STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF STANLY 01 DOJ 1142
DONNA INGOLD HATLEY, )
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
)
N.C. SHERIFF’S EDUCATION )
AND TRAINING STANDARDS )
COMMISSION, )
Respondent. )
)
On December 7, 2001, Administrative Law Judge Sammie Chess, Jr. heard this case in Concord, North Carolina. This case was heard after Respondent requested, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 150B-40(e), designation of an Administrative Law Judge to preside at the hearing of a contested case under Article 3A, Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes.
APPEARANCES
Petitioner: Donna Ingold Hatley
Pro Se
Respondent: Brian L. Blankenship
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
Law Enforcement Liaison Section
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-0629
FINDINGS OF FACT
Stipulated Facts
1. Both parties were properly before this Administrative Law Judge in that jurisdiction and venue were proper, both parties received notice of hearing, and the Petitioner received the Notification of Probable Cause to Deny Certification letter mailed by the Respondent on May 31, 2001.
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 10, to certify justice officers and to revoke, suspend, or deny such certification.
3. On September 16, 2000, Petitioner was criminally charged with filing a false report to a law enforcement agency or officers in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-255.
4. On February 22, 2001, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty and the court entered a judgment of “Prayer for Judgment Continued - Complied with Community Service Work.”
5. The above-referenced offense of filing a false report to a law enforcement agency or officers occurred while the Petitioner was holding certification as a justice officer with Concord Communications.
6. The provision found in the North Carolina Administrative Code at 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(1) provides:
(d) The Commission may revoke, suspend, or deny the certification of a justice officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification or the certified officer has committed or been convicted of:
(1) a crime or unlawful act defined in 12 NCAC 10B .0103(10)(b) as a Class B Misdemeanor and which occurred after the date of initial certification.
Adjudicated Facts
7. Officer Richard Hooper, Traffic Safety Unit, Concord Police Department, testified that on September 8, 2000, he was on routine patrol when he received a call to respond to a possible hit and run in the parking lot of the Super Kmart.
8. When Officer Hooper arrived at the Super Kmart, he was met by petitioner, Donna Hatley. Ms. Hatley showed Officer Hooper damage to the rear of the car she was driving. Ms. Hatley told him that the damage had been caused while she was inside Super Kmart and the car was parked.
9. The vehicle Ms. Hatley was driving was registered to her mother, Ruth Lowder Effert.
10. Officer Hooper took down the information reported by Ms. Hatley with the intention of filing an accident report for a hit and run. Officer Hooper gave Ms. Hatley one of his business cards and told her the accident report would be ready the next day.
11. After taking this information and concluding his conversation with Ms. Hatley, Officer Hooper received a phone call from someone who indicated that there was a “strong possibility that the damage had not happened the way that I was told that it did.”
12. After receiving this information, Officer Hatley went to the Communications Center where Ms. Hatley works and asked to speak with her about the accident. Officer Hooper told Ms. Hatley that something didn’t seem right about the accident. Ms. Hatley responded that she wasn’t really sure where the damage had occurred but that she needed a report for the insurance.
13. Officer Hooper testified that in his experience, usually the first story people come up with once they start admitting things is not the full story. Accordingly, Officer Hooper continued questioning Ms. Hatley about the facts of the accident. Officer Hooper told Ms. Hatley, “ let’s keep going because I still feel like there is more here that we need to know. We need to make sure that this doesn’t get out of hand. We need to make sure that we get all the facts straight.”
14. In response, Ms. Hatley told Officer Hooper that the damage was actually caused by her backing into a pickup truck at her mother’s residence. Ms. Hatley stated that there was not damage to the other vehicle, but her mother’s car was damaged and that she was afraid to tell her mother what had actually happened.
15. Officer Hooper told Ms. Hatley that he was not going to file an accident report.
16. Several days later, Officer Hooper charged Ms. Hatley with filing a false police report.
17. Ms. Hatley testified that she is a telecommunicator for 911 in the City of Concord.
18. Ms. Hatley testified that when Officer Hooper arrived at the Super Kmart, she told him when she came out of the Super Kmart, there was damage to her car. Ms. Hatley testified that, in fact, the damage was caused when she backed the car into her husband pickup truck.
19. Ms. Hatley testified that she provided false information to Officer Hooper because she wanted to protect her mother’s insurance. According to Ms. Hatley, an acquaintance told her because she was driving her mother’s car, her mother’s insurance would go up for three years. The acquaintance further advised her to report the incident as a hit and run and “then it goes on the other side of your insurance, and the insurance won’t go up.”
20. Ms. Hatley admitted that she knew that she should not give false information to a law enforcement officer.
21. Mr. Ted Sauls, Assistant Director for Respondent, testified that Petitioner came to his attention in approximately September 2000, when Respondent was notified that Ms. Hatley had been charged with filing a false police report. In September 2000, Ms. Hatley was certified as a telecommunicator by the Sheriff’s Commission.
22. Later Mr. Sauls received a copy of the citation issued by Officer Hooper, the court disposition, and a community service record.
23. The court disposition reflected that Ms. Hatley pled guilty to the charge of filing a false police report and received a prayer for judgment continued.
24. Mr. Sauls testified that Subchapter 10B of the North Carolina Administrative Code establishes the organization and procedures of the Respondent. Pursuant to Subchapter 10B, a plea of no contest, nolo contendre, or the equivalent, is considered a conviction.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The parties are properly before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge and jurisdiction and venue are proper.
2. The Administrative Law Judge has the authority to make recommendations to the Respondent as it relates to Petitioner’s law enforcement certification through the North Carolina Sheriff’s Education and Training Standards Commission.
3. Petitioner was convicted of and did commit the Class B Misdemeanor offense of filing a false report for the purpose of obstructing a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty, in violation of N.C.G.S. §14-255.
4. Respondent’s proposed revocation of Petitioner’s certification as a justice officer is supported by substantial evidence.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent revoke Petitioner’s law enforcement certification for a period of five years as specified in Rule .0205(2)(b).
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. N.C.G.S. § 150B-40(e).
The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Sheriff’s Education and Training Standards Commission.
This the 30 day of January, 2002.
______
Sammie Chess, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge