9-2403-12839-2

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

PRIVATE DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENT SERVICES BOARD

 

In the Matter of the License Revocation

of Rangers Security

FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

AND RECOMMENDATION

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Phyllis Reha, acting as a hearing officer for the Department of Public Safety, commencing at 10:30 a.m. on May 25, 2000 at the Office of Administrative Hearings.  The hearing was continued for further testimony on June 9, 2000.  The hearing was held pursuant to a notice of hearing dated April 4, 2000.  The parties filed memoranda of law and the record closed on September 1, 2000 with the last filing of a response memorandum.

Michael R. Pahl, Assistant Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, Minnesota  55103-2106, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Private Detective and Protective Agent Services Board (the Board).  Richard T. Franks, Attorney at Law, Wagner, Falconer &, Judd, Ltd., 3500 IDS Tower, 80 S. 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, appeared on behalf of Vincent Peterson, the Licensee.

NOTICE

            This Report is a recommendation, not a final decision.  The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Private Detective and Protective Agent Services Board will make the final decision after a review of the record.  The Commissioner may adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations.  Under Minn. Stat. § 14.61, the final decision of the Board shall not be made until this Report has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days.  An opportunity must be afforded to each party adversely affected by this Report to file exceptions and present argument to the Board.  Parties should contact the Minnesota Private Detective and Protective Agent Services Board, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55104, telephone number (651) 215-1753, to ascertain the procedure for filing exceptions or presenting argument.

 

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

The issue in this matter is whether or not the Licensee, Vincent Peterson, is competent to serve as a qualified representative for his licensed protective agency, Rangers Security in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 326.32.

Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

            FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  The Licensee, Vincent Peterson, is the owner and qualified representative of Ranger’s Security, a company providing protective agent services.

2.                  In 1996, the Licensee had originally applied for a protective agent license.  The Board denied his application at that time based on lack of experience in audits, surveys and supervision of employees as required by Minn. Stat. § 326.3382.[1]

3.                  The Licensee reapplied for a protective agent license in 1998.  The Board required appearances by Licensee as well as by his then-employer, Stella Veach, to explain any additional experience Licensee had accumulated since 1996 in the specific areas of audits, surveys and supervision of employees.[2]

4.                  The Board granted Licensee a protective agent license on October 26, 1998.  Although the Board determined that the Licensee met the minimum qualifications for licensure, the Board considered the Licensee a marginal applicant due to his lack of experience in the areas of audits, surveys and supervision of employees.[3]

5.                  Marie Ohman is the Executive Director of the Board.  In September of 1999, St. Paul Police Sergeant Wilson, who handles gun permitting for the City of St. Paul, contacted Ms. Ohman by telephone.[4]  The purpose of the call was to advise Ms. Ohman that one of Licensee's employees, Felix Pineda, had recently been convicted of impersonating a police officer.

6.                  Sergeant Wilson informed the Licensee of the conviction. Sergeant Wilson also advised the Licensee that Felix Pineda’s gun permit was no longer valid and that Pineda had been ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation.[5]

7.                  Thereafter, the Licensee contacted Sergeant Wilson to inquire when Pineda could get his gun permit back because Pineda was his "best employee.”  The Licensee seemed to be indifferent to the details of Pineda's conviction and to the fact that he was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation.  The Licensee's main concern was to determine when Pineda's gun permit could be returned.[6]

8.                  The two incidents involving Pineda impersonating a police officer occurred on October 26, 1998 and November 12, 1998.[7]  Pineda was hired by Licensee as owner of Rangers Security on April 26, 1999.  Pineda had originally been hired by the previous owner of Rangers Security.[8]

9.                  The impersonation incidents involved Pineda’s personal vehicle which was equipped with red flashing dashboard lights, a lightbar in the back window, a police scanner and a police Plexiglas cage.[9]  He was also charged with illegal red lights, violation of a protection order and use of a police scanner.[10]

10.             Licensee received a criminal background check report on Pineda from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension dated December 17,1998 indicating that no record was found which would disqualify Pineda from employment with Rangers Security.[11]  A letter dated January 27, 2000 regarding the FBI criminal background also indicated that Pineda met the criteria for employment with Rangers Security.[12]

11.             Pineda terminated his employment with Rangers Security on October 21, 1999.[13]

12.             St. Paul Police Sergeant Wilson contacted Marie Ohmann again regarding a different Rangers Security employee, Millard Patrick.[14]  This employee held two persons at gunpoint in a “suspicious” vehicle until a squad car arrived.  The gun was a BB gun.[15]  The incident occurred on October 11, 1999.  Patrick was driving on a revoked driver’s license at the time.[16]  The incident took place while Patrick was on duty and in uniform.[17]

13.             The Licensee went to the scene at that time, orally reprimanded Patrick and confiscated the BB gun and gave it to the St. Paul Police.[18]  Patrick was employed as a foot patrolman.[19]  He was reprimanded for stopping the vehicle with his vehicle, the use of a yellow light and the use of the BB gun, all of which were unauthorized activities.[20]

14.             Patrick was suspended for tardiness on approximately October 15, 1999.[21]

15.             Patrick resigned from his employment with Rangers Security on October 25, 1999.[22]

16.             Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 214 authority, Ohman directed the Licensee to appear before the Complaint Committee of the Board on October 20, 1999.  The purpose of this meeting was to see what action, if any, Licensee had taken in response to these incidents involving his employees, and to determine what training procedures he had in place for his employees.[23]

17.             On October 20, 1999, Licensee, represented by counsel, appeared before the Complaint Committee.  Regarding Pineda, Licensee told the Complaint Committee that Pineda was still employed by Ranger’s Security.  Licensee acknowledged that he knew Pineda had been convicted of impersonating a police officer.  Licensee initially denied contacting Sergeant Wilson about the gun permit, but admitted the contact after he was informed that the Board had a letter memorializing this contact with Wilson.[24]  Licensee conceded that the Board should be concerned about Pineda but told the Board that despite the guilty plea, Pineda was innocent because he had told Licensee that he pulled the car over because it had a bad tire.[25]  Licensee did no investigation of the incident other than speaking to Pineda and reading the criminal complaint.[26]  Licensee also imposed no discipline on Pineda for this incident.  Licensee also did not know when the psychological evaluation would take place or who would perform it.[27]  Licensee also believed Pineda’s conviction had no relevance to Ranger’s Security or Licensee's statutory duty as a qualified representative because Pineda's criminal acts did not take place in the course and scope of employment.[28]

18.             Regarding Patrick, Licensee told the Complaint Committee that Patrick was on suspension for calling in sick two hours before his shift but that no discipline had been imposed over the BB gun incident.  Licensee was also informed that Patrick was driving on a revoked license, and that because Patrick was driving on October 11, 1999 (the day of the incident), he had committed a misdemeanor while employed by Ranger’s Security.[29]  Licensee was unconcerned because even though Patrick used his vehicle to make the stop on a client’s behalf, Licensee did not authorize Patrick to drive while on duty.[30]  In response to the information that Patrick had acted illegally by making a traffic stop in his personal vehicle equipped with yellow flashing lights, Licensee stated that since Rangers Security did not authorize the use of yellow lights, Licensee should not be held responsible for his employee's actions.[31]  Licensee also stated that Rangers Security did not authorize Patrick to use a BB gun, and therefore should not be held responsible for his employee's actions.  Licensee did acknowledge that Rangers Security could potentially face serious liability if someone had been shot with the BB gun.  However, Licensee did not believe the BB gun incident was "serious."[32]

19.             Licensee also told the Complaint Committee that he had had no training meetings with his employees over these incidents, nor does he hold any training meetings for his employees.[33]  The only training Licensee provides to his employees is to require the employees to read the employee handbook.[34]  Licensee did not follow up to ensure that they had read or understood the handbook.[35]

20.             Licensee was required to attend a second meeting of the Complaint Committee on December 27, 1999.  The purpose of the meeting was to see what Licensee had done regarding Patrick and Pineda and whether he had addressed any other concerns raised at the October Complaint Committee meeting.[36]

21.             When Licensee appeared before the Complaint Committee in December, he had retained new counsel. Licensee’s counsel acknowledged the Committee’s concern over Licensee’s failure to respond to the Patrick and Pineda incidents and to adopt appropriate training and other measures so these types of incidents do not recur.[37] During the meeting, Licensee conceded that he had had no meetings with his employees over these incidents.[38]  Licensee claimed that meetings were not necessary because the conduct of Patrick and Pineda was not authorized by company policy.[39]  When asked under what circumstances he would suspend an employee, Licensee stated that he would suspend an employee for showing up late for work. He made no mention of the conduct engaged in by Patrick or Pineda.[40]  Licensee also stated that he had not looked up any of the statutes pertaining to the statutes violated by Patrick and Pineda (citizen’s arrest, vehicle lighting, scanners, etc.) since the October Complaint Committee meeting.[41]  Licensee also stated that he does not have a "number two person" at his company to rely on for assistance.[42] 

22.             Licensee’s counsel represented to the Complaint Committee at the December 27th meeting that Licensee would develop specific training programs, including meetings where the propriety of Patrick’s and Pineda’s conduct would be discussed.[43]  Licensee’s counsel also represented that Licensee would master statutes pertaining to the protective agent industry.[44]  Licensee would also train in a number two person to handle matters when he was not available.[45]

23.             Licensee was orally instructed to come to the next month’s Board meeting, and was told to call Ohman or the Board’s counsel if he had any questions.[46]  Licensee was also told he was in danger of losing his license.[47]

24.             Licensee did not appear at the January 31, 2000 Complaint Committee meeting.[48]  Neither Licensee nor his counsel contacted the Board to explain why they would not attend.[49]  The Complaint Committee felt that his failure to appear indicated an inability or an unwillingness to respond to the issues that they had raised at the October and December meetings.  They voted to recommend to the full Board that his license be revoked.[50]

25.             By letter dated February 23, 2000, Licensee’s counsel submitted a proposed plan of action to the Board.[51]  Licensee, through his counsel, stated that because he had not received written notice of the January 31st meeting, he erroneously believed that his license would not be discussed at that meeting.[52]

26.             Licensee, his counsel and his number two person, appeared before the Board on February 28, 2000.[53]  Licensee had not conducted any all-staff training sessions, but said that he had met with several individuals whom he did not name.  He had not reviewed relevant statutes, but was trying to obtain copies of those statutes.  Licensee presented the criminal history background check information he had been able to obtain as of that date.  He did not present evidence of a company newsletter or other training material.[54]

27.             Licensee’s proposed number two person is not experienced in a security management role.  He is a college student in training to be a peace officer and has worked part-time as a security officer.[55]

28.             Based on the record as a whole, the Board voted unanimously to revoke the license of Ranger’s Security.[56]  The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case hearing under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS

1.                  The Minnesota Private Detective and Protective Agent Services Board and the Administrative Law Judge have authority to consider the issues raised by the Board’s Notice and Order for Hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. § § 326.3387 and 14.50 (1999).

2.                  The Licensee received proper and timely notice of the charges against him and of the time and place of the hearing.

3.                  The Board has the burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Licensee has engaged in an activity which merits license revocation.

4.                  Minn. Stat. § 326.3311(5) (1998) authorizes the Board to suspend or revoke the license of a license holder or to impose a civil penalty on a license holder for violations of any provisions of sections 326.32 to 326.339 or the rules of the Board.

5.                  Minn. Stat. § 326.32 (1998) requires that the qualified representative be actively involved in the day-to-day management and supervision of the licensed activity.

6.                  Minn. Stat. § 326.336, subd. 1 (1998) provides that the license holder is at all times accountable for the good conduct of every person employed.

7.                  Because Peterson is licensed as a protective agent, the Complaint Committee of the Board has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he lacks the professional competence to serve as a qualified representative and to be responsible for the day-to-day management, supervision, and good conduct of his employees.

8.                  The Complaint Committee of the Board has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that the Licensee is not competent to serve as a qualified representative.

Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: That the Minnesota Private Detective and Protective Agency Services Board take disciplinary action against the Licensee’s protective agent license.

 

Dated this 29th day of September, 2000.

 

                                                                             

 

PHYLLIS A. REHA

Administrative Law Judge

Transcript Prepared by:

Reporters Diversified Services

Duluth, Minnesota

218-722-4733; 800-213-2243

 

 

MEMORANDUM

            With regard to his employee, Pineda, it is true that Pineda was not employed by Licensee at the time he impersonated a police officer.  But at the time of Pineda’s conviction for impersonating a police officer, Pineda was employed by Licensee.  Despite the serious nature of the offense and conviction, as evidenced by the police revocation of Pineda’s gun permit and Pineda’s court ordered psychological evaluation, Licensee did not discipline nor discharge Pineda upon becoming aware of his conviction.  Instead, Licensee inquired of the police as to when Pineda could have his gun permit reinstated, as he considered Pineda to be one of his 'best employees.”[57]

            With respect to his employee, Patrick, Licensee admitted that Rangers Security could face serious liability if an employee or other person was shot.[58]  Yet, he did not feel that the incident was “serious” enough for more than an oral reprimand.[59]

            The penalties imposed by the Board are determined by the severity of the violations.  A serious violation is a failure to comply with law or rule when the failure has a substantial adverse effect on the integrity of the business of private detective or protective agent services, the public health, safety or welfare.

            Among the factors to be considered by the Board is the inherent severity of the conduct as indicated by the potential harm to person, property or the integrity of the business of private detective or protective agent services.[60]

Although Licensee has made some attempts to rectify the situation (i.e. criminal background checks, trying to locate pertinent statutes), overall, his actions before the Board have not been sufficient to indicate he is competent to serve as a qualified representative for Rangers Security.

                                                                        P.A.R.


[1] T. 26-27.

[2] “T.” references are to the transcript of the proceedings on May 25, 2000, and June 11, 2000. 

[3] T. 27.

[4] T. 32-33.

[5] T. 33, Exhibit 3.

[6] T. 33-36, Exhibit 3.

[7] Exhibit A, Criminal Complaint, Felix Pineda packet.  Minn. Stat. § 609.475.

[8] T. 81.

[9] Exhibit A, Felix Pineda packet.

[10] Exhibit 4.

[11] Felix Pineda packet.

[12] Felix Pineda packet.  Minn. Stat. § 326.336, subd. 1.

[13] Notice of Termination, Felix Pineda packet.

[14] Exhibit 6.

[15] T. 37.

[16] Exhibit 7, page 1-2.

[17] T. 127.

[18] Exhibit 7.

[19] T. 210.

[20] T. 202, 210.

[21] Exhibit 7, p. 5.

[22] Millard Patrick packet.

[23] T. 40.

[24] Exhibit 7, p. 14.

[25] Exhibit 7, p. 15.

[26] Exhibit 7, p. 15.

[27] Exhibit 7, p. 17-18.

[28] Exhibit 7, p. 12.

[29] Exhibit 7, p. 2.

[30] Exhibit 7, p. 3.

[31] Exhibit 7, p. 6.

[32] Exhibit 7, p. 6.

[33] Exhibit 7, p. 9.

[34] Exhibit 7, p. 8.

[35] Id.

[36] T. 43.

[37] Exhibit 10, p. 2-3.

[38] Exhibit 10, p. 4.

[39] Exhibit 10, p. 6.

[40] Exhibit 10, p. 7.

[41] Exhibit 10, p. 11-14.

[42] Exhibit 10, p. 18.

[43] Exhibit 10, p. 19.

[44] Exhibit 10, p. 19.

[45] Exhibit 10, p. 21.

[46] Exhibit 10, p. 23; T. 45-46.

[47] Exhibit 10, p. 23.

[48] T. 46.

[49] T. 46.

[50] T. 46.

[51] T. 49, Exhibit 15.

[52] Exhibit 15.

[53] T. 56, Exhibit 16.

[54] Exhibit 16.

[55] Exhibit 16.

[56] Exhibit 16.

[57] T. 33-36, Exhibit 6.

[58] Exhibit 7, p. 6.

[59] Exhibit 7, p. 6.

[60] Minn. Rules, Part 7506.1070.