ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2001) upon the request of Petitioner,
Isadore R. Turner, whose application for a private investigator registration had been denied by Respondent
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division ("SLED"). After timely notice to the parties, a contested case
hearing was held on May 28, 2002, at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. The Petitioner testified on his
behalf. The Respondent did not present a witness. The only issue before this tribunal is whether Petitioner
made a false statement or gave false information in connection with his application for registration. Upon
review of the relevant and probative evidence and applicable law, SLED's denial of Petitioner's
application for a private investigator registration is affirmed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and
taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact by a
preponderance of the evidence:
- Notice of the time, date and place of the hearing was given to the Petitioner and SLED.
- In October 2001, Petitioner submitted an Application for Private Detective Registration to SLED.
SLED's Application requires an applicant to answer the following question:
Have you ever been arrested or charged with any violations? ( ) no ( ) yes (List all such matters even if
not formally charged, or no court appearance, or found not guilty, or matter settled by payment of fine
or forfeiture of collateral). List all traffic citations but not parking tickets.
- In response, Petitioner provided the following answer:
Date Place Charge Final Disposition Details
8-11-98 Sumter Co. DUS 1st Dissmisted (sic) work info in DMV computer
Petitioner provided no other information in response to the question.
- After receiving Petitioner's application, SLED obtained a copy of his criminal record from Sumter
County, which disclosed that Petitioner had been charged with and convicted of speeding in 1987, minor
in possession of beer in 1989, driving with no vehicle license in 1993, speeding in 1994, driving too fast for
conditions in 1994, trespassing after notice in 1995, speeding in 1996, improper start in 1997, and failure to
pay fines in 1998.
- As a result of its discovery, SLED denied Petitioner's application.
- Petitioner testified that he did not intend to misrepresent himself, but that he misunderstood the
questions. Petitioner believed that the DUS, which he disclosed, covered the arrest and conviction
preceding the DUS. Petitioner believed that when SLED pulled up his record for the DUS that it would
see what happened. Petitioner stated that he had never been arrested for anything. However, upon
cross-examination, Petitioner admitted he had been issued several traffic tickets and a ticket for minor
in possession of beer. Petitioner also admitted that he had been arrested for trespass after notice,
although he disputed that he actually had notice. Petitioner served forty hours' community service
after his conviction for trespass after notice.
The evidence shows that Petitioner failed to disclose on his Application that he had been cited for and
convicted of a number of offenses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
- Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann § 40-18-130(C) (Supp. 2001), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2001) and S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 2001), the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has
jurisdiction over this matter.
- S.C. Code Ann. § 40-18-130 provides, in pertinent part:
SLED may deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a license or registration...under this chapter upon
finding that the applicant, licensee, or registered individual has:
- made a false statement or given false information in connection with an application for or renewal or
reinstatement of a license or registration;...
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-18-130(A)(1) (Supp. 2001) (emphasis added).
3. The language of S.C. Code Ann. § 40-18-130(A)(1) is clear and unambiguous. As South Carolina courts
have consistently noted, "[w]hen the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the Court must apply
them according to their literal meaning. Furthermore, 'in construing a statute, words must be given their
plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the
statute's operation.'" Brown v. State, 343 S.C. 342, 348, 540 S.E.2d 846, 850 (2001) (citations omitted); see
also Rowe v. Hyatt, 321 S.C. 366, 468 S.E.2d 649 (1996); First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin,
308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). There is no question but that Petitioner failed to disclose his criminal
record. Based on the clear and unambiguous language of the statute, whether Petitioner's failure to do
so was intentional or accidental is of no consequence.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SLED's denial of Petitioner Isadore R. Turner's application for private
investigator registration is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
May 29, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina. |
