STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE 03 DOJ 0502

ANTHONY LAMONT HENDERSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

)

)

NORTH CAROLINA PRIVATE )

PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison Jr. on May 27, 2003, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by Charles F. McDarris of the law firm of Holt York McDarris & High, LLP.

WITNESSES

Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

North Carolina Private Protective Services Board Investigator Cynthia Hepburn testified for Respondent.

ISSUE

Whether Respondent has grounds to deny Petitioner's application for a Security Guard and Patrol Profession business license based on lack of good moral character.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner's application for a Security Guard and Patrol Profession business license should be denied. Petitioner can rebut Respondent's showing.

STATUTES AND RULES APPLICABLE

TO THE CONTESTED CASE

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

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-1

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-2

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-3

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-8

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-9

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-12

N.C. Admin Code tit. 12, r. 7D.0200

N.C. Admin Code tit. 12, r. 7D.0301

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On 19 September 2002, Petitioner applied to the Respondent Board for a Security Guard and Patrol Profession business license.

2. Petitioner is a military veteran who served fourteen years with the United States Army and Reserve. He received an honorable discharge in March of 1998.

3. Petitioner is a resident of the State of Ohio and holds an Ohio occupational license entitled “Class C Security Guard Provider.”

4. In February of 1997, Petitioner founded and today is a partner in an Ohio company named Global One Security and Investigations. The company has approximately fifty-five employees working in the Columbus, Ohio area.

5. To Question 24 of Respondent’s license application asking, “Have you ever been sued to collect a debt allegedly owed by you to a creditor?” Petitioner answered “Yes. Maybe a credit card.”

6. Respondent Board’s Investigator, Cynthia Hepburn, conducted a background investigation of Petitioner as part of the standard procedure for evaluating an application for a Security Guard and Patrol Profession business license. Investigator Hepburn testified as to the following with regard to the findings of her investigation:

a. Six charged-off accounts totaling $9,421.

b. One involuntary repossession of $1,896.

c. Seven outstanding collections, including child support arrearages, totaling $15,681.

7. Petitioner testified as follows with regard to the credit findings of Respondent Board’s background investigation:

a. He admitted to having gotten into “hot water” as part of the start-up costs of establishing his security and investigations company.

b. He has entered into a credit counseling program with Diversified Assistance, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio. This program would satisfy his creditors within a twelve month period. Petitioner went to Diversified Assistance in December of 2002 or January of 2003.

c. Petitioner is no longer being sought for collection of child support payment delinquencies as he is making monthly, court-ordered payments from payroll deduction to settle his arrearages.

8. Petitioner entered into a credit counseling plan with Diversified Assistance, Inc. on 6 January 2003. Under this plan, Petitioner has remaining debt to five creditors of $3,890.67 as of 10 June 2003. Petitioner is current in his obligations under this plan.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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 private protective services profession.

2. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-12(a)(25) the Respondent Board may deny an application for a Security Guard and Patrol Profession business license when the applicant has intemperate habits or lacks good moral character.

3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74C-8(d)(2) defines lack of good moral character as conviction of any crime involving a firearm; any crime involving illegal use, possession, sale, manufacture, distribution, or transportation of a controlled substance, drug, narcotic, or alcoholic beverage; any crime involving violence; any crime involving breaking and entering, burglary, or larceny; any offense involving moral turpitude; or a history of addiction to alcohol or a narcotic drug.

4. Respondent demonstrated that Petitioner has a history of significant problems with debt including charge-offs, collection actions, and delinquent child support payments.

5. Petitioner demonstrated that he has made appropriate efforts to make whole his creditors and to satisfy his obligations for child support arising under the laws of the State of Ohio.

6. Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner lacks the good moral character necessary to be licensed.

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following proposal for decision:

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 REVERSE its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for a Security Guard and Patrol Profession business license.

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. Gen. Stat. § 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 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).

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board.

This 8th day of July 2003.

______

Fred G. Morrison Jr.

Senior Administrative Law Judge

4