claims to be the type of person intended to be covered by the grandfather clause. Further, he contends that the ultimate decision of this Court will affect his ability to earn a living at his chosen occupation. Where an administrative agency wields such power over the livelihood of our citizens, the Court has held that [s]uch authority should be exercised with caution. Harris v. Mississippi Real Estate Comm'n, 500 So.2d 958 (Miss.1986)( quoting Mississippi Real Estate Comm'n v. Ryan, 248 So.2d 790, 793 (Miss.1971)). ¶ 15. This Court has previously found that a chancellor exceeded his authority in reversing the Board of Law Enforcement Officer's Standards and Training. Bd. of Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training v. Butler, 672 So.2d 1196 (Miss. 1996). The Board refused to re-certify Butler who had been convicted of beating a suspect. Id. at 1197-1198. On appeal, the chancellor reversed the decision as arbitrary and capricious and added to the record other proof and testimony that was available. Id. at 1198. This Court reversed the chancellor as having exceeded his authority by offering no reason for his conclusion the Board had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and by going beyond the record to receive other testimony. Id. at 1201. In the case sub judice, the chancellor committed no such errors. However, we cannot agree with the chancellor's interpretation of the statute. ¶ 16. This Court has held, as follows: [S]tatutes should be given a reasonable construction, and if susceptible of more than one interpretation, they must be given that which will best effectuate their purpose rather than one which would defeat it. Brady v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 342 So.2d 295 (Miss.1977). Yet, a statute must be read sensibly, even if doing so means correcting the statute's literal language. Ryals v. Pigott, 580 So.2d 1140 (Miss.1990), cert. denied, O'Quinn v. Ryals, 502 U.S. 940, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 328 (1991); Aikerson v. State, 274 So.2d 124 (Miss.1973)(holding that in construing statutes of doubtful meaning, the Supreme Court is required to consider consequences of a particular construction as to whether the result of such construction is good or bad). Pegram v. Bailey, 708 So.2d 1307, 1314 (Miss.1997). ¶ 17. Therefore, this Court finds that the chancellor did exceed his authority in finding that Voyles was the type of person intended to be covered by the grandfather clause under the statute. When read in context of the whole, Sections 45-6-11(1) and 45-6-3(c) are to be interpreted so as to exclude law enforcement officers who began service in other jurisdictions like Voyles.