07 DOJ 1257

Document Sample
07 DOJ 1257 Powered By Docstoc
					STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                             IN THE OFFICE OF
                                                                ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF WAKE                                                         07 DOJ 1257


TIMOTHY M. MCINTYRE,                      )
                                          )
                        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 November 8, 2007, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

                                        APPEARANCES

       Petitioner was represented by attorney David Ferrell.

       Respondent was represented by attorney Charles F. McDarris.

                                          WITNESSES

       Petitioner -   Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

       Respondent – Larry Liggins, PPSB Field Services Supervisor, Patricia S. Broderick, and
                    Deann Eckhart testified for Respondent Board.

                                             ISSUES

        Petitioner holds a private investigator’s license. Two complaints (2005-PPS-043 and
2005-PPS-073) were filed against Petitioner and the matters were subsequently heard by the
Board’s Grievance Committee. The initial complaint (2005-PPS-043) was heard in December
2005 and the Grievance Committee recommended a Letter of Reprimand. The second complaint
(2005-PPS-073) was heard in February 2006 and the Grievance Committee recommended that a
$2,000.00 civil penalty be assessed against petitioner in lieu of revocation of the license.
Petitioner appeals both administrative actions. The two matters were consolidated for hearing.
       The first issue is whether grounds exist for Respondent to issue a Letter of Reprimand in
case number 2005-PPS-073. The second issue is whether grounds exist for Respondent to issue
a $2,000 civil penalty against Petitioner in lieu of revocation of his license.

                                      BURDEN OF PROOF

       Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner did not render services as agreed.


                           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-12;
                                          74C-12(a)(7);
                                      12 NCAC 7D § .0400.


                                      FINDINGS OF FACT

1.     Respondent Private Protective Services Board (hereinafter “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 holds a Private Investigator’s License, which was issued in 1976.

3.    Petitioner operates under the name of Global Security and Information, Inc., 1365
Westgate Center Dr., Suite K2, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27103.

4.    In case number 2005-PPS-043, a complaint was filed by Deann Eckhart (“Ms. Eckhart”).
The Board initiated an investigation on or about July 15, 2005.

5.     In case number 2005-PPS-073, a complaint was filed by Patricia Broderick (“Ms.
Broderick”). The Board initiated an investigation on or about December 2, 2005.

6.      Ms. Eckhart contracted with Petitioner to conduct surveillance on her husband. She paid
Petitioner $2,000 for this project. She wanted a GPS electronic device installed on her husband’s
car because of the cost savings of having an electronic device track her husband, as opposed to a
private investigator following him.

7.      Petitioner installed the GPS on March 20, 2005. On March 24 and March 25, Ms.
Eckhart called Petitioner and asked for the location of her husband. Later on March 25, 2005,
Petitioner informed Ms. Eckhart that the GPS was not functional.
                                                 2
8.     Ms. Eckhart left town for the beach on March 25. She did not speak with Petitioner again
until March 30, at which time he informed her that they had been following her husband for four
days. She told him to stop all surveillance.

9.    Ms. Eckhart called Petitioner and asked that the GPS be removed from her husband’s
automobile, and it was subsequently taken out by Petitioner’s employee on April 3, 2005.

10.    Mr. McIntyre contends that Ms. Eckhart owes $2,900 for surveillance of her husband.
Ms. Eckhart stated that the only reason she hired Mr. McIntyre was because of the advanced
technology he advertised. She stated that the GPS was to cut down on the cost of surveillance.
She stated the GPS costs $500 per week as opposed to $50-$75 per hour for an investigator to
perform surveillance. She was disappointed that the GPS did not work past March 24.

11.     Ms. Eckhart testified that the only time she requested an investigator to conduct
surveillance was on March 25.

12.   On December 13, 2005, the Board’s Grievance Committee recommended a Letter of
Reprimand be issued to Petitioner for failing to render services as agreed upon.

13.    Regarding the second matter, Ms. Patricia Broderick contracted with Petitioner to obtain
information about her daughter-in-law’s sources of income. Ms. Broderick paid Petitioner
$2,025.

14.    During a pending domestic trial, Ms. Broderick’s son had obtained information that his
wife had deposited $50,000 into an account.

15.    Petitioner presented bank statements and former addresses to Ms. Broderick, but she
contends that this information had either already been given to Petitioner or was basic
information from the internet. Ms. Broderick never received information from Petitioner that
disclosed the source of income that was deposited into the daughter-in-law’s account. Petitioner
was not able to get this information through her son’s attorney or otherwise.

16.     On February 17, 2006, the Board’s Grievance Committee recommended that a civil
penalty in the amount of $2,000 be assessed against Petitioner in lieu of revocation of his Private
Investigator’s license and reimburse Ms. Patricia Broderick $2,025 for failing to render services
as agreed upon.


                                   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

        Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 74C-3(a)(8), an individual engaged in private investigations in
North Carolina must be licensed by the Board.



                                                3
        Pursuant to G.S 74C-12(a)(7), the Board may deny or suspend a license if it is
determined that the licensee has willfully failed or refused to render to a client service as agreed
between the parties and for which compensation has been paid.

           Respondent did not convince me that Petitioner willfully failed to render services as
agreed.

           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 reconsider its initial decision to issue a Letter of
Reprimand in case number 2005-PPS-043. Further, it is proposed that the Board reconsider a
$2,000 civil penalty against Petitioner for failing to provide services as agreed.

                                              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 21st day December, 2007.




                                              ________________________________
                                              Fred G. Morrison Jr.
                                              Senior Administrative Law Judge




                                                 4

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:21
posted:6/25/2011
language:English
pages:4