MINUTES OF THE MEETING ARKANSAS BOARD OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES A meeting of the Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies was held on March 12, 2014, in Room #7W11, Arkansas State Police Headquarters. ATTENDING: Sergeant Michael Moyer, Administrator for the Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies, PI & Security Licensing Section, Arkansas State Police. Amy Hancock, Investigator for the Arkansas Board of Private Investigators & Private Security Agencies, PI & Security Licensing Section, Arkansas State Police. Ed Armstrong, Attorney, Arkansas Attorney General s Office. Lavita Thompson, Administrative Specialist for the Arkansas Board of Private Investigators & Private Security Agencies, PI & Security Licensing Section, Arkansas State Police. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT: Jack Acre Jason Curtis David Orsborn Randy Perry MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Jess Odom Ricky Shourd Ralph Sims GUESTS OF THE MEETING: Pat Nolte Kevin Bell John Kielsling, Jr. Janetta Shannon Larry D. Shannon Johnny York Dennis Shipley Matthew Caudill Samantha Caudill Wayne Taylor Michelle Satterfield Russell Morrison Jordon Brown Misty Ladd Robin Doyle Alert Alarm ProTech Security Kiesling Private Investigations/CABBS Safe Streets USA Arkansas Valley Communications ADT Security Security One, Inc. Court Reporter Arkansas Heart Hospital ASAA Whelan Security Maxim Security
PAGE 2 CALL TO ORDER: Jack Acre, Chairman of the Board, called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. RECOGNITION OF THE NEWS MEDIA: Notification of the news media in regard to this meeting was confirmed. MINUTES: Jack Acre asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting held on February 12, 2014. Jason Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Perry and Mr. Orsborn didn t vote on the motion because they did not attend the February meeting. The minutes will be approved at the next meeting. HEARINGS: GREGORY A. CALVERT (BG 2013-456): Sgt. Moyer testified regarding the qualifications of Mr. Calvert s application for a Partner/Shareholder. Mr. Calvert testified to his qualifications and admitted to the facts but challenged the administrator s denial. Dennis Shipley, Vice President and Service Manager for AVC, Inc., testified on Mr. Calvert s behalf. Jason Curtis made a motion to approve the application. The motion was seconded by David Orsborn and carried unanimously. The board heard testimony and approved his application. JAY GBUREK (BG 2014-042): Sgt. Moyer testified regarding the qualifications of Mr. Gburek s application for an Alarm Systems Technician. Mr. Gburek testified to his qualifications and admitted to the facts but challenged the administrator s denial. John York, Registered Manager for Safe Streets USA, LLC, testified on behalf of Mr. Gburek. Jason Curtis made a motion to approve his application. The motion was seconded by Randy Perry and carried unanimously. The board heard testimony and approved his application.
PAGE 3 MATTHEW CAUDILL (BG 2014-066): Sgt. Moyer testified regarding the qualifications of Mr. Caudill s application for an Alarm Systems Technician. Mr. Caudill testified to his qualifications and admitted to the facts but challenged the administrator s denial. Brady Beaver, Installation/Service Manager for ADT Security Services, testified on behalf of Mr. Caudill. Randy Perry made a motion to deny his application. The motion failed for lack of a second. Jason Curtis made a motion to deny his application. The motion was seconded by Randy Perry and carried with one opposed. The board voted and found that the testimony supported the administrator s decision. MACK HARRIS (BG 2014 071): Sgt. Moyer testified regarding the qualifications of Mr. Harris application for a Private Security Officer. Mr. Harris testified to his qualifications and admitted to the facts but challenged the administrator s decision. Russell Morrison, Senior Facilities Director for Arkansas Heart Hospital, testified on behalf of Mr. Harris. David Orsborn made a motion to approve his application. The motion was seconded by Randy Perry and carried unanimously. The board heard testimony and approved his application. NEW BUSINESS: CLINTON LIBRARY-FIREARM WAIVER: The library asked for a waiver of the firearm qualification for their security officers because, as of August 1 st under federal requirement, the officers will have to transition from carrying 38 revolvers to semi automatic pistols. They are requesting a waiver to not have to qualify any officers from this point to August 1 st with revolvers due to costs and the transition. Sgt. Moyer advised the board that the problem he foresees is that some of the officers may be over the requirement as far as qualifying with their firearm. Jason Curtis made a motion to deny the request for a waiver. The motion was seconded by David Orsborn and carried unanimously. LANDMARK UNIFORM/BADGE APPROVAL: Sgt. Moyer advised the board that he didn t see a problem with the logos the company would like to use. Jason Curtis made a motion to approve the uniform/badge. The motion was seconded by David Orsborn and carried unanimously.
PAGE 4 APPLICATION PROCESSING (VOID AFTER 90 DAYS): The application process is being modified partially due to the development of the e-license system. Currently a member of the staff reviews each application before the fees are accepted. If there are deficiencies the application, fees, and return form are sent regarding the deficiencies. Under the new process if the money is correct the Fiscal Office will accept the fees and the processing of the application will begin. The applications will be brought to the PI/Security office and the person that enters the applications will review them for deficiencies. If an application has discrepancies a letter or notice will be sent. As a business practice, the applications will be voided if the company fails to respond in a timely manner. One letter/notice will be sent requesting corrections. If the discrepancies are not corrected within 90 days of receipt of the notification, the application will be null and void and the company will have to start the process again. Sgt. Moyer also stated that he s aware of instances where new fingerprints were requested and the company didn t respond until 8-10 months later. He also informed the board that when fingerprint cards are rejected a notice is sent requesting a new set. Occasionally its 2-3 months before a new set of prints is resubmitted. It was not known until recently that if the background check is launched again the FBI assesses another charge. Sgt. Moyer asked the board if they agreed that 90 days is a sufficient amount of time to wait for a response after a notification of discrepancies. David Orsborn made a motion to have applications voided after 90 days if there is no response after notification of discrepancies. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: KLEINARD AND BELL LETTER TABLED FROM OCTOBER 9, 2013 MEETING: Last month the board determined that the developer of the IPhone app must obtain a license. Their attorney now wants to know if the software developer would need to obtain a license. Jason Curtis made a motion to table this until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by David Orsborn and carried unanimously. CSO TEST: David Orsborn made a motion to table discussion of the revised CSO test until the April meeting. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. JOHN KIESLING PI SCHOOL: Mr. Kiesling previously addressed the board regarding approving his PI school. He was asked to come back when he was able to provide a complete overview of the school. Mr. Kiesling advised the Board that he has been approved by the Private Career Board and is asking for the board s approval so he can begin teaching classes. The members that reviewed the program were favorable of the course. Mr. Kiesling was asked to wait until the PI representative for the board was present before a decision is made. Mr. Kiesling was in agreement.
PAGE 5 David Orsborn made a motion to table this matter until the new board member had a chance to review the course and the PI representative was present for the vote. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS: Amy Hancock, the board s investigator, researched the reciprocal states requirements regarding background checks to see if they were sufficient to waive background checks for reciprocity applicants. She spoke with the states of Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Louisiana regarding their requirements on background checks for reciprocity applicants. James Burton with the state of Oklahoma advised that they do background checks on all applicants including law enforcement officers and they are exempt from the exam. He also advised that renewals were every three years. However, the website states that they are done every two years. They don t require a high school diploma or GED and applicants must take a 35 hour training course. The course is waived for reciprocal applicants. Mark Amick, with the state of Tennessee, advised that they do not perform background checks on reciprocity applicants unless they disclose an arrest and there is no time frame or limit on the numbers of years since the arrest. Reciprocity applicants are exempt from the exam and fingerprint cards. The licenses must be renewed every two years and a background check is initiated. Education courses are subject to approval by their commission and can vary. Gracie Smith and Laurie Harrell, with the state of Louisiana, advised that they perform background checks on all applicants including law enforcement officers. Ms. Smith advised Investigator Hancock that background checks are not done on renewal, but if the license has lapsed and six months had passed a background check is done and applicants are to disclose any arrests. No diploma or employee letters are required. Reciprocity applicants are exempt from the course on Louisiana requirements and three years experience is required. Sgt. Moyer recommended that based on the results of Investigator Hancock s inquiry, reciprocity applicants from Tennessee and Louisiana should have background checks done. Jason Curtis made a motion that applicants applying by reciprocity for a Private Investigator license/registration from Tennessee and Louisiana must adhere to Arkansas law with regard to background checks. The motion was seconded by David Orsborn and carried unanimously. APPLICATION BACKGROUND REVIEW: At a prior meeting the Board decided that previously approved applicants with sealed records applying for registration/license renewal would be grandfathered in except for those with heinous crimes. The board was asked to consider the following cases: Class D licensee applying for renewal with a 1987 conviction of conspiracy to commit arson and mail fraud he received 3 years confinement. His application was approved in January 2004 by a previous board. Sgt. Moyer advised the current board that he does not know what evidence was used by the previous board when they made their decision. He asked the Board if they wished to approve the renewal. Jack Acre asked if it was known why the previous board approved the application. Sgt. Moyer advised him that he did not know and this is the reason he s asking them if they wish to renew the license because this person has been licensed for quite some time. Jack Acre asked if the record had been sealed or expunged. Sgt. Moyer advised him that there were going to be some cases on his list with records that are sealed from the public but are still convictions.
PAGE 6 Jack Acre asked if their decision needed to be done in the form of a motion. The board s attorney advised that they definitely should have a discussion and he thinks it will make sense to have a motion. David Orsborn made a motion to accept the previous board s opinion and renew the license. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. An Alarm Systems Agent applying for a registration transfer with a sealed 1992 conviction of Class A misdemeanor Third Degree Battery and Resisting Arrest. He was previously approved by a previous administrator under prior guidelines regarding sealed records. The board was asked to make a determination as to if the registration should be renewed or a hearing held. The board asked if this was a renewal or transfer and it was clarified that it is an employee transfer. Sgt. Moyer further explained that for background purposes it s considered a new application. After some discussion, David Orsborn explained that their consensus is to stand behind the previous board or administrator s decisions and approve the applications instead of going through each case if they are renewals and were approved by a past board or administrator. Sgt. Moyer advised that during the last meeting the board discussed previously approved applications with sealed records being considered if the offense was determined to be a heinous crime and he doesn t have a definition for heinous crime. He told the board he would need their definition or classification of a heinous crime in writing because of some to the other cases he has to present to them, such as a Class Y felony that was previously approved. David Orsborn asked if it was approved by a previous board. Sgt. Moyer advised that it was issued based on the board s decision regarding a misdemeanor over 10 years old but the person also has Class Y Felony for Manufacturing, Delivery, Possession of a Controlled Substance, which was approved because it was sealed, a Class D Felony for Maintaining a Drug Premises, a Class C Felony for Delivery, Possession, Manufacturing, and a Class D Felony for Possession with Intent to Manufacture. This person applied for an Alarm System Technician registration. Sgt. Moyer advised that this is one example. The crimes occurred in 1997 and 2005. Jason Curtis explained that the previous boards were going by the rules of sealed records whereas they are considering sealed records as a reason for denial and the previous boards were not. Sgt. Moyer advised that the previous boards didn t have the full facts when the application was approved. Jason Curtis explained that the administrator didn t get to present the case because at that time the board s rule was that they didn t want to hear cases with sealed records. David Orsborn asked if the 2005 case had been adjudicated at the time and if the registration has been renewed since then. He was advised that it has. Jack Acre advised that previous administrators were given discretion regarding non violent misdemeanors. Jason Curtis further explained that sealed records were not being considered and that the previous administrators were also given the authority to approve applicants with crimes that were not felonies or acts of violence and they operated under those guidelines at that time. His concern was, if the board from a legal standpoint not renew applicants that were continually renewed under those guidelines. The board s attorney advised that, if a person had a hearing and was determined to be okay and the board looked at all of the evidence based on the same conviction and evidence, the license would be put in jeopardy and it could be problematic. If there is new evidence or someone that never had a hearing because administratively they were approved, he advised that he doesn t think the board would be doing anything illegal or unconstitutional by affording someone the opportunity to be heard and explain to the board why they think they should be approved, even though they don t qualify under the law. He further explained that his understanding from his predecessor at the end of last year indicated that it needs to be ensured that Arkansas law is followed and that this is the reason for some of the intense and increased scrutiny. In a situation where a conviction determination
PAGE 7 was found or a person pled guilty and the record is sealed, it still counts as a conviction for determining licensure and is the best way to conform to Arkansas law, because the board statute is more specific regarding qualification than the sealed statute which is more general. He believes this was the position that was taken and he doesn t want to deviate from that. He further stated that solid analysis is if you have a specific statute it is applied. Depending on the circumstances, in cases where there has been adjudication based on all of the evidence, he thinks it would be a problem to basically put that person on trial again based on the same evidence and same charge versus if it s a first time decision being made for the first time on review of all of the evidence, especially if it s on someone who has not had a hearing but was administratively and routinely approved because the board decided for whatever reason they didn t want to see sealed records. Jason Curtis asked Sgt. Moyer if it would be easier on him if they said that those approved by board hearing will be allowed to renew. Sgt. Moyer stated that his concern would be that he does not know what evidence was presented to the board and if they had all of the evidence. If the board takes a vote they would have to specifically say for example any Class C Felony, Class D Felony and A or it will still come to the fact of what he defines as heinous would be different from what they define as heinous, and 5 years from now they would have to come back to the same vote. Roger Perry asked Sgt. Moyer if his intent right now was to disqualify each one of the applicants on his list because of the new information he has. Sgt. Moyer advised that he doesn t know if legally he can disqualify them versus have a hearing that s a different circumstance and that the board would be okay especially on someone who has not had a hearing. He ran down his list to show them what he s looking at: 1 st Degree Sexual Abuse, 3 rd Degree Battery, Assault with Bodily Injury, Felony Breaking and Entering, and Possession of Controlled Substances for security guards to alarm techs across the board. He advised the board that he does not feel comfortable signing off on these if he doesn t know what evidence was presented and by statute the charges are disqualifying factors and these individuals are working and going into people s homes, so there will be a lot of them. There was discussion by the board of how some of them were approved by previous boards and had evidence presented. Jack Acre explained that previous administrators were allowed to review evidence and make a decision without bringing it before the board. He further expressed that he d been on a previous board and they heard evidence and a lot of times a person had a Class A Misdemeanor Failure to Appear for like a Hot Check. If an applicant had a crime that was an act of violence, it was brought before the board and normally felonies were denied. The board decided to hear the different charges on Sgt. Moyer s list. Sealed Class A Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest & 3 rd Degree Battery 1992 conviction - Alarm Systems Technician previously approved: David Orsborn made a motion to accept the previous administrator s decision. The motion was seconded by Roger Perry and carried unanimously. Sealed Class A Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana, Class Y Felony Manufacturing, Class D Felony Maintaining a Drug Premises and Possession with Intent to Manufacture, and Class C Felony Delivery/Possession 1997 & 2005 convictions - Alarm Systems Technician Renewal previously approved: David Orsborn made a motion to issue a letter for a hearing. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously.
PAGE 8 Sealed Class C Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance 2000 conviction - Alarm Systems Technician Renewal previously approved because it was sealed: David Orsborn made a motion to send a letter setting him for a hearing. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. Expunged Sexual Abuse 1998 - Commissioned Security Officer Renewal Application a fine was imposed so it s still a conviction previously approved by a previous administrator in 2012: David Orsborn made a motion to approve the application based on the previous approval. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. Third Degree Battery 1990 conviction previously approved by the board in 2001 Class E renewal: David Orsborn made a motion to approve the application based on the previous board s approval. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. Assault Causing Bodily Injury to Family Member and Evading Arrest/Detention 2001 and 2002 Class E renewal approved by a previous board in 2005: David Orsborn made a motion to approve the application based on the previous board s approval. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. Sealed Theft by Receiving, Obstructing Governmental Operations, Felony Theft by Deception, Theft of Property, Burglary, and Failure to Appears 1960, 1991, 1993, 1994, and 2004, Class A license renewal approved by a previous administrator: David Orsborn made a motion to send a letter for a hearing. The motion was seconded by Jason Curtis and carried unanimously. Sealed Third Degree Battery charge 1997 - Commissioned Security Officer renewal application approved by a previous administrator: David Orsborn made a motion to approve the application based on the previous administrator s approval. The motion was seconded by Randy Perry and carried unanimously. Third Degree Battery 1993 conviction-new application for Partner/Shareholder: The board advised Sgt. Moyer to do the normal denial letter. Class D Felony Breaking and Entering, Class A Misdemeanor Possession of Instruments of Crime, and Class A Misdemeanor Possession of a Controlled Substance 1997, 1999, and 2005 Renewal Application for an Alarm Systems Technician approved by a previous board in 2010: Jason Curtis made a motion to renew the application based on the previous board s approval. The motion was seconded by David Orsborn and carried unanimously.
PAGE 9 Private Security Officer Applicant with an expunged record: The original charge was a 1994 Felony Theft charge, which was reduced to a Class A Misdemeanor. The record is expunged. The applicant with this charge contacted Sgt. Moyer and advised him that he had spoken with some of the board members. He informed them that the company he was previously employed with will rehire him if he s approved for a registration. He also stated that he wanted to appear before them without notification. The board s attorney advised that this is considered public comment. Jason Curtis informed the applicant that the board cannot make a formal decision because he is no longer employed with the company and his issue is with the company not the board. The applicant was also informed that without a pending application he has no standing with the board. Jack Acre advised him to apply with a different company and go through the appeal process. The board s attorney reiterated to him that he must be with a company to appeal to the board. Jason Curtis further advised him that a preemployment determination cannot be made. ADJOURNMENT: Jack Acre asked for a motion to adjourn. Jason Curtis so moved. The motion was seconded by Randy Perry and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:09 p.m. Chairman Jack Acre