STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE 06 DOJ 0006

Gene W Areno
Petitioner
vs.
N. C. Alarm Systems Licensing Board
Respondent / )
))
))))
)
) / PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Fred G. Morrison Jr. on January 24, 2006, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by attorney Charles F. McDarris.

WITNESSES

Petitioner - Petitioner, Wade perry, Kevin Boehm, and David Roe

Respondent – Field Services Supervisor Rodney White testified for the Board.

ISSUES

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner's application for an alarm registration permit for lack of good moral character or temperate habits.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner's application for an alarm registration permit should be denied. 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. 74D-2; 74D-6; 74D-8; 74D-9; 74D-10;

12 NCAC 11 §§ .0100; .0200; .0300.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Board is established pursuant to N.C.G.S. 74D-1 et seq. and is charged with the duty of licensing and registering individuals engaged in the alarm systems business.

2. Petitioner applied for an alarm registration permit on March 2, 2005.

3. Respondent Board performed a standard background check on Petitioner pursuant to his application and found that on February 2, 1993, he was convicted of the felony charge of conspiracy to traffic cocaine for which he was sentenced to 120 months(60 months incarceration followed by 60 months under probation). Petitioner satisfactorily completed his sentence and was unconditionally discharged in October of 2001.

4. On October 24, 2006, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter denying his application because of the 1993 felony conviction. Petitioner requested a hearing.

5. Petitioner was born in Boston, MA, on September 21, 1962. He graduated from high school in Brunswick County, NC, in 1981. He completed a year of courses at Cape Fear Community College. He has not been charged or convicted of any crimes since 1993.

6. Kevin Boehm, Total Service Manager for Simplex in the Raleigh district office hired Petitioner and has observed him to be an excellent, hard-working honest and dependable employee. He recommends that Petitioner’s application be approved.

7. David Roe from Simplex’s Myrtle Beach office has observed Petitioner for one year and found him to be an excellent employee who goes above and beyond duties required. He recommends that Petitioner’s application be approved.

8. Wade Perry, District General Manager of Simplex over 50 employees, also highly recommends Petitioner based upon his excellent work record with his company.

9. Petitioner has been subject to random drug tests as a Simplex employee and has never failed a test.

10. On April 6, 2005, Petitioner was licensed as a burglar alarm registrated employee by the South Carolina Contractors’ Licensing Board.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to G.S. 74D-6, the Board may deny an application for an alarm registration permit when the applicant has intemperate habits or lacks good moral character.

Pursuant to G.S. 74D-6, convictions for crimes involving violence, larceny or moral turpitude constitute prima facie evidence of a lack of good moral character and temperate habits.

Respondent Board presented prima facie evidence of Petitioner's lack of good moral character or temperate habits through evidence that Petitioner was convicted of a felony in 1993. Petitioner has rebutted this presumption by showing that he satisfactorily completed his sentence, has been reformed, and has worked as an excellent employee for Simplex.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

The North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing 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 alarm registration permit.

NOTICE AND ORDER

The North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board is the agency that will make the Final Decision in this contested case. As the final decision-maker, that agency 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 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-40(e).

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 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36(b).

This the 25th day of January, 2006.

______

Fred G. Morrison Jr.

Senior Administrative Law Judge