STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 01 DOJ 1602

KEITH A. RIDDICK, )

Petitioner )

) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

v. )

)

NORTH CAROLINA SHERIFFS )

EDUCATION AND TRAINING )

STANDARDS COMMISSION, )

Respondent )

THIS MATTER came on for hearing before Sammie Chess, Jr., the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, by request of the Respondent, pursuant to N.C. G.S. Sec. 150B-40(e) for the designation of an Administrative Law Judge under Article 3A, Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes. The case was heard on February 4, 2002, in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner: David L. Boliek Jr., Attorney for Petitioner

Respondent: John J. Aldridge III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for Respondent

ISSUE

Is the proposed revocation of Petitioner’s certification as a justice officer supported by substantial evidence?

FINDINGS OF FACT

STIPULATED FACTS

1. Both parties are properly before this Administrative Law Judge. Jurisdiction and venue are proper. Both parties received notice of hearing and Petitioner received Notification of Probable Cause to Deny Certification letter mailed by Respondent on August 29, 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. Petitioner was arrested on or about March 3, 2001, and was charged with hit and run – property damage in violation of N.C.G.S. Sec. 20-166(c). It is alleged that Mr. Riddick’s vehicle, a 1992 Ford Explorer, hit a Ford Escort owned by a friend of Mr. Riddick’s, Faith Patterson. It is further alleged that after a conversation between Mr. Riddick and Ms. Patterson, that Mr. Riddick left the immediate scene of the bump and proceeded directly to Ms. Patterson’s residence.

4. The alleged offense aforementioned occurred while Mr. Riddick was holding certification as a justice officer with the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office.

5. On or about May 10, 2001, the case against Mr. Riddick was adjudicated in Cumberland County District Court. The District Attorney for the 12th Prosecutorial District called the case to trial. At trial, the Honorable John S. Hair Jr. directed verdict of not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction for the arrest of the Petitioner by Officer M.A. Reid of the Fayetteville Police Department. Mr. Riddick was arrested within the city limits of Spring Lake, North Carolina, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Fayetteville Police Department.

6. The North Carolina Administrative Code provides at 12 NCAC 10B .0204 (d) (1):

“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.”

7. The misdemeanor offense of hit and run – property damage, in violation of N.C.G.S. Sec. 20-166 (c), is classified as a “Class B” misdemeanor as defined in 12 NCAC 10B .0103 (10) (b).

FINDING OF FACTS

1. Faith Patterson appeared pursuant to a subpoena issued by Respondent. At the beginning of her testimony, Ms. Patterson expressed reluctance to answer questions, but eventually consented under oath to proceed with questioning on the Record. Mr. Riddick also appeared and testified.

2. Ms. Patterson testified that she had gone to Sporty’s Bar in Fayetteville, North Carolina, to meet with Mr. Riddick. She testified that she and Mr. Riddick had been romantically involved and that the relationship had produced a child.

3. Ms. Patterson testified that she and Mr. Riddick had a discussion at Sporty’s Bar that did not elevate to what could be described as an argument, yet neither was it altogether a jovial conversation.

4. Following the discussion between the two, Ms. Patterson claims Mr. Riddick got into his vehicle, a 1992 Ford Explorer, which was parked next to her 1999 Ford Escort. Mr. Riddick testified that the Escort had somewhat blocked his vehicle in that it was parked behind his Explorer at an angle so as to slightly block him into his parking space. Ms. Patterson testified that as Mr. Riddick backed out of the parking space his rear bumper dented the rear quarter panel and tire well of her Escort.

5. Ms. Patterson produced pictures of the slight indentation she said the bump produced. Ms. Patterson went on to testify that Mr. Riddick stopped his vehicle after she exclaimed that he had hit her vehicle. She testified that he stated to her that he did not think he hit her vehicle. Mr. Riddick testified that he could not see any visible damage to Ms. Patterson’s vehicle and explained to her that he felt he had not hit her car.

6. Respondent presented pictures of the damage Ms. Patterson reported to her vehicle. The pictures presented into evidence reveal that any damage sustained to Ms. Patterson’s vehicle is, at best, difficult to see without a very close inspection of the rear quarter panel of her vehicle.

7. After this brief exchange, Mr. Riddick left Sporty’s parking lot and proceeded to Ms. Patterson’s residence. Mr. Riddick testified that he thought Ms. Patterson was aware that he was traveling to her residence.

8. Ms. Patterson testified that after Mr. Riddick left Sporty’s, she called “911” to report a hit and run. She also testified that she followed Mr. Riddick for some time before eventually stopping at a gas station at the intersection of North Reilly Road and Fillyaw Road in Fayetteville. At the gas station she met with Officer M.A. Reid of the Fayetteville Police Department, who also testified at the hearing.

9. Ms. Patterson testified that Mr. Riddick called her cell phone while she was explaining the aforementioned incident to Officer Reid. Mr. Riddick testified that he did not recall calling Ms. Patterson.

10. Officer Reid called Fayetteville Police Dispatch. Officer Reid described Mr. Riddick and his vehicle. He then requested dispatch to contact Spring Lake Police Officers to go to Ms. Patterson’s residence and attempt to locate Mr. Riddick and his vehicle.

11. Officer John Gibbons, who also testified at the hearing, arrived at Ms. Patterson’s residence where he located Mr. Riddick who was inside his vehicle parked outside Ms. Patterson’s residence.

12. Officer Reid and Ms. Patterson arrived at Ms. Patterson’s Spring Lake residence shortly thereafter. Officer Reid examined Mr. Riddick’s vehicle and Ms. Patterson’s vehicle. He testified that he observed slight scrape marks on Mr. Riddick’s bumper and a slight dent on Ms. Patterson’s car.

13. Under cross-examination by Petitioner’s counsel Officer Reid said any damage to Mr. Riddick’s bumper was nearly undetectable. He further described any damage done in the alleged bump to be very minor. Nevertheless, Officer Reid charged Mr. Riddick.

14. Officer Gibbons testified that he looked over the vehicles and remembers no visible damage.

15. The evidence is clear that there was a close personal relationship between the parties

16. It appears to the Court that there may have been some disagreement between the parties at the time Petitioner left Sporty’s Bar and that Ms. Patterson may have tried to block Petitioner’s vehicle.

17. Nevertheless, there is credible evidence that Petitioner used due caution in trying to exit the parking space.

18. Court exhibits #1 and 2 indicate the alleged damage that is the subject matter of this alleged hit and run.

19. The alleged damage is so slight as to not likely cause awareness of contact, if any, Petitioner’s vehicle may have had with Ms. Patterson’s vehicle.

20. It appears to the Court and the Court finds as a fact that Ms. Patterson was a very reluctant witness.

21. Ms. Patterson informed the Court that she was not going to testify and that the Court could her in contempt and she still would not testify.

22. It was only after counseling from the Court that she testified.

23. Ms. Patterson called in a hit and run report as a result of a personal matter between the parties.

24. She knew how to contact Petitioner at his home, his job and where he regularly socialized.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The parties are properly before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge.

Jurisdiction and venue are proper.

2. The North Carolina Sheriff’s Education and Training Standards Commission alleges that Keith A. Riddick, a certified justice officer, is guilty of hit and run – property damage as defined by N.C.G.S. 20-166 and 20-166.1.

3. In order to be guilty of Hit-and-Run – Property Damage under N.C.G.S. 20-166 and 20-166.1;

1) a person must drive a vehicle that is involved in an accident or collision causing only property damage,

2) AND he or she must know or reasonably should have known that the vehicle was involved in an accident or collision,

3) AND he must fail to stop at the scene of the accident or fail to give his name, address and driver’s license and license plate numbers to any person in any other vehicle involved in the accident and to any person whose property is damaged in the accident or collision.

4. N.C.G.S. 20-166.1 must be read in pari matera with N.C.G.S. 20-166. N.C.G.S.

20-166.1 provides additionally that if there is a collision with a parked vehicle that a report must be made to the owner of the parked vehicle within forty-eight (48) hours. If the report is made to the owner of a parked vehicle involved in a collision, the reporting party cannot be guilty of hit-and-run. The report may be made orally to the owner of the parked vehicle.

5. In order to be guilty of Hit-and Run – Property Damage under North Carolina General Statutes, a person must be properly charged by a law enforcement agency with proper jurisdiction.

6. The Fayetteville Police Department has jurisdiction within the municipal City Limits of Fayetteville, North Carolina. In the present case, a Fayetteville Police Officer, charged Mr. Riddick with hit-and-run – property damage within the City Limits of Spring Lake, North Carolina. The charging officer had no jurisdiction within the City Limits of Spring Lake, North Carolina.

7. Jurisdiction of the charging agency was previously adjudicated by a Court of General Justice in Cumberland County. The Court found no jurisdiction for the charging officer and the District Court Judge presiding directed a verdict of not guilty. Under principles of res judicata, the issue of jurisdiction has been previously adjudicated as to these facts.

8. Jurisdiction was found to be lacking for the charging officer, therefore, Mr. Riddick was wrongfully charged with hit-and-run – property damage and the Commission is estopped from proceeding against Mr. Riddick for violation of the statute.

9. In the alternative, the evidence presented at hearing is not substantial enough to draw the conclusion that Mr. Riddick is guilty of hit and run as defined by the statute.

10. Because of the insignificant damage to either vehicle, and the lack of visible damage to Ms. Patterson’s car as evidenced by Respondent’s pictures and Court exhibits #1 and 2, Mr. Riddick did not reasonably know he had done any damage to Ms. Patterson’s vehicle.

11. Furthermore, Mr. Riddick proceeded directly to Ms. Patterson’s residence where he knew she would return. If any damage had been done to Ms. Patterson’s vehicle she had ample opportunity to display that damage to Mr. Riddick so he could take proper action under law to fix the damage.

12. In the present case, there is no evidence that Mr. Riddick was attempting to elude anyone. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary.

13. Ms. Patterson had all Mr. Riddick’s pertinent information as he would be required to leave by the very language of the statute, and she could readily contact him at anytime.

14. Respondent acted erroneously and failed to act as required by law.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned proposes the Respondent find that the proposed revocation of the Petitioner’s certification as a justice officer is not supported by substantial evidence to believe that Petitioner committed the Class B misdemeanor offense of hit and run, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 20-166(c).

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. Sec. 150B-40(e).

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission.

This the 28 day of March, 2002.

___________________________________

Sammie Chess, Jr.

Administrative Law Judge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download