Docstoc

07 DOJ 1239

Document Sample
07 DOJ 1239 Powered By Docstoc
					NORTH CAROLINA                                              IN THE OFFICE OF
                                                        ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WAKE COUNTY                                                    07 DOJ 1239

DANA M. WILLIAMS,                            )
                                             )
         Petitioner,                         )
                                             )
         v.                                  )            PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
                                             )
NORTH CAROLINA PRIVATE                       )
PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD,                   )
                                             )
         Respondent.                         )
                                             )


        This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison
Jr., on August 28, 2007, in Raleigh North Carolina.

                                        APPEARANCES

       Petitioner appeared pro se.

       Respondent was represented by attorney J.T. Crook.

                                          WITNESSES

       Petitioner – Petitioner testified on her own behalf.

       Respondent – Investigator Kim Odom testified for Respondent Board

                                             ISSUES

       Whether grounds exist for Respondent to revoke Petitioner’s unarmed guard registration
permit for violation of G.S. § 74C-1, et seq., violation of the Rules promulgated by Respondent
Board, and for engaging in a private protection services profession while not in lawful
possession of a valid license.

                                      BURDEN OF PROOF

        Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner violated the provisions of G.S. §
74C-1, et seq., violated the rules promulgated by the Respondent Board, and that Petitioner
engaged in a private protection services profession while not in lawful possession of a valid
license. 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-11;
                                           74C-13;
                                         74C-12(a)(2);
                                         74C-12(a)(3);
                                         74C-12(a)(6);
                                 12 N.C.A.C. 7D § .0700, .0800.

                                      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 guards.

2.    Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for an unarmed guard registration permit in
September of 2006.

3.     Petitioner was given an unarmed guard registration permit in December of 2006. Prior to
December 2006, neither Petitioner nor her husband, Christopher Williams, carried a Board
permit to serve as an unarmed guard. Further, neither Petitioner nor her husband has ever been
in possession of a license to provide security guard and patrol services with the Board.

4.      In July of 2006, the Respondent Board received a complaint indicating that Petitioner and
her husband were operating a security guard and patrol business under the name of N.C.C.R.
Patrol, Inc., without the supervision of a Board qualified licensee.

5.     In the Respondent Board’s investigation, it was determined that N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc. was
providing security guard and patrol services to the Quail Lakes Apartments in Greensboro, North
Carolina, and the Arbors Apartments in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

6.    The Board introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 a contract entered into between
N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc. signed by the Petitioner on February 9, 2006, which indicated that
N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc. was to provide security guard and patrol services to the Quail Lakes
Apartments in Greensboro.

7.      The Board introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 2 a set of invoices for security guard and
patrol services provided by N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc. to the Arbors Apartments indicating that from
March 1, 2006, to June 30, 2006, N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc. provided security guard and patrol
services to the Arbors Apartments in Winston-Salem.




                                                 2
8.      Exhibit 2 indicates that Christopher Williams, the Petitioner’s husband, and a Mr.
Greenlea, acting on behalf of N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc., provided security guard and patrol services
to the Arbors Apartments. Mr. Greenlea was not registered as having an unarmed guard permit
with Respondent Board at the time he purportedly provided patrol services along with Mr.
Williams at the Arbors Apartments.

9.      Investigator Kim Odom determined in her investigation that the qualifying licensee for
N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc., Edward Major Allen, was unaware that N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc. was
providing security guard and patrol services to either the Arbors or the Quail Lakes Apartments.
Investigator Odom further determined that Mr. Allen did not supervise, participate in, or
authorize the provision of security guard and patrol services for either apartment complex.

10.     Edward Major Allen, the qualified licensee for N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc., was injured by a
gunshot wound in August of 2005 and was unable to work in any capacity for the following six
to eight months.

11.     Investigator Kim Odom opined that it is a violation of the provisions of G.S. § 74C-1, et
seq., and the rules promulgated by the Board for N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc., to provide security guard
and patrol services without the supervision, authorization, or participation of a qualified licensee,
and that the Board revoked Petitioner’s previously issued permit pursuant to G.S. § 74C-12.

12.     Petitioner contends that her role with N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc. was that of administrator and
that prior to receipt of her unarmed guard registration permit she did not serve as an unarmed
guard. Petitioner also contends that she was unaware of the Respondent Board’s requirements
that a qualified licensee supervise the provision of security guard and patrol services carried out
by non-licensees. Petitioner admitted however that she was the President and registered agent
for N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc.

                                    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

        Pursuant to G.S. § 74C-12(a)(2), Respondent Board may revoke an unarmed guard
registration permit for violation of any provision of G.S. § 74C-1, et seq.

        Pursuant to G.S. § 74C-12(a)(3), Respondent Board may revoke an unarmed guard
registration permit for violation of any rule promulgated by the Board pursuant to its authority
under G.S. § 74C-1, et seq.

        Pursuant to G.S. § 74C-12(a)(6), Respondent Board may revoke an unarmed guard
registration permit for engaging in or permitting any employer to engage in a private protective
Services profession when not lawfully in possession of a valid license issued by the Board.

       Respondent Board proved that Petitioner, as president and administrator, violated the
provisions of G.S. § 74C-1, et seq., and the rules promulgated pursuant to the Respondent
Board’s authority under the chapter. Respondent Board also proved that Petitioner, as president
and registered agent of N.C.C.R. Patrol, Inc., provided security guard and patrol services without




                                                 3
the authorization, participation, or supervision of a licensee with the Respondent Board, in
violation of G.S. § 74C-12(a)(6).

       Based on the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:

                                  PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

         That the Board UPHOLD its initial decision to revoke Petitioner’s 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 12th day of September, 2007.



                                      _____________________________________
                                      Fred G. Morrison Jr.
                                      Senior Administrative Law Judge




                                                 4

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:7
posted:8/16/2011
language:English
pages:4