STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF WAKE 07 DOJ 1405 ______

JOHN MARK GOODIN ) PETITIONER ) ) v ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ) NORTH CAROLINA ALARM ) SYSTEMS LICENSING BOARD ) RESPONDENT ) ______

On February 26, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Melissa Owens Lassiter held a conducted a hearing in this case in Raleigh, North Carolina. The undersigned denied Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss after Respondent presented its case-in-chief.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner: Michael C. Byrne Brent Adams and Associates 2920 Highwoods Blvd Suite 125 Raleigh, NC 27604

Respondent: John T. Crook Charles F. McDarris Bailey & Dixon LLP PO Box 1351 Raleigh, NC 27602

ISSUE

Did Respondent have sufficient grounds to deny Petitioner’s application for an alarm registration permit for lack of good moral character?

APPLICABLE STATUTES AND RULES

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74D-2; 74D-6; 74D-8; 74D-10 12 NCAC 11 .0100, .0200, .0300 EXHIBITS

Petitioner: 1 - 11

Respondent: 1 -10

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving Petitioner’s application for an alarm registration permit should be denied. Petitioner may rebut Respondent’s showing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background Facts

1. On March 12, 2007, Respondent denied Petitioner’s Alarm Registrant Permit application for four correctable reasons, and based on the “For Cause” reason that Petitioner’s criminal convictions proved Petitioner lacked the good moral character or turpitude to hold an alarm registrant permit. (Resp Exh 10)

2. Petitioner requested a hearing on Respondent’s decision. On September 4, 2007, Respondent filed a Notice of Hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings, notifying Petitioner the Office of Administrative Hearings would conduct a contested case hearing on his appeal on September 25, 2007. On January 29, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Melissa Owens Lassiter was assigned to hear this contested case.

3. Respondent Board is established pursuant to 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, such as alarm technicians and installers.

Adjudicated Facts

4. On or about November 2006, Petitioner applied for an alarm registration permit with Respondent. On his application, Petitioner admitted that he had pled guilty to a crime, been convicted of a crime, and been on parole or probation for a crime. (Resp Exh 1) Petitioner attached to his application the following: (1) a letter dated November 27, 2006, (2) a Criminal Background Check listing four misdemeanor convictions, and (3) his written “Explanation” of those Misdemeanor convictions.

5. Respondent also performed a standard background check on Petitioner pursuant to his alarm registration permit application. Petitioner stipulated that he had been convicted of the following misdemeanor offenses:

2 a. Wake County - On 4/10/1986, Petitioner was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of making harassing phone calls. (offense date of 12/05/1985)

b. Harnett County - On 4/01/1991, Petitioner was found guilty of the misdemeanor offenses of Indecent Exposure and Carrying a Concealed Weapon. (offense date of 8/25/1990)

c. Wake County - On 12/15/1997, Petitioner was convicted of misdemeanor Secret Peeping. (offense date of 8/15/1997)

6. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that none of Petitioner’s convictions occurred within the last ten years. Respondent considered the age of Petitioner’s convictions before it decided to deny Petitioner’s application. Respondent denied Petitioner’s permit application, because Petitioner committed crimes involving moral turpitude, and an alarm registrant permit would allow Petitioner to install systems in residences even though Petitioner’s employer indicated that Petitioner would be installing systems only in industrial settings.

7. At hearing, Petitioner admitted that he was convicted of the above convictions, and stressed that he made no attempt to conceal those convictions from Respondent on his permit application. He accepts responsibility for his prior convictions, and mistakes.

a. At hearing, Petitioner explained the circumstances surrounding each of his convictions. Petitioner acknowledged that he was guilty of the 1985 “Harassing Phone Calls” misdemeanor. He repeatedly called an ex-girlfriend to collect a $1600.00 loan he had previously made to her. Petitioner acknowledged that he was guilty of the 1997 “Secretly Peeping” misdemeanor. He explained that he committed the offense while being so intoxicated he couldn’t clearly recall what he had done. At the time, he was suffering from a deep depression as he and his wife were separated.

b. Petitioner admitted he was guilty of the 1990 “Concealed Weapon” misdemeanor. After being arrested for Indecent Exposure, the arresting officer confiscated a WWII bayonet, a family heirloom, from the trunk of Petitioner’s car. The Judge returned the bayonet to Petitioner after trial.

c. Petitioner denied committing the 1990 “Indecent Exposure” misdemeanor. A woman accused him of exposing himself to her while he was sitting in his car in a Food Lion parking lot. Petitioner claimed he only asked the woman for the time of day, and did not expose himself. He was found guilty at trial. Petitioner contended that his probation officer told him that the same woman had falsely accused three other men of the same offense. Yet. Petitioner’s probation officer did not testify at his hearing to corroborate Petitioner’s testimony.

8. Petitioner explained that he had been successfully employed at car dealerships, with insurance agencies, and as a satellite installer in private homes. In these various positions, Petitioner was placed in positions of trust with company money, insureds’ insurance premiums, and personal property in residences while installing satellite systems. No one ever complained about his services in those jobs.

3 9. Petitioner further explained that he has changed his life. He has not drunk any alcohol in 10 years, sought alcohol counseling, and has become very involved in activities at his church. He terminated his friendships with his former “drinking” friends. He would not portray anyone’s trust in him when installing alarm systems.

10. Petitioner applied for employment with All Tech Wiring and Controls, Inc. in Garner, NC. All Tech primarily installs security, video surveillance, and fire alarm systems in industrial settings. Petitioner advised Gerald Phillips with All Tech, of the details of his criminal background. At All Tech, Petitioner would install these type systems only in industrial settings. However, Petitioner acknowledged that a license would allow him to install alarm systems in private residences.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74D-6, Respondent may deny an application for an alarm registration permit when the applicant has intemperate habits or lacks good moral character or turpitude.

2. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 74D-6, convictions for crimes involving unlawful breaking or entering, larceny, the illegal use of alcoholic beverages, the illegal possession of a controlled substance, or moral turpitude constitute prima facie evidence of a lack of good moral character and temperate habits.

3. Respondent presented prima facie evidence of Petitioner’s lack of good moral character or temperate habits through evidence that Petitioner had been convicted, was found guilty, or pled guilty to the misdemeanors of making Harassing Phone Calls, Carrying a Concealed Weapon, Indecent Exposure, and Secret Peeping.

4. Petitioner failed to present evidence to sufficiently rebut Respondent’s prima facie evidence that he lacks good moral character or temperate habits.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned proposes that the N.C. Alarms Systems Licensing Board UPHOLD its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for an alarm registration permit.

ORDER AND NOTICE

The N.C. Alarms Systems Licensing Board will make the Final Agency Decision in this contested case. That agency is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this proposed decision and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36(a).

4 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36 requires the Board to serve a copy of the Final Decision on all parties, and furnish a copy to the parties’ attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings, at 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714.

This the 4th day of April, 2008.

______Melissa Owens Lassiter, Administrative Law Judge

5