NORTH CAROLINA
WAKE COUNTY
WILLIAM MARQUIS DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA PRIVATE
PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD,
Respondent. / )))))))))) / IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
09 DOJ 2506
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison Jr. on April 28, 2009, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by Attorney John T. Crook

WITNESSES

Respondent – Larry Liggins, Field Services Supervisor for the Private Protective Services Board testified for Respondent Board

Petitioner – Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

ISSUES

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s application for an unarmed guard registration permit license because of an unfavorable criminal history.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving that it had sufficient grounds for denial of Petitioner’s application for registration. Petitioner may rebut Respondent’s showing.

STATUTES AND RULES APPLICABLE

TO THE CONTESTED CASE

Official notice is taken of the following statutes and rules applicable to this case:

G.S. § 74C-2;

74C-3;

74C-8(d)(2);

74C-9;

74C-11;

74C-12; and

12 N.C.A.C. 7D § .0700.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Respondent Board is established pursuant to N.C.G.S. 74C-1 et seq., and is charged with the duty of licensing and registering individuals engaged in the private protective services profession, including unarmed security guards.
  1. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for registration as an unarmed guard. A true copy of the October 29, 2008, application submitted by the Petitioner to Respondent Board was received into evidence as Exhibit 1.
  1. In his application for an unarmed guard registration permit, Petitioner answered “yes” to the questions “Have you ever pled guilty to any crime (Felony or Misdemeanor)?” and “Have you ever been convicted of any crime (Felony or Misdemeanor)?” Petitioner responded “no” to the questions “Served Time? Been Paroled or Been on Probation?”
  1. Respondent then introduced a certified criminal record search for the Petitioner from Wayne County, which indicated that on March 9, 2005, Petitioner pled guilty to the crime of misdemeanor larceny. The Board regularly conducts criminal background checks for applicants desiring registration as guards.
  1. Respondent also introduced an application for registration as an unarmed guard signed by the Petitioner on December 20, 2007, as Exhibit 3. In this Exhibit, Petitioner denied that he had pled guilty to any felony or misdemeanor. This application was denied.
  1. Respondent’s Exhibit 4 is a September 26, 2008, letter from Respondent Board to Mr. Larry Holder of Securitas Security Services USA, wherein Respondent Board advised Mr. Holder and the Petitioner that his application of December 20, 2007 was denied “for cause” for falsification and not disclosing his 2005 conviction for misdemeanor larceny. Exhibit 4 also requested that Petitioner submit a detailed explanation of the charge and requested that Mr. Holder submit a letter stating that it desired to employ the Petitioner.
  1. Respondent’s Exhibit 5 is a handwritten letter addressed to Respondent Board and signed by the Petitioner. In Exhibit 5, Petitioner admitted that when he was 18 years old he and some friends decided to go into a Wal-Mart and steal some condoms. Petitioner further stated that he did not intend to falsify his application due to a misunderstanding as to the legal effect of a prayer for judgment.
  1. Respondent’s Exhibit 6 is a November 19, 2008, letter addressed to Larry Holder of Securitas with a copy to Petitioner, advising that his application would be denied “for cause” due to his 2005 conviction for misdemeanor larceny.
  1. Petitioner’s explanation of the charge was taken into account by the Respondent in determining whether to allow the Petitioner’s application for registration, but that the application was denied.

10. Petitioner is twenty-two years old and graduated from South Wayne High School in 2004. After graduation, he moved to Guilford County to attend Guilford Technical Community College where he is in his third year studying social work and radiology. Petitioner’s primary employer has been Boston Market and he applied to work for Securitas because he wanted a second job. He has been opening and closing Boston Market, having worked up from carver to management. With respect to his prior conviction, Petitioner stated that he was with two friends and that they tried to steal condoms worth five or six dollars. He pled guilty to misdemeanor larceny and got a PJC with payment of costs.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to G.S. § 74C-12(a), Respondent Board may refuse to issue an unarmed guard registration permit if the applicant lacks good moral character or temperate habits.

Pursuant to G.S. § 74C-8(d)(2), conviction of a crime involving larceny is prima facie evidence that the applicant does not have good moral character or temperate habits.

Respondent Board presented evidence that Petitioner lacked good moral character or temperate habits through Petitioner’s criminal record. Petitioner has rebutted the presumption that he lacks good moral character sufficient to justify denial.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

The North Carolina Private Protective Services Board will make the final decision in this contested case. It is proposed that the Board reverse its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for an unarmed guard registration permit.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714, in accordance with G.S. 150B-36(b).

NOTICE

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this proposal for decision, to submit proposed findings of fact and to present oral and written arguments to the agency pursuant to G.S. 150B-40(e).

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board.

This the 4th day of June, 2009

______

Fred G. Morrison Jr.

Senior Administrative Law Judge