{ "id": 8525172, "name": "ALLEN D. COWAN v. N.C. PRIVATE PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD", "name_abbreviation": "Cowan v. N.C. Private Protective Services Board", "decision_date": "1990-05-15", "docket_number": "No. 8926SC443", "first_page": "498", "last_page": "504", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "98 N.C. App. 498" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "385 S.E.2d 148", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N.C. App. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520975 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/96/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 S.E.2d 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566467, 2568453, 2572653, 2570776, 2570206 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0746-01", "/nc/321/0746-04", "/nc/321/0746-05", "/nc/321/0746-02", "/nc/321/0746-03" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 637", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358977 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "639" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0637-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 S.E.2d 815", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "817", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 N.C. App. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8519810 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/95/0151-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 676, "char_count": 11400, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.379352232504675 }, "sha256": "1b8f23fe8681fc46b9cf77f3f02d240f4f83e67739d3df82c1ac301025903181", "simhash": "1:43c9811a37ab22d3", "word_count": 1703 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:07.401162+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Johnson and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "ALLEN D. COWAN v. N.C. PRIVATE PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nRespondent North Carolina Private Protective Services Board (\u201cBoard\u201d) appeals the superior court\u2019s order and judgment reversing its decision denying petitioner a license as a private investigator.\nPetitioner Cowan (\u201cCowan\u201d) applied to the Board for a private investigator\u2019s license, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 74C-2 (1981) (amended 1989). The Board denied Cowan\u2019s application, citing his \u201cfailure to meet the experience requirements as outlined in [N.C.G.S. \u00a7] 74C-8(d)(3) [repealed in 1989].\u201d The Board made these findings:\nFindings of Fact\n1. Petitioner\u2019s [Cowan\u2019s] education is as follows:\nA. Graduation from the University of Florida in 1968 with a degree in journalism.\nB. One year at the University of Michigan School of Law.\nC. Seminar on Investigative Reporting, American Press Institute, Reston, Virginia.\nD. Political Procedures Course, St. Petersburg Community College.\nE. Course of study and Florida Certification in law enforcement, Pinallis County, Florida.\nF. Course of Study and North Carolina Certification in law enforcement, Charlotte Police Academy.\nG. 1977 \u2014 Professional Journalism Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities, University of Michigan.\n2. Petitioner\u2019s experience is as follows:\nA. Three years with the Orlando Sentinel.\nB. Three years with the St. Petersburg Times.\nC. Nine and one-half years as an Investigative Reporter with the Charlotte Observer.\nD. Three years as an Investigative Reporter with the Stars and Stripes, Wiesbadden, West Germany.\nE. Fourteen months as an Investigative Reporter with the Business Journal of Charlotte.\nF. 1988 \u2014Three months as investigator for duly-licensed North Carolina attorney.\nG. Witness in cruelty to animals trial generated by Petitioner\u2019s article on the training of greyhound racing dogs.\nH. 1973 \u2014 Article on cruelty to animals submitted for Pulitzer Prize and received honorable mention.\nI. 1973 \u2014 Florida Society of Managing Editors voted Petitioner Best Investigative Reporter of the Year.\nJ. 1986 \u2014 American Board of Realtors voted article on fraudulent land sales as Best Consumer Article of the Year.\nK. Excellence in Journalism Award, Atlanta Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, for Investigative Reporting.\n3. Petitioner\u2019s assignments included the following:\nA. 1973 \u2014Use of live rabbits in the training of greyhound racing dogs. National Humane Society began a national campaign against the practice and the State of Florida rewrote its cruelty to animals law. Gordon Oldom, then the District Attorney of Marion County, Florida, prosecuted the man accused of this practice and called the Petitioner to testify at the trial. The man was convicted and received a prison term.\nB. 1979 \u2014 Petitioner was voted by the editors of the Charlotte Observer to be the only reporter on that staff to cover the financial abuses in the PTL Ministry. From 1979-1983, this was Petitioner\u2019s sole duty assignment. Lawrence Bernstein, who was a Federal Communication (FCC) lawyer in 1979, stated, \u201cIt was through his (Petitioner\u2019s) diligence and investigative skill that serious allegations of misconduct involving the PTL Television Network were first uncovered. The FCC took these reports of Mr. Cowan very seriously. They were in fact a direct cause of the FCC ordering its own investigation of PTL.\u201d\nC. Lincoln County. Improprieties in the Magistrate\u2019s and District Attorney\u2019s offices. Petitioner reported that DUI cases were being improperly dismissed. Chief Judge John Friday ordered 249 DUI cases to be reopened. The N.C. Department of Justice sent a special prosecutor to Lincoln County to prosecute the Magistrate.\nD. 1983 \u2014 Fraudulent land sales to American servicemen. Article reprinted and distributed to all incoming servicemen.\nE. 1978 \u2014 Abuses by a Charlotte businessman.\nF. 1986 \u2014 Fraudulent mail order sales of synthetic diamonds.\nG. Mail order sale of overvalued coins.\nH. Crash of Eastern Airline plane at Douglas Municipal Airport in Charlotte.\n4. Don Hardister was the PTL Chief of Security at Heritage USA for 12 years. He testified that during his tenure with PTL, he was aware of Petitioner\u2019s articles concerning PTL and launched an internal investigation to determine how the Petitioner was obtaining his information.\n5. Peter S. Gilchrist, the District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District, testified that he knew Petitioner through a Mecklen-burg County Study Commission and through Petitioner\u2019s efforts at having a potentially incorrect conviction investigated. Based on Petitioner\u2019s information, the District Attorney\u2019s Office reopened their investigation.\n6. Ron Guerrette, a licensed private investigator, testified that Guerrette was employed by Attorney Eddie Knox[,] who represented the PTL ministry. As a result of the Petitioner\u2019s articles, Guerrette was directed to determine where the Petitioner obtained his information.\n7. The Charlotte Observer recently won a Pulitzer prize for its coverage of the PTL Ministry financial abuses.\n8. The following hours of reporting have been documented:\nA. Stars and Stripes, 3V2 years, 1,750 hours.\nB. Charlotte Business Journal, 560 hours.\nC. Charlotte Observer, 350 hours.\nThe Board concluded that Cowan\u2019s 3,000 hours experience as a newspaper reporter did not qualify as \u201cexperience\u201d required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 74C-8(d)(3) (1981) (repealed 1989). Cowan then petitioned the superior court for review of the Board\u2019s denial pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(a-b). The superior court judge reversed the Board\u2019s decision, and entered an order and judgment directing the Board to grant Cowan a private investigator\u2019s license.\nThe dispositive issue is whether the Board\u2019s findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.\nI\nOur review of an administrative agency\u2019s decision is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, and we may reverse or modify the Board\u2019s decision only if it violates one of five statutory grounds. Walls & Marshall Fuel Co., Inc. v. N.C. Dept. of Revenue, 95 N.C. App. 151, 153, 381 S.E.2d 815, 817 (1989) (citations omitted); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51 (Cum. Supp. 1989). More particularly, if \u201cthe substantial rights of the [petitioner] may have been prejudiced because the agency\u2019s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are ... (5) [unsupported by substantial evidence ... in view of the entire recordf,]\u201d we may reverse the Board\u2019s decision. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(b). We determine that the Board must be reversed for lack of substantial evidence and the statute\u2019s disjunctive \u201cor\u201d language renders unnecessary our review of other bases for reversal or modification of error.\nIn determining whether the Board\u2019s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, we apply the \u201cwhole record\u201d test. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(b)(5); Watson v. North Carolina Real Estate Com\u2019n, 87 N.C. App. 637, 639, 362 S.E.2d 294, 296, cert. denied, temp, stay denied, 321 N.C. 746, 365 S.E.2d 296 (1988). In the whole record test, the reviewing court takes into account \u201c \u2018both the evidence justifying the agency\u2019s decision and the contradictory evidence from which a different result could be reached.... \u201cSubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d ....\u2019\u201d Id. (citation omitted).\nUntil 1989, an applicant was required to meet statutory prerequisites for obtaining a private investigator\u2019s license, including an experience requirement of \u201cat least three years experience within the past five years in private investigative work . . .\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 74C-8(d)(3) (repealed 1989). Also until 1989, an applicant could satisfy this experience requirement if he had\nengagefd] in the business of or acceptfed] employment to furnish, agreefed] to make, or [made] an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to:\na. Crime or wrongs done or threatened against the United States or any state or territory of the United States;\nb. The identity, habits, conduct, business, occupation, honesty, integrity, credibility, knowledge, trustworthiness, efficiency, loyalty, activity, movement, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of any person;\nc. The location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property;\nd. The cause or responsibility for fires, libels, losses, accidents, damages, or injuries to persons or to properties, provided that scientific research laboratories and consultants shall not be included in this definition;\ne. Securing evidence to be used before any court, board, officer, or investigation committee, or\nf. Protection of individuals from serious bodily harm or death.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 74C-3(8)(a) (amended 1989).\nThe Board must \u201cconsider all evidence of experience that is investigative in nature to determine if the applicant had the necessary experience.\u201d Boston v. N.C. Private Protective Services Board, 96 N.C. App. 204, 207, 385 S.E.2d 148, 151 (1989).\nThe Board does not dispute that Cowan\u2019s investigations encompassed several of the subjects listed in the statute. Instead, the Board contends that it can reject Cowan\u2019s newspaper research as being outside \u201ctraditional investigative work\u201d because Cowan\u2019s \u2018purpose\u2019 was to sell newspapers and not to obtain information. We disagree.\nReviewing the whole record, we determine that a reasonable person would conclude that Cowan\u2019s research activities were investigative, for the \u2018purpose of obtaining information,\u2019 and the Board\u2019s findings and conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence. The Board did not attempt to define \u2018traditional investigative work,\u2019 but whatever the definition, news gathering and research has been part of an investigative tradition that predates the American Revolution. It is an applicant\u2019s \u2018purpose to obtain information\u2019 that determines whether he is acting as a \u2018private investigator\u2019 and not how he uses the information after obtaining it. That the information ultimately generates business or income is irrelevant. See Boston, at 207, 285 S.E.2d at 150 (a bail bondsman runner who investigates a defendant\u2019s whereabouts in furtherance of the bail bondsman\u2019s business does investigative work).\nThe superior court properly reversed the Board\u2019s decision denying Cowan\u2019s application based on the lack of substantial evidence.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Johnson and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "George Daly for petitioner-appellee.", "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Teresa L. White, Assistant Attorney General, for the State." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALLEN D. COWAN v. N.C. PRIVATE PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD\nNo. 8926SC443\n(Filed 15 May 1990)\nProfessions and Occupations \u00a7 1 (NCI3d)\u2014 private investigator\u2019s license \u2014 experience as investigative reporter\nPetitioner\u2019s activities as an investigative reporter for a newspaper qualified as \u201cexperience\u201d in private investigative work required by former N.C.G.S. \u00a7 74C-8(d)(3) (1981) for a private investigator\u2019s license where his investigations encompassed several of the subjects listed in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 74C-3(8)(a), and the Private Protective Services Board erred in refusing to consider such experience on the ground that it was outside traditional investigative work because its purpose was to sell newspapers.\nAm Jur 2d, Licenses and Permits \u00a7 6.\nAPPEAL by respondent from order entered 7 February 1989 by Judge Frank W. Snepp, Jr., in MECKLENBURG County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 November 1989.\nGeorge Daly for petitioner-appellee.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Teresa L. White, Assistant Attorney General, for the State." }, "file_name": "0498-01", "first_page_order": 526, "last_page_order": 532 }