Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Monday, June 13, 2022

 

Page 1

 

Ninth Circuit:

California’s Bar on Two-Time Losers Gaining EMT Certification Is Constitutional

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of an action by two men who claim that California’s ban on certifying persons who were convicted of felonies as fire-fighters is unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs Dario Gurrola and Fernando Herrera were recently released from incarceration. While prisoners, they engaged in fire-fighting for the state.

They now seek certification as emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) but a provision of the Code of Regulations—which they contend violates the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment—excludes them from consideration. It bars certification where an applicant has been convicted of two or more felonies, as they were.

Gurrola had been convicted of possessing a concealed dagger and, about two years later, of assault. Herrera suffered convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and witness tampering.

Both have received the requisite training for certification, but come under the statutory bar. Herrera also comes under a separate disqualification based on having been released from incarceration less than 10 years earlier.

District Court Ruling

In his Feb. 9, 2021 order of dismissal, District Court Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District of California declared the regulations to be constitutional, explaining that “the regulations are rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring public safety and related to the fitness of being an EMT.”

However, he noted the service both plaintiffs had performed in combatting fires, while inmates, and commented:

“Plaintiffs’ stories are not unique. Many inmates help battle fires through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Conservation Camp Program….For example, in 2017, 650 incarcerated individuals assisted in suppressing the Pocket, Tubbs, and Atlas Fires….In 2018, close to 800 incarcerated individuals assisted with the Camp Fire in Butte County….And, in 2019, over 400 incarcerated individuals helped battle the Kincade Fire….The fact that inmates are often relied upon to help battle California’s fires but then prevented from later working as career firefighters due to the EMT restrictions, has been subject to public critique.”

‘Not Irrational’

Yet, he declared:

“It is not irrational for the government to believe that those with two or more felonies or recent convictions, are more likely to harm others in the future. The wisdom, fairness, or logic of this legislative choice is not for the Court to decide….Because these regulations are rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring public safety, even if tenuous, it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.”

He applied the same reason in connection with the due process challenge. The judge brushed aside the claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, saying it is precluded under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1872 decision in the Slaughter-House Cases (which limited applicability of the clause to rights arising in connection with federal, and not state, citizenship).

Ninth Circuit’s Affirmance

In affirming the dismissal, a three-judge panel said Thursday in a memorandum opinion:

“In light of the responsibilities of an EMT, the felony bans are rationally related to fitness. Felonies, especially recent ones, reasonably call into question a person’s moral character….There are no more potentially vulnerable patients than those who are involved in the medical emergencies to which EMTs respond.”

The opinion continues:

“Additionally, the wisdom in the state legislature’s decision to impose certain restrictions on entry to a profession is not for courts to judge….Given the rational relationship between the felony bans and fitness to be an EMT, as well as the deference given to a state legislature’s restrictions, we conclude that California’s felony bans should be sustained under rational basis review and reject the challenge to the felony bans.”

The panel was comprised of Judges Mark J. Bennett, Ronald M. Gould, and Ryan D. Nelson.

The case is Gurrola v. Duncan, 21-15414.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company