STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04 DOJ 1242
COUNTY OF WAKE
Lance Harviell Patterson,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
NC Private Protective Services Board,
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
Petitioner,
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
This contested case was heard before Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison
Jr. on August 30, 2004 in Raleigh, North Carolina.
APPEARANCES
Respondent was represented by attorney Claudia N. McClinton.
Petitioner was served with notice of the hearing by certified mail, return receipt requested
at least fifteen days prior to the hearing date, but made no appearance.
WITNESSES
Respondent – Investigator Sarah Conner testified for Respondent Board.
ISSUE
Whether grounds exist for Respondent to revoke Petitioner’s security guard and patrol
license on grounds that he violated NCGS Chapter 74C by allowing armed guards to operate
without a firearms registration permit and that he violated 12 NCAC 07D. 0109 (a),(b) and (c) by
failing to maintain records pertinent to an audit, failing to submit quarterly Employment Security
Commission reports and failing to maintain records for three years?
BURDEN OF PROOF
Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner’s security and patrol license should
be revoked for the aforementioned violations. Petitioner may rebut the Respondent’s showing.
STATUTES AND RULES APPLICABLE
TO THE CONTESTED CASE
G.S. 74C-2; G.S. 74C-3; G.S. 74C-8; G.S. 74C-11; G.S. 74C-12; G.S. 74C-13(a); 12
N.C.A.C. 7D .0109 (a), (b), and (c).
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
industry, which includes armed security guards and private security companies employing armed
security guards.
2.
Lance Harviell Patterson (hereinafter “Petitioner”) held a security guard and patrol
license. Petitioner is the owner and operator of Accessible Security & Protective Services, which
provides private security services to clients. The services provided by Accessible Security and
Protective Services include armed security guards.
3.
Respondent Board assigned Investigator Sarah Conner (hereinafter “Investigator
Conner”) to conduct an investigation of Accessible Security and Protective Services after
receiving a tip from a former employee, Gary Dobson. Dobson alleged that Petitioner was
allowing his armed guards to operate without firearms registration permits.
4.
On March 28, 2003, as part of her investigation, Investigator Conner learned the names
of two armed guards that were working for Petitioner at the Adams Mark Hotel in Charlotte.
The names of the two armed guards were Michael Isom and Fred Welch. An investigation of the
status of these two individuals revealed that both were working with registration permits that had
expired 8-31-2002. When Investigator Conner met with Isom, he was working and was in
possession of a firearm.
5.
After meeting with armed guard Isom, Investigator Conner met with M.G. Hunter, a
partner of Petitioner in Accessible Security and Protective Services. Isom had initially refused to
turn over his weapon so Investigator Conner contacted the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police
Department (CMPD) and spoke with Mr. Hunter regarding the weapon. Mr. Hunter also initially
refused to turn over the weapon. The weapon was confiscated and turned over to CMPD
property control.
6.
Investigator Conner conducted an audit of Accessible Security and Protective Services
after she determined that armed guards Isom and Welch were working armed without valid
registration permits. In the process of conducting the audit, Investigator Conner met with Mr.
Hunter and Petitioner on several occasions. Investigator Conner requested, among other items, a
company plan of management, personnel files for all employees from June 12, 2002 to July 3,
2003, company monthly bank statements and check registers, payroll records, a list of all
firearms and serial numbers used by the company employees and leasing agreements, and copies
of quarterly Employment Security Commission reports. Respondent Board submitted into
evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 a July 3, 2003 letter Investigator Conner to Petitioner. The
letter advised Petitioner to turn in requested documents by July 14, 2003. Investigator Conner
received some of the items in piecemeal form, but as of yet has not received all of the requested
items.
2
7.
Respondent Board submitted into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 2 a February 20,
2004 letter acknowledged by Mack Donaldson, PPSB Grievance Committee chairperson and
signed by W. Wayne Woodard, Director of the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board.
The letter informed Petitioner that the Respondent’s Board’s Grievance Committee made a
recommendation to revoke Petitioner’s security guard and patrol license on the basis of a
complaint filed by Investigator Conner. The allegations included the following: (a) Petitioner
failed to maintain records pertinent to an audit; (b) that Petitioner failed to submit quarterly
Employment Security Commission reports; (c) that Petitioner failed to maintain records for three
years and; (d) that Petitioner allowed armed guards to operate without a firearms registration
permit.
8.
Investigator Conner explained the PPSB appeals procedure, stating that when a security
guard and patrol license is revoked by Respondent Board that licensees are allowed to continue
their operations pending appeal of the Board’s decision. Investigator Conner stated that
Petitioner continued to provide security guard services pending his appeal. In August 2004,
Investigator Conner received a complaint that Petitioner was again allowing armed guards to
provide security services without valid firearms registration permits. During her investigation
into the complaint, Investigator Conner discovered that two guards were working without the
proper registration permits. One was working with a firearms permit that expired in May 2004
and the other had no registration permit, armed nor unarmed. Investigator Conner gave an oral
cease and desist order and confiscated the weapons of the two individuals.
9.
Petitioner was served with notice of this hearing by certified mail, return receipt
requested, on July 31, 2004, at least fifteen days from the hearing date. Petitioner made no
appearance at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
No private person, firm, or association shall engaged in, perform any services as, or in
any way represent or hold itself out as engaging in a private protective services profession or
activity without having first complied with the provisions of Chapter 74C. See N.C.G.S. § 74C2(a) (2004). The North Carolina Private Protective Services Board may revoke a license
registration if a licensee has violated any provision of Chapter 74C or violated any rule
promulgated by the Board pursuant to the authority contained in Chapter 74C. See N.C.G.S. §
74C-12(a)(2)-(3) (2004). The Board may also revoke a license for violation of the firearms
provisions set forth in Chapter 74C. See N.C.G.S. § 74C-12(a) (15) (2004).
It is unlawful for any person performing the duties of an armed security guard to carry a
firearm in the performance of those duties without first having met the qualifications of an armed
guard and having been issued a firearm registration permit by the North Carolina Private
Protective Services Board. See N.C.G.S. § 74C-13(a) (2004).
Pursuant to 12 NCAC 07D .0109 all records pertinent to an audit or an investigation must
be maintained by the licensee and are subject to inspection by the Respondent Board or its staff
3
upon demand. All licensees who have registered employees must submit a copy of their quarterly
Employment Security Commission forms to the Respondent Board at the same time the form is
submitted to the Employment Security Commission and all records required to be kept by 12
NCAC 7D shall be retained for at least three years. See 12 NCAC 07D.0109 (a), (b) and (c)
(2004).
Petitioner had security guard and patrol license issued by Respondent Board. Petitioner
owns and operates a private security company under the name Accessible Security and
Protective Services. Petitioner failed to maintain records pertinent to an audit or investigation
and has failed to maintain those records, as required, for a 3 year period. Petitioner has failed to
produce documentation ordered by Respondent Board.
Petitioner also allowed armed security guards to work without having valid firearms
registration permits as required pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 74C-13(a). Even after the revocation of
his security guard and patrol license, Petitioner continued to work armed guards who were not
properly registered with Respondent Board.
From the evidence presented, Respondent Board met its burden of showing that
Petitioner has failed to produce documentation ordered by Respondent Board and has violated
Chapter 74C by allowing armed guards to operate without firearm registration permits. Petitioner
has also failed to rebut this showing.
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 decision to revoke Lance Patterson’s
security guard and patrol license.
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, N.C. 27699-6714, in accordance
with N.C.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 N.C.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.
4
This the 29th day of October, 2004.
_________________________________
Fred G. Morrison Jr.
Senior Administrative Law Judge
5