|
|
4-0325-21569 |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
Complainant, vs. Todd Dahl, Respondent. |
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF PRIMA
FACIE VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF AND ORDER FOR PROBABLE CAUSE
HEARING |
TO: Chad Turcotte and Todd Dahl
On September 17, 2010, Chad Turcotte filed a Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging that Todd Dahl violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.07. After reviewing the Complaint and attached exhibits, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge has determined that the Complaint sets forth a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.07.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND NOTICE IS GIVEN that this matter is scheduled for a probable cause hearing to be held by telephone before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge at 9:30 a.m. on September 23, 2010. The hearing will be held by call-in telephone conference. You must call: 1-888-742-5095 at that time. Follow the directions and enter the numeric pass code “5388696901” when asked for the meeting number. The probable cause hearing will be conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.34. Information about the probable cause proceedings and copies of state statutes may be found online at www.oah.state.mn.us and www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us.
At the probable cause hearing all parties have the right to be represented by legal counsel, by themselves, or by a person of their choice if that choice is not otherwise prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law. In addition, the parties have the right to submit evidence, affidavits, documentation and argument for consideration by the Administrative Law Judge. Parties should provide to the Administrative Law Judge all evidence bearing on the case, with copies to the opposing party, before the telephone conference takes place. Documents may be faxed to Judge Bruce H. Johnson at 651-361-7936.
At the conclusion of the probable cause hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will either: (1) dismiss the complaint based upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous, or that there is no probable cause to believe that the violation of law alleged in the complaint has occurred; or (2) determine that there is probable cause to believe that the violation of law alleged in the complaint has occurred and refer the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the scheduling of an evidentiary hearing. Evidentiary hearings are conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.35. If the presiding Administrative Law Judge dismisses the complaint, the complainant has the right to seek reconsideration of the decision on the record by the Chief Administrative Law Judge pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.34, subd. 3.
Any party who needs an accommodation for a disability in
order to participate in this hearing process may request one. Examples of reasonable accommodations include
wheelchair accessibility, an interpreter, or Braille or large-print
materials. If any party requires an
interpreter, the Administrative Law Judge must be promptly notified. To arrange an accommodation, contact the
Office of Administrative Hearings at
Dated: September 21, 2010
|
s/Bruce
H. Johnson |
BRUCE
H. JOHNSON
Administrative
Law Judge
Complainant is a deputy sheriff in
On August 7, 2010, Complainant took a photograph of his two children playing in front of a Klang campaign sign and posted the picture on his Facebook account. The Complainant alleges that on August 9, 2010, Respondent summoned him to his office and spoke to him for approximately 45 minutes about the picture. During the conversation Complainant alleges that Respondent told him that he had violated his trust by posting the picture, and that he was going to reconsider his decision to promote Complainant to an Investigator position, and further evaluate whether Complainant should be reassigned to a night shift or whether he should even work in the Sheriff’s Office. Complainant alleges that Respondent repeatedly raised his voice and intimidated him during the conversation and told him that if he had not posted the picture on Facebook “this [conversation] would not be happening right now.” With his Complaint Complainant provided a copy of the picture he posted and an audio recording of the conversation that occurred on August 9.
To set forth a prima facie case that entitles a party to a hearing, the party must either submit evidence or allege facts that, if unchallenged or accepted as true, would be sufficient to prove a violation of chapter 211A or 211B.[1] For purposes of a prima facie determination, the tribunal must accept the facts alleged as true and the allegations do not need independent substantiation.[2] A complaint must be dismissed if it does not include evidence or allege facts that, if accepted as true, would be sufficient to prove a violation of chapter 211A or 211B.[3]
The Complainant alleges that Respondent violated Minnesota Statute § 211B.07. Minn. Stat. § 211B.07 prohibits undue influence on voters and provides as follows:
A person may not directly or indirectly use or threaten force,
coercion, violence, restraint, damage, harm, loss, including loss of employment
or economic reprisal, undue influence, or temporal or spiritual injury against
an individual to compel the individual to
vote for or against a candidate or ballot question. Abduction, duress, or fraud may not be used
to obstruct or prevent the free exercise of the right to vote of a voter at a
primary or election, or compel a voter to vote at a primary or election. Violation of this section is a gross
misdemeanor.
To allege a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.07, the Complainant must put forward facts that would support finding the Respondent used or threatened force, coercion, violence, or loss to “compel” a person to vote for or against a candidate. The Complainant has identified specific language and facts to support his claim of undue influence, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the complaint supports finding a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.07 against Respondent. This matter will proceed to a probable cause hearing wherein the Administrative Law Judge will determine whether the facts establish a reasonable belief that Respondent committed a violation that would require him to go to hearing on the merits.
B. H. J.