-4-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE 06 DOJ 1742

Michael Abbot Copeland
Petitioner
vs.
N. C. Sheriffs' Education and
Training Standards Commission
Respondent / )
))
)
)))) / PROPOSAL FOR
DECISION

This hearing came on before the undersigned North Carolina Administrative Law Judge. This matter was tried on January 26, 2007 in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Attorney J. Michael McGuinness of Elizabethtown, North Carolina appeared for the Petitioner. John J. Aldridge III appeared for the Respondent.

This matter arose as a result of a finding of probable cause by a Committee of the North Carolina Sheriff’s Education and Training Standards Commission that Petitioner Michael Copeland knowingly made material misrepresentations in connection with F-3 personal history forms. See Respondent's exhibit 6.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether Respondent has proven that Petitioner knowingly made material misrepresentations on forms required for law enforcement certification.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties received notice of hearing by certified mail more than 15 days prior to the hearing and each stipulated on the record that notice was proper.

2. Petitioner Michael Abbot Copeland was born on February 19, 1959. Respondent's Exhibit 1. Prior to entering the law enforcement profession, Petitioner Copeland was gainfully employed in other occupations. Respondent's exhibit 2, at 6-7 and testimony.

3. Petitioner Copeland is a high school graduate who completed some college training. Respondent's exhibit 2 at page 2. Mr. Copeland completed his Basic Law Enforcement Training at Central Carolina Community College and graduated in October, 2002. Mr. Copeland graduated first in his BLET class. Hearing testimony.

4. Petitioner Copeland served in the United States Navy for 12 and 1/2 years. Mr.Copeland completed the Navy Nuclear Power School and other military training. Mr. Copeland served in submarine duty, and at times, supervised other sailors. Mr. Copeland earned the rank of E-6 in the Navy. Mr. Copeland earned a number of military commendations and medals including the National Defense Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy Achievement Medal and three good conduct awards. See Respondent's exhibit 3 at page 8. Mr. Copeland was honorably discharged from the Navy in 1995.

5. Mr. Copeland has other specialized training including being a certified firearms instructor and a certified engineer. Respondent's exhibit 2 at 13.

6. Petitioner Copeland previously earned a General Deputy Sheriff Certification from the North Carolina Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission (hereafter the Commission). Respondent's Exhibit 2.

7. Mr. Copeland served as a reserve deputy for the Chatham County Sheriff's Department beginning in 2003. A substantial amount of that service was as a volunteer. Mr. Copeland began full time service as a Deputy for the Chatham County Sheriff's Department in 2006.

8. Mr. Copeland demonstrated at the hearing that he seriously is interested in serving in law enforcement and aspires to have a career in professional law enforcement.

9. The Commission discovered two discrepancies in Mr. Copeland's F-3 forms which are denominated as "Personal History Statements." The two relevant forms are Respondent's exhibits 3 and 4. Questions 21 and 44 are the pertinent questions.

10. Question 21 on the F-3 form asks: "Have you ever been sued with a civil judgment being rendered against you?" In his 2003 F-3 form, Mr. Copeland responded to that question by indicating "no." In his 2006 F-3 form, he responded by indicating: "Yes. Foreclosure in San Diego, CA. 1995. Result of Separation/Divorce. ex wife agreed to pay mortgage and did not."

11. Mr. Copeland explained the foreclosure process including the fact that he had not been served with the foreclosure process in time to contest it. Mr. Copeland in 2003 did not believe that a foreclosure constituted a civil judgment in California. Mr. Copeland had not "been sued" as the question inquires. Respondent's exhibit 9 demonstrates notice of a trustee's sale but does not indicate that there ever was a suit and a judgment. Further, Petitioner's exhibit number 1 shows that there does not appear to be any valid listed judgment against Mr. Copeland in connection with the foreclosure in California in 1995.

12. When Petitioner executed the F-3 form (Respondent's exhibit 4) in 2006, he had learned more about civil process in North Carolina as a result of his service with the Chatham County Sheriff's Department. Out of an abundance of caution and to be forthcoming, Mr. Copeland provided the additional information regarding the 1995 foreclosure.

13. The evidence of record regarding the 1995 foreclosure does not establish that there was a suit against Mr. Copeland as the question inquires. Further, there does not appear to be a valid civil judgment from a civil suit against Mr. Copeland as a result of the foreclosure.

14. In providing the additional information on his F-3 form regarding question 21, Mr. Copeland was acting in good faith and consistent with the high standards of the Commission to be honest and forthcoming with pertinent information.

15. Question 44 on the F-3 form asks: "Have you ever used marijuana" In 2003, Mr. Copeland indicated "no" to that question. In 2006, he indicated "yes" to that question and stated "Experimental use in high school."

16. Mr. Copeland recalled an incident at a high school party in 1974 where some of his friends "ribbed” him the day after the party about using marijuana at the party. There was beer at the party and Mr. Copeland acknowledged drinking beer. He could not remember using marijuana at the party. He consequently does not know for sure if he did experiment with marijuana on that occasion. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, he made the additional disclosure on his F-3 form in 2006.

17. In preparing F-3 forms in 2003 and 2006, Mr. Copeland did not knowingly make material misrepresentations on his F-3 forms.

18. Mr. Copeland has acted in good faith and honestly in addressing the issues surrounding his F-3 forms.

19. In addition to Mr. Copeland's testimony, he offered three additional witnesses: Kathryn Brannon, Steve Falzarano and Captain Roy Allen of the Chatham County Sheriff's Department.

20. Captain Allen, the Operations Manager of the Sheriff's Department, testified that he was appearing to testify on behalf of himself and on behalf of Sheriff Richard Webster. Captain Allen has 22 years of law enforcement service. Captain Allen indicated that he and the Sheriff had become aware of the issues from the F-3 forms and have considered those issues.

21. Captain Allen's testimony was very persuasive and helpful. He testified that Mr. Copeland had demonstrated "exemplary performance" as a Deputy Sheriff. Captain Allen further testified that Mr. Copeland is very professional, that he worked hard and that he has tremendous ability to be a deputy sheriff.

22. Captain Allen indicated that it was in the best interest of the Sheriff's Department for Mr. Copeland to continue to be employed there. Captain Allen testified very favorably about Mr. Copeland's character.

23. Kathryn Brannon is a retired 27 year veteran of the N.C. State Bureau of Investigation. She was a sworn agent, and worked in the Crime Lab. Ms. Brannon has known Mr. Copeland for many years. Ms. Brannon testified very favorably regarding Mr. Copeland's honesty, integrity, truthfulness, and overall character.

24. Steve Falzarano has known Mr. Copeland for many years. He worked with Mr. Copeland at IBM. Mr. Falzarano testified very favorably about Mr. Copeland's character, including his honesty and integrity.

25. Through the testimony of Michael Copeland and his witnesses, the undersigned was able to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses including Mr. Copeland and three other witnesses offered by Mr. Copeland.

26. The undersigned has considered and accepted the testimony of Captain Roy Allen of the Chatham County Sheriffs Department and Steve Falzarano and Kathryn Butler. Each of these witnesses was credible and believable, and their testimony was helpful and persuasive. Each of these witnesses has testified, in various degrees, that Petitioner is an honest, hard working, professional person who has excellent character traits for honesty, integrity and trustworthiness.

27. The testimony of Captain Allen, Ms. Brannon and Mr. Falzarano, all completely corroborate the testimony of Mr. Copeland on critical issues of credibility and believability. The undersigned finds that the testimony of Petitioner and each of his three witnesses is credible, believable, and should be credited.

28. The evidence further demonstrates that Mr. Copeland has enjoyed excellent work performance in connection with his law enforcement service for the Chatham County Sheriffs Department.

29. Mr. Copeland enjoys many positive character traits which form the basis of being an excellent law enforcement officer.

30. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Copeland was forthcoming in his subsequent F-3 form as a result of learning and recalling additional information. Even though Petitioner was not certain at the time, and remains uncertain, that he had used Marijuana at a high school party or that he had ever been sued, he listed those possibilities on his 2006 Form F-3 as an abundance of caution toward being completely truthful.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned makes the following conclusions of law:

1. The parties properly are before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

2. The totality of the evidence before the Court is insufficient to establish that Petitioner knowingly violated any of the Commission’s regulations.

3. The evidence failed to establish that there is sufficient evidence or valid grounds for the revocation or suspension of Petitioner's law enforcement certification.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I find that this contested case hearing has produced insufficient evidence that Petitioner knowingly made any material misrepresentations of fact to the Commission and that the proposed revocation of his justice officer certification should be, and the same hereby is DISMISSED.

NOTICE AND ORDER

The Sheriffs’ Education and Training Commission is the agency that will make the Final Decision in this contested case. As the final decision-maker, 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 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-40(e).

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 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36(b).

This the 5th day February, 2007.

______

Beecher R. Gray

Administrative Law Judge