Opinion ID: 2536666
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The findings of Button's two criminal convictions

Text: The manager found that Button was convicted in January 2004 of a misdemeanor in Skagway for improper use of evidence of vehicle registration or certificate of title, [15] and that Button was convicted in March 2003 of violating an HBC prohibition on soliciting on public property. [16] Button argues that these findings were not supported by substantial evidence because the judgment and order relied upon by the manager were inadmissible hearsay that was not within any exception to the hearsay rule. The Alaska Administrative Code does not require hearing officers at administrative hearings to follow the Alaska Rules of Evidence. [17] The strict rules of evidence governing admissibility of hearsay in judicial proceedings do not apply to administrative hearings, and we will not reverse an administrative judgment based on hearsay unless the hearsay was inherently unreliable or jeopardized the fairness of the proceedings. [18] A hearing officer may reasonably rely on a certified copy of a record of conviction. [19] Button does not claim that the evidence of his convictions was unreliable, and we conclude that admitting the convictions into evidence did not jeopardize the fairness of the adversarial hearing. Also, the convictions were properly relied upon under the manager's explanation that hearsay could be used only to supplement or explain direct evidence. Button admitted to having been convicted of soliciting for tours in Haines, and to committing the conduct underlying the Skagway conviction. Button's own admissions provided substantial direct evidence to support the findings, even absent consideration of the hearsay evidence.