Court Opinion

ID: 9929438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 17:04:00.88461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:10.700750
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                          Feb 02 2024, 8:46 am

                                                                               CLERK
                                                                           Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                              Court of Appeals
                                                                                and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita                                         James H. Voyles, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana                                Tyler D. Helmond
                                                           Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin
Benjamin M. L. Jones
                                                           & Webb
Section Chief, Civil Appeals
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana
Evan M. Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

                                             IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Petition for                                     February 2, 2024
Expungement of R.L.:                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-XP-144
Indiana Law Enforcement
Training Board,                                            Appeal from the
                                                           Martin Circuit Court
Appellant-Respondent,
                                                           The Honorable
        v.                                                 Lynne E. Ellis, Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
R.L.,                                                      51C01-2207-XP-140

Appellee-Petitioner.

                                 Opinion by Judge Foley
                         Chief Judge Altice and Judge May concur.

Foley, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024                                Page 1 of 8
[1]   R.L., a police officer (“the Officer”), was arrested in July 2021 and charged

      with a criminal offense. The events associated with this arrest led the Indiana

      Law Enforcement Training Board (“the Board”) to initiate disciplinary

      proceedings against the Officer. The criminal case was eventually dismissed,

      and the Officer successfully petitioned to expunge all records of this arrest. In

      the same cause, he later obtained a declaratory judgment that “Indiana Code

      [Section] 35-38-9-10 prohibits the Board from using any and all facts from [the]

      expunged arrest case as a basis to revoke or deny to him his license to act as a

      law enforcement officer.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 p. 75. The Board now

      appeals. Although the Board presents several issues, we identify the following

      restated issue as dispositive: Whether the trial court correctly interpreted

      Indiana Code Section 35-38-9-10 (the “anti-discrimination statute”) to apply to

      the Board in light of the exception to the anti-discrimination statute for public

      bodies engaged in professional licensing set forth in Indiana Code Section 35-

      38-9-0.6 (the “licensing statute”).

[2]   Applying our reasoning in Whaley v. Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind., 184 N.E.3d 721

      (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied., we conclude that the scope of the trial

      court’s declaratory judgment exceeds the applicability of the anti-discrimination

      statute on the proceedings before the Board. Although the Board may not

      consider the expunged records in its proceedings, it may consider independent

      evidence that the Officer engaged in the actions that gave rise to the arrest. We

      therefore reverse the declaratory judgment entered in favor of the Officer.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024        Page 2 of 8
      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   The Officer was arrested on July 5, 2021. In April 2022, the Board sent a letter

      to the Officer stating that it “learned of an event that may lead to the revocation

      of [his] Indiana Law Enforcement Basic Training Certification and authority to

      act as a law enforcement officer.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 p. 16. The Board

      alleged that, on July 5, 2021, the Officer “engaged in conduct that meets the

      elements of Criminal Confinement, . . . a Level 6 felony, and Operating a

      Vehicle with an ACE of .08 or more, . . . a Class C Misdemeanor.” Id.

[4]   In July 2022, the Officer petitioned to expunge all records associated with his

      July 5, 2021 arrest. The Officer asserted that, in connection with the arrest, he

      had been “charged with [Operating a Vehicle with an Alcohol] Concentration

      Equivalent to at [l]east .08 but [l]ess than .15, in the Martin Circuit Court,” and

      this “sole count was dismissed on November 3, 2021.” Id. at 7.

[5]   On July 6, 2022, the trial court expunged the records. The Officer then sent a

      letter to the Board asserting that (1) “[t]he allegations in the Board’s charges all

      stem from [the] arrest on July 5, 2021”; (2) “[a]ll facts from the Board’s charges

      are contained in the probable cause affidavit filed in the resulting criminal

      case”; (3) the records of that arrest were now expunged; and (4) the anti-

      discrimination statute “prohibits the Board from using this arrest as a basis to

      deny [the Officer] his license.” Id. at 21–22. The Officer asserted that the

      Board’s “failure to immediately dismiss the[] [disciplinary] charges subjects it to

      contempt proceedings” under the anti-discrimination statute. Id. at 22.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024         Page 3 of 8
[6]   When the Board did not dismiss its action, the Officer filed a motion in the

      expungement cause requesting “a declaratory judgment concerning the

      expungement of his arrest record.” Id. at 11. The Officer apprised the trial

      court of the Board’s disciplinary allegations, which he alleged “stem[med] from

      the facts from [his] expunged July 5, 2021 arrest.” Id. He claimed that the

      Board “ha[d] a statutory obligation to dismiss the charges” against him. Id.

      The Officer’s theory was that the anti-discrimination statute prohibits

      discrimination “on the basis of an expunged arrest,” id. at 12, and Indiana law

      ultimately “prohibits the [A]gency from using this arrest and the facts that gave

      rise to the arrest as a basis to deny [the Officer] his license,” id. at 14 (emphasis

      added). The Officer contended that he had apprised the Board of its obligation

      to “immediately dismiss the charges brought against [him].” Id. He claimed

      the Board had “refused, suggesting it ha[d] no such obligation.” Id. at 11. The

      Officer requested “a declaratory judgment confirming that the Board may not

      use this case to revoke his license to be a law enforcement officer.” Id. He also

      sought a declaration that the anti-discrimination statute “prohibits the Board

      from revoking or refusing to renew his license on the basis of this expunged

      arrest, and it must dismiss its charges against his license.” Id. at 14.

[7]   On August 22, 2022, the trial court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of

      the Officer. When the trial court issued this judgment, the Board was not a

      party to the cause. The Board later intervened and argued it was entitled to an

      opportunity to be heard. The Board also argued that the trial court erred in

      entering the judgment because, under Whaley, the anti-discrimination statute

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024            Page 4 of 8
       does not apply, and the Board was free to conduct disciplinary proceedings

       regarding the events on July 5, 2021, without relying on the expunged records.

       The Board ultimately claimed the judgment was “contrary to law.” Id. at 34.

[8]    The trial court vacated the declaratory judgment. After a hearing, the trial

       court again granted the requested declaratory judgment in favor of the Officer.

       In its written judgment, the trial court determined that the anti-discrimination

       statute “prohibits the Board from using any and all facts from [the] expunged

       arrest case as a basis to revoke or deny to [the Officer] his license to act as a law

       enforcement officer.” Id. at 75. The Board appeals the declaratory judgment.

       Discussion and Decision
[9]    In entering the declaratory judgment in favor of the Officer, the trial court

       determined that the anti-discrimination statute broadly prohibited the Board

       from using “any and all facts from [the] expunged arrest case as a basis to

       revoke or deny to [the Officer] his license to act as a law enforcement officer.”

       Id. The interpretation of a statute presents a pure question of law that we

       review de novo. See, e.g., Ingram v. City of Indianapolis, 759 N.E.2d 1144, 1146

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (reviewing a declaratory judgment de novo), trans. denied.

[10]   Our legislature adopted the anti-discrimination statute in 2013 as part of its

       comprehensive reform of Indiana expungement law. See P.L. 159-2013, § 4.

       Our legislature later refined the statutory scheme, see, e.g., P.L. 181-2014, and

       eventually adopted the licensing statute in 2019, see P.L. 219-2019, § 6.

       Whereas the anti-discrimination statute broadly prohibits anyone from using an

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024         Page 5 of 8
       expunged record to discriminate against a person, see Ind. Code § 35-38-9-10,

       the licensing statute creates an exception for public licensing bodies like the

       Board, see I.C. § 35-38-9-0.6. Indeed, the anti-discrimination statute provides in

       pertinent part that “[i]t is unlawful discrimination for any person to . . . refuse

       to grant or renew a license, permit, or certificate necessary to engage in any

       activity, occupation, or profession . . . because of a conviction or arrest record

       expunged or sealed under this chapter.” I.C. § 35-38-9-10(b). Yet, the licensing

       statute—contained in the same chapter as the anti-discrimination statute—

       provides that “[t]his chapter does not require any change or alteration in . . . [a]

       disciplinary record or proceeding as it relates to a licensing, certification, or

       public entity.” I.C. § 35-38-9-0.6. To the extent these statutes could be read to

       conflict with one another, we addressed and resolved that conflict in Whaley.

[11]   In Whaley, a physician was subjected to restrictions on her medical license due

       to a conviction that was later expunged. The physician argued that, under the

       anti-discrimination statute, “maintaining the restrictions on her medical license

       would constitute unlawful discrimination because her conviction had been

       expunged.” Whaley, 184 N.E.3d at 724. The Medical Licensing Board of

       Indiana disagreed, arguing that the licensing statute controlled such that it

       could maintain the restrictions. See id. We resolved the case by determining

       that the statutes were not ambiguous and that there was no conflict between the

       anti-discrimination statute and the licensing statute. See id. at 724–25. We

       ultimately concluded that the licensing authority could maintain restrictions on

       the professional license without running afoul of the anti-discrimination statute.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024          Page 6 of 8
       See id. at 725. We noted: “Because expungements are a creature of statute, the

       legislature retains authority to expand or limit that remedy as it sees fit,

       including to limit the reach of the anti-discrimination statute through the

       licensing statute.” Id.

[12]   In resolving Whaley, we commented on the prospect of future disciplinary

       action, noting in a footnote that “the anti-discrimination statute still bars

       adverse professional licensing decisions based on a conviction which was

       expunged before discipline is imposed.” Id. at 725. In doing so, however, we

       emphasized that, even after a record is expunged, a licensing authority is free to

       consider independent evidence of events underlying the record. See id. n.2. 1

[13]   Here, the trial court declared that the Board was prohibited “from using any

       and all facts from [the] expunged arrest case as a basis to revoke or deny to [the

       Officer] his license to act as a law enforcement officer.” Appellant’s App. Vol.

       2 p. 75. The scope of the trial court’s order exceeds the plain language of the

       anti-discrimination statute and is inconsistent with Whaley. And although the

       Officer claims Whaley either does not apply or contains nonbinding dicta, we

       elect to adopt the well-reasoned comments from our colleagues. We conclude

       1
         For example, Indiana Code Section 5-2-1-12.5(a) contemplates disciplinary action if “the officer engaged in
       conduct that would be a criminal offense . . . even if the officer was not charged with the criminal offense.”
       (emphasis added). Thus, irrespective of whether the State brought criminal charges, or whether those records
       were ultimately expunged, the Board is free to present independent proof that the officer engaged in criminal
       conduct. That is because “[t]he anti-discrimination statute only pertains to consideration of an expunged
       [record]. It [does] not pertain to consideration of the facts underlying the [record], nor to other issues which
       prompted disciplinary proceedings[.]” Whaley v. Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind., 184 N.E.3d 721 (Ind. Ct. App.
       2022), trans. denied.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024                                 Page 7 of 8
       that, although the Board must not consider the expunged arrest records in its

       proceedings, the Board may consider independent evidence of the facts

       underlying those arrest records. Thus, because the declaratory judgment is

       contrary to law, we must reverse.

[14]   Reversed.

       Altice, C.J., and May, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-XP-144 | February 2, 2024     Page 8 of 8