Proposed Proposal For Decision/Rustin/PPSB (00323421).DOCX



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF WAKE 11 DOJ 08676

RYNELL SHAWNTA RUSTIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

N.C. PRIVATE PROTECTIVE )

SERVICES BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________________)

This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred Morrison, Jr. on September 27, 2011, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner appeared pro se.

Respondent was represented by attorney M. Denise Stanford.

WITNESSES

Respondent – Private Protective Services Board Deputy Director Anthony Bonapart testified for Respondent Board.

Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist for Respondent to deny Petitioner’s application for unarmed registration for demonstrating intemperate habits or a lack of good moral character.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner lacks good moral character. 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.G.S. §§ 74C-3(a)(6); 74C-8; 74C-9; 74C-11; 74C-12; 12 NCAC 7D § .0700.

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, including unarmed security guards.

2. Petitioner applied to Respondent Board for renewal of his unarmed security guard registration. A copy of Petitioner’s application was introduced as Exhibit 2.

3. A criminal record review was submitted with his application, which showed that Petitioner had a criminal record.

4. Petitioner’s criminal record showed that on May 12, 2008 and on August 5, 2008, Petitioner was convicted of Driving While License Revoked. Also, on May 24, 2010, Petitioner was convicted of Misdemeanor Larceny. A certified copy of Petitioner’s criminal record in Rowan County was introduced as Exhibit 4.

5. Anthony Bonapart testified that he interviewed Petitioner about the convictions. Petitioner told him that in 2008 he was repairing a roof with his father. He injured his hand and drove himself to the hospital. He was driving 48 mph in a 35 mph speed zone and received a speeding ticket from a police officer. Petitioner refused to pay the ticket and lost his driver’s license. Petitioner continued to drive and was convicted twice for Driving While License Revoked. The suspension of his driver’s license expires in May of 2010.

6. Anthony Bonapart also testified that Petitioner told him about the conviction for Misdemeanor Larceny. Unbeknownst to him, Petitioner became involved with a “mystery shopper” online scam. An individual came to his house and wrote him a check for $4674.00 to shop at Wal-Mart. The check bounced and Petitioner was charged with Felony Obtaining Property By False Pretenses. He was convicted of the lesser offense of Misdemeanor Larceny.

7. Petitioner testified that Mr. Bonapart’s testimony was true.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Under G.S. §74C-12(a)(25), Respondent Board may refuse to grant a registration if it is determined that the applicant lacks good moral character.

2. Respondent Board presented evidence of Petitioner’s lack of good moral character through his criminal record.

3. Petitioner presented evidence insufficient to rebut the lack of good moral character.

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 UPHOLD its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for renewal of unarmed security guard registration.

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, NC 27699-6714, in accordance with G.S. §150B-36(b).

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 30th day of November, 2011.

_____________________________________

Fred Morrison, Jr.

Senior Administrative Law Judge

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download