State of North Carolina s49

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF WAKE 06 DOJ 0398

JAMES EDWARD CAMPBELL, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ) ) NORTH CAROLINA ALARM SYSTEMS ) LICENSING BOARD, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ______)

This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison Jr. on April 4, 2006, 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. Kenneth L. Belk also testified for Petitioner.

Respondent – Deputy Director Terry Wright testified for the Board.

ISSUES

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

BURDEN OF PROOF

Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner’s application for an alarm registration permit should be denied. 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(3); 74D-6(5); 74D-8; 74D-9; 74D-10; 12 NCAC 11 §§ .0100; .0200; .0300.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. Petitioner is employed with Security South which is located in Indian Trail, North Carolina. Petitioner applied for an alarm systems registration permit with Security South.

3. Respondent Board performed a standard criminal background check on Petitioner pursuant to his application. The Board determined that Petitioner had the following criminal record:

5/3/84 – Burke County – Child Abuse (Felony) 3/2/05 – Union County – Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Misd.)

It should be noted that the original denial included 8 worthless check convictions from Forsyth County. The Board withdrew those charges upon obtaining information that another individual with the name of James Campbell was convicted of those charges.

4. Petitioner’s application was denied by the Board based upon the above convictions.

5. Petitioner testified that he did not abuse his child in 1984. He stated that at the time they lived in a trailer that did not have hot water. To take baths, they had to boil water on the stove and pour it into the tub. One day when he was home from work, he had started to fill the bath with hot water. While waiting for the water to heat, he went outside to take the trash out. While he was outside, he says his daughter bent over the side of the tub with her hands out to keep from falling into the hot water. Petitioner testified that he

2 heard her scream and pulled her out immediately. He called EMS. His daughter sustained burns on her arms. He was charged and convicted of child abuse.

6. On cross examination, Petitioner testified that he is no longer married and has not seen his daughter for over 20 years. He has had no contact with her.

7. Regarding the Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Petitioner stated that he was going to the courthouse to see his brother who was in trouble. He had found his brother’s cocaine and was taking it to the courthouse to turn it in. When he went through the metal detector he was asked to take everything out of his pocket. The officer saw the cocaine in his hand and had him arrested. The Possession of Cocaine charge was dismissed, but Petitioner pled guilty to Possession of Drug Paraphernalia(which was his driver’s license). He stated that his brother had taken his driver’s license and it was found that the license had drug residue on it. He denied the charge and says that he does not use drugs.

8. Petitioner was called as an adverse witness and admitted that he had pled guilty to Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He received an 18 month suspended sentence and supervised probation for 18 months. He was required to pay $431.25 in costs.

9. Kenneth L. Belk is the Vice-President for Security South who testified on Petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Belk testified that Mr. Campbell installs wiring in homes and businesses for telephone, television, and computer connections. Security South also installs security systems and the company would like to register the Petitioner so that he can also install wiring for security systems.

10. Mr. Belk first met Petitioner about six months before hiring him in January 2005 and allowing him to work until August 2005. Mr. Belk had Petitioner pull wiring, but he had other lead technicians who would meet with customers.

11. Mr. Belk has found Petitioner to be a good employee who is dependable and on time. He has never known Petitioner to use drugs and knows that medical tests have always been negative for drug use.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to G.S. 74D-6(3), Respondent Board may deny an application for lack of good moral character. Pursuant to the statutory provision, it is prima facie evidence of lack of good moral character if the applicant has been convicted of a crime involving the illegal use, possession, sale, manufacture, distribution, or transportation of a controlled substance, drug, narcotic, or alcoholic beverage.

Respondent Board presented evidence of Petitioner’s criminal history and met the prima facie showing. Because of the recency of the conviction of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in 2005, Petitioner was unable to rebut the prima facie showing.

3 Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

It is proposed that the Board UPHOLD its initial decision to deny Petitioner’s application for an alarm registration permit.

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 Alarm Systems Licensing Board.

This the 6th day of April, 2006.

______Fred G. Morrison Jr. Senior Administrative Law Judge