STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE 08 DOJ 0568

JONATHAN R. ELAM, )

Petitioner, )

) PROPOSAL FOR

v. ) DECISION )

)

N.C. PRIVATE PROTECTIVE )

SERVICES BOARD, )

Respondent. )

This contested case was heard before Administrative Law Judge Joe L. Webster, on March 25, 2007, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by attorney Charles F. McDarris.

WITNESSES

Petitioner - Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Petitioner’s current supervisor Darrell Wilson testified for Petitioner.

Respondent – Kim Odom, PPSB Investigator, testified for Respondent Board.

ISSUES

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s Private Investigator’s application for lack of verifiable experience.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Petitioner has the burden of showing that he has the requisite three thousand (3,000) hours of verifiable experience within the past ten years.

STATUTES AND RULES APPLICABLE

TO THE CONTESTED CASE

Official notice is taken of the following statutes and rules applicable to this case:

G.S. 74C-2;

74C-3(a)(8);

74C-9;

74C-12;

12 NCAC 7D § .0200; .0400.

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 private protective services profession.

2. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for a Private Investigator’s License.

3. Petitioner was employed by Sears since June 1999 in Loss Prevention. He served in that capacity with Sears the entire time, with the exception of January 2001 to December 2001. Petitioner began with Sears in the job title of Loss Prevention Assistant and was promoted to Manager of Loss Prevention. In April 2007, Petitioner began employment as a Fraud Investigator with Truliant Federal Credit Union.

4. To verify his experience with Sears, Petitioner submitted voluminous documentation to Board Investigator Kim Odom, including his personnel file and investigative reports. He also provided a job description, part of which stated, "investigates internal and external theft: investigation, apprehension, interview, disposition, prosecution, if appropriate, restitution".

5. Petitioner submitted to the Investigator some reports that were computer generated, database searches in which he attempted to show investigative activities with Sears to determine whether there was any type of wrongdoing or fraud on an employee's part. These reports did not include narratives, but did include printouts of the database information for the issues at hand.

6. Petitioner provided to the Investigator numerous CCTV/shoplifting apprehension reports. These reports included narratives that detailed what he observed on the CCTV or in direct observation and the subsequent apprehension.

7. In addition, Elam provided several narrative investigative reports to Ms. Odom that detailed more involved investigations, primarily internal thefts. These reports also included narrative reports in which he often discovered a problem using their database and continued an investigation into the financial transaction discrepancy.

8. Petitioner provided evidence to the Board that he had received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Social Sciences, which Gardner-Webb University later provided a statement indicating that Petitioner’s concentration was in Criminal Justice. Petitioner was given 1000 hours credit for his degree.

9. The Investigator acknowledged that it was apparent that Mr. Elam worked in an investigative capacity with Sears; however, the format of the records did not include the number of hours spent on investigative activities, which made it impossible to give a specific number of credit hours to the applicant. Therefore, no credit was given.

10. Investigator Odom spoke to Arthur Ramsey, Elam's supervisor. Ramsey stated that he supervised Mr. Elam for approximately 3 ½ years. He stated that Mr. Elam’s performance was outstanding. He recommended Mr. Elam for the license.

11. On April 16, 2007, Petitioner accepted employment with Truliant Federal Credit Union as a Fraud Investigator.

12. Petitioner’s supervisor is Darrell Wilson, a duly licensed Private Investigator in North Carolina. Mr. Wilson appeared and testified on Petitioner’s behalf at the hearing. He also provided a sworn affidavit that was made part of the record.

13. Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Elam has been assigned approximately 176 cases for investigation and had logged more than 1,056 hours of investigative work.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Board does not offer an examination or training course for Private Investigator applicants. The Board has elected to require work experience as a basis for licensure. Therefore, the Board reviews an applicant’s work history and requires an applicant to provide verifiable work experience as set forth in 12 NCAC 7D .0401 to satisfy the Board that he is experienced in the field of private investigations.

An applicant for a Private Investigator’s license must provide verifiable evidence of at least 3,000 hours of experience within the past 10 years as an investigator. See 12 N.C.A.C. 7D .0401(a) and 12 NCAC 7D .0204(a).

Pursuant to 12 N.C.A.C. 7D .0204, one year experience equals 1,000 hours.

Pursuant to G.S. 74C-5(1) & (2), the Board has the authority to determine minimum qualifications and establish minimum education, experience, and training standards for applicants and licensees.

Pursuant to G.S. 74C-5(5), the Board has the authority to approve individual applicants to be licensed according to the Private Protective Services Act.

Pursuant to G.S. 74C-5(6), the Board may deny an applicant who does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.

Pursuant to G.S. 74C-5(2), 74C-5(6) and 12 NCAC 7D .0401, the Board has the authority to require documentation to verify an individuals prior experience as a manager, supervisor, or administrator with a contract security company or a proprietary security organization performing security guard and patrol functions.

Petitioner was granted 1,000 of educational credit towards his Private Investigator’s License. Further, Petitioner’s current employer provided a sworn statement and sworn testimony that the Petitioner has logged 1,056 hours of fraud investigations in the past year. Therefore, the issue is whether the documentation provided to the investigator amounts to 944 hours of experience (3,000 hrs. – 1,000 hrs. – 1,056 hrs. = 944 hours remaining).

Given the fact that Petitioner did submit voluminous documentation to the Board’s Investigator that evidenced Petitioner’s full-time employment for several years with Sears in an investigative role; given the fact that the Board’s Investigator acknowledged that Petitioner did have investigative time during this period but just could not determine the specific number of hours; and given that 12 NCAC 7D .0204 grants 1,000 hours of credit for each year of investigative work, the Court finds that Petitioner has an excess of 3,000 hours of investigative experience.

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 REVERSE its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application and thereby grant Petitioner a Private Investigator’s License.

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

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board.

This the 8th day May, 2008.

______________________________

Joe L. Webster,

Administrative Law Judge

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download