STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

WAKE COUNTY

GREGORY ALAN HOOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

NC ALARM SYSTEMS LICENSING BOARD,

Respondent. |

)))))))

))) |IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

08 DOJ 1265

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

| |

This contested case was heard before Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison Jr., on June 24, 2008, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by attorney John T. Crook of the law firm of Bailey & Dixon, L.L.P, and Jennifer Ramirez.

WITNESSES

Petitioner – Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

Respondent – Alarm Systems Licensing Board Field Services Supervisor Larry Liggins testified for Respondent Board.

ISSUES

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s alarm registration permit renewal application for lack of good moral character or temperate habits.

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:

G.S. § 74D-2; 74D-6; 74D-8; 74D-10;

12 N.C.A.C. 11 § .0300

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Board is established pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 74C-1, et seq., and is charged with the duty of licensing and registering individuals engaged in the alarm systems business.

2. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for an alarm registration permit. Petitioner’s application for an alarm registration permit was introduced as Exhibit 1.

3. In his renewal application for an alarm registration permit, Petitioner answered “yes” to the questions “Have you ever pled guilty to any crime (Felony or Misdemeanor); Have you ever been convicted of any crime (Felony or Misdemeanor); and Been Paroled or Been on Probation.” Petitioner responded “no” to the question “Served time?” Petitioner’s application was submitted on January 23, 2008, and received by Respondent Board on January 28, 2008.

4. Attached to Exhibit 1 was an explanation and admission of three separate criminal convictions. In his explanation, Petitioner admitted to being charged on January 28, 1999 of DWI (“Driving While Impaired”) and stated that as a result, he had “learned a valuable lesson”. Also in his explanation, Petitioner admitted to pleading guilty to possessing a marijuana pipe on August 26, 2001, stating it was “yet another mistake”. Finally, Petitioner admitted to being charged on December 21, 2004, and ultimately being convicted of maintaining a vehicle, dwelling or place for using, keeping or selling a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Petitioner’s explanation was received by Respondent Board with his application.

5. Also attached as the last page of Exhibit 1 is a signed statement of Kenneth B. Hooks, Sr., the Petitioner’s father and a licensee with Respondent Board. Mr. Hooks wrote that he was aware of the Petitioner’s prior charges, but that he still wished to employ him.

6. Respondent Board then introduced Exhibit 2, which is a copy of a certified Criminal Record Search of the Petitioner for New Hanover County, North Carolina. In his Criminal Record Search there existed the following charges and/or convictions:

A. June 4, 1997 – Charged with (M) Possession Marijuana and (M) Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, both of which were dismissed by the Court on September 28, 1998.

B. March 10, 1998 – Charged with (M) Possession Marijuana, which was dismissed by the Court on October 25, 1999, noting that Defendant complied with a specific condition.

C. January 28, 1999 – Charged and convicted on April 21, 1999, for Level 5 DWI.

D. September 2, 2000 – Charged with driving after consuming under the age of 21, for which he received a Prayer for Judgment Continued on October 10, 2000.

E. August 26, 2001 – Charged with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession Marijuana, and was ultimately convicted on October 16, 2001, of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.

F. December 21, 2004 – Charged with (F) Possession with Intent to Sell/Distribute Marijuana, (F) Possession Marijuana, (M) Maintain Vehicle or Dwelling with a Controlled Substance; ultimately plead guilty to Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Maintaining Vehicle with a Controlled Substance, for which he received probation and a suspended sentence.

7. Mr. Liggins testified that Respondent Board considered the Petitioner’s explanation, and his father’s request for employment, but that based upon Petitioner’s criminal record, the Board denied Petitioner’s registration application.

8. Respondent Board introduced Exhibit 3, a February 12, 2008, denial letter addressed to Kenneth B. Hooks, Sr. The February 12, 2008, letter stated that the Petitioner’s application would be denied “For Cause”, based upon Petitioner’s: (1) March 29, 2006 (M) Possess Drug Paraphernalia guilty plea; (2) October 16, 2001 (M) Possess Drug Paraphernalia guilty plea; and (3) March 29, 2006 (M) Maintain Veh/Dwell/Place CS guilty plea. Exhibit 3 requested that the Petitioner submit an explanation of the charges, and that the licensee submit a letter stating desires for employment.

9. Respondent Board introduced Exhibit 4, a February 18, 2008, letter from the Petitioner requesting a review by the Office of Administrative Hearings of Respondent Board’s denial. Petitioner states in Exhibit 4 that he provided a detailed explanation of his criminal record to Respondent Board with his application and states further that it has been his “life long goal to work for and one day obtain a management position” within his family business, Hooks Burglar and Fire Alarm Company, Inc.

10. Petitioner then testified on his own behalf. He confirmed that his birthday was January 29, 1980, and that he was a life-long resident of Wilmington, North Carolina. He graduated from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in 2004, and immediately began to work as an alarm technician for Hooks Burglar and Fire Alarm Company, Inc., a family business which has been owned by his mother and father for thirty years. With regard to his criminal convictions and criminal record, Petitioner stated he had no excuses. Petitioner has worked in the same capacity from 2004 until January 2008 when he first applied to be registered with Respondent Board. Petitioner no longer uses marijuana, but still moderately consumes alcohol.

11. Thereafter, without being sworn, Kenneth Hooks, upon questioning from the Court, stated that he stood by the statement submitted with the Petitioner’s application and that he still desired to employ the Petitioner.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to G.S. § 74D-6, Respondent Board may refuse to issue an alarm systems registration permit for lack of good moral character or temperate habits.

Pursuant to G.S. § 74D-6(3), convictions for offenses involving moral turpitude or convictions of any crime involving the illegal use, possession, sale, manufacture, or transportation of a controlled substance, drug or alcoholic beverage constitute prima facie evidence of an applicant’s lack of good moral character or temperate habits.

Respondent Board presented evidence of Petitioner’s lack of good moral character. Petitioner has rebutted the presumption that he lacks good moral character by showing that he has graduated from college, worked successfully since, and corrected his negative behaviors.

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 the Board reverse its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for an alarm registration permit and issue it under probationary conditions.

NOTICE AND 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, North Carolina, 27699-6714, in accordance with G.S. § 150B-36(b).

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 G.S. 150B-40(e).

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board.

This the 10th day of July, 2008.

____________________________________

Fred G. Morrison Jr.

Sr. Administrative Law Judge

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download