STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE 10 DOJ 5694

______

Thomas J Feeney, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

)

N.C. Private Protective Services Board, )

Respondent. )

______

On November 30, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Melissa Owens Lassiter heard this contested case in Raleigh, North Carolina. Pursuant to the undersigned’s request, Respondent filed a proposed Decision in this case with the Office of Administrative Hearings on December 8, 2010.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by attorney M. Denise Stanford.

ISSUE

Whether sufficient grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s application for private investigator associate license based on Petitioner’s lack of good moral character and temperate habits and unfavorable credit history?

STATUTES AND RULES APPLICABLE TO THE CONTESTED CASE

Official notice is taken of the following statutes and rules applicable to this case:

N.C.G.S. §§ 74C-2, 74-3(a)(8); 74C-8; 74C-9; 74C-12; 12 NCAC 7D § .0200, .0400.

WITNESSES

For Petitioner – Petitioner

For Respondent – Investigator Kim Odom

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Board is established pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §74C-1, et seq., and is charged with the duty of licensing and registering individuals engaged in the armed and unarmed business.

2. By application dated March 26, 2010, Petitioner applied for a private investigator associate license with Respondent. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2). On Respondent’s Exhibit 2, Petitioner answered “yes” to the following question: “Have you ever been charged, arrested, convicted, or pled guilty to a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?” Respondent received Petitioner’s application in April 2010.

3. Respondent’s investigator Kim Odom investigated Petitioner’s criminal background and credit history, and checked Petitioner’s character references pursuant to Respondent’s procedure. Petitioner’s criminal record from Forsyth County shows that Petitioner has 16 convictions for improper equipment. No charges of “failure to appear” appear on Petitioner’s criminal record from Forsyth County. Odom’s investigation also showed that Petitioner had one unpaid collection for $131.00; six accounts rated “pays as agreed,” and two child support obligations totaling $34,307.00. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2). Odom also attempted to contact Petitioner’s prior employers, and interviewed Petitioner.

4. Petitioner advised Odom of his outstanding tickets, and that he had paid an attorney $5000.00 to dispose of the bulk of his tickets for failure to appear, and improper equipment. Petitioner also told Odom that he had traveled a lot doing construction work, and thought DMV did not have his current address.

5. Petitioner did not dispute the amount owed for child support. Petitioner could not obtain joint custody of his children due to being on active duty in the military, and then he was out of work for five months. He explained to Odom that he stopped paying child support after his kids’ mom refused to let him see his kids, and thus, did not dispute that he fell behind in paying child support by 5 months. He paid some arrears with a money order, but had no receipts to verify that payment.

6. Odom compiled the results into a presentation form, and presented that form to Respondent. (Respondent’s Exhibit 3) Odom confirmed that Petitioner had no felony charges, but noted that not all of his tickets were infractions.

7. By letter dated August 20 2010, Respondent denied Petitioner’s application for “unfavorable criminal and credit history.” (Respondent’s Exhibit 4).

8. At the contested case hearing, Petitioner acknowledged his criminal history, including his multiple improper equipment convictions. Petitioner has been an approved bail bondsman in North Carolina since September 2004, holds a security guard license in California, and holds a concealed weapon license in Utah. Petitioner further explained that he has worked for over 700 hours for his current employer, and received a raise after 30 days. He has worked at least 60 cases on his own. He pays his child support regularly, and has worked double, and triple time to pay off any child support arrears. Petitioner noted that he is honest, is a discharged and disabled vet, and deserves the applied-for license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-12(a)(25), Respondent Board may refuse to issue a private investigator associate license to an applicant who lacks good moral character or has intemperate habits.

2. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-12(a)(32), Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner lacks good moral character, demonstrates intemperate habits, or demonstrates a lack of financial responsibility. Petitioner may rebut Respondent’s showing.

3. Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner lacks good moral character or temperate habits. Petitioner may rebut Respondent’s showing.

4. Respondent Board presented evidence that Petitioner lacked good moral character or temperate habits through his multiple improper equipment convictions. Respondent presented evidence of Petitioner’s lack of financial responsibility through the unfavorable credit report.

5. Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he lacks good moral character, demonstrates temperate habits, and lacks financial responsibility.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned proposes that Respondent REVERSE its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for private investigator associate license, and issue Petitioner the applied-for license.

NOTICE

The North Carolina Private Protective Services Board will make the Final Decision in this case. That agency 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).

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 G.S. §150B-36(b).

This the 22nd day of December, 2010.

______

Melissa Owens Lassiter

Administrative Law Judge

3