Baxter v. State of Maine

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 31, 2022
• Docket: PENap-21-00002
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

I

STATE OF MAINE , SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, ss. I Docket No. APP-2021-2

ERIC BAXTER ) ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) STATE OF MAINE I ' ) DEPARTMENT OF ~UBJJIC SAFETY ) ' I This matter caine before the Court for oral argument on October 31, 2022. James Wholly, ' ' Esq. appeared for Eric Baxter. AAG Avery appeared for the State of Maine Department of Public ' I

Safety. i' The essence of the dispute is that on May 1, 2020, Eric Baxter applied for a "Contract I Security Company" litense, and on February 16, 2021, the Commissioner of Public Safety denied I Mr. Baxter's applicati6n. Mr. Baxter filed his appeal on April 9, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Mr. ' i . Baxter moved to admi,t additional evidence, and that motion was denied. :

Standard of Review i Persons who ai:e aggrieved by a final action or decision of an administrative agency of the I

State of Maine may s1ekjuqicial review of the administrative action pursuant to subchapter 7 of Maine's Administrative Pro~edure Act (APA), 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001-11008, and M.R. Civ. P. SOC. In the SOC review proce~s, the 'Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court; its role in reviewing an adminisAative:agency's ' ,, decision under the APA is "deferential and limited." Watts v. Bd. ofEnvtl. Prat., 2014 ME 91, ,r 5, 97 A.3d 115. Pursuant to the APA, the Court may reverse or i modify the decision of a state governmental agency only if the agency's "administrative findings, /

inferences, conclusionh or decisions" are: '' ' (1) In violatio~ of constitutional or statutory provisions; : i (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made uponlunlawful procedure; (4) Affected by bias or error of!aw; ' . (5) Unsupport~d by substantial evidence on the whole record; or I I: I: 1 (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

5 M.R.S. § 11007(4).J The party challenging the agency's decision bears the burden of I persuasion. Maquoit .Bay, LLC v. Dep't ofMarine Res., 2022 ME 19, ~ 5,271 A.3d 1183; Rossignol ' v. Me. Pub. Employees. Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115, ~ 6, 144 A.3d 1175; Town ofJay v. Androscoggin I : Energy LLC, 2003 Mf 64, ~ 10, 822 A.2d 1114. When examining an agency's interpretation oflaw, the Court's review is de novo. Munjoy Sporting & Ath. Club\v. Do:w, 2000 ME 141, ~ 7, 755 A.2d 531. However, "[w]hen reviewing an

I a agency's interpretatioh of statute that it administers, [the Court will] defer to the agency's ,

construction unless th¢ statute plainly compels a contrary result." Passadumkeag Mountain Friends '' ' ' v. Ed. ofEnvt/. Prat., 2014 ME 116, ~ 12, 102 A.3d 1181; see alsoPalian v. HHS, 2020 ME 131, ~ 20, 242 A.3d 164 ("Oµr pre~edent instructs us to give considerable deference to the agency's I ·' interpretation of its own rules, regulations, and procedures, and [we] will not set aside the agency's findings unless the ruie or r,egulation plainly compels a contrary result."). "Substantial eyidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as support ' for a conclusion." Oul!/lette v. Saco River Corridor Comm'n, 2022 ME 42, ~ 20, 278 A.3d I 1183. When examining whether an agency's decision rests upon administrative findings that are ' ' "unsupported by substantial' evidence on the whole record," the Court "examine[s] the entire record to determine whether bn the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did." Id. However, this examination "does not involve any ' ' weighing of the meri~ of [t~e] evidence." Id The Court may "vacate an agency's factual findings only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support the findings" and "will affirm the ! agency's findings eveµ if the record contains inconsistent evidence or evidence contrary to the I result reached by the agenc)(.'' Id. In other words, the Court "will not substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency" an~ will,affirm an administrative agency's finding of fact if the finding is I . supported by any substantial evidence in the record. Id; 5 M.R. S. § 11007 ("The court may not I substitute its judgment for that of the. agency on questions of fact.''); see also Concerned Citizens to I Save Roxbury v. Ed. oJEnvtl. Prat., 2011 ME 39, ~ 24, 15 A.3d 1263 ("In applying the 'substantial evidence standard,' .. i.; we determine whether there is any competent evidence in the record to ! support a finding.")

2 1· Factual Background ' The Maine sdte Police conducted an investigation in connection with Mr. Baxter's license application. I A routine background check revealed that Mr. Baxter had been involved in three incidents with the Brewer Polic'e Department. Those incidents, from the perspective of the Brewer Police I

Department, were as follows: I I. On February 19, 2017, a city public works employee was driving a dump truck doing snow remqval. The employee reported that Mr. Baxter was standing in the middle of Parker Street ' with ,, a shovel and that Mr. Baxter began yelling at the employee and asking him ifhe wanted to fight. The employee further reported that Mr. Baxter was acting erratic and: seem~d crazy. Finally, the employee reported that Mr. Baxter banged on the side oftheiemployee's truck and yelled profanities. A second city employee confirmed . the first en\ployee' s report and further reported that Mr. Baxter had yelled profanities at him as well.' '

i I , When a police officer approached Mr. Baxter while Mr. Baxter was on Parker Street near the si~ewalk talking with two young females, Mr. Baxter began yelling at the police officer. Thbn, in response to the officer's question about what issue he had, Mr. Baxter ignored thbI officbr , and continued to talk with the two young females. Mr. Baxter continued to use ,profanities and the officer believed such language was offensive to the two young! females who had a scowled expression and who the officer believed were Jehovah's Witnesses. After some further back-and-forth, Mr. Baxter pulled out his cell phone and;put it close to the officer's face, presumably to record the officer. The officer told him t~ get the cell phone out of his face. Mr. Baxter asked ifhe was free to leave and the offl.cer said "yes." ·

2. On May 2t 2017, city employees reported that Mr. Baxter became angry when they asked him for identification and one of the employees thought Mr. Baxter was going to attack him!I Mr. Baxter was served with a trespass order for all city property.

3. On July 17, 2019, employees at City Hall reported that Mr. Baxter had been to City Hall and had engageql in erratic and aggressive behavior. Mr. Baxter had been complaining about the ijrewer' Police not doing anything about drug dealers and an autistic child who cut across ~is pr~perty. The employees were not comfortable with Mr. Hall's behavior. Mr. Baxte~ was again served with a trespass order. ' As part of the ~rocess to determine whether to grant or deny Mr. Baxter's license application, Sgt. Stevenson with the Maine State Police interviewed Mr. Baxter. During his interview with Sgt. St~venson, Mr. Baxter characterized the February 28, 2017 incident noted by the Brewer Police De*artment as "utterly bull ... " and indicated that he did not feel this incident I should be held against him. Mr. Baxter characterized the May 22, 2017 incident as "total BS" With ' respect to the 2019 Brewer Police report, Mr. Baxter acknowledged that his behavior was making I

3 I people nervous and iridicted I that his head injury was a factor. Mr. Baxter also infonned Sgt. Stevenson that he (B~xter) I had been a business owner for 45 years. In the denial l~tter, the Commissioner of Public Safety referenced Mr. Baxter's incidents I

with the Brewer Polic;e and .concluded that Mr. Baxter had demonstrated a "lack ofjudgment, temperament, and decision-making skills to engage in the profession for which you are seeking I '

licensure. Accordingly, I ari:i denying your application for a Contract Security Company license." 1 I Analysis The licensing proce~s for a "Contract Security Company" license provides that the "Commissioner shall issue a license to any person who has demonstrated good moral character" and who meets additional :requirements specified in the statute. 32 M.R.S. §9405(1-A). I

The Commissioner's decision whether or not to issue a license must be "based solely upon I infonnation recorded by governmental entities within 5 years of receipt of an application.... 32 I M.R.S. § 9405(2). Thy essence of an SOC appeal is to determine whether the Commissioner's ' ' decision was supporte'd by the infonnation available to the Commissioner on the date the ' Commissioner made his decision. The infonnation available to the Commissioner was Mr. Baxter's application (and ReleJses), the three Brewer Police Department reports, and the December 30, 2020 ' ' interview of Mr. Baxtbr I by Sgt. , Stevenson of the Maine State Police.2 In making a d¢tennination about "good moral character" the Commissioner must consider, among other things, "[i]nfor:mation in the record indicating that the applicant has engaged in reckless or negligent conduct." 32 M.R.S. § 9405 (2-C). Thus, the question is whether there is substantial record evi4ence that Mr. Baxter engaged in "reckless or negligent conduct." "Reckless or negligent conduct" lis defined as: "Reckl~ss or ,negligent conduct means that the applicant, either consciously disregarding or failing to be aware of a risk that his conduct would cause such a result, engaged in conduct which in fact created a substantial risk of either death, serious: bodily injury, bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another human being 9r the taking of, or damage or destruction to, the property of another person or ---------;-;--­ ! At oral argument, Mr. Baxter di1 not argue that the lack of specificity in the denial letter was fatal, but instead argued that the incidents reported by the Brewer Police Department did not constitute a lack of "good moral character." 'I ' 2 During his interview wittj Sgt. Stevenson, Mr. Baxter rejected two of the Brewer Police Department reports out of hand and gave some details with respect to the 2019 incident. Additionally, Mr. Baxter told Sgt. Stevenson that some of his bad behavior was due tb a "head injury" he had suffered, and that Sgt. Stevenson could watch a YouTube video that depicted Mr. Baxter having the st,ent in his head drained. It does not appear that in his interview with Sgt. Stevenson or otherwise that Mr. Baxter inentioped any character witnesses or offered any additional documentation in support of his application. ; ,· :I 4 goveniment, and the applicant's disregard or failure to be aware of that risk, when viewed in light of the nature and purpose of the applicant's conduct and the circurrlstances known to him, involved a deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasdnable:and-prudent person would observe in the same situation." 32 M.R.S. § 9403(8-A).

I The Court is s.atisfied that there is substantial competent record evidence that the February 19, 2017 incident of ~angi~g on the side of a city truck, yelling profanities, and challenging the occupant of the truck ~o fig~t created a substantial risk of bodily injury or offensive physical contact I to another person; that Mr ..Bruder either consciously disregarded or failed to be aware of the risk; and that Mr. Baxter's ;disregard or failure to be aware of that risk, when viewed in light of the nature I and purpose of Mr. B\!Xter) conduct and the circumstances known to him, involved a deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable.and prudent person would observe in the same situation. While the denial Jett.er from the Commissioner did not specify that the denial was due to Mr. . ' Baxter's reckless or n~glig~µt conduct as defined by the governing statute, the Court finds it ' ' reasonable to infer thi~ reas9n for the denial due to the Commissioner's recitation of the police reports in the denial !titter..:

Conclusion Mr. Baxter has failed to demonstrate, based on the record before the Commissioner, that he : has "good moral character" as defined by the governing statute. The Commissioner did not violate any constitutional or statutdry provisions, act in excess of his statutory authority, or engage in I ;, unlawful procedure. Additidnally, the Commissioner's decision was not affected by bias or error of law, nor was it arbitra~ or ~apricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. There is substantial I I competent record evidence to support the Commissioner's denial of Mr. Baxter's license I .

application. The CoI11fissioner's denial of Mr. Baxter's license application in affirmed. l The Clerk shall incorporate (his Order upon the docket by reference.

Dated: October 31, 20?2 k;. . urray, ust1ce Maine Superior Court

ORDER/JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT DOCKET d N : ~ ) . ) . 5