Utah Code

Utah Code § 53-6-211 (2026)

Suspension or revocation of certification -- Right to a hearing -- Grounds -- Notice to employer -- Reporting -- Judicial appeal

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The council has the authority to issue a Letter of Caution, or suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer, if the peace officer:

willfully falsifies any information to obtain certification;

has any physical or mental disability affecting the peace officer's ability to perform duties;

engages in, or is convicted of, conduct constituting a state or federal criminal offense, but not including a traffic offense that is a class C misdemeanor or infraction;

refuses to respond, or fails to respond truthfully, to questions after having been issued a warning issued based on Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967);

engages in sexual conduct while on duty;

is certified as a law enforcement peace officer, as defined in Section 53-13-102, and is unable to possess a firearm under state or federal law;

is found by a court or by a law enforcement agency to have knowingly engaged in conduct that involves dishonesty or deception in violation of a policy of the peace officer's employer or in violation of a state or federal law;

is found by a court or by a law enforcement agency to have knowingly engaged in biased or prejudicial conduct against one or more individuals based on the individual's race, color, sex, pregnancy, age, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity; or

is a chief, sheriff, or administrative officer of a law enforcement agency and fails to comply with Subsection (6).

The council may not issue a Letter of Caution or suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer for a violation of state or federal law or a violation of a law enforcement agency's policies, general orders, or guidelines of operation that do not amount to a cause of action under Subsection (1).

The division is responsible for investigating officers who are alleged to have engaged in conduct in violation of Subsection (1).

The division shall initiate all adjudicative proceedings under this section by providing to the peace officer involved notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an administrative law judge.

All adjudicative proceedings under this section are civil actions, notwithstanding whether the issue in the adjudicative proceeding is a violation of statute that may be prosecuted criminally.

The burden of proof on the division in an adjudicative proceeding under this section is by clear and convincing evidence.

If a peace officer asserts an affirmative defense, the peace officer has the burden of proof to establish the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

If the administrative law judge issues findings of fact and conclusions of law stating there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the officer engaged in conduct that is in violation of Subsection (1), the division shall present the finding and conclusions issued by the administrative law judge to the council.

The division shall notify the chief, sheriff, or administrative officer of the police agency which employs the involved peace officer of the investigation and shall provide any information or comments concerning the peace officer received from that agency regarding the peace officer to the council before a Letter of Caution is issued, or a peace officer's certification may be suspended or revoked.

If the administrative law judge finds that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the officer is in violation of Subsection (1), the administrative law judge shall dismiss the adjudicative proceeding.

The council shall:

accept the administrative law judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the information concerning the peace officer provided by the officer's employing agency; and

choose whether to issue a Letter of Caution, or suspend or revoke the officer's certification.

Before making a decision, the council may consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

A member of the council shall recuse him or herself from consideration of an issue that is before the council if the council member:

has a personal bias for or against the officer;

has a substantial pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding and may gain or lose some benefit from the outcome; or

employs, supervises, or works for the same law enforcement agency as the officer whose case is before the council.

Termination of a peace officer, whether voluntary or involuntary, does not preclude suspension or revocation of a peace officer's certification by the council if the peace officer was terminated for any of the reasons under Subsection (1).

Employment by another agency, or reinstatement of a peace officer by the original employing agency after termination by that agency, whether the termination was voluntary or involuntary, does not preclude suspension or revocation of a peace officer's certification by the council if the peace officer was terminated for any of the reasons under Subsection (1).

A chief, sheriff, or administrative officer of a law enforcement agency who is made aware of an allegation against a peace officer employed by that agency that involves conduct in violation of Subsections (1)(a) through (h) shall conduct an administrative or internal investigation into the allegation and report the findings of the investigation to the division if the allegation is substantiated.

If a peace officer who is the subject of an internal or administrative investigation into allegations that include any of the conditions or circumstances outlined in Subsections (1)(a) through (h) resigns, retires, or otherwise separates from the investigating law enforcement agency before the conclusion of the investigation, the chief, sheriff, or administrative officer of that law enforcement agency shall complete the investigation and report the findings to the division.

The council's issuance of a Letter of Caution, or suspension or revocation of an officer's certification under Subsection (4) may be appealed under Title 63G, Chapter 4, Part 4, Judicial Review.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2025 UT 7 (Utah 2025).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2025 UT 7 (Utah 2025). · cites it 23× “The legislature has since moved the relevant language of the provision to subsection 53-6-211(1)(c) with no substantive changes material to this case.”

Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2023 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 41× “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(c) (LexisNexis Supp.”

Macfarlane v. CSRO, 2019 UT App 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “CSRO be revoked. However, it was also POST’s practice at the time that if an officer initially lied during an interview but told the truth before the interview ended, POST would not revoke the officer’s certification based on a Garrity violation.”

Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards, 2022 UT App 34 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 30× “” Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(d) (LexisNexis Supp.”

Demill v. Peace Officer Standards, 2023 UT App 56 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 17× “¶4 In January 2020, POST filed its case against Demill, alleging that “[b]etween 2016 and 2019, Ron Demill violated Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(e) by engaging in sexual conduct while on duty (masturbating in the staff restroom).”

Benson v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council, 2011 UT App 220 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “T6 In 2007, POST lodged an administrative complaint against Benson wherein Lynne Nelson, Chairman of the Utah Council of POST, alleged that Benson had willfully provided both written and verbal information that was false seeking to obtain certified status in violation of Utah…”

Burgess v. Dep't of Corr., 2017 UT App 186 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “that there was insufficient evidence “to show [Burgess’s] conduct consti'tute[d] a violation of Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 .” POST declined to seek suspension or revocation of Burgess’s peace officer certification.”

Guenon v. Div. of Peace Officer Standards & Training, 2011 UT App 105 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1) & repeals and reenactments (Supp.”

Brook v. Div. of Peace Officer Standards & Training, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2012 UT App 122 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “See Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(d) (2010). The Consent Agreement contained a notice that it would be considered by the Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting when Brook could appear and address the Council in person or through an attorney.”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(1) — 3 cases

Macfarlane v. CSRO, 2019 UT App 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “CSRO be revoked. However, it was also POST’s practice at the time that if an officer initially lied during an interview but told the truth before the interview ended, POST would not revoke the officer’s certification based on a Garrity violation.”

Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2023 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(c) (LexisNexis Supp.”

Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards, 2022 UT App 34 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “” Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(d) (LexisNexis Supp.”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(1)(c) — 2 cases

Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2025 UT 7 (Utah 2025). “The legislature has since moved the relevant language of the provision to subsection 53-6-211(1)(c) with no substantive changes material to this case.”

Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2023 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(c) (LexisNexis Supp.”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(1)(d) — 5 cases

Benson v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council, 2011 UT App 220 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “T6 In 2007, POST lodged an administrative complaint against Benson wherein Lynne Nelson, Chairman of the Utah Council of POST, alleged that Benson had willfully provided both written and verbal information that was false seeking to obtain certified status in violation of Utah…”

Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards, 2022 UT App 34 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “” Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(d) (LexisNexis Supp.”

Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2023 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(c) (LexisNexis Supp.”

Brook v. Div. of Peace Officer Standards & Training, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2012 UT App 122 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “See Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(d) (2010). The Consent Agreement contained a notice that it would be considered by the Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting when Brook could appear and address the Council in person or through an attorney.”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(1)(e) — 1 case

Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards, 2022 UT App 34 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “” Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(d) (LexisNexis Supp.”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(1)(f) — 1 case

Demill v. Peace Officer Standards, 2023 UT App 56 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “¶4 In January 2020, POST filed its case against Demill, alleging that “[b]etween 2016 and 2019, Ron Demill violated Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(e) by engaging in sexual conduct while on duty (masturbating in the staff restroom).”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(3)(b) — 1 case

Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards, 2022 UT App 34 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “” Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(d) (LexisNexis Supp.”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(3)(c) — 2 cases

Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards, 2023 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “Compare Utah Code Ann. § 53-6-211 (1)(c) (LexisNexis Supp.”

— Utah Code § 53-6-211(5)(a) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.