STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF YADKIN |IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

09 DOJ 5859 | |

|Jeffrey Gray Royall |) |

|Petitioner, |) |

| |) |

|v. |) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION |

| |) |

|North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission |) |

|Respondent. |) |

| |) |

| |) |

On April 27, 2010, Administrative Law Judge J. Randall May heard this case in High Point, North Carolina. This case was heard after Respondent requested, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 150B-40(e), the 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

For Petitioner: J. Michael McGuinness, Esq.

P.O. Box 952

Elizabethtown, North Carolina 28227-0952

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

J. Joy Strickland, Assistant Attorney General

N.C. Department of Justice

9001 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-9001

ISSUE

Did Respondent properly propose to revoke the Petitioner’s Justice Officer Certification based upon his failure to maintain the minimum standards required of justice officers in that he lacked good moral character?

RULES AT ISSUE

12 NCAC 10B .0204(b)(2)

12 NCAC 10B .0205(3)(b)

12 NCAC 10B .0301(a)(8)

12 NCAC 09A .0103(16)

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Findings of Fact are made after careful consideration of the sworn testimony, whether visual and/or audio, of the witnesses presented at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding. In making the findings of fact, the undersigned has weighed all the evidence, and has assessed the credibility of the witnesses by taking into account the appropriate factors for judging credibility, including but not limited to the demeanor of the witness; any interests, bias, or prejudice the witness may have; the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know or remember the facts or occurrences about which the witness testified; whether the testimony of the witness is reasonable; and whether the testimony is consistent with all other believable evidence in the case. From the sworn testimony and the admitted evidence, or the lack thereof, the undersigned makes the following:

Summarized Procedural Background

1. Both parties are properly before this Administrative Law Judge, in that jurisdiction and venue are proper, both parties received notice of hearing, and that the Petitioner received by certified mail, the proposed Revocation of Justice Officer’s Certification letter, mailed by Respondent Sheriffs’ Commission on September 30, 2009. (Respondent’s Exhibit 6)

2. The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission (hereinafter referred to as “The Sheriffs’ Commission”) has the authority granted under Chapter 17E of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 10B, to certify justice officers and to deny, revoke, or suspend such certification.

3. 12 NCAC 10B. 0204(b)(2) states that the Sheriffs’ Commission shall revoke the certification of a justice officer when the Commission finds that the certified officer “…fails to meet or maintain any of the employment or certification standards required by 12 NCAC 10B .0300.”

4. 12 NCAC 10B. 0301 sets forth the minimum standards for justice officers. 12 NCAC 10B .0301(a)(8) requires that every justice officer employed or certified in North Carolina shall:

…be of good moral as defined in: In re Willis, 299 N.C. 1, 215 S.E.2d 771 appeal dismissed 423 U.S. 976 (1975) ;State v. Harris, 216 N.C. 746, 6 S.E.2d 854 (1940); In re Legg, 325 N.C. 658, 386 S.E.2d 174 (1989); In re Applicants for License, 143 N.C. 1, 55 S.E. 635 (1906); In re Dillingham, 188 N.C. 162, 124 S.E. 130 (1924); State v. Benbow, 309 N.C. 538, 308 S.E.2d 647 (1983); and their progeny.

Statement of the Case

5. Diane Konopka, Deputy Director for the Respondent, in May 2009 received a letter from Sheriff Michael Cain of Yadkin County alleging misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. This letter, dated May 6, 2009, makes numerous allegations about the Petitioner being critical of other law enforcement agencies, resigning from the Yadkin County Sheriff’s Office under a cloud, and posting information about an ongoing Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) investigation on a public website. Based on her experience, Ms. Konopka believed that the issue concerning the release of information about an ongoing drug investigation might have a potential impact on the Petitioner’s certification. She therefore directed staff for the Respondent to gather additional information concerning this allegation. Her analysis and handling of this allegation would have been the same had the allegations come forth in an anonymous letter. The fact that the complaint came in through a letter from a serving sheriff did not influence her decision in this matter.

6. Staff for the Respondent compiled the relevant excerpts from the “Yadkin View” news blog with entries under the name “Eagle Eye”, which discussed the DEA investigation in question. These matters, in addition to Sheriff Cain’s May 6, 2009 letter, were presented to the Probable Cause Committee of the Respondent. At the meeting of the Probable Cause Committee, the Petitioner submitted other blog entries from the Yadkin View in which he participated and also presented a letter from himself, dated September 14, 2009, discussing how he came into possession of the DEA information that he posted on the Yadkin View. Following this meeting of the Probable Cause Committee, the committee found probable cause to believe that the Petitioner’s certification was subject to revocation for a lack of good moral character. This finding was predicated on evidence, which showed that the Petitioner, on or about April 28, 2009, posted detailed confidential information regarding an ongoing investigation, by the DEA. It was found that this information was received by the Petitioner in his capacity as a law enforcement officer.

7. The Petitioner was born and raised in Yadkin County, North Carolina. He graduated high school in 1984. He is married with three children. The Petitioner began his law enforcement career employed with the North Carolina Department of Corrections from 1989 through 1991. He then went into the private sector in sales for three years. Petitioner completed basic law enforcement training at Wilkes Community College in 1994. He worked for the Yadkin County Sheriff’s Office from approximately 1995 through 2001 for then Sheriff Jack Henderson. Petitioner then worked for the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office and most recently with the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner was separated from the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office in May 2009 as a result of his posting information about an ongoing DEA drug investigation on the Yadkin View website. Currently, the Petitioner is an applicant for certification with the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office.

8. Based on the Petitioner’s training and experience beginning with basic law enforcement training, and continuing through the present day with in-service training, Petitioner knows and adheres to the standards set forth in the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. This code of ethics, found at 12 NCAC 9A .0103(16) provides, in pertinent part, “Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions.” Petitioner acknowledges that an officer who knowingly disclosed information about an ongoing drug investigation to the public would not be adhering to this code of ethics. The Petitioner, in his previous law enforcement experience, has served in narcotics units. In this capacity, he has also served as an undercover officer in drug investigations. The Petitioner is well aware of the serious consequences of a breach of security surrounding an ongoing drug investigation. These consequences could include jeopardizing the integrity of the criminal investigation and the lives of the officers working the case.

9. Petitioner acknowledges posting information about a DEA drug investigation on the Yadkin View website under the screen name of Eagle Eye. On April 28, 2009, the Petitioner disseminated information on this website stating that the DEA had seized approximately $1 million dollars from Mexican drug dealers. Petitioner went on to state that the investigation also resulted in a traffic stop on Highway 601 in Davie County where approximately $400,000 was hidden in a compartment in the vehicle. Petitioner stated that a search warrant was executed on a residence in Yadkin County, which netted two more vehicles and an additional $600,000. The last line of this entry states, “Again one million dollars is an estimate at this time, and I will disclose the exact a ... and more details as the investigation continues”. (Emphasis added) (Respondent’s Exhibit 3)

10. Petitioner entered additional blogs concerning the DEA investigation on April 30, 2009 on the Yadkin View public website stating that, “My information today is that the count is approximately $1,500,000”. Another participant on this public forum (Leroy B.) asked the Petitioner about the location of the house that was under surveillance. The Petitioner responded to this question stating that the “bust” was off of Haire Road in a doublewide mobile home. Petitioner went on to state that the DEA had this residence under surveillance for a couple of weeks. (Respondent’s Exhibit 3)

11. Additional blogs, beginning as early as April 17, 2009, discuss the ambitions of the Petitioner to run for the office of sheriff. Petitioner acknowledges that is a goal of his. (Respondent’s Exhibits 4 and 5)

12. While Petitioner acknowledges posting the information about the DEA drug investigation on the Yadkin View public website on April 28, 2009 and April 30, 2009, Petitioner stated that he thought the investigation had concluded.

13. Petitioner testified that on April 28, 2009, he was employed with the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office as a Sergeant in the narcotics division. While in the sheriff’s office, Sergeant Gary Simpson of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office told Petitioner that a vehicle was stopped in Davie County and $400,000 was confiscated. Sergeant Simpson told Petitioner that DEA was involved and a search warrant was executed on a residence in Yadkin County where $600,000 in cash was confiscated. That same day, Lt. Kevin Black of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office, in speaking to several deputies in the sheriff’s office (to include Petitioner), discussed the DEA drug bust in the county. Lt. Harris, also of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office, was having a conversation in his office on his speakerphone on this same day. Petitioner overheard this conversation wherein Lt. Harris and Chief Rick Thomas of the Forsyth County ABC Enforcement law enforcement agency, discussed the seizure of money and drugs in Yadkin County. None of these law enforcement officers specifically mentioned if the DEA investigation was ongoing or closed. There was no evidence that at any point in time did the Petitioner ever ask any law enforcement officer whether the investigation was pending or closed. The Petitioner was the only law enforcement officer with knowledge of this investigation who disclosed information about the investigation to the public. The Petitioner testified that since the law enforcement officers in the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office were discussing the case amongst themselves, he assumed the case was closed. Petitioner testified that his motivation in posting this information about the DEA investigation was to be congratulatory to the DEA.

14. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner sought out Officer Mark Dowell of the Yadkinville Police Department. Petitioner asked Officer Dowell for additional information about the investigation and seizure. It was in this conversation that Petitioner learned of the specific road on which the seizure occurred and the fact that eight kilograms of cocaine were seized along with $1,000,000. It was later on this date that the Petitioner posted this additional information that he had received from Officer Dowell on the public website. Again, the Petitioner did not inquire of Officer Dowell whether the investigation was closed or pending.

15. On May 1, 2009, Petitioner’s supervisor, Captain David Ramsey of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office, asked the Petitioner if he was the person posting information on the Yadkin View website under the name, Eagle Eye. The Petitioner acknowledged that he was.

16. After being made aware of the postings under the name Eagle Eye on May 1, 2009, Captain Ramsey read the postings concerning the DEA investigation and concluded that he suspected Petitioner was the writer. He came to this conclusion based on the additional postings wherein Eagle Eye had aspirations to be sheriff, rode a motorcycle, was a narcotics detective in a county outside Yadkin, and had fourteen years of law enforcement experience. When confronted, Petitioner acknowledged that Captain Ramsey was correct in his presumption. Captain Ramsey, on May 1, 2009, told the Petitioner that his postings had compromised an ongoing investigation and that both the DEA and the State Bureau of Investigation had complained about the postings. Later that day, Captain Ramsey spoke with DEA Agent Wally Serniak, and informed Special Agent Serniak that Petitioner was the blogger. Special Agent Serniak informed Captain Ramsey that the investigation was ongoing and sensitive. Special Agent Serniak asked that Petitioner call him. Later that day, Captain Ramsey made Sheriff Phillip Redman of Iredell County aware of the Petitioner’s actions. Petitioner was terminated based on his actions in posting this information about the DEA investigation.

17. Captain Ramsey testified that Petitioner’s actions caused a great deal of conflict within the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office and complicated the sheriff’s office relationship with other law enforcement agencies. Petitioner informed Captain Ramsey that he felt the decision to terminate him was political. Captain Ramsey informed Petitioner that his dismissal was not politically motivated and that Sheriff Redman had not spoken with Sheriff Cain when the dismissal decision was made.

18. Special Agent Wally Serniak is employed in the United States DEA. He has been so employed in excess of twenty years. Special Agent Serniak has been stationed in North Carolina for the preceding four years. On or about April 28, 2009, the DEA was involved in an ongoing investigation concerning the trafficking of narcotics in and around the Yadkin County area of North Carolina. This investigation was and is ongoing. The investigation has a global reach. In the course of this investigation, Special Agent Serniak was made aware of the postings on the Yadkin View public website from April 28, 2009, which disseminated details of the ongoing investigation, by Eagle Eye. Special Agent Serniak was made aware of these postings in April 2009. Special Agent Serniak testified that while the Petitioner’s postings did not directly impact the seizure that was discussed in the April 28, 2009 Yadkin View entry, the release of this information did have a substantial impact on the continuing investigation. Once he learned of the Eagle Eye blogs, Agent Serniak immediately made contact with the management of the Yadkin View website and had the information removed.

19. On or about May 2, 2009 Special Agent Serniak had a telephone conversation with the Petitioner. In this conversation, Petitioner apologized for his release of the information. In Petitioner’s September 14, 2009 letter to the Probable Cause Committee (Respondent’s Exhibit 2), Petitioner stated that Special Agent Serniak, in this telephone conversation, stated, “my problem is not with you, it is with my own office”. Special Agent Serniak testified that this was not accurate and that he did not make that statement to Petitioner. Special Agent Serniak testified that it was not uncommon for law enforcement officers to discuss matters within their own ranks. However, the release of this information to the public was not done unless it was an official news release.

20. The Respondent requires every justice officer to be of good moral character. This term reflects the definitions of good moral character as provided by our appellate courts. “That good moral character is honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the State and nation.” In re Willis, 299 N.C.1, 215 S.E.2d 771 (1975). A lack of good moral character can be shown where the findings viewed as a whole reveal a pattern of conduct that permeates the applicant’s character and could undermine public confidence. In re Legg, 325 N.C. 658, 675, 386 S.E.2d 174, 183 (1989). Our Supreme Court in In re Rogers, 297 N.C. 48 (1979), however recognized that a person’s good moral character can also be focused or defined by one or two instances if appropriately egregious.

21. Law enforcement officers in North Carolina are subject to a specific law enforcement code of ethics. This code of ethics, in essence, codifies the attributes that encompass the moral character of law enforcement officers. The North Carolina Law Enforcement Code of Ethics (12 NCAC 9A .0103(16)) speaks to the conduct of the Petitioner. Specifically, “Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions.” The Petitioner acknowledged that he was aware of and adhered to this code of ethics.

22. Despite the Petitioner’s assertion that he released the information on the public website because he thought the investigation was closed, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Petitioner’s assertion. Specifically, the Petitioner stated in his blog of April 28, 2009, “Again $1,000,000 is an estimate at this time, and I will disclose the exact a ... in more details as the investigation continues”. The clear language of this entry discloses that Petitioner knew that the investigation was active and ongoing. Moreover, this clear language reveals intent by the Petitioner to gather and disseminate more information. This intent was carried out as evidenced by the testimony of the Petitioner, wherein he acknowledged that he sought out additional information about the investigation on April 30, 2009, from Yadkinville police officer, Mark Dowell. The information he received from Officer Dowell included the location of the seizure and the amounts of money and drugs seized. This same information is reflected in the April 30, 2009 Yadkin View entry discussing the location of the seizure.

23. Assuming, arguendo, the Petitioner did not realize the investigation was ongoing, his actions show a deliberate indifference to the consequences of his actions. A law enforcement officer must be vigilant in protecting his fellow officers - - for the uniform and badge are more than indicia of a club. When lives are potentially at risk in the enforcement of our laws and the protection of our citizenry, careless indifference in the publication of confidential information cannot be tolerated. Our Court has stated that “such a lack of moral perception or carless indifference to the rights of others”, is inconsistent with “upright character”. See: In re Applicants for License, 191 N.C. 235, 131 S.E. 661 (1926).. Petitioner has years of experience as a law enforcement officer and in particular as a narcotics investigator. Petitioner knew or should have known the potential ramifications of disclosing information about ongoing investigations. Petitioner received the information about the DEA investigation by virtue of his position as a law enforcement officer in the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office. At no point in time did the Petitioner ask or seek out anyone to determine if the investigation was ongoing. Petitioner never attempted to gain clearance from his superiors in order to release the information. Based on the Petitioner’s postings, blogging repartee, and acknowledgment of his desires to run for the office of Sheriff, it is obvious that the Petitioner posted this information in an event to bolster his position in the eyes of the public by demonstrating his depth of knowledge about the goings-on in the county.

24. The Petitioner’s actions of taking information received and confided to him in his capacity as a law enforcement officer, and releasing this information to the public, is in contravention of the law enforcement code of ethics. Moreover, a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the Petitioner’s release of this information was done for purposes of his own political aspirations. Petitioner’s repeated postings on April 28, 2009 and April 30, 2009 evidence a pattern of conduct, which are indicative of a lack of good moral character for a law enforcement officer. The postings are sufficiently serious as a single occurrence, again to justify the conclusion that the Petitioner’s actions constitute a lack of good moral character.

25. Former Yadkin County Sheriff Jack Henderson testified on behalf of Petitioner. Sheriff Henderson said that when Petitioner worked for him at the Yadkin County Sheriff’s Office, he was honest, truthful and a loyal employee. He said that Petitioner had the respect of the community, his colleagues, and local court officials. Sheriff Henderson also stated that he would not have approved of deputies in his employee releasing information to the public. Sherriff Henderson characterized Petitioner as giving 105% to his job and being the type individual “… if he’s cutting a watermelon, he’ll give you the best piece”. This individual was a noteworthy witness for the Petitioner in that he appeared to be knowledgeable, credible, and unimpeachable in his testimony.

26. Sergeant Gary Simpson of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office testified that Petitioner is honest and a “stand up guy”. He testified he received information from Travis Broughton, an ABC officer in Forsyth County, in April of 2009 regarding a DEA seizure. At the time that Sgt. Simpson relayed this information to Petitioner, he did not indicate whether the case was closed or still ongoing. Sgt. Simpson indicated that revealing information to the public about a case could jeopardize the investigation. He also indicated that he did not relay any of the information that he heard about the DEA seizure to the public. Lastly, Sgt. Simpson indicated that it would be inappropriate for an officer to release information to the public about an investigation in which he is not involved.

27. Lieutenant Kevin Black of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office said that Petitioner is honorable and a hard worker. Lt. Black testified that in April of 2009, he received information from Marty Ferrell regarding a DEA seizure. Lt. Black indicated that he “indirectly” relayed the information that he heard to Petitioner. He specifically testified that he was in the sheriffs’ office speaking to a couple of other officers about the DEA case and he did not remember if Petitioner was present. He stated that Petitioner’s office is only a few feet from the location of his office. At the time that Lt. Black relayed this information, he did not indicate whether the case was closed or still ongoing. Lt. Black did not relay any of the information that he heard about the DEA seizure to the Public. Lt. Black indicated that Petitioner used “poor judgment” in releasing the information about the DEA case on the internet blog site. He further indicated that it would not be the policy of the Sheriff’s Office for a Deputy to release information about a case in which neither the Deputy, nor the agency, was not involved.

28. Lieutenant Harris of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office indicated that he was the supervisor of the Narcotics Division while Petitioner was in that unit. He said Petitioner is hard working, an aggressive type officer, and is very honest. He said that in April of 2009, he heard about the DEA case also. He indicated that he learned this information when he was speaking to another officer over his Nextel telephone while it was on speakerphone. At the time Lt. Harris heard this information, he did not indicate to Petitioner whether the case was closed or still ongoing. Lt. Harris indicated that he trains his narcotics officers the importance of keeping investigative information confidential. He said that because Petitioner was a “seasoned officer”, he should have known that he should keep information confidential. Lastly, Lt. Harris indicated that it would be inappropriate for an officer to provide information to the public through an internet blog.

29. Darlene Crater, a resident of Yadkin County, worked with Petitioner at the Yadkin County Sheriff’s Office. She indicated that Petitioner is a very hard worker, a good father, and she trusts him.

30. Chief Darryl Bottoms of the Pilot Mountain Police Department testified that Petitioner is honest, trustworthy and he trusts him. Chief Bottoms indicated that he would not approve of an officer in his employ releasing investigative information to the public.

31. Barbara Fox, a resident of Yadkin county, believes Petitioner to be honest and trustworthy.

32. Scott Moncus, a trooper with the North Carolina State Highway Patrol, indicated that he believes that Petitioner knows how to handle people and has the utmost integrity. Trooper Moncus indicated that it would be inappropriate to release information about an ongoing investigation to the public.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The parties properly are before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge and jurisdiction and venue are proper. The Office of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this contested case. The parties received proper notice of the hearing in this matter. To the extent that the Findings of Fact contain Conclusions of Law, or that the Conclusions of Law are Findings of Fact, they should be so considered without regard to the given labels.

2. The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission has the authority granted under Chapter 17E of the General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 10B, to certify justice officers and to deny, revoke or suspend such certification.

3. The Petitioner has made a prima facie showing of good character; however, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Respondent has rebutted this evidence by more than suspicion. Through its exhibits, fact witnesses, and the Petitioner himself, Respondent has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner did not exhibit good moral character. See: In the Matter of David Henry Rogers, 297 NC 48, 253 SE2d 912 (1979).

3. A preponderance of the evidence exists to conclude that the Petitioner, on April 28, 2009 and April 30, 2009, posted detailed confidential information regarding an ongoing investigation by the DEA on the public Yadkin View community forum website. Under the circumstances of this case, the Petitioner’s release of this information supports a conclusion that the Petitioner lacked the good moral character required of law enforcement officers.

4. A preponderance of the evidence exists to conclude the Petitioner is in violation of Rule 12 NCAC 10B .0301(a)(8) and 12 NCAC 10B .0204(b)(2). The Respondent may properly revoke the Petitioner’s certification as a justice officer.

5. Pursuant to 12 NCAC 10B .0205(3)(b), the sanction for a violation of 12 NCAC 10B .0204(b)(2) is a revocation for an indefinite period, continuing so long as the stated deficiency exists. As held by our Supreme Court In Re Dillingham, 188 N.C. 162, 124 S.E.130 (1924), when one seeks to establish a restoration of character, the question becomes one of “time and growth”. The Petitioner demonstrated a lack of good character by his postings on April 28 and April 30, 2009. These actions should be balanced against the Petitioner’s other positive character attributes, of which there are many. In light of the otherwise good character of the Petitioner, as evidenced by the showing of support at this hearing, it is proposed that the Petitioner’s certification be held in a state of suspension for a period of four months along with other conditions.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

In making this Proposal for Decision the undersigned has given great weight to Petitioner’s character witnesses and his many years of credible and valuable service; however, the potential danger created by his careless acts cannot be ameliorated without sanction. This is especially true of cases involving the enforcement of our narcotics laws. Not only did Petitioner’s acts have the potential of endangering the success of this operation, but they also created a potential great risk to his fellow officers, informants, and the public at large. Good character and integrity are factors that all officers must have in order to maintain the trust of the public as well as their comrades. It was obvious in the hearing that a breach had occurred in the esprit de corps of this significant operation because of Petitioner’s “pen”.

THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, it is proposed that the Respondent suspend the Petitioner’s Justice Officer’s Certification for a period of five (5) years. All but the initial four (4) months of this period of suspension shall be suspended, provided he comply with the following terms of probation upon his return to active service: 1) he shall break no law, other than minor traffic regulations; 2) he shall obtain any additional training which may be deemed necessary by the Commission regarding ethics or professional responsibility; and 3) as a special condition of probation, that he shall cease participating in any type of journalism, including but not limited to media or internet coverage (including blogging) unless specifically ordered to do so by his superiors.

NOTICE AND ORDER

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards 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 28th day of July, 2010.

J. Randall May

Administrative Law Judge

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download