STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF WAKE 07 DOJ 0011
DAVID KEITH SHELTON, )
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
)
N.C. PRIVATE PROTECTIVE )
SERVICES BOARD, )
Respondent. )
This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison Jr., on January 31, 2007, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
APPEARANCES
Petitioner was represented by attorney Charles Younce.
Respondent was represented by attorney Charles F. McDarris.
WITNESSES
Petitioner - Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Petitioner’s supervising Private Investigator Greg Scott and Petitioner’s business partner Wendell Edwards testified on his behalf. Petitioner also called as adverse witnesses PPSB Investigator Kim Odom, PPSB former Director Wayne Woodard, and PPSB Field Services Supervisor Larry Liggins.
Respondent – Terry Wright, PPSB Director, testified for Respondent Board.
ISSUE
Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s Private Investigator’s application for lack of verifiable experience.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Petitioner has the burden of showing that he has the requisite three thousand (3,000) hours of verifiable experience within the past ten years.
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(a)(8);
74C-9;
74C-12;
12 NCAC 7D § .0200; .0400.
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.
2. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for a Private Investigator’s License.
3. Petitioner currently holds a Private Investigator Associate’s License, Level III.
4. The background investigation was completed by Investigator Kim Odom, and a copy of her investigative report was introduced. The report was presented to the Board’s Screening Committee and the Committee recommended that the application be denied because of Petitioner’s inability to prove three thousand hours of verifiable experience within the past ten years.
5. Petitioner worked three cases for attorney Charles Younce per the investigator’s report.
6. The three cases involved the following: (1) fraud case against Petitioner’s home builders; (2) hit and run case that involved Petitioner’s mother; and (3) estate investigation for a nurse who assists Mr. Shelton’s special needs son.
7. Investigator Odom went through her investigative report and summarized her findings. On March 30, 2005, she interviewed attorney Younce at his office in Greensboro and learned that the lawsuit involving Petitioner was extremely complicated and dealt with six allegations of fraud, including Chapter 75, piercing the corporate shield. Petitioner had obtained copious, detailed records and did a stellar job at it while working under Younce’s direction. Younce told her that Petitioner had probably spent in excess of 3,000 hours on that case alone. Younce provided for her review two extremely large trial notebooks used for organizing the case information. Younce followed-up this interview by sending a letter to the Board on April 19, 2006, wherein he stated that Petitioner had conducted various investigations for his firm from November 10, 2001, to January 12, 2005, under his supervision, for a total of 3, 396 hours. Younce found Petitioner’s work to be thorough, accurate and complete.
8. Petitioner is required by rule to verify 3,000 hours of experience to qualify for a license.
9. Standard procedure for verifying experience includes reviewing an applicant’s job evaluations, job descriptions, job logs, written reports of activities, tax forms, along with any other credible written information that would verify prior work experience.
10. Supervising Private Investigator Greg Scott (“Mr. Scott”) testified for Petitioner. He made numerous positive comments about Petitioner as reflected in the Associate Licensee Supervisor’s Evaluation, filed pursuant to 12 NCAC 7D .1101(3).
11. Mr. Scott served on the Private Protective Services Board for six years, and during a portion of that time, he served as Chair of the Board’s Screening Committee.
12. During Scott’s tenure as Chair of the Screening Committee, the Committee required applicant’s to verify experience by providing logs, timesheets, and other documentation.
13. The Board does not offer an examination or training course for Private Investigator applicants. The Board has elected to require work experience as a basis for licensure. Therefore, the Board reviews an applicant’s work history and requires an applicant to provide verifiable work experience as set forth in 12 NCAC 7D .0401 to satisfy the Board that he or she is experienced in the field of private investigations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
An applicant for a Private Investigator’s license must provide verifiable evidence of at least 3,000 hours of experience within the past 10 years as an investigator, which Petitioner has done. He qualifies to be licensed. See 12 N.C.A.C. 7D .0401(a) and 12 NCAC 7D .0204(a).
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 a Private Investigator’s License for lack of verifiable experience.
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 29th day March, 2007.
______
Fred G. Morrison Jr.
Senior Administrative Law Judge
1