Court Opinion

ID: 9781393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:36:23.583907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:26.052210
License: Public Domain

Luckert, J.,
concurring: I concur in the outcome of the majority opinion and most of the rationale but disagree with the majority’s conclusion that KSU Police Department Policy and Procedure § 12.3.24 required that Gary Jones must have intentionally falsified the report.
The policy states in part: “An officer shall not make or submit any false or inaccurate reports . . . .” Nothing in this portion of *155the policy imposes a scienter requirement. In contrast, the remaining portion of the policy prohibits an officer from “knowingly” entering or causing to be entered into a report any inaccurate, false, or improper information. Hence, a distinction is made between the officer who malees or submits the report and thus commits a per se violation of the policy and the officer who provides information to be placed in a report who commits a violation only if acting with intent.
The majority does not explain why it interprets the policy to require that an officer who makes or submits a report must do so with the intent to state a falsehood or inaccuracy. Intent may be a factor in determining if there is gross misconduct, but the majority does not discuss the intent requirement in this context. In fact, the majority’s discussion of gross misconduct is consistent with a determination that the lack of trust which can result because of a false report, whether resulting from negligence or intentional falsehood, is a basis to determine that submission of a false report is gross misconduct.
If the policy is applied as written rather than as construed by the majority, Jones violated the policy by making and submitting a false or inaccurate report regardless of whether he did so intentionally. Therefore, the Kansas State Civil Service Board (Board) made an adequate finding when it stated: “11. Mr. Jones stated in his report that Ms. Esping’s vehicle was legally parked at the time of the stop .... Ms. Esping’s vehicle was not legally parked at the time of the traffic stop.” This finding establishes that Jones made the report and that the report was false or inaccurate, thus estabhshing a violation of the policy.
Consequently, the majority need not and should not have engaged in the questionable analysis of whether the Board must have meant, although it did not specifically find, that Jones had intentionally submitted a false or inaccurate report.
McFarland, C.J., and Beier, J., concur in the result.