STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



| | | |

|STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA |IN THE OFFICE OF |

| |ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS |

|COUNTY OF UNION |11 DOJ 13157 |

|Darryl Howard, |) |

|Petitioner, |) |

|v. |) DECISION |

|NC Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission, |) |

|Res |) |

| |) |

This case came on for hearing on March 12, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge Selina M. Brooks in Charlotte, North Carolina. This case was heard after Respondent requested, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 150B-40(e), 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

Petitioner: Darryl Howard, pro se

Respondent: Catherine F. Jordan

Attorney for Respondent

Department of Justice

Law Enforcement Liaison Section

P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, N.C. 27602-0629

ISSUE

Did Respondent properly deny Petitioner’s application for certification as a correctional officer and properly suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement officer certification because evidence showed that Petitioner committed the felony offense of bigamy and he failed to meet the minimum standards required of a correctional officer and law enforcement officer because he lacked good moral character?

BASED UPON careful consideration of the sworn testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing, the documents and exhibits received and admitted into evidence, and the entire record in this proceeding, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. In making the FINDINGS OF FACT, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge 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.

RULES

12 NCAC 09G .0504(b)(2)

12 NCAC 09G .0206

12 NCAC 09G .0505(c)(2)

12 NCAC 09A .0204(a)(1)

12 NCAC 09A .0205(c)(2)

12 NCAC 09A .0205(a)(1)

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Both parties are properly before this Administrative Law Judge, in that jurisdiction and venue are proper, both parties received Notice of Hearing, and Petitioner received the notification of Proposed Denial of Correctional Officer Certification and Proposed Suspension of Law Enforcement Certification through a letter mailed by Respondent on May 26, 2011. (Respondent’s Exhibit 18) Respondent’s letter stated that the probable cause committee found probable causes existed: (1) to deny Petitioner’s correctional officer certification because he failed to meet the minimum standards required for correctional officers because he lacked good moral character because he committed felony bigamy; (2) to suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement officer certification because he committed the felony offense of bigamy; and, (3) to suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement officer certification because he failed to maintain the minimum standards required for law enforcement officers because he committed felony bigamy.

2. The North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission has the authority granted under Chapter 17C of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 9G, to certify correctional officers and to revoke, suspend, or deny such certification.

3. The North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission has the authority granted under Chapter 17C of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 9A, to certify law enforcement officers and to revoke, suspend, or deny such certification.

4. 12 NCAC 09G .0504 entitled “Suspension: Revocation: or Denial of Certification” states:

(b) The Commission may, based on the evidence for each case, suspend, revoke, or deny the certification of a corrections officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification or the certified officer: . . . .

(2) fails to meet or maintain one or more of the employment standards required by 12 NCAC 09G .0200 for the category of the officer's certification or fails to meet or maintain one or more of the training standards required by 12 NCAC 09G .0400 for the category of the officer’s certification[.]

5. 12 NCAC 09G .0206, entitled “Moral Character” states:

Every person employed as a correctional officer, probation/parole officer, or probation/parole officer-intermediate by the North Carolina Department of Correction shall demonstrate good moral character[.]

6. 12 NCAC 09G .0505, entitled “Period of Suspension: Revocation: or Denial” states:

(c) When the Commission suspends or denies the certification of a corrections officer, the period of sanction shall be for an indefinite period, but continuing so long as the stated deficiency, infraction, or impairment continues to exist, where the cause of sanction is: . . . .

(2) failure to meet or maintain the minimum standards for certification[.]

7. 12 NCAC 09A .0204, entitled “Suspension: Revocation: or Denial of Certification” states:

(a) The Commission shall revoke the certification of a criminal justice officer when the Commission finds that the officer has committed or been convicted of:

(1) a felony offense[.] . . . .

(b) The Commission may suspend, revoke, or deny the certification of a criminal justice officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification or the certified officer: . . . .

(2) fails to meet or maintain one or more of the minimum employment standards required by 12 NCAC 09B .0100 for the category of the officer's certification or fails to meet or maintain one or more of the minimum training standards required by 12 NCAC 09B .0200 or 12 NCAC 09B .0400 for the category of the officer's certification[.]

8. 12 NCAC 09A .0103(6) states:

“Criminal Justice Officer(s)” means those officers identified in G.S. 17C-2(3) and excluding Correctional officers; Probation/parole officers, and Probation/parole officers intermediate. The term “Probation/parole officers intermediate,” as used in this Chapter has the same meaning as “Probation/parole officers-surveillance” used in G.S. 17C-2(3).”

9. 12 NCAC 09B .0101 entitled “Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice Officers” states:

Every criminal justice officer employed by an agency in North Carolina shall:. . . .

(3) be of good moral character pursuant to G.S. 17C-10 and as determined by a thorough background investigation[.]

10. 12 NCAC 09A .0205, entitled “Period of Suspension: Revocation: or Denial” states:

(a) When the Commission revokes or denies the certification of a criminal justice officer, the period of the sanction shall be permanent where the cause of sanction is:

(1) commission or conviction of a felony offense[.] . . . .

(c) When the Commission suspends or denies the certification of a criminal justice officer, the period of sanction shall be for an indefinite period, but continuing so long as the stated deficiency, infraction, or impairment continues to exist, where the cause of sanction is: . . . .

(2) failure to meet or maintain the minimum standards of employment[.]

11. A certified copy of a Marriage Record showed that Petitioner and Annie Terry (hereinafter “Annie”) were married on May 31, 1986. (Respondent’s Exhibit 7) The Marriage Record showed that Reverend B.R. Moore officiated the wedding, and that two witnesses existed for the marriage ceremony. The Marriage Record showed that the wedding occurred at New Hope Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Marriage Record showed that it was returned to the Register of Deeds Office in Mecklenburg County on June 2, 1987.

12. A certified copy of a Marriage Record showed that Petitioner and Francina Petties (hereinafter “Fran”) were married on March 6, 2007. (Respondent’s Exhibit 8) The Marriage Record showed that Petitioner’s last marriage, purportedly to Annie, ended by divorce in February 2006. The Marriage Record showed that Petitioner and Fran were married at the Cabarrus County Courthouse and that two witnesses were present. The Marriage Record was returned to the Register of Deeds Office in Cabarrus County on March 8, 2007.

13. On October 15, 2008, Fran submitted a Citizen Complaint Form to the Monroe Police Department concerning Petitioner. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2) The complaint stated that “[Petitioner] has been seeing another woman over at a daycare on Maurie St.” She stated that “[Petitioner] has become verbally abusive with her” and “[t]hey have been married for a year and a half, but do not live together.” She stated that she “quit her career because [Petitioner] promised to send her to college.” Monroe Police Department Lieutenant Donahue (“Lieutenant Donahue”) took the police complaint.

14. On October 16, 2008, Lieutenant Donahue interviewed Fran Howard. (Respondent’s Exhibit 4) Fran told Lieutenant Donahue that she and Petitioner were married in Cabarrus County on March 6, 2007, but that they have resided in separate residences. She stated that Petitioner “wanted it that way so people would not be in his business and that they were both officers and that he did not want something bad to happen on the job that would cause problems for one of them.” Fran stated that Petitioner “comes over on the weekends and once or twice during the week.” She stated that “she has never been to his residence since they were married on March 6, 2007.” Fran stated that “she has asked [Petitioner] if she could visit, but that he would always make an excuse for it not to take place.” Fran also provided the following information to Lieutenant Donahue during his interview of her on October 16, 2008:

[Fran] described an incident about three months ago where she had finally had it with his excuses so she drove to Monroe and called him to meet. [Petitioner] met with [Fran] at the Food Lion in Indian Trail. [Fran] said that he lived in Madrid Apts. right behind the Food Lion. [Fran] told him she wanted to go to his apartment, at that time [Petitioner] started shaking and acting very nervous. [Fran] was very upset and left to go home. [Fran] said that [Petitioner] seemed like he had maybe a girlfriend or something and that’s why he was acting so suspicious. [Fran] said this has gone on since they were married and she was tired of it. . . . .

[Fran] said she was told that [Petitioner] went on vacation in September; she said he knew nothing about it. [Fran] found out that he went on a cruise and never even bothered to tell her about it. [Fran] said that he disappeared that week and never even called her. [Fran] said that [Petitioner] made her call anytime that she would come to Monroe and she was to call and let him know when she was leaving Monroe. [Fran] said that [Petitioner] convinced her to quit her policing career and that he was going to put her through college at this time is out of work and [Petitioner] has not yet sent her to college.

(Respondent’s Exhibit 4)

15. On October 17, 2008, Lieutenant Donahue interviewed Annie, Petitioner’s wife, because Lieutenant Donahue and Petitioner worked together and Lieutenant Donahue knew that Petitioner was married to Annie. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5) He discovered the following:

[Annie] said she and [Petitioner] were married in May of 1986. [Annie] said they have three children together and that she works in Charlotte and also has a residence there. [Annie] said she stays at both [the Charlotte and Monroe] addresses, but the Monroe address is her primary address. [Annie] said that he and [Petitioner] spend has much [as] time as they can together between jobs. [Annie] said she stays [at the Monroe address] at least three to four days a week.

[Annie] said that [Petitioner] calls her everyday at work and on her cell phone. [Annie] said in September they went on a cruise together for their vacations and had a wonderful time. [Annie] explained they have a wonderful marriage and that [Petitioner] is a great husband. [Annie] was asked if she has seen a change in [Petitioner] over the past year, she replied only that he is tired a lot from work.

[Annie] was asked if they were legally still married and she replied yes, [Annie] was disturbed by this question.

(Respondent’s Exhibit 5)

16. On October 17, 2008, Lieutenant Donahue spoke to Fran again. (Respondent’s Exhibit 6) Fran stated that she had looked for Petitioner’s vehicle in an apartment complex, and had found it at Nottingham Apartments. Fran stated that she “was very disturbed about this because she knew that [Petitioner] has lied about where he has lived since they were married.” She stated that she “was very upset during this phone conversation and she hoped that [Lieutenant Donahue] would find out what is going on.” Fran stated that “she began to think about all the excuses he had made during the last year and now believes he is living a double life.”

17. On October 28, 2008, Lieutenant Donahue completed an arrest report for Petitioner for the criminal offense of bigamy, which is a felony, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-183. (Respondent’s Exhibit 9) The arrest report stated that “[Petitioner] was married to two woman [sic] at the same time . . . was living two separate lives and neither victim knew of the other one.” The arrest report stated that Petitioner obtained a divorce “by paying some attorney $200.00 dollars a few years ago.” The arrest report stated that “[h]owever, all certified court records show no divorce from [Petitioner].”

18. On October 28, 2008, Lieutenant Donahue completed a City of Monroe Notification of Violation of Policies and/or Procedures for Petitioner. (Respondent’s Exhibit 10) Lieutenant Donahue stated that Petitioner conducted himself in a manner which would be detrimental to the department’s image as a law enforcement agency, and that Petitioner failed to maintain a level of moral conduct in his personal and business affairs because of the bigamous relationship.

19. On October 28, 2008, Petitioner was charged with the criminal offense of felony bigamy because he “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did Marry Francina Howard while still being married to Annie Howard, who was living at the time.” (Respondent’s Exhibit 11) On December 4, 2008, Petitioner’s case came on in Union County District Court. Petitioner pled guilty to misdemeanor fornication and adultery, and the trial court found him to be guilty. (Respondent’s Exhibit 12) The trial court ordered Petitioner to pay a fine of $200.00 and costs of $245.50. On January 4, 2010, the trial court entered a judgment ordering a suspended sentence of 10 days, and for Petitioner to pay costs and $200.00 (Respondent’s Exhibit 13)

20. On October 28, 2008, the Monroe Police Department submitted a Report of Separation Form F-5B on behalf of Petitioner to Respondent. (Respondent’s Exhibit 14) The Report of Separation stated that Petitioner was employed with the Monroe Police Department for six years, and that he was dismissed on October 28, 2008. The Report of Separation stated that the agency would not consider Petitioner for reappointment, and that it would not recommend employment elsewhere as a criminal justice officer. The Report of Separation stated that the “officer was terminated and charged with bigamy, a felony.”

21. On September 7, 2010, a Report of Appointment Form F-5A was submitted to Respondent on behalf of Petitioner with an application for certification as a DOC Correctional Officer. (Respondent’s Exhibit 1) Petitioner listed his criminal conviction record, and he listed that in January 2010, he was convicted of Fornication and Adultery in Union County. Id. He stated that this conviction was for a misdemeanor offense, and that he did not receive probation.

22. On September 12, 2011, Respondent’s probable cause committee found probable cause existed to deny Petitioner’s application for correctional officer certification and to suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement certification. (Respondent’s Exhibit 18) The probable cause committee found probable cause existed to deny Petitioner’s correctional officer certification indefinitely because he failed to meet the minimum standards required for employment as a correctional officer because he lacked good moral character, which was predicated on his commission of the felony offense of bigamy. The probable cause committee also found probable cause existed to suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement certification because he committed felony bigamy, and found that Petitioner failed to meet the minimum standards required for employment as a law enforcement officer because he committed felony bigamy.

23. Respondent’s Investigator Ed Zapolsky testified that the conducted an investigation on Petitioner’s bigamy charge. He received a copy of the documents from the Monroe Police Department, including two marriage certificates, one for Annie and one for Fran. He submitted the documents to Respondent’s probable cause committee which made a determination that probable cause existed to deny Petitioner’s application for correctional officer certification and to suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement certification.

24. Monroe Police Department Lieutenant Donahue testified at the hearing. He testified that he had been employed with the Monroe Police Department for 19 years, and that he knew Petitioner because Petitioner worked for him. He testified that he received a complaint from Fran that she was upset because Petitioner was “acting strange,” he was “not coming around much,” and she “thought that he was seeing another woman.” Fran thought that Petitioner was having an affair with a woman at a day care, and Lieutenant Donahue spoke with the woman at the day care. Lieutenant Donahue also spoke with Fran and Annie. He discovered that Annie and Petitioner resided on Nottingham Lane in Monroe, North Carolina, that Annie and Petitioner’s children resided with them, and that they had just returned from a cruise. Annie told him that she thought that they had a good marriage, and that Petitioner was a good husband. Lieutenant Donahue investigated whether Petitioner was divorced, and he went to the Clerk of Court’s Office in Mecklenburg County and conducted a statewide search and was unable to find any documentation stating that Petitioner was divorced.

25. Fran testified that she worked with Petitioner and that they were married. She testified that she met Petitioner when she was employed at the Monroe Police Department in 2003. She stated that in 2003, they had a working, professional relationship. Fran testified that they began talking on the computer at work, then Petitioner began asking her if she wanted to get something to eat, then they began dating in 2004. She testified that they went to the movies, they went out to eat, and they went shopping. Fran testified that they saw each other on a regular basis, and that Petitioner usually went to her residence on Friday after work, on Saturday, and on Sunday after church. She stated that she never went to his residence. He told her that he had two sons living with him and that he was going through a divorce with his wife, and that they were “battling back and forth with money issues.” Fran testified that she thought that in 2004 that he resided with his wife, then he moved out in 2005 or 2006.

26. Fran and Petitioner married on March 6, 2007 at the Cabarrus County Courthouse. She testified that after they married, Petitioner never resided with her because he “said that he needed to make sure everything was okay and safe,” that he “had sons that were in college,” and he needed to “make sure that they had a place to live.” In 2007 and 2008, Fran lived in Charlotte, North Carolina, Petitioner lived in Monroe, North Carolina, and Annie lived in Charlotte, North Carolina, and in Monroe, North Carolina. Fran testified that Petitioner convinced her to leave her employment with the Monroe Police Department. Fran said that Petitioner’s behavior became abusive, he said “lie after lie,” the “bills didn’t get paid,” and “he didn’t have a reason why [they] didn’t get paid.” She stated that she became suspicious because she called him sometimes and his telephone would be turned off, and he would say that he could not get a connection. Fran also testified that she needed medical insurance and the insurance company would not add her to his policy, and Petitioner could not tell her why she could not be added to his insurance. She investigated why she could not be added on to his insurance and she found out that he was married to Annie. Fran went to the Monroe Police Department after discovering that Petitioner was married, and she learned that Petitioner’s colleagues at the Monroe Police Department thought that Petitioner was still married to Annie. Fran spoke with Petitioner and he said that he was divorced. She asked him for documentation, and he was unable to provide any. Fran asked to see his residence, and he met her at a Food Lion purportedly near his residence, but he kept stalling when she wanted to go to his residence, so Fran left and never saw his residence.

27. Petitioner testified that he was married to Annie on May 31, 1986 at New Hope Church in Charlotte. He testified that he did not obtain a divorce from Annie. He testified that he went to an attorney and brought his marriage certificate, their children’s birth certificates, and their common bills. He testified that he was told that the marriage was invalid and that there was nothing else he needed to do. Petitioner testified that his attorney was in Onslow County, but that he could not remember the attorney’s name. He stated that he drove from Monroe to Onslow County in 2006 and consulted with the attorney there because he was going to see friends in Onslow County. Petitioner stated that the attorney said he did not need to do anything because the marriage was not official. Petitioner testified that he thought he was divorced because the marriage was invalid. He testified that in 2006, he lived in Monroe, North Carolina on Nottingham Road, and Annie lived on Cornett Way in Charlotte, North Carolina. He stated that they spent some time together because their son was sick with Hotchkins Disease, and she was able to tend to his needs. He stated that they went on a cruise in September 2008, but that it was a family reunion type of cruise, and that he had married Fran in March 2007. He testified that he did not invite Fran on the cruise because her ex-husband knew Petitioner, and Fran had older kids, so “there would be conflict among work.” He testified that after he married Fran, he did not reside with Fran, and that Fran never came to his apartment. He testified that he did not want his sons to be confused about who Fran was. Petitioner also testified that his sons were 17 years old. Respondent’s counsel objected to Petitioner’s testimony about what the attorney told him, and to what Annie stated, and the objection was sustained after Petitioner testified. Petitioner’s testimony was found to be not credible.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Office of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this contested case. The parties received proper notice of the hearing in the 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 Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission has the authority granted under Chapter 17C of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 12 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 9G, to certify correctional officers and to revoke, suspend, or deny such certification.

3. 12 NCAC 09G .0504 entitled “Suspension: Revocation: or Denial of Certification,” which governs correctional officers, states:

(b) The Commission may, based on the evidence for each case, suspend, revoke, or deny the certification of a corrections officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification or the certified officer: . . . .

(2) fails to meet or maintain one or more of the employment standards required by 12 NCAC 09G .0200 for the category of the officer's certification or fails to meet or maintain one or more of the training standards required by 12 NCAC 09G .0400 for the category of the officer’s certification[.]

4. 12 NCAC 09G .0206, entitled “Moral Character” states:

Every person employed as a correctional officer, probation/parole officer, or probation/parole officer-intermediate by the North Carolina Department of Correction shall demonstrate good moral character[.].

5. 12 NCAC 09G .0505, entitled “Period of Suspension: Revocation: or Denial” states:

(c) When the Commission suspends or denies the certification of a corrections officer, the period of sanction shall be for an indefinite period, but continuing so long as the stated deficiency, infraction, or impairment continues to exist, where the cause of sanction is: . . . .

(2) failure to meet or maintain the minimum standards for certification[.]

6. 12 NCAC 09A .0204, entitled “Suspension: Revocation: or Denial of Certification” as applicable to law enforcement officers states:

(a) The Commission shall revoke the certification of a criminal justice officer when the Commission finds that the officer has committed or been convicted of:

(1) a felony offense[.] . . . .

(b) The Commission may suspend, revoke, or deny the certification of a criminal justice officer when the Commission finds that the applicant for certification or the certified officer: . . . .

(2) fails to meet or maintain one or more of the minimum employment standards required by 12 NCAC 09B .0100 for the category of the officer's certification or fails to meet or maintain one or more of the minimum training standards required by 12 NCAC 09B .0200 or 12 NCAC 09B .0400 for the category of the officer's certification[.]

7. 12 NCAC 09B .0101 entitled “Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice Officers” states:

Every criminal justice officer employed by an agency in North Carolina shall: . . . .(3) be of good moral character pursuant to G.S. 17C-10 and as determined by a thorough background investigation[.]

8. 12 NCAC 09A .0205, entitled “Period of Suspension: Revocation: or Denial” states:

(a) When the Commission revokes or denies the certification of a criminal justice officer, the period of the sanction shall be permanent where the cause of sanction is:

(1) commission or conviction of a felony offense[.] . . . .

(c) When the Commission suspends or denies the certification of a criminal justice officer, the period of sanction shall be for an indefinite period, but continuing so long as the stated deficiency, infraction, or impairment continues to exist, where the cause of sanction is:. . . .

(2) failure to meet or maintain the minimum standards of employment[.]

9. N.C.G.S. § 14-183 (2007) states:

If any person, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, every such offender, and every person counseling, aiding or abetting such offender, shall be punished as a Class I felon. Any such offense may be dealt with, tried, determined and punished in the county where the offender shall be apprehended, or be in custody, as if the offense had been actually committed in that county. If any person, being married, shall contract a marriage with any other person outside of this State, which marriage would be punishable as bigamous if contracted within this State, and shall thereafter cohabit with such person in this State, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished as in cases of bigamy. Nothing contained in this section shall extend to any person marrying a second time, whose husband or wife shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years then last past, and shall not have been known by such person to have been living within that time; nor to any person who at the time of such second marriage shall have been lawfully divorced from the bond of the first marriage; nor to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by the sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction.

10. The probable cause committee found probable causes existed: (1) to deny Petitioner’s correction officer certification because he failed to meet the minimum standards required for correctional officers because he lacked good moral character because he committed felony bigamy; (2) to suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement officer certification because he committed the felony offense of bigamy; and, (3) to suspend Petitioner’s law enforcement officer certification because he failed to maintain the minimum standards required for law enforcement officers because he committed felony bigamy.

11. A preponderance of the evidence exists to support the conclusion that Petitioner failed to meet the minimum standards required of a correctional officer because he lacked good moral character because he committed felony bigamy.

12. A preponderance of the evidence exists to support the conclusion that Petitioner’s law enforcement officer certification should be suspended because he committed felony bigamy.

13. A preponderance of the evidence exists to support the conclusion that Petitioner failed to meet the minimum standards required of a law enforcement officer because he lacked good moral character because he committed felony bigamy.

14. The party with the burden of proof in a contested case must establish the facts required by N.C.G.S. § 150B-23(a) by a preponderance of the evidence. N.C.G.S. § 150B-29(a). The administrative law judge shall decide the case based upon the preponderance of the evidence. N.C.G.S. § 150B-34(a).

15. Petitioner has the burden of proof in the case at bar for his correctional officer certification. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent’s proposed denial of Petitioner’s correctional officer certification is not supported by substantial evidence.

16. Respondent has the burden of proof in the case at bar for Petitioner’s law enforcement certification. Respondent showed by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent’s proposed denial of Petitioner’s correctional officer certification is supported by substantial evidence.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Undersigned recommends Respondent Commission deny Petitioner’s correctional officer certification for an indefinite period because he failed to meet the minimum standards required for a correctional officer because he lacked good moral character because he committed felony bigamy. Petitioner’s law enforcement officer certification should be revoked permanently because he committed felony bigamy, and his law enforcement officer certification should be suspended indefinitely for a lack of good moral character because he committed felony bigamy.

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. N.C.G.S. § 150B-40(e).

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission.

This the 12th day of April, 2012.

________________________________

Selina M. Brooks

Administrative Law Judge

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download