STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF WAKE 06 DOJ 0397
Virble Leake, Jr. )
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
)
North Carolina Private )
Protective Services Board, )
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred Morrison Jr. on May 23, 2006, in Raleigh, North Carolina. The matter was continued until June 20, 2006, to give Petitioner further time to submit evidence of prior experience to support his application.
APPEARANCES
Petitioner appeared pro se.
Respondent was represented by attorney Charles F. McDarris.
WITNESSES
Petitioner - Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Sgt. Frank Jackson with the Berkley County, South Carolina Sheriff’s Department (and future business partner of Petitioner) testified for Petitioner. Melvin Johnson, Petitioner’s brother-in-law, testified for Petitioner.
Respondent – Sarah Conner, PPSB Investigator, testified for Respondent Board.
ISSUE
Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s Security Guard and Patrol License application for lack of verifiable experience.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Petitioner has the burden of showing that he has the requisite three thousand (3,000) hours of verifiable experience within the past ten years.
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)(6);
74C-9;
74C-12;
12 NCAC 7D § .0200; .0300.
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.
2. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for a Security Guard and Patrol License.
3. The standard background investigation was completed by Investigator Sarah Conner, and a copy of her investigative report was introduced. The report recommended that the application be denied because of Petitioner’s inability to prove three thousand hours of verifiable experience within the past ten years.
4. Petitioner has worked in the security guard and patrol business as set forth in the investigator’s report.
5. Investigator Conner was unable to verify that Petitioner had 3,000 hours of experience within the past ten years.
6. Investigator Conner’s standard procedure for verifying experience includes reviewing an applicant’s job evaluations, job descriptions, job logs, written reports of activities, tax forms, along with any other credible written information that would verify prior work experience.
7. Sgt. Frank Jackson has known Petitioner since they were in the Marines together many years ago.
8. Sgt. Jackson is retiring from law enforcement and moving back to Rocky Mount to open a security company with Petitioner. He has had significant experience and has supervised many individuals over the years. Sgt. Jackson explained his own personal experience, but did not provide specific evidence of Petitioner’s experience.
9. Melvin Johnson, Petitioner’s brother-in-law, has known Petitioner all his life. Mr. Johnson is aware that Petitioner has worked for Pinkerton Security and that Petitioner has worked in Asheville, North Carolina, in security.
10. Petitioner did not provide additional verifiable experience. The hearing was continued to allow Petitioner additional time to provide documentation to verify experience.
11. Petitioner later submitted 10 pages of tax documents to the Board showing that he had worked for various security companies over the past several years; however, no additional information was submitted to verify Petitioner’s positions within those companies.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
An applicant for a security guard and patrol license must satisfy Respondent Board with evidence of three years of experience within the past 10 years as a manager, supervisor, or administrator with a contract security company or a proprietary security organization performing guard and patrol functions. See 12 N.C.A.C. 7D .0301.
Pursuant to 12 N.C.A.C. 7D .0204, one year’s experience equals 1,000 hours.
Pursuant to G.S. 74C-5(1) & (2), the Board has the authority to determine minimum qualifications and establish minimum education, experience, and training standards for applicants and licensees.
Pursuant to G.S. 74C-5(5), the Board has the authority to approve individual applicants to be licensed according to the Private Protective Services Act.
Pursuant to G.S. 74C-5(6), the Board may deny an applicant who does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.
Pursuant to G.S. 74C-8(b)(6) and 12 NCAC 7D .0301, the Board has the authority to require documentation to verify an individual’s prior experience as a manager, supervisor, or administrator with a contract security company or a proprietary security organization performing security guard and patrol functions.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned renders 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 UPHOLD its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for a Security Guard and Patrol License for lack of verifiable experience. Petitioner is allowed to submit another application when sufficient documentation is obtained to verify the prior experience required.
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 5th day October, 2006.
_______________________________________
Fred G. Morrison Jr.
Senior Administrative Law Judge
2