STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAIN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE12 DOJ 01293

Leroy Wilson Jr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
N. C. Private Protective Services Board,
Respondent. / )
))
)))) / PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

This contested case was heard before Administrative Law Judge Beecher R. Gray on March 27, 2012, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by attorney M. Denise Stanford.

WITNESSES

Respondent – Private Protective Services Board Investigator, Kim Odom, testified for Respondent Board.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s application for Security Guard and Patrol License for lack of verifiable experience.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Petitioner has the burden of proving that he meets the verifiable experience requirements of the Board’s rules.

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; 74C-3(a)(6); 74C-8; 74C-9; 74C-11; 74C-12; 12 NCAC 7D § .0200 - .0300.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The parties both stipulated on the record that notice was proper.
  1. Respondent Board is established pursuant to N.C.G.S. 74C-1 etseq., and is charged with the duty of licensing and registering individuals engaged in the private protective services profession.
  1. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for a Security Guard and Patrol License. A copy of Petitioner’s application was introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 2.
  1. According to the testimony of Board Investigator Kim Odom, during the background investigation of Petitioner, she was unable to verify that he met the required three years experience requirements as a manager, supervisor, or administrator performing security guard and patrol functions.
  1. Ms. Odom testified that the Board had given Petitioner credit for 1557 hours of verifiable experience, but he still lacked 1443 hours to meet the three years experience requirement.
  1. Petitioner did not offer any evidence to dispute Ms. Odom’s testimony.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  1. The parties properly are before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
  1. Under G.S. §74C-8(d)(4), Respondent Board shall refuse to grant a license if the applicant fails to meet the necessary training, qualifications, and experience as the Board may determine by rule.
  1. Under 12 NCAC 07D.0301(a)(1), an applicant for a security guard and patrol license shall “establish to the Board’s satisfaction three years experience as a manager, supervisor, or administrator with a contract security company or a proprietary security organization performing guard and patrol functions.”
  1. 12 NCAC 07D.0204 defines three years experience as equal to 3,000 hours.
  1. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that he met the three years experience requirement as a manager, supervisor, or administrator with a contract security company or proprietary security organization performing guard and patrol functions.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:

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 UPHOLD its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for Security Guard and Patrol License.

NOTICE AND ORDER

The North Carolina Private Protective Services Board 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 hereby is ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 MailServiceCenter, Raleigh, N.C.27699-6714.

This the 18th day of April, 2012.

______

Beecher R. Gray

Administrative Law Judge

1