Devalle and the Good Moral Character Requirement for Law Enforcement Officers – North Carolina Criminal Law

Legislation enforcement officers in North Carolina will need to have good ethical character to be licensed, and will lose their certification in the event that they lose their good ethical character. The requirement of fine ethical character is neither distinctive to North Carolina nor unique to legislation enforcement officers. On the similar time, it’s a tough commonplace to use, as illustrated by a latest resolution issued by the Supreme Courtroom of North Carolina. This submit offers context for that call and explores its reasoning.

Background: the great ethical character requirement. State and municipal law enforcement officials in North Carolina are licensed by the North Carolina Prison Justice Schooling and Coaching Requirements Fee (“CJ Fee”). The CJ Fee requires officers to have, and to take care of, good ethical character. See G.S. 17C-10(c) (“[T]he Fee, by guidelines and rules, shall repair different {qualifications} for the employment, coaching, and retention of prison justice officers together with . . . good ethical character . . . .”); 12 NCAC 09B .0101(12) (officers should “be of fine ethical character as outlined in” varied appellate selections).

Equally, deputy sheriffs and detention officers are licensed by the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Schooling and Coaching Requirements Fee (“Sheriffs’ Fee”). The Sheriffs’ Fee additionally requires good ethical character. See G.S. 17E-7(c) (directing the Sheriffs’ Fee to set requirements together with good ethical character); 12 NCAC 10B .0301(12) (requiring good ethical character as outlined in court docket selections).

The requirement that legislation enforcement officers have good ethical character just isn’t distinctive to North Carolina. See, e.g., Fl. Stat. § 943.1395 (offering that an officer’s lack of “good ethical character” might end in revocation of certification or different penalties); S.D. Legal guidelines § 23-3-42 (directing the state’s requirements and coaching fee to implement requirements for officers together with “good ethical character”). Nor, on this state, is the great ethical character requirement distinctive to legislation enforcement officers. Certainly, a majority of the appellate circumstances we’ve got about good ethical character come up from disputes about whether or not people searching for licensure as attorneys possess such character. See, e.g., Matter of Legg, 337 N.C. 628 (1994) (discussing legal professional applicant who omitted data on his software and had a historical past of monetary impropriety); Matter of Elkins, 308 N.C. 317 (1983) (discussing legal professional applicant who had beforehand supplied false testimony).

The Devalle case. The state supreme court docket not too long ago addressed the great ethical character requirement in Devalle v. North Carolina Sheriffs’ Schooling and Coaching Requirements Fee, __ N.C. __, __ S.E.2nd __, 2025 WL 2427583 (2025). The procedural historical past of the case is prolonged, however attention-grabbing and necessary to the disposition of the case.

For a few years, Maurice Devalle was a trooper with the Freeway Patrol. He turned the topic of an inner affairs investigation after somebody submitted a tip claiming that Devalle was sitting at dwelling, not working, however claiming to be on obligation. An inner affairs investigation concluded that he “had given a false dwelling tackle to make it appear as if he lived throughout the obligatory twenty-mile radius of his obligation station in Wayne County when he in truth lived forty-four miles away” and that he “had submitted false time sheets—and subsequently acquired a taxpayer-funded paycheck—for the time he spent at dwelling.” He was fired for “untruthfulness, neglect of obligation, and insubordination” and for violating the residency coverage. The Secretary of Public Security upheld the termination.

Just a few days later, Devalle was employed as a deputy sheriff and college useful resource officer with the Columbus County Sheriff’s Workplace. As required, he utilized for certification with the North Sheriffs’ Fee, however that Fee’s possible trigger committee decided – primarily based on Devalle’s conduct with the Freeway Patrol – that he lacked the great ethical character required to be a deputy sheriff.

Devalle then requested a listening to earlier than an Administrative Legislation Choose. He offered testimony from the sheriff for whom he labored, and from the principal of the varsity to which he was assigned. Each had been effusive about Devalle’s character and contributions. Devalle additionally testified. The ALJ discovered the testimony from the sheriff and the principal to be compelling, however thought that Devalle’s testimony was “evasive and elusive” and lacked candor. Nonetheless, the decide discovered that Devalle’s character had been rehabilitated since his misconduct with the Freeway Patrol.

The Fee reviewed the ALJ’s suggestion and rejected it, refusing to certify Devalle primarily based on what it concluded was a scarcity of fine ethical character. Devalle appealed that call to superior court docket, the place a decide dominated that the Fee’s resolution was unsupported by substantial proof and ordered Devalle to be licensed. The Fee appealed to the North Carolina Courtroom of Appeals, which affirmed, after which to the state supreme court docket.

The state supreme court docket’s ruling. In an opinion by Chief Justice Newby, the Supreme Courtroom of North Carolina reversed the Courtroom of Appeals. Everybody agreed concerning the pertinent commonplace of evaluation. Administrative selections are topic to evaluation underneath the “complete file” check. They should be affirmed if there may be “substantial proof” to assist them, however reversed if the selections are arbitrary and capricious.

Turning to the deserves of the case, the excessive court docket acknowledged that the idea of fine ethical character is inherently imprecise. Nevertheless, it isn’t unconstitutionally imprecise. After reviewing precedents on the problem, the court docket summarized that collectively, “the ideas that compose good ethical character—comparable to honesty, sincerity, integrity, candor, and forthrightness— . . . ought to be acquainted to each North Carolinian . . . . They make up the implicit ethical code guiding how we deal with others and anticipate others to deal with us.” As an attention-grabbing apart, among the many authorities cited by the court docket is a 98-year-old article about good ethical character by College of Authorities founder Albert Coates. Some authorized points will not be rapidly settled!

The court docket famous that the testimony of the sheriff and the principal had been proof that Devalle’s character had “progressed” since his time with the Freeway Patrol. Then again, the court docket agreed that Devalle’s testimony earlier than the executive legislation decide confirmed a scarcity of candor. And it emphasised the severity of his misconduct with the Patrol, together with his dishonesty and his preliminary lack of cooperation with the Patrol’s inner investigation. Taken collectively, the court docket decided that this was substantial proof to assist the Fee’s resolution, and that the Fee’s resolution was not arbitrary and capricious. The court docket did, nonetheless, suggest that the Fee outline good ethical character extra exactly in its administrative guidelines.

The dissent. Justice Riggs, joined by Justice Earls, would have affirmed the decrease courts. In her view, Devalle offered important proof of fine character, whereas there was no important proof of dangerous character after Devalle’s misconduct as a member of the Freeway Patrol. She didn’t view Devalle’s testimony on the administrative listening to as negatively as the bulk did, as a substitute critiquing the bulk’s concentrate on the “performative” query of whether or not Devalle was “sufficiently self-flagellating” in his testimony.

Justice Riggs additionally disagreed with the bulk about when Devalle’s character ought to be assessed. The bulk reasoned that his character ought to be assessed on the time of his software – on this case, just some days after he was fired from the Freeway Patrol. Justice Riggs argued that it ought to be assessed on the time of the Fee’s final resolution about whether or not to certify him – on this case, two years later, after Devalle had labored dependably as a college useful resource officer.

Dialogue. The Devalle case illustrates a number of factors that could be of curiosity to legislation enforcement officers.

First, though the idea of fine ethical character is an elastic one, honesty is a significant a part of it. Actually, the Supreme Courtroom’s record of qualities which might be a part of good ethical character consists primarily of the phrase “honesty” and its synonyms: “honesty, sincerity, integrity, candor, and forthrightness.” Most individuals envision morality as going a lot additional, to incorporate issues like being diligent, being honest, and never being egocentric. The extent to which these different traits would be the foundation of certification selections just isn’t illuminated by Devalle.

Second, though there are circumstances suggesting that character isn’t revealed by a single incident, when the only incident is dangerous sufficient – like submitting false time sheets with a view to receives a commission for work whereas truly sitting at dwelling – it could be adequate to assist a discovering of a scarcity of fine ethical character.

Third, an officer’s demeanor and candor earlier than an ALJ and earlier than both of the legislation enforcement commissions could be essential. An officer who admits an error and takes duty for it could be extra prone to get a second likelihood than one who’s “evasive and elusive.” That has definitely been my statement from sitting on the CJ Fee for a few years.

Fourth and at last, judicial evaluation of the commissions’ selections is deferential. Because the court docket put it: “We don’t second-guess how [the Sheriffs’ Commission] weighed the proof. Slightly, we make sure that [it] moderately grounded its resolution within the evidentiary file, even when we’d have concluded in a different way if addressing the query anew.” That doesn’t imply that it’s by no means worthwhile to hunt judicial evaluation of the commissions’ determinations. However it’s an uphill battle.