Director’s Decision on an Appeal of a County Agricultural Commissioner Decision (Sukhcharan Singh, Docket Number 182)

The Director’s Decision on Sukhcharan Singh’s appeal of a civil penalty levied by the Sutter County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) is enclosed.

The Sutter CAC initiated an administrative civil penalty action for violation of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3CCR), section 6614(b)(3), and proposed a penalty of $250. Singh requested a hearing and asserted that the CAC had failed to prove that drift damage from a glyphosate application had occurred. The Hearing Officer determined that all the elements for 3CCR 6614(b)(3) were not supported with evidence to prove that a violation had occurred. The CAC rejected the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision on the basis the Hearing Officer had made errors in interpreting the law and the findings of fact. The CAC reinstated the violation and penalty, and Singh appealed the CAC’s decision to the Director. The Director overturned the CAC’s decision and penalty on May 12, 2011. The Director’s decision became final on June 21, 2011.

This decision addresses the following concepts/issues:

• Issues of witness credibility are the province of the Hearing Officer
• The Hearing Officer cannot make a determination or finding of fact if the elements are not supported by evidence.
• The Hearing Officer is the “finder of facts” and is the person that makes factual determinations during a hearing.

Please make this information available to your staff as a reference in preparing cases. If you have any questions, please contact David Haskell, Research Program Specialist II, at 916-445-4207, or the Enforcement Branch Liaison assigned to your county.

Sincerely,