BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER ADOPTING RULING
) ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
‘ JEREMY T. DAVIS )
. ) OAH Case No. 1403943
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On October 15, 2014, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC or the
Commission) issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Jeremy T. Davis (Licensee). On
October 28, 2014, Attorney Ralph Wiser requested a hearing on Licensee’s behalf.

On October 30, 2014, the Commission referred the hearing request to the Ofﬁce of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH assigned Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joe
Allen to preside at hearing. Judge Allen convened a prehearing conference on December 12, 2014,
at which time the parties selected a hearing date and set a schedule for the Commission’s intended
Motion for Summary Determination.

On February 13, 2015, Senior Assistant Attorney General Raul Ramirez ﬁled the
Commission’s Motion for Summary Determination. Licensee did not ﬁle a response to the motion.
The ﬁle was reassigned to ALJ Rick Barber to decide the motion.

On March ll, 2015 ALJ Rick Barber issued a Ruling on Motion for Summary
Determination and Proposed Order. ALJ Barber granted the Commission’s motion, but did not
rule on the Commission’s allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Notice of Opportunity for
Hearing (Notice). Licensee did not ﬁle exceptions to the ruling and proposed order. The
Commission issued an Amended Proposed Order on July 8, 2016. Licensee did not ﬁle exceptions.
The Commission now issues this Final Order, which incorporates the ALJ’s ruling on motion for
summary determination, along with the Amended Proposed Order.

NATURE OF THE REVIEW

Pursuant to OAR 137-003-0580, a Motion for Summary Determination may be ﬁled by
the agency or a party not less than 28 days before the date set for hearing, requesting a ruling on
the legal issues in the contested case. The rule sets forth the standard by which the Commission
reviews the motion. It states, in pertinent part:

Motion for Summary Determination

(1) Not less than 28 calendar days before the date set for hearing, the agency or a party
may ﬁle a motion requesting a ruling in favor of the agency or party on any or all legal
issues (including claims and defenses) in the contested case. The motion, accompanied by
l
In the Matter of Jeremy T. Davis, OAH Case No. 1403943 ‘
Page 1 of 6

‘ any afﬁdavits or other supporting documents, shall be served on the agency and parties in
l the manner required by OAR 137-003-0520.
(2) Within 14 calendar days after service of the motion, the agency or a party may ﬁle a
response to the motion. The response may be accompanied by afﬁdavits or other
supporting documents and shall be served on the agency and parties in the manner
required by OAR 137-003-0520.
* * * * *
(6) The administrative law judge shall grant the motion for a summary
determination if:
(a) The pleadings, afﬁdavits, supporting documents (including any interrogatories
and admissions) and the record in the contested case show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact that is relevant to resolution of the legal issue as to
which a decision is sought; and
(b) The agency or party ﬁling the motion is entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter
of law.
(7) The administrative law judge shall consider all evidence in a manner most
favorable to the non-moving party or non-moving agency.
(8) Each party or the agency has the burden of producing evidence on any issue
relevant to the motion as to which that party or the agency would have the burden
of persuasion at the contested case hearing.
(9) A party or the agency may satisfy the burden of producing evidence through
afﬁdavits. Afﬁdavits shall be made on personal knowledge, establish that the afﬁant
is competent to testify to the matters stated therein and contain facts that would be
admissible at the hearing.
(10) When a motion for summary determination is made and supported as provided
in this rule, a non-moving party or non-moving agency may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials contained in that party's or agency's notice or answer, if any.
When a motion for summary determination is made and supported as provided in
this rule, the administrative law judge or the agency must explain the requirements
for ﬁling a response to any unrepresented party or parties.
(11) The administrative law judge's ruling may be rendered on a single issue and
need not resolve all issues in the contested case.
(12) If the administrative law judge's ruling on the motion resolves all issues in the
contested case, the administrative law judge shall issue a proposed order in 1
accordance with OAR 137-003-0645 incorporating that ruling or a ﬁnal order in l
accordance with 137-003-0665 if the administrative law judge has authority to issue
In the Matter of Jeremy T. Davis, OAH Case No. 1403943
Page 2 of 6

a ﬁnal order without ﬁrst issuing a proposed order.

OAR 137-003-0580. In keeping with the rule above, the Commission views the evidence in a light
most favorable to Licensee, the non-moving party.
ISSUES

l. Whether there are material facts remaining to be determined concerning the
Commission’s decision to deny renewal of Licensee’s teacher’s license and suspend or revoke his
right to reapply for a teaching license.

2. Whether, if there are no material facts left to be decided, TSPC is entitled to a ruling
in its favor as a matter of law.

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The Commission reviewed the Motion and the ﬁve attached exhibits.
FINDINGS 0F FACT

1. Licensee has held a Standard Personnel Service License with a Standard School
Psychologist endorsement since 1993, and his most recent license was scheduled to expire on
September 3, 2013. Licensee timely applied for renewal of his license on August 28, 2013. (Ex.
2).

2. While his license renewal was under consideration, the Commission received a
September 3, 2013 letter from Susan Waddell, the Superintendent of Linn Benton Lincoln ESD.
The letter informed the Commission that Licensee had been arrested on a prostitution-related
charge on August 29, 2013. (Ex. 3).

3. On August 29, 2013, Licensee was arrested by Salem Police for patronizing a
prostitute. (Ex. 4). On April 24, 2014, he was convicted of the crime by a jury verdict. (Ex. 5).

4. Licensee’s conviction was based on conduct occurring on August 30, 2013. On that
date, Licensee responded to a false advertisement in the escorts section of Backpage.com. The
advertisement was placed by Ofﬁcer Brian Bidiman of the Salem Police Department as part of an
anti-prostitution sting operation. Ofﬁcer Bidiman knew from experience that persons conducting
prostitution related activity will use the escort section of Backpage.com. Through a series of text
messages and phone calls with undercover police, Licensee agreed to exchange money for sexual
services. Licensee agreed to bring wine to the motel speciﬁed in the advertisement. Licensee was
arrested after he knocked on the door and attempted to ﬂee on foot. During the arrest, Licensee
made statements indicating that his life was over and “this is what happens when you’re a sex
addict...I’m a sex addict.” In addition to the bottle of wine Licensee brought to the encounter,
items found in Licensee’s pocket during the arrest included one unused condom, a piece of paper
with what appeared to be names and numbers of prostitutes and a wine cork screw. (Ex. 4)l
l This Finding of Fact was added by the Commission
In the Matter of Jeremy T. Davis, OAH Case No. 1403943
Page 3 of 6

5. On October 15, 2014, the Commission issued its Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
to Licensee. After reviewing the information about his arrest and conviction, the notice alleged in
pertinent part:

4. Your conviction constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS

342.175(l)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5)

(Use professional judgment); OAR 584-020-0040(1)(II)(0RS I 6 7. 008 -

PatronizingA Prostitute). This conduct also constitutes gross unﬁtness in violation

of ORS 342.175(l)(c); OAR 584-020-0040(5)(c)(Conviction of violating any

federal, state, or local law. A conviction includes any ﬁnal judgment of conviction
€ by a court whether as a result of a guilty plea, no contest plea or any other means),
l OAR 584-020-0040(5)(d)(Commission of an act listed in OAR 584-020-0040(1)[)];
and OAR 584-020-0040(5)(e)(Admission of or engaging in acts constituting
criminal conduct, even in the absence 0f a conviction).

5. Pursuant to ORS 342.175(3) and OAR 584-020-0040( 1) the Teacher Standards

and Practices Commission must revoke your license and your right to apply for a

license based on your conviction of any of the crimes listed in ORS 342.143(3)(a),

or the substantial equivalent of any of those crimes.

6. The conduct underlying your indictments and conviction constitutes gross

neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(l)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it

incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5) (Use professional judgment); OAR 584-020-

0040(4)(k)( Violation of any rule or order of the Commission); and OAR 584-020-

0040(4)(o) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(3)(Maintain the dignity of the

profession by respecting and obeying the law, exempliﬁling personal integrity and

honesty). Additionally, your conviction and conduct related to your conviction

constitute “gross unﬁtness” in violation of ORS 342.175(l)(c); OAR 584-020-

0040(3)(a) and (d) as deﬁned by OAR 584-020-0040(5)(“Gross unﬁtness is any

conduct which renders an educator unqualified to perform his or her professional

responsibilities”).
(Ex. 1).

5. ORS 167.008 states:

Patronizing a prostitute. (l) A person commits the crime of patronizing a prostitute

if the person pays, or offers or agrees to pay, a fee to engage in sexual conduct or

sexual contact.

(2) Patronizing a prostitute is a Class A misdemeanor.
ORS 167.008 is one of the crimes listed in ORS 342.143(3).
1n the Matter of Jeremy T. Davis, OAH Case No. 1403943
Page 4 of 6

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
l. There are no material facts remaining to be determined concerning the
Commission’s decision to deny renewal of Licensee’s teacher’s license and suspend or revoke his
right to reapply for a teaching license.
2. TSPC is entitled to a ruling in its favor as a matter of law.
OPINION
The Commission contends in its motion that Licensee’s license application must be denied
and his license revoked because of his conviction for patronizing a prostitute. Based on Licensee’s
‘ conviction for the crime alleged, there is no genuine issue of material facts in connection with the
allegations in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Notice. The Commission is therefore entitled to such a
‘ ruling.
‘ The facts of the case are not in dispute. Licensee was arrested for patronizing a prostitute
on August 29, 2013, and convicted of the crime on April 24, 2014.2
ORS 342.175 states in part:
Grounds for discipline; reinstatement. (l) The Teacher Standards and Practices
Commission may suspend or revoke the license or registration of a teacher or
administrator, discipline a teacher or administrator or suspend or revoke the right
of any person to apply for a license or registration if the licensee, registrant or
applicant has held a license or registration at any time within ﬁve years prior to
issuance of the notice of charges under ORS 342.176 based on the following:
(a) Conviction of a crime not listed in ORS 342.143 (3);
(b) Gross neglect of duty;
(c) Any gross unﬁtness;
1k * >i1 * *
(3) The commission shall revoke any license or registration and shall revoke the
right of any person to apply for a license or registration if the person has held a
license or registration at any time and the holder or applicant has been convicted of
any crime described in ORS 342.143 (3 ).
(Emphasis added). Under this statute, if the licensee is convicted of any of the crimes listed in
ORS 342.143(3), the Commission “shall” revoke his license and his right to apply for a license in
2 Although the Notice refers at one point to the “conduct underlying [Licensee’s] indictments, the
circumstances of Licensee’s actions and his arrest, while addressed with speciﬁcity in the documents
accompanying the motion, do not need to be repeated here.
In the Matter of Jeremy T. Davis, OAH Case No. 1403943
Page 5 of 6

the future. The language of the statute means that the Commission must revoke/refuse to renew
the license of a person convicted of a crime listed in ORS 342.143(3), and must also revoke the
right to apply for a license as well. Here, Licensee’s conviction for Patronizing a Prostitute (ORS
167.008) is listed in the statute.

The Commission also alleged in paragraph 6 of the Notice that Licensee’s conduct
underlying the conviction constitutes Gross Neglect of Duty. Licensee was convicted following a
jury trial of patronizing a prostitute. Licensee did not ﬁle a response to the Commission’s motion.
Based on this record the Commission ﬁnds that viewing the facts in the light most favorable to
Licensee (the non-moving party), there is no genuine issue of material fact. Licensee engaged in
the conduct alleged and the Commission is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The facts underlying Licensee’s conviction establish that he initiated contact with a person
he thought to be a prostitute and arranged to exchange money for sexual services. Licensee’s
conduct is a crime, and constitutes a substantial deviation from professional standards of ethics
that obligate Licensee to use professional judgment, and maintain the dignity of the profession by
respecting and obeying the law, exemplifying integrity and honesty. Licensee failed to adhere to
his ethical obligations as an educator by engaging in the conduct leading to his conviction.

FINAL ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Licensee’s license is hereby revoked.
It is so Ordered this /7#L day of December, 2016
fZZ 11M We"
Monica Beane, Executive Director
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
NOTICE OF APPEAL OR RIGHTS

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE

OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 6O DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON

COURT OF APPEALS
l
l

In the Matter of Jeremy T. Davis, OAH Case N0. 1403943

Page 6 of 6

‘5R sth‘L'”:itefrmﬂﬁ*g’%iTF ‘I WRQWW =5". I ,. 11»? er i
Refs-tits; s R Ts“ st 2s iii-Ti ism - is s a iiFRiRERR

On December l6, 2016, I mailed the foregoing Final Order Adopting Ruling on Motion for

Summary Determination in OAH Case No. 1403943 to:

By: U.S. First Class Mail and Certiﬁed Mail Return Receipt Requested 7016 0750 0000 2419 0556

Jeremy T. Davis

4164 Sunray Ave S

Salem, OR 97302-2785

By: U.S. First Class Mail

Ralph E. Wiser, Attorney at Law

1 Centerpointe DR, Suite 570

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

By: Shuttle

Raul Ramirez

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice i

1162 Court Street NE i

Salem OR 97301-4096 l

Hearings Coordinator

Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings

PO Box 14020

Salem, OR 97309-4020

l

Patty sgon

Investigative Assistant

Certiﬁcate of Mailing - Jeremy T. Davis

Data Classiﬁcation Level: 2 — Limited

On January l9, 2017, l mailed the foregoing Final Order Adopting Ruling on Motion for
Summary Determination in OAH Case No. 1403943 to:
By: U.S. First Class Mail and Certiﬁed Mail Return Receipt Requested 7015 0640 0004 7539 9596
Jeremy T. Davis
28034 231St Place SE
Maple Valley, WA 98038
L
Patty S on
Investigative Assistant
Certiﬁcate of Mailing - Jeremy T. Davis
Data Classiﬁcation Level: 2 — Limited