STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF SURRY 06 DOJ 0071

Bobbie Jo Bullins
Petitioner
vs.
N. C. Sheriffs' Education and
Training Standards Commission
Respondent / )
))
)
)))) / PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 150B-40(e), Respondent requested the designation of an Administrative Law Judge to preside at an Article 3A, North Carolina General Statute §150B contested case hearing of this matter. On August 29, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Melissa Owens Lassiter conducted an administrative hearing in this case in High Point, North Carolina Respondent submitted a proposed decision on November 16, 2006.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bobbie Jo Bullins, Pro Se

124 Old Pond Road

Mt. Airy, North Carolina 27030

For Respondent: Ashby T. Ray, Assistant Attorney General

Attorney for Respondent

N.C. Department of Justice

9001 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-9001

ISSUE

Whether Respondent has sufficient grounds to deny Petitioner’s certification as a justice officer?

RULES AT ISSUE

12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2)

12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(3)

12 NCAC 10B .0205(3)(d)

12 NCAC 10B .0103

N.C.G.S. § 14-127

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. All parties are properly before this Administrative Law Judge, in that jurisdiction and venue are proper, and both parties received Notice of Hearing.

2. Respondent has the authority granted under Chapter 17E of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 10B, to certify justice officers, and to deny, revoke, or suspend such certification.

3. On or about June 14, 2005, Petitioner applied for certification as a justice officer with Yadkin County Sheriff’s Office. (Respondent’s Exhibit 3) Petitioner submitted an application (Respondent’s Exhibit 3), including a Personal History Statement (Respondent’s Exhibit 4) to Respondent.

4. In her Personal History Statement, Petitioner indicated that on November 22, 2003, she was charged with 5 counts of “Willful and Wanton Injury to Real Property”, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-127. Petitioner entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. As part of this agreement, Petitioner was required to do community service and pay court costs and restitution to the victim. Upon completion of her obligations, the charges were dismissed, and later expunged from Petitioner’s criminal record.

5. On June 15, 2005, Respondent received Petitioner’s application and Personal History Statement. (Respondent’s Exhibits 3, 4) As a result of Petitioner’s listing of those charges, Diane Konopka, Respondent’s Deputy Director conducted an investigation into the Petitioner’s actions. As part of this investigation, Ms. Konopka spoke with the victim and reviewed the court records, as well as written statements from the Petitioner. (Respondent’s Exhibits 1, 2, 5) At the completion of her investigation, Ms. Konopka presented her findings to the Respondent’s Probable Cause Committee.

6. On December 20, 2005, Respondent’s Probable Cause Committee found probable cause to believe the Petitioner had committed five (5) counts of the Class B misdemeanor offense of “Willful and Wanton Injury to Real Property”, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-127, and denied Petitioner’s application for justice officer certification for that reason. 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2) and (3) (Respondent’s Exhibit 6)

Injury to Property Offenses

7. The preponderance of the evidence showed that on or about November 22, 2003, Petitioner was charged with five (5) counts of “Willful and Wanton Injury to Real Property”, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-127.

8. “Willful and Wanton Injury to Real Property,” in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-127, is a Class B misdemeanor as defined by 12 NCAC 10B .0103(10)(b).

9. Stacy Inman is employed as a police officer with the Mount Airy Police Department. Her current assignment is as a school resource officer.

10. On or about January 4, 2003, Officer Inman was employed and on duty as a Mt. Airy police officer when she responded to a disturbance call at a McDonald’s in Mount Airy, North Carolina. As part of her investigation, Officer Inman conducted a traffic stop on a black Ford Focus. This vehicle was occupied by several individuals, including the Petitioner. No enforcement action was taken against the Petitioner, or anyone else in the vehicle at that time.

11. Shortly after the traffic stop on January 4, 2003, Officer Inman observed the black Ford Focus she had seen Petitioner driving earlier, driving back and forth in front of her residence.

12. Just a few days after Officer Inman observed the Petitioner in front of her residence, Officer Inman awoke to discover that someone had thrown eggs at her house.

13. Officer Inman’s house was egged on five (5) different occasions. The dates of which were: February 14, 2003; February 24, 2003; March 24, 2003; July 5, 2003; and November 7, 2003.

14. The eggs thrown against Officer Inman’s house stained the siding of her house. Officer Inman was forced to hire an individual to professionally clean the siding on her house. The cost of this cleaning was approximately four hundred dollars ($400.00).

15. On or about November 22, 2003, Officer Inman was investigating a traffic accident in which Dina Newsome’s son was involved. Ms. Newsome recognized Officer Inman’s name, because she had heard Petitioner, Petitioner’s brother, and others bragging about throwing eggs at Officer Inman’s house. Ms. Newsome told Officer Inman about these conversations. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2)

16. Based on that information, Officer Inman drew warrants for arrest against the Petitioner and the others allegedly involved in the repeated acts of vandalism.

17. After the Petitioner was arrested, Officer Inman completed a police report detailing the investigation. A part of this report indicates that, “Bobby Jo was also questioned and did admit to egging my residence along with Andrew, Michael and Eddie.” (Respondent’s Exhibit 1)

18. Petitioner paid Officer Inman a total of $400.00 for damages sustained to her residence from the eggs after she entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. Petitioner apologized to Officer Inman for the incidents at issue while in court, and again in the fall of 2005, approximately one week after Respondent contacted Officer Inman about the investigation into Petitioner’s actions.

Evidence at Contested Case Hearing

19. While Officer Inman had no direct memory, during the administrative hearing, of Petitioner admitting to egging her home, she would not have written it in her report if it was not true and accurate.

20. During the contested case hearing, Petitioner denied throwing any eggs at Officer Inman’s residence. Instead, she explained that she was merely present in the car on four (4) occasions when her brother and others went to Officer Inman’s house. She further explained that she was driving by Officer Inman’s house, because she was looking for a friend who lived nearby and drove past Officer Inman’s house by accident.

21. However, on June 9, 2005, Petitioner completed a written statement about the incident in which she denied throwing eggs or having any knowledge of whose house was being egged. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5) She wrote:

On February 14/03[,] I was riding along with my brother and friends when they decided to egg some ones [sic] house. They had stopped at a house on Smith Rd. in Mount Airy were [sic] they presided [sic] to throw eggs. February 24/03 the same thing had happened again, so I had asked my brother what the deal was for throwing the eggs at this person’s house and he said this person threatened me. March 24/03[,] my brother had came [sic] and picked me up from work when we left he went and brought eggs and he drove over to this person[’]s house where him and his friend and my boyfriend at the time go out and threw more eggs at this house. On July 5/03[,] I really don’t know what happened because I was not there at that time. November 7/03[,] pretty much the same thing happened we went to this person’s house and threw eggs. On November 17/03[,] I was arrested for Injury to real property [sic], 5 counts. Out of all these times this had happened I never once participated in the throwing, but I was guilty by being there. I had my charges dismissed by paying my dues back to society by doing community service, paid court costs and a restitution fee. I did personally apologize to the owner of the house.

22. Dina Newsome has known the Petitioner for many years as the Petitioner often comes to Ms. Newsome’s house to visit her son. Newsome’s son is around the same age as Petitioner. At hearing, Ms. Newsome recalled Petitioner, Petitioner’s brother, and others bragging about throwing eggs at Officer Newman’s house while in Newsome’s home sometime in 2003. Yet, she could not recall the specific date. Ms. Newsome also acknowledged that her memory was not very clear on the details of the conversations about Officer Inman’s house, and that she had no specific memory of the Petitioner specifically admitting to actually throwing any of the eggs. Nevertheless, Ms. Newsome did recognize Officer Inman’s name based on listening to Petitioner’s conversations with the other persons in her home.

23. Having reviewed the demeanor and testimony of Officer Inman, Dina Newsome, and the Petitioner, and supporting documentation, the undersigned concludes that the Petitioner’s testimony on whether she actually participated in the throwing of eggs, and whether she knew whose residence was being egged, is not credible.

(a) First, Dina Newsome heard the Petitioner and others bragging about throwing eggs at Officer Inman’s residence. If Ms. Newsome had not heard Petitioner and others mention Officer Inman by name, she would not have known to approach Officer Inman during the investigation of her son’s traffic accident.

(b) Second, Petitioner’s assertion that she had no knowledge of whose house was being egged is contradicted by Officer Inman’s report, which indicated that Petitioner admitted to throwing eggs at Officer Inman’s house. Officer Inman completed her report on or about November 22, 2003 when Petitioner was arrested and interviewed about the egging of Inman’s home. Third, it is not reasonable that Petitioner was present at the scene on four or five different occasions, and never actually threw any eggs at Officer Inman’s house.

24. Petitioner committed five (5) counts of the Class B misdemeanor offense of Willful and Wanton Injury to Real Property, by throwing eggs with others at Officer Stacy Inman’s home on five (5) separate occasions, and causing damage in excess of $400.00 to Officer Inman’s residence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Both parties are properly before this Administrative Law Judge, in that jurisdiction is proper, and both parties received proper notice. 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. The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission has the authority granted under Chapter 17E of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 10B, to certify justice officers and to deny, revoke, or suspend such certification.

3. 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2) reads:

The Commission may revoke, suspend or deny the certification of a justice officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification or certified justice officer has committed or been convicted of: a crime or unlawful act defined in 12 NCAC 10B .0103(10)(b) as a Class B misdemeanor within the five-year period prior to the date of appointment.

4. 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(3) reads:

The Commission may revoke, suspend, or deny the certification of a justice officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification or certified justice officer has committed or been convicted of: four or more crimes or unlawful acts defined in 12 NCAC 10B .0103(10)(b) as a Class B misdemeanor regardless of the date of commission or conviction.

5. 12 NCAC 10B .0103(16) sets forth the meaning of “commission”:

‘Commission’ as it pertains to criminal offenses shall mean a finding by the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission or an administrative body, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 150B, that a person performed the acts necessary to satisfy the elements of a specified criminal offense.

6. 12 NCAC 10B .0205(3)(d)states that:

When the Commission suspends, revokes, or denies the certification of a justice officer, the period of sanction shall be: for an indefinite period, but continuing so long as the stated deficiency, infraction, or impairment continues to exist where the cause of sanction is: commission or conviction of offenses specified in 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2),(3),(4) and (5).

The Commission may either reduce or suspend the periods of sanction where the revocation, denial or suspension of certification is based upon Subparagraphs .0204(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) or substitute a period of probation in lieu of revocation, suspension or denial following an administrative hearing. This authority to reduce or suspend the period of sanction may be utilized by the Commission when extenuating circumstances brought out at the administrative hearing warrant such a reduction or suspension, in the discretion of the Commission.

7. North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 14-127, “Willful and Wanton Injury to Real Property,” is listed as a Class B misdemeanor in the Class B Misdemeanor Manual adopted by 12 NCAC 10B .0103(10)(b).