North Carolina



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE 12 DOJ 00887

|Robert John Farmer, |) | |

|Petitioner, |)) | |

| |))))| |

|vs. | |PROPOSAL FOR DECISION |

| | | |

|N. C. Alarm System Licensing Board, | | |

|Respondent. | | |

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 Jeffrey P. Gray.

WITNESSES

Petitioner – Petitioner testified on his own behalf. David Cox, Carol Patterson, Brian Wright, Russell Archer, Keith Handy, Lara Davis, Ron Davis, and Petitioner’s wife, Debra Farmer, testified as character witnesses on Petitioner’s behalf.

Respondent – Anthony Bonapart, Deputy Director, testified for Respondent Board.

ISSUES

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s application for an alarm system registration permit under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74D-1, et seq. based on Petitioner’s lack of good moral character and temperate habits as evidenced by convictions for two (2) counts of misdemeanor larceny, one (1) count of misdemeanor breaking and entering, two (2) counts of felony breaking and entering, and one (1) count of felony larceny after breaking and entering.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner lacks good moral character or temperate habits. Petitioner may 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. §§ 74D-2; 7474D-6; 74D-8; 12 NCAC 11 .0300, et seq.

EXHIBITS

Petitioner’s exhibits (hereinafter “P. Exs.”) 1-5 were admitted.

Respondent’s exhibits (hereinafter “R. Exs.”) 2-4 were admitted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties received notice of hearing by certified mail more than 15 days prior to the hearing and each stipulated on the record that notice was proper. Respondent Board is established under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74D-1, et seq., and is charged with the duty of licensing and registering individuals engaged in the alarm systems business.

2. On April 15, 2011, Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for a new alarm registration permit. (R. Ex. 2)

3. On his application, Petitioner answered “yes” to the following question: “Have you ever pled guilty or been convicted of any crime (Felony or Misdemeanor)?” He provided a Criminal Record Search for Alamance County indicating two (2) 1998 convictions of Misdemeanor Larceny and a 1998 conviction of Misdemeanor Breaking and Entering. (R. Ex. 2)

4. Petitioner later submitted a criminal record search for Caswell County indicating a 1998 conviction for Felony Breaking and Entering and Felony Larceny after Breaking and Entering. (R. Ex. 3)

5. Deputy Director Anthony Bonapart testified that for each application a criminal background check is conducted. Further, Deputy Director Bonapart conducts an interview of every applicant with a criminal conviction. Deputy Director Bonapart testified that when interviewed, Petitioner told him the following: In April 1998, Petitioner was 16 years old and attending high school. He stated that he was driving the car used in the crimes.

6. Petitioner said that he had just received his driver’s license and was hanging out with three of his friends, all of whom had dropped out of school. He said that one of his friends knew the location of a convenience store in Caswell County. He stated that the store was closed and his friend wanted some cigarettes. He stated that he pulled in front of the store and his friend got out of the car and threw something through the glass door, shattering the glass. He was told to pull away and come back in 10 minutes. He stated that three of them stayed in the car. He pulled down the street and came back looking for his friend but he was not there. He pulled away and came back a second time, and his friend came out of the woods with a bag full of stolen items from the store. He stated that only one person went into the store while the other three stayed in the car.

7. Petitioner stated that they left the store at about 2:00 a.m. and went to Graham High School in Alamance County where one of his friends had dropped out of school. This was the same friend who broke into the store. Petitioner stated that he dropped him off in the school parking lot and drove away. Petitioner’s instructions were to come back in 10 minutes and pick him up. He stated that his friend broke into the school’s shop class and stole tools. When Petitioner drove back to the school to pick him up, the police drove up and challenged them. He said they did not resist. The police searched the car and found the stolen items from the store and school. He stated that all of them were charged with the crimes.

8. Petitioner stated that he was unduly influenced by his friends. He related that he did retain a lawyer who suggested that he plead guilty to the crimes. He stated that he pled guilty because he willfully participated in the crimes; no one twisted his arm.

9. Petitioner stated that he has worked for Surveillance Consulting, Inc. since February 2011. He installs surveillance systems in commercial and residential areas. He conducts sales and provides technical training to clients on the systems.

10. Deputy Director Bonapart testified that due to Petitioner’s criminal convictions, Petitioner’s application for registration was denied. Respondent Board mailed Petitioner’s employer and Petitioner a “For Cause” denial letter dated June 9, 2011. (R. Ex. 4)

11. Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Petitioner talked about the events that led up to his conviction of the breaking and entering and larceny charges. He did not actively participate in one of the break-ins and was the driver of the car, but he was an active participant in the other break-in. Petitioner testified that he has faced the consequences of these convictions through the years and these convictions do not represent the person that he is today. He considers himself to be an honest person who would not commit a crime and has worked very hard to provide for his family.

12. David Cox, a local farmer, testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Cox has known Petitioner for four (4) years. Petitioner has worked on his farm. He knows Petitioner to be honest and trustworthy. He was not aware of the crimes until two (2) or three (3) days ago. Petitioner has had numerous opportunities to steal tools or other items from him and certainly never has; Mr. Cox has had Petitioner at his home and in his home on numerous occasions. He considers Petitioner to be a “master carpenter.” Mr. Cox testified that he would trust Petitioner to install an alarm system in his home. Mr. Cox offered a letter of character on behalf of Petitioner. (P Ex. 1)

13. Carol Patterson testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. She testified that she has known Petitioner for two (2) years. He has done odd jobs for her, and she has given him a key to her house. She considers Petitioner to be a “good family man.” She would trust Petitioner to install an alarm system in her home.

14. Brian Wright testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. He testified that he has known Petitioner for 25 years. They were best friends growing up, and he has never known him to be dishonest except for the crimes in question. He blamed those incidents on Petitioner’s age at the time and the people with whom Petitioner was spending time. Mr. Wright testified that he would trust Petitioner to install an alarm system for him.

15. Russell Archer testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. He testified that he has known Petitioner for seven (7) years. They met in a program at church called “Divorce Care.” He has never known him to be dishonest and considers Petitioner to be a moral, upstanding gentleman.

16. Keith Handy testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. He has known Petitioner for approximately one (1) year. Mr. Handy is the Qualifying Agent (“Q.A.”) for Surveillance Consulting, Inc. He has never known Petitioner to be dishonest and considers him to be an honest person.

17. Laura Davis testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. She has known Petitioner for five (5) years. She teaches dance and music classes, and Petitioner’s daughter was in one of her classes. She considers Petitioner to be a good, attentive father. Petitioner has supervised construction at her home, and she has given him a key to her house. He has performed construction work for other companies that she owns. She has allowed him to watch her children and considers him to be an honest, “stand-up guy.” She has never known him to be dishonest and would trust him to install an alarm system in her home.

18. Deborah Farmer, Petitioner’s wife, testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. She testified that she has known Petitioner for 15 years. He confessed to her two (2) weeks after they began dating that he had been convicted of these criminal offenses and asked her if she was certain that she still wanted to date him. She met Petitioner because he performed some construction work on her home. She testified that he is a good father to both his children and her children (they have no children together), and she considers him to be a very trustworthy man. She has never known him to be dishonest.

19. Ron Davis, the President and major stockholder of Surveillance Consulting, Inc., testified as a character witness on Petitioner’s behalf. He testified that Petitioner’s wife, Deborah Farmer, works for him. He has had Petitioner perform construction work for him and has confidence in his abilities. He has never known Petitioner to be dishonest, and Petitioner has worked in his home. His work crews trust Petitioner. Petitioner told him about his criminal charges, and he does not believe that the person who committed those crimes is the same person that he knows now. He has given Petitioner keys to his home and vehicle, and he has complete trust and confidence in him. He does not feel that it would be a threat whatsoever to his company or any of his customers for Petitioner to install an alarm system on behalf of Surveillance Consulting.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The parties properly are before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

2. Under N.C. Gen. Stat § § 74D-6 and 10, Respondent Board may refuse to issue an alarm systems registration permit for a crime involving breaking or entering or for a lack of good moral character or temperate habits.

3. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74D-6(3), a conviction shall be prima facie evidence that the applicant does not have good moral character or temperate habits.

4. Respondent Board presented evidence--through Petitioner’s criminal record--that Petitioner lacked good moral character or temperate habits. Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he lacks good moral character.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

The North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board will make the final decision in this contested case. It is proposed that Respondent Board REVERSE its denial of Petitioner’s application for a registration permit, but require Petitioner to serve a one year probationary period.

NOTICE AND ORDER

The Alarm Services Licensing 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 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714.

This the 4th day of May, 2012.

_____________________________________

Beecher R. Gray

Administrative Law Judge

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download