ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came
before me pursuant to SC Code Annotated §§ 40-18-70 (J), 40-18-130 (A). The
Petitioner, Timothy L. Williams (Williams) requested a contested case hearing
following the Respondent South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s (SLED’s)
administrative decision revoking Williams’s private investigator license.
After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was held on September 13, 2005,
at the offices of the Administrative Law Court in Columbia. Based on the
evidence and witnesses before me, judging the demeanor and credibility of the
witnesses, I find that the Petitioner’s license should be suspended for two
years, to run concurrently with the Georgia sentence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully
considered all testimony, exhibits and arguments presented at the hearing in
this case and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence,
I find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Notice of the
date, time, place and subject matter of the hearing was properly given to all
the parties.
2. In 2004, the
Petitioner held a South Carolina Private Investigator’s license. He was
contacted by an individual in Georgia (Mr. Wiggins) to provide information for
an ongoing domestic relations case. Specifically, Williams went to home of
Mrs. Wiggins in Statesboro, Georgia and showed Mr. Wiggins how to place a
recording device on Mrs. Wiggins’ phone line. He had Mr. Wiggins’ permission
to be in the house, but not Mrs. Wiggins’ permission. The Wiggins’ were
estranged at the time of the phone tap and Mrs. Wiggins had been awarded exclusive
use of the home.
3. Williams claims
that he relied on Mr. Wiggins’ assertions that his attorney in the domestic
relations matter had assured him that such actions were legal. Williams testified
he knew that Mr. Wiggins had lived at the home and was under the impression
that he had permission to enter the home.
4. In March 2004,
Williams was arrested by the Bulloch, Georgia Sheriff’s Department and charged
with Burglary and Eavesdropping. Williams entered a guilty plea to charges of
Criminal Trespass and Misdemeanor Interception of Telecommunications under
Georgia’s First Offender program on January 24, 2005. Under this program, he
was ordered to (1) pay a $2,000 fine, (2) perform 100 hours of community
service, (3) to stay away from the victim, (4) serve 24 months probation and (5)
was banished from Bulloch County. Upon Williams’ satisfactorily completing his
probationary sentence, the record would be sealed once the court was notified
of its completion.
5. Williams filed
his South Carolina Private Detective Agency renewal in July 2004. On this
form, he failed to list his arrest in Georgia in answer to the question “Have
you ever been arrested or charged with any violations?” Williams signed the
renewal application under the statement “I hereby certify that all statements
made by me are true and complete, to the best of my knowledge.” He testified
that his secretary had copied the 2004 application from a previous one and he
did not proofread the application. In addition, he expected the record to be
sealed, and considered the matter “a minor incident.”
6. Williams did
not report his arrest or guilty plea to South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following
as a matter of law:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2004) grants
jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Court to hear contested cases under the
Administrative Procedures Act. Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 40-18-130 (C) grants
the Court the responsibility to determine contested matters concerning the
revocation of private investigator’s licenses.
2. S.C.
Code Ann. § 40-18-130 (A) permits SLED to revoke a private investigator’s
license for
(1)
ma[king] a false statement or giv[ing] false information in connection with an
application for or renewal . . . of a license or registration.
(7)
. . . . convict[ion] of or plead[ing] guilty to a crime since becoming a
licensed investigator which would, upon conviction, disqualify the person for
licensing or registration;
3.
Addressing § 40-18-130 (A)(7) above, under S.C. Code Ann. § 40-18-70 (E) (Supp.
2004), “SLED may grant a license to a person who: (4) has not been convicted of
a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude.” Neither of these crimes
is a felony (see § 40-18-150), but Criminal
Trespass could be a crime of moral turpitude. See e.g. Sanders and
Nichols, Trial Handbook for South Carolina Lawyers, 2d ed. §13.14
(2001).
4. SC Code
Ann. § 40-18-70 (J) (Supp. 2004) states that a licensee who is arrested must
report the custodial arrest to SLED within seventy two hours of the arrest.
DISCUSSION
AND APPLICATION
Based on a review
of the entire record, I find that the revocation of Petitioner’s license is
unduly harsh, and that the license should be suspended for a period of two
years, to run concurrently with the Georgia term of probation.
There are numerous
mitigating circumstances for imposing a lesser sanction than license
revocation, including the fact that Petitioner has been a licensed investigator
for several years, and has no prior violations or complaints. He is a retired
Marine Officer with over twenty years active duty, including a tour in Viet Nam,
and submitted several references from the last twenty years extolling his
professionalism. Based on the record before me, I find that the Petitioner’s
license should be suspended for two years, to run concurrently with the Georgia
term of probation.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
CAROLYN C.
MATTHEWS
Administrative
Law Judge
December 22, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
