Docstoc

06 DOJ 2424

Document Sample
06 DOJ 2424 Powered By Docstoc
					STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                            IN THE OFFICE OF
                                                               ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF WAKE                                                        06 DOJ 2424


JEREMY SHAYNE PEARCE                          )
          Petitioner,                         )
                                              )
                                              )
               v.                             )               PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
                                              )
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT                     )
OF JUSTICE, CAMPUS POLICE                     )
PROGRAM,                                      )
            Respondent.                       )
                                              )
______________________________                )

       In accordance with North Carolina General Statute § 150B-23, Petitioner requested the
designation of an administrative law judge to preside at an Article 3, North Carolina General Statute
§ 150B, contested case hearing of this matter. Based upon the Petitioner‟s request, Administrative
Law Judge Don Overby heard this contested case in Raleigh, North Carolina on March 1, 2007 and
on April 11, 2007.

                                        APPEARANCES

       Petitioner:             Jeremy Shayne Pearce
                               6512 Pulleytown Road
                               Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

       Respondent:             J. Joy Strickland, Assistant Attorney General
                               Attorney for Respondent
                               N.C. Department of Justice
                               9001 Mail Service Center
                               Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-9001

                                              ISSUE

       Did the Respondent properly deny Petitioner‟s campus police officer commission?

                                       RULES AT ISSUE
                                     12 NCAC 02J .0201(4)
                                    12 NCAC 09A .0204(b)(6)
                                    12 NCAC 02J .0210(a)(4)

                                                  1
        BASED UPON careful consideration of the sworn testimony of the witnesses presented at the
hearing and the documents and exhibits received and admitted into evidence, the Undersigned makes
the following Findings of Fact. In making the Findings of Fact, the Undersigned has weighed all the
evidence and has assessed the credibility of the witnesses by taking into account the appropriate
factors for judging credibility, including but not limited to the demeanor of the witness, any interests,
bias, or prejudice the witness may have, the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know or
remember the facts or occurrences about which the witness testified, whether the testimony of the
witness is reasonable, and whether the testimony is consistent with all other believable evidence in
the case.

                                       FINDINGS OF FACT

        1.      Both parties are properly before this Administrative Law Judge, in that jurisdiction
and venue are proper, both parties received Notice of Hearing, and Petitioner received the
notification of probable cause to deny campus police commission letter mailed by the Respondent on
November 27, 2006. (Respondent‟s Exhibit 9)

      2.       Respondent has the authority granted under Chapter 74G of the North Carolina
General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 2J, to commission
campus police officers and to revoke, suspend or deny such certification.

        3.     Respondent found probable cause to deny Petitioner‟s campus police officer
commission as a result of omissions from the Personal History Statement (Form F3) that the
Petitioner completed and signed as part of his application with Louisburg College Campus Police on
or about September 19, 2006 and the Report of Appointment/Application for Certification (Form F-
5A) the Petitioner completed and signed on or about September 4, 2006. (Respondent‟s Exhibits 1
and 4)

        4.      The first omission outlined in the finding of probable cause to deny Petitioner‟s
campus police officer commission arises from the Personal History Statement (Form F3).
Specifically, the Petitioner responded to question number 47, which reads, “Have you ever been
arrested by a law enforcement officer or otherwise charged with a criminal offense? If „Yes,‟ please
give details.” The Petitioner responded in the affirmative and listed: “1997 unauthorized use of
MV”, “2000? worthless checks ($3)” and “2001-2002 DWLR- NOL,” but his answers did not
include a 2004 charge of simple worthless check in Wake County (04 CR 94054), a 1999 charge of
purchase/receiving cig/tobacco <18 in Wake County (99 CR 13993), a 2002 charge of speed
competition in Wake County (02 CR 79131) or a 1999 Reckless driving to endanger in Wake County
(99 CR 30536). (Respondent‟s Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8)




                                                   2
        5.     Page eight (8) of the Personal History Statement Form (Form F3), which was
completed and signed by Petitioner on or about September 19, 2006 contains the following note
just above question # 47:

               Include all offenses other than minor traffic offenses. The
               following are not minor traffic offenses and must be listed below:
               DWI, DUI (alcohol or drugs), duty to stop in the event of an
               accident, driving while license permanently revoked, and speeding
               to elude arrest.

               Answer all of the following questions completely and accurately.
               Any falsifications or misstatement of facts may be sufficient to
               disqualify you. If any doubt exists in your mind as to whether or
               not you were arrested or charged with a criminal offense at some
               point in your life or whether an offense remains on your record, you
               should answer “Yes.” You should answer “No,” only if you have
               never been arrested or charged, or your record was expunged by a
               judge‟s order.
               (Respondent‟s Exhibit 4) (Emphasis in original).

       6.      Page ten (10) of the Personal History Statement (Form F3) contains the following
paragraph just above the Petitioner‟s notarized signature:

               I hereby certify that each and every statement made on this form is
               true and complete and I understand that any misstatement or
               omissions of information will subject me to disqualification or
               dismissal. I also acknowledge that I have a continuing duty to
               update all information contained in this document. I will report to
               the employing agency and forward to the NC Criminal Justice
               Education and Training Standards Commission any additional
               information which occurs after the signing of this document.
               (Respondent‟s Exhibit 4)

        7.      The second omission outlined in the finding of probable cause to deny Petitioner‟s
campus police officer commission arises from the Report of Appointment/Application for
Certification (Form F-5A) the Petitioner completed and signed on or about September 4, 2006 as
part of his application for employment with the Louisburg College Campus Police. Specifically,
the Petitioner responded to the criminal record section by listing: “1997 unauthorized use of MV‟,
“2000? worthless checks ($3)” and “2001-2002 DWLR- NOL.” None of the Petitioner‟s answers
included a 2004 charge of simple worthless check in Wake County (04 CR 94054), a 1999 charge
of purchase/receiving cig/tobacco <18 in Wake County (99 CR 13993), a 2002 charge of speed
competition in Wake County (02 CR 79131) and a 1999 Reckless driving to endanger in Wake
County (99 CR 30536).

                                                 3
(Respondent‟s Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8)
      8.      The note included in the criminal record section of the Report of
Appointment/Application for Certification Form F-5A indicates in part:

               ALL APPLICANTS AND TRANSFERS MUST READ AND
               COMPLETE THIS CRIMINAL RECORD SECTION IN THEIR
               OWN HANDWRITING

               Each applicant must list any and all criminal charges regardless of the date of
               offense and the disposition ( to include dismissals, not guilty, nol pros, PJC, or any
               other disposition where you entered a plea of guilty). Do not include minor traffic
               offenses.

       (Respondent‟s Exhibit 1) (Emphasis in original)

      9.     Additionally, page 2 of the Report of Appointment/ Application for Certification
(Form F-5A) contains the following paragraph just above the Petitioner‟s notarized signature:

               As the applicant for certification, I attest that I am aware of the
               minimum standards for employment, that I meet or exceed each of
               those requirements, that the information provided above and all of
               the other information submitted by me, both oral and written
               throughout the employment and certification process, is thorough,
               complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further
               understand and agree that any omission, falsification or
               misrepresentation of any factor or portion of such information
               can be the sole basis for termination of my employment and/or
               denial, suspension or revocation of my certification at any time,
               now or later.

       (Respondent‟s Exhibit 1) (Emphasis in original)

        10.      The Petitioner was served with a warrant for arrest, charging the offense of simple
worthless check on or about June 17, 2004, and was taken to the Wake County Magistrate‟s Office.
 Petitioner testified that he paid the ticket off when he paid his bond but later went to court and
spoke with either the District Attorney or an Assistant District Attorney and that person told him
that he could leave. The certified copy of the misdemeanor charge of simple worthless check in
Wake County (04 CR 94054) indicates that the Petitioner was convicted of simple worthless check
and the costs were paid. Petitioner testified that he thought because the case had been “waived” or
paid off that it had been dismissed but that now he understands that “waived‟ does not mean
dismissed. (Respondent‟s Exhibit 5)

        11.     The Petitioner also was charged with the misdemeanor offense of purchase/
receiving cig/ tobacco < 18 on or about January 28, 1999. According to the certified copy of this

                                                  4
charge in Wake County (99 CR 13993), the case was continued three times before the Petitioner
was convicted of this charge on May 21, 1999. Petitioner testified that he received a citation for
this offense from a Wake Forest Police Officer and went to court and handled the case on his own.
 Petitioner did not report this offense on his Personal History Statement (Form F 3) or his Report of
Appointment/ Application for Certification (Form F-5A) that he completed as part of his
application materials. (Respondent‟s Exhibit 6)

         12.     The Petitioner was charged with speed competition on a citation on or about
September 3, 2002. The certified copy of this charge in Wake County (02 CR 79131) indicates
that the case was continued several times and ultimately disposed of on November 3, 2003.
Petitioner testified that he went to court and that the case was continued because the deputy that
had charged him had been in an accident and that at some point he failed to appear. According to
the Petitioner, the case was reset and when he went back to court, he was late so he went to the
district attorney‟s office and spoke with someone who agreed to dismiss the case. (Respondent‟s
Exhibit 7)

         13. The Petitioner was charged with reckless driving to endanger on or about March 25,
1999, on a citation, for an incident that the Petitioner described as “squealing tires.” The certified
copy of this charge in Wake County (99 CR 30536) indicates that the case was continued and that
the Petitioner received a prayer for judgment continued on August 13, 1999. The Petitioner
testified that he went to court and asked that the case be continued so that he could hire a lawyer.
Petitioner also testified that he spoke to the district attorney who said that he would not object to a
prayer for judgment continued. Petitioner further testified that he went before one Judge who
indicated that she would not give a prayer for judgment and agreed that the case be continued.
Lastly, the Petitioner indicated that he went back to court on a third occasion and plead guilty and
received a prayer for judgment continued. (Respondent‟ s Exhibit 8)

       14. The Petitioner introduced two exhibits that contained numerous letters of personal
and professional references. (Petitioner‟s Exhibits 1 and 2)

         15.     Officer Jerry Powell began his law enforcement career in 1984 and was employed
as a law enforcement officer with Louisburg College Campus Police on March 1, 2007, the first
day of the hearing in this case. Officer Powell testified on behalf of the Petitioner. Officer Powell
testified, since this was a newly created department, that there had been some confusion when
filling out the application forms for certification and that Chief James Williamson was not clear on
the procedure. Officer Powell has held supervisory positions with other police departments and
has helped other applicants complete the paperwork. The Petitioner did not seek his help in filling
out the forms. Prior to the hearing, Officer Powell was aware of the Petitioner‟s criminal and
driving record.

         16.     On March 1, 2007, Officer Jerry Powell was terminated from his employment with
Louisburg College Campus Police by Chief James Williamson when he reported for duty after
testifying for the Petitioner earlier that same day.


                                                   5
       17.      Officer Larry Franklin had agreed to testify on behalf of the Petitioner without the
necessity of a subpoena. During the course of the hearing the Petitioner made several attempts to
contact Officer Franklin in order to secure his presence at the hearing. During the course of the
hearing, Chief James Williamson made several calls to Officer Franklin directing that Officer
Franklin was not to come to Raleigh for the hearing.

        18.     Keith King, currently employed with the Division of Motor Vehicles, testified on
behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. King was an instructor at Vance Granville Community College for the
Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET) during the Petitioner‟s training in BLET. During that
time the Petitioner never acted in a reckless manner, was a team player, and was good at making
decisions. Mr. King is aware that the Petitioner has maintained the highest ethical and moral
character while assisting local law enforcement agencies with undercover narcotics work. Mr.
King affirms the necessity for attention to detail in filling out forms and reports.

        19.     Certified police officer James Williamson was given the task of establishing a new
Campus Police Department for Louisburg College, being hired as the Chief on May 15, 2006. He
came to the college with approximately twenty years of law enforcement experience with little or
no supervisory experience. In order to partially staff the new department, Chief Williamson
inquired of potential candidates for employment from the BLET class at Vance Granville
Community College, and the Petitioner‟s name was given to him. Chief Williamson sought out the
Petitioner for employment based on recommendations, and interviewed the Petitioner in June
2006.

       20.      Chief Williamson‟s testimony was evasive and non-responsive to direct questions.
Chief Williamson was not completely truthful in his testimony. Among other things, Chief
Williamson stated that he did not have any conversations with Officer Larry Franklin about this
hearing, which was not true. Chief Williamson‟s testimony seemed to be directed toward
concealing his own incompetence in handling the Petitioner‟s application and conversations
surrounding it.

        21.     Chief Williamson told the applicants for his department that they should fill out the
forms as “stated on the form” and per the instructions/directions on the forms, which may have
been true for other applicants, but not completely true for the Petitioner.

       22.    The Petitioner had just completed BLET when he was applying for employment
with Louisburg College and applying for certification as a campus police officer. He relied on
Chief Williamson to help guide in preparation of the necessary forms for certification, and
depended on Chief Williamson to insure that the application was done correctly.

        23.    During his application process, the Petitioner was not sure what to put on the forms
so he spoke with Chief Williamson. As early as the interview in June 2006, the Petitioner told the
Chief about his criminal history and provided copies of his Wake County criminal history to him.
Petitioner further asked Chief Williamson if his Form F-5A looked okay and that Chief
Williamson said that what he put down was fine. The Petitioner remembered each of the charges

                                                  6
that were omitted from his Form F-3 and Form F- 5A, and he knew that some of them were serious
traffic offenses. He believed that he did not have to put them on the forms except for the charge of
receiving cig/tobacco <18 and that no one told him that he did not need to put that on the forms.
Petitioner also testified that he did not thoroughly read the forms that he filled out and signed, but
instead skimmed over the forms.

        24.     Chief Williamson initially provided the Petitioner with an outdate Form F-3
(Respondent‟s Exhibit 2). In completing the initial Form F-3 provided him by Chief Williamson,
the Petitioner responded to question 47 by acknowledging that he had prior convictions, with a
notation “See Criminal Information Sheets.” Chief Williamson reviewed the Petitioner‟s
application, and his statements that he was not aware of the Petitioner‟s prior convictions are not
true. The Petitioner signed this F-3 on July 31, 2006, was submitted by Chief Williamson and
received by the Respondent on August 28, 2006. The Chief acknowledges that the entire
application package was not sent at one time.

        25.     Chief Williamson submitted the Petitioner‟s initial application with the
accompanying outdated F-3, and it was received and reviewed by Ms. Vickie Huskey, Company
Police Administrator for the Respondent. Ms. Huskey responded directly to Chief Williamson by
memorandum dated August 30, 2006. (Respondent‟s Exhibit 3) In the memorandum directed to
Chief Williamson, a total of sixteen items were omitted and needed to be supplied with the
application. Ms. Huskey supplied Chief Williamson with revised F-3 forms as well. Additionally,
in the memorandum Ms. Huskey requested “Certified True Copies of the Warrant and Disposition
in the case of: Wake, Meck., Cumberland, Wilson, Craven Co.”

       26.    Chief Williamson remembers that the Petitioner did in deed go to those counties
and obtained certified criminal record checks.

        27.     Chief Williamson stated that although he could access an applicant‟s driving
history, he did not have access to their criminal histories at the time that the Petitioner applied with
Louisburg College Campus Police. The Chief further testified that he didn‟t remember the exact
conversation that he and the Petitioner had about his criminal history but at the time that the
Petitioner filled out his forms, he did not have his criminal history with which to compare the
forms. This testimony is not completely true in that the Chief actually was given the copies of the
Petitioner‟s criminal record checks to submit with his application.

       28.     The Petitioner attempted to complete the application process, including the revised
F-3 form. His answer to question 47 did not list all convictions, but mirrored the answer that he
had given on the Form F-5A.

        29.     Chief Williamson consistently and continuously told the Petitioner that if there were
errors in the application that Ms. Huskey would return it to them to correct.

        30.     Chief Williamson did provide a reference letter for the Petitioner. He stated that the
Petitioner was very professional and had done a fine job for his department from August 2006 to

                                                    7
January 2007. Although his reference letter does not so state, Chief Williamson now has
reservations about hiring him for employment with Louisburg College Campus Police.

       31.     Petitioner‟s assertion that he omitted the above referenced charges and convictions
due to instructions by Chief Williamson or that he simply forgot the incident involving
purchase/receiving cig/ tobacco <18 is credible in light of a preponderance of the evidence
presented.

         32.     Petitioner made a material misrepresentation of fact on the Personal History
Statement (Form F-3), completed and signed by the Petitioner on or about September 19, 2006 as
part of his application for employment with the Louisburg College Campus Police, by failing to list
all of his charges and convictions in response to question number 47.

        33.     Petitioner made a material misrepresentation of fact on the Report of
Appointment/Application for Certification (Form F-5A) the Petitioner completed and signed on or
about September 4, 2006 as part of his application for employment with the Louisburg College
Campus Police by failing to list all of his charges and convictions when he completed the criminal
record section.

        BASED UPON the foregoing Findings of Fact and upon the preponderance or greater
 weight of the evidence in the whole record, the Undersigned makes the following:

                                  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

        1.      The Office of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction
over this contested case. The parties received proper notice of the hearing in this matter. To the
extent that the Findings of Fact contain Conclusions of Law, or that the Conclusions of Law are
Findings of Fact, they should be so considered without regard to the given labels.

      2.      Respondent has the authority granted under Chapter 74G of the North Carolina
General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 2J, to
commission campus police officers and to revoke, suspend or deny such certification.

       3.       12 NCAC 02J .0200 states that a campus police commission shall be denied upon a
finding that the officer fails to meet any of the required minimum standards.

       4.      12 NCAC 02J .0201(4) states that:

               Every campus police officer must meet the following requirements
               to obtain and maintain a campus police commission; meet the
               minimum standards for criminal justice officers established by the
               North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards
               Commission, appearing in Title 12, Chapter 9 of the North
               Carolina Administrative Code; which standards are hereby

                                                 8
               incorporated by reference, and shall automatically include any later
               amendments and editions of the referenced material.

       5.       12 NCAC 09A .0204(b)(6) states that the Commission may deny the certification of
a criminal justice officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification has
knowingly made a material misrepresentation of any information required for certification or
accreditation. (Emphasis added)

       6.      12 NCAC 02J .0210(a) states that:

               When the Attorney General, or his designee, suspends or denies the
               commission of a campus police officer, the period of sanction shall
               not be less than three years. However, the Attorney General, or his
               designee, may either reduce or suspend the period of sanction, or
               substitute a period of probation in lieu of suspension of a
               commission following an administrative hearing, where the cause
               of sanction is:

               (4) material misrepresentation of any information required for
               campus police commissioning.

       7.      The Petitioner has the burden of proof.

         8.      Petitioner made a material misrepresentation of fact on the Personal History
Statement (Form F-3), completed and signed by the Petitioner on or about September 19, 2006 as
part of his application for employment with the Louisburg College Campus Police, by failing to list
all of his charges and convictions in response to question number 47.

        9.      Petitioner made a material misrepresentation of fact on the Report of
Appointment/Application for Certification (Form F-5A) the Petitioner completed and signed on or
about September 4, 2006 as part of his application for employment with the Louisburg College
Campus Police by failing to list all of his charges and convictions when he completed the criminal
record section.

       10.    The Personal History Statement (Form F-3) completed by Petitioner on or about
September 19, 2006 and the Report of Appointment/Application for Certification (Form F-5A)
completed by Petitioner on or about September 4, 2006 as part of his application with Louisburg
College Campus Police, were necessary and required parts of the application process to become a
commissioned campus police officer.

        11.     Although the responsibility for the application ultimately rests with the Petitioner,
he did not knowingly make material misrepresentations or omissions on the F-3 and F-5A forms
in that he relied on the expertise and advice of a twenty year veteran police officer who was his


                                                  9
superior officer and the chief of the department, and he had given all pertinent and required
information to the chief to supply with the application.

                                 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

       NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
the Undersigned recommends that the Respondent GRANT the Petitioner‟s campus police officer
commission with a probationary status for a period of one year.

                                             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 and to present written arguments to
the agency that will make the final decision or order. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36(a). The agency is
required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36(b3) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to
furnish a copy to the parties‟ attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

      The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina
Department of Justice.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

       This the 16th day of April, 2007.


                                               ____________________________
                                               Donald W. Overby
                                               Administrative Law Judge




                                                  10

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:1/4/2012
language:
pages:10