STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF WAKE 02 DOJ 1266
Robert Bradley TysonPetitioner
vs.
N. C. Alarm Systems Licensing Board
Respondent / )
))
)))) / PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
This contested case was heard before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on September 24, 2002 in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner was represented by Reed N. Fountain, and the Respondent was represented by Bradford A. Williams. Testimony was taken from the following witnesses for Petitioner: Robert Bradley Tyson, Marshall Tyson, Frank Chaput, Diane Tyson, and Ben Brookhart. A character reference letter written by Jacqueline Gilreath was received into evidence without objection. Helen Parker testified on behalf of the Respondent. The undersigned also received into evidence with no objection from Petitioner the results from a Johnston County Criminal Record check on the Petitioner and the Bi-annual Registration filed by Petitioner with Respondent.
Based upon the preponderance of the evidence following an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses for both parties, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a citizen and resident of Johnston County, NC.
2. Respondent is an occupational licensing Board and agency of the State of North Carolina organized and existing under Chapter 74D of the North Carolina General Statutes with its principal office in Raleigh, North Carolina.
3. On or about March 19, 2002, Petitioner filed a Bi-annual Registration form with the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board wherein he stated that he had pled guilty to a crime, was convicted of a crime, served time for that conviction, and was paroled or placed on probation.
4. Respondent refused to register Petitioner for an Alarm Registrant Permit on the grounds that Petitioner lacked good moral character.
5. Thereafter, in accordance with the procedures detailed in N.C.G.S. §150B et seq., Petitioner properly appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
6. Petitioner, on examination, admitted the existence of several misdemeanor convictions for worthless checks and a misdemeanor larceny conviction for the unauthorized use of a Visa check card belonging to his parents.
7. The criminal record check introduced by Respondent showed the existence of eight (8) misdemeanor convictions for worthless checks and a misdemeanor larceny conviction, all within the past three (3) years.
8. According to Petitioner, the misdemeanor convictions for worthless checks were not the result of intentional conduct but rather resulted from a combination of factors including poor bookkeeping and unpredictable, unanticipated delays in income from several different jobs he held at the relevant times.
9. The misdemeanor larceny conviction was an isolated event during his youth that was inconsistent with Petitioner's usual character. He is now a more mature, well-grounded person. He now places a high value on the trust and respect of others because of this unfortunate learning experience. At the time of the unauthorized use of the Visa check card in September 2000, he had lost his focus due to: unanticipated difficulties in pursuing a career in architectural engineering, the termination of a relationship by his girlfriend, an unanticipated loss of income, and mounting financial obligations. In hindsight, he believes himself to have been in a depressed state at that time. He served 17 days in jail, paid restitution and costs, was placed on probation which was subsequently terminated, and underwent a court-ordered substance abuse assessment which indicated the presence of no substance abuse. He understands the importance of an Alarm Registrant Permit and accompanying job with Select Security Services as not only a career path, but also an indication that society accepted him as a full, contributing citizen.
10. Petitioner's parents, Marshall and Diane Tyson, testified on his behalf and indicated the larceny incident was an isolated event and inconsistent with their son's otherwise good character. They believed their son was in a depressed state at the time of the larceny due to the factors he outlined and his inability at that time to communicate with others as to his problems. They indicated that the larceny was so inconsistent with their son's character that they felt the need to involve law enforcement to demonstrate tough love and get his attention. They believed their son responded well to the conviction and was diligent in repaying his obligations and restoring their trust in him. They stated that he was now a more communicative individual and thus unlikely to have such a build-up of frustrations again.
11. A part-owner of Select Security Services, Ben Brookhart, and its general manager, Frank Chaput, hold high opinions of the work ethic, trustworthiness and good moral character of the Petitioner. Both indicated that Petitioner had been entrusted with fleet cards, company vehicles, and confidential financial information and had never abused those privileges. Both are licensed with Respondent and they support the Petitioner's request to be licensed.
12. Petitioner's Exhibit A, a character reference letter written by Jacqueline Gilreath of Select Security Services, detailed her workplace interactions with Petitioner and concluded that she was "impressed by his character and work ethic."
13. Having an opportunity to judge the demeanor and candor of Petitioner and all of his witnesses, their testimony was deemed to be credible. The collective testimony was convincing that the underlying events were isolated events and that the Petitioner is now a more mature, well-grounded individual who has rebutted any concerns as to any purported shortcomings in his character.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this contested case pursuant to Chapters 150B and 74D of the North Carolina General Statutes.
2. The Respondent carried its burden in establishing it prima facie case that Petitioner violated N.C.G.S.§ 74D-2.
3. The Petitioner's evidence rebutted the prima facie case of lack of good moral character by demonstrating that the larceny was an isolated event, that he has learned a lesson and changed his behavior, that he works hard and is now trusted by his employers and parents, and is now worthy of being licensed by the Board.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned:
Proposes to the Respondent that in its discretion, it approve Petitioner's request for registration for an Alarm Registrant Permit on a probationary basis and thereafter a permanent basis in that Petitioner demonstrated that he now possesses good moral character.
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, NC 27699-6714, in accordance with N.C.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 and proposed findings of fact and to present oral and written arguments to the Agency. G.S. 150B-40(e).
A copy of the agency’s Final Decision Order shall be served upon each party personally or by certified mail addressed to the party’s latest address as given to the Agency and a copy shall be furnished to his attorney of record. G.S. 150B-42(a). It is requested that the Agency furnish a copy to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Agency that will make the Final Decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board.
This the 9th day of October, 2002.
______
Fred G. Morrison Jr.
Senior Administrative Law Judge
4