In Re: Application of John Clader ( 2015 )

J. S03039/15
2015 Pa. Super. 87
IN RE: APPLICATION OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
JOHN P. CLADER, TRADING AS : PENNSYLVANIA
LT INVESTIGATIONS, :
FOR A PRIVATE DETECTIVE LICENSE :
:
APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 2094 EDA 2014
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County
Civil Division at No. CV128-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA AND OTT, JJ.
DISSENTING OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 20, 2015
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that it is well settled
that law enforcement officers, including probation officers and correctional
officers, cannot simultaneously hold a license as a private detective. This is
primarily as a matter of public policy and to avoid the appearance of a
conflict of interest. As this court stated in In re Centeno, 5 A.3d 1248,
1249 (Pa.Super. 2010), reversing the issuance of a license to a county
correctional officer:
the weight of authority is in favor of the position
espoused by the Commonwealth, namely that “as a
matter of public policy, persons vested with the
authority of a peace officer, by virtue of their public
employment, cannot be licensed as private
detectives, because of the obvious potential for
abuse and conflict of interest.”
J. S03039/15
See also In re Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., 506 A.2d 445, 448 (Pa.Super. 1986)
(“Where public officials are involved, even the appearance of a conflict of
interest should be avoided.”) (citation omitted).
The majority distinguishes this case on the basis that Clader’s
authority is limited to school purposes. The majority observes that his police
powers are limited, in terms of scope and jurisdiction, compared to the
broad county-wide or state-wide powers of police, probation, and
correctional officers. In addition, Clader cannot access criminal background
information.
With great respect to the majority view, I fail to see a meaningful
distinction between probation officers, correctional officers, and school police
officers for purposes of private detective licensing. As the Commonwealth
points out, Clader was granted full municipal police powers, including the
power to issue summary citations and to detain individuals until local law
enforcement is notified. He has the same powers as a municipal police
officer and is required, while on duty, to wear a shield identifying himself as
a school police officer. 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(2), (d). In addition, while he
cannot obtain criminal history information, he does have access to drivers’
license, registration, and stolen vehicle information. (Commonwealth’s brief
at 13.) This information is not obtainable by an individual or private
detective. (Id.)
-2-
J. S03039/15
The policy interest behind the rule is to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and the potential for abuse, as opposed to any evidence of
actual abuse. Centeno, supra, citing In re Application of Millennium
Consulting & Assoc., 804 A.2d 735, 736 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002). It seems to
me these concerns are valid whether the applicant is a probation officer,
correctional officer, constable, or school police officer.
For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the trial court erred in
issuing Clader a private detective license. As such, I would not reach the
second issue, the trial court’s authority to grant a private detective license
subject to certain limitations.
-3-