In Re: Application of John Clader

J-E03008-15
2016 PA Super 49IN RE: APPLICATION OF JOHN P. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CLADER, TRADING AS LT : PENNSYLVANIA
INVESTIGATIONS, FOR A PRIVATE :
DETECTIVE LICENSE :
:
:
APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA : No. 2094 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County
Civil Division at No(s): CV128-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., PANELLA, J.,
SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., STABILE, J. and JENKINS, J.
OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2016
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order
entered in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the
petition of Appellee, John P. Clader, trading as LT Investigations, for a
private detective license, with certain restrictions, pursuant to the Private
Detective Act of 1953, 22 P.S. § 11, et seq. We reverse.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
On June 27, 2013, Mr. Clader was appointed as a school police officer for the
Wallenpaupack Area School District. Under this appointment, the court
authorized Mr. Clader to possess and execute all powers and duties
described in 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(1-3) (discussing powers and duties of
appointed school police officers). Mr. Clader’s current title is the Director of
School Security for the Wallenpaupack Area School District. The school
J-E03008-15
district employs three full-time and two part-time school police officers.
Prior to his appointment as the Director of School Security, Mr. Clader
worked for more than twenty-five years as a Pennsylvania State Police
officer, in varying roles.
The “ultimate goal” of the Wallenpaupack Area School District’s School
Resource Officer Program is to “deter students from involvement in criminal
acts, alcohol and drug use, theft, violence, gang activity and other forms of
socially unacceptable behavior.” (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, Hearing June 3,
2014, at 1). The objectives of the program include, but are not limited to,
investigating and documenting any violation of law and making arrests for
summary offenses; and detaining students who violate any law that
constitutes a misdemeanor or felony. (Id.) During his employment as a
school police officer, Mr. Clader has issued citations for summary offenses
which took place on school property and has participated in six or seven
investigations for misdemeanor or felony violations. Mr. Clader has not
made arrests for any misdemeanor or felony offenses; Mr. Clader turned
those cases over to the state police and assisted with their investigation.
In his current role as Director of School Security, Mr. Clader obtained
on September 30, 2013, an Originating Agency Identifier (“ORI”) assignment
number from the International Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing
Network. The ORI assignment number permits Mr. Clader to access driver’s
license, registration, and “hot file” (stolen vehicle) information but prohibits
-2-
J-E03008-15
Mr. Clader from accessing criminal history information (which is restricted to
criminal justice/law enforcement). Mr. Clader uses the ORI assignment
number to file non-traffic citations or other documents with the district
justice courts. Notably, the ORI assignment number allows Mr. Clader to
access the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network (“CLEAN”),
accessible only by duly authorized agencies. Upon informing Mr. Clader
about his acquisition of an ORI assignment number, the Pennsylvania State
Police stressed to Mr. Clader the importance of his access to CLEAN, as
follows:
It is important that all persons using the Commonwealth
Law Enforcement Assistance Network (CLEAN) realize
CLEAN by definition is a system to be only utilized for the
administration of criminal justice or your required duties.
The data transmitted by the CLEAN system is documented
criminal justice information, and access to that information
is restricted to duly authorized agencies. Please inform all
persons employed by your agency, the information
obtained from CLEAN for unauthorized purpose[s], or the
release of any information to unauthorized persons, is a
violation of CLEAN system security regulations. Such
conduct could place your agency and/or the employee in
jeopardy of being held civilly liable. Additionally, violation
of CLEAN security could jeopardize your agency’s access
and could cause the suspension or revocation of future
CLEAN access to the responsible employee. In certain
circumstances, dissemination of some types of information
via CLEAN, can be a violation of law.
(Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, Hearing June 3, 2014, at 1).
On January 23, 2014, Mr. Clader filed a petition in the trial court for a
private detective license. The Commonwealth filed an answer, opposing Mr.
Clader’s petition on February 11, 2014. The Commonwealth alleged that the
-3-
J-E03008-15
issuance of a private detective license to Mr. Clader, who possesses law
enforcement powers, creates the potential for abuse and poses a conflict of
interest. The court held a hearing on the petition on June 3, 2014. On June
26, 2014, the court granted Mr. Clader’s request for a private detective
license subject to the following restrictions:
This Certificate of License is also issued subject to the
limitation that [Mr. Clader], who has previously been
appointed as a school police officer for the Wallenpaupack
Area School District, shall not engage in any private
detective business, as defined under the Act, in any matter
involving school administrators, teachers, employees,
officials, parents or students of the Wallenpaupack Area
School District without prior written approval of the [c]ourt
and notice thereof to the Pike County District Attorney.
(Order, filed June 26, 2014, at 2).
The Commonwealth timely filed a notice of appeal on July 24, 2014.
On July 28, 2014, the court ordered the Commonwealth to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b),
which the Commonwealth timely filed on August 8, 2014. On April 20, 2015,
a panel of this Court affirmed the trial court order, with one dissent. On May
4, 2015, the Commonwealth filed an application for reconsideration or en
banc reargument; and this Court granted en banc review.
The Commonwealth raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR
WHEN GRANTING THE APPLICANT A PRIVATE DETECTIVE
LICENSE PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE DETECTIVE ACT, 22
P.S. SECTION 11 ET SEQ., WHEN [THE] APPLICANT IS AN
APPOINTED POLICE OFFICER WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
POWERS?
-4-
J-E03008-15
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR
WHEN GRANTING THE APPLICANT A PRIVATE DETECTIVE
LICENSE PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE DETECTIVE ACT, 22
P.S. SECTION 11 ET SEQ., WHICH IMPOSES LIMITATIONS
UPON THE APPLICANT’S BUSINESS BASED UPON HIS
EMPLOYMENT AS AN APPOINTED POLICE OFFICER,
WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY?
(Commonwealth’s Brief at 8).
For purposes of disposition, we combine the Commonwealth’s issues.
The Commonwealth explains that under the Private Detective Act of 1953,
Common Pleas courts in Pennsylvania are empowered to appoint persons of
competence and integrity as private detectives. The Commonwealth argues
that law enforcement officers, corrections officers, probation officers, and
elected constables cannot simultaneously hold a license as a private
detective as a matter of public policy. The Commonwealth contends the
public policy underlying these court decisions is that, if granted a private
detective license, persons holding public office or possessing statutorily
enumerated powers and duties for the benefit of the public might use that
authority for the benefit of private persons.
The Commonwealth asserts Mr. Clader possesses statutorily
enumerated powers and duties in his capacity as a school police officer,
similar to law enforcement officers, corrections officers, probation officers,
and elected constables. The Commonwealth maintains that upon his
appointment as a school police officer, the court granted Mr. Clader the full
powers and duties under 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(1-3), without restriction. In
-5-
J-E03008-15
other words, by virtue of Mr. Clader’s appointment, he has the authority to
arrest and to exercise the same powers as municipal police officers in the
jurisdiction where the Wallenpaupack schools are located. The
Commonwealth highlights Mr. Clader’s requirement to wear a shield
identifying himself as a school police officer. The Commonwealth
emphasizes the Wallenpaupack School District’s objectives for school police
officers are to, inter alia, protect the school campuses from violations of any
law, develop police procedures for each of the campuses, investigate and
document any violation of law and make arrests for summary offenses, and
detain students who violate any law that constitutes a misdemeanor or
felony. The Commonwealth avers Mr. Clader has issued citations for
summary offenses and has participated in the investigation of misdemeanor
and felony offenses during his one year as a school police officer. The
Commonwealth submits these acts are at the heart of a law enforcement
officer’s duties—investigation and charging.
The Commonwealth also stresses that Mr. Clader obtained an ORI
assignment number, giving him access to driver’s license, registration, and
stolen vehicle information. The Commonwealth claims private citizens,
including private detectives, cannot obtain ORI assignment numbers, which
are accessible only by law enforcement or public safety agencies. The
Commonwealth submits Mr. Clader possesses law enforcement-like powers
by virtue of his appointment as a school police officer, so the same public
-6-
J-E03008-15
policy that limits other law enforcement should also prohibit Mr. Clader from
obtaining a private detective license due to the potential for abuse and
conflict of interest.
The Commonwealth further complains the court lacked authority to
issue a private detective license to Mr. Clader “with certain restrictions,”
because the Private Detective Act of 1953 contains no provision permitting a
court to grant a “limited” or “qualified” license. The Commonwealth explains
the court imposed a restriction that Mr. Clader give notice to the district
attorney and receive court approval before engaging in private detective
work for any school administrator, teacher, employee, official, parent or
student of the school district. The Commonwealth contends the court’s
restriction actually demonstrates the potential for misuse and conflict of
interest where the court put in place a procedure for examining whether a
conflict exists on a case-by-case basis. The Commonwealth submits the
court’s restriction is unsound because the public policy at issue is not only to
prevent actual abuse of power but also to prevent the mere appearance of
impropriety or potential for abuse of power. The Commonwealth concludes
the court erred when it granted Mr. Clader’s petition for a private detective
license while he is also a school police officer, the court lacked statutory
authority to impose restrictions on the license, and this Court should
reverse.
Mr. Clader argues that none of the cases prohibiting a law
-7-
J-E03008-15
enforcement-type officer from possessing a private detective license involves
school police officers. Mr. Clader asserts law enforcement officers and
probation officers have similar general countywide and/or statewide
jurisdiction and powers. Mr. Clader maintains elected constables also have
broad jurisdiction. Conversely, Mr. Clader insists his powers as a school
police officer are more limited in scope and geographic area. Mr. Clader
claims the school district’s policy only authorizes him to issue citations for
summary offenses and to detain students for misdemeanors and felonies.
Mr. Clader states the school district’s policy precludes him from making
misdemeanor or felony arrests. Mr. Clader admits he has issued citations for
summary offenses, but he highlights he has made no arrests for felonies or
misdemeanors. Mr. Clader contends he has participated in six or seven
misdemeanor/felony investigations, but he turned over each of those cases
to the state police. Mr. Clader emphasizes he cannot access criminal history
information with the ORI assignment number. Mr. Clader stresses his school
police powers are limited in jurisdiction to the school property.
Mr. Clader submits the court’s imposition of restrictions on his private
detective license was a reasonable remedy and logically related to the facts,
such that Mr. Clader cannot conduct his private detective business in the
same restricted areas where he has limited police powers. Mr. Clader
submits neither the Private Detective Act of 1953 nor the relevant case law
prohibits a court from imposing reasonable restrictions on a private detective
-8-
J-E03008-15
license. Mr. Clader concludes the court properly granted his request for a
private detective license subject to certain restrictions, and this Court should
affirm. For the following reasons, we agree with the Commonwealth’s
position.
The Private Detective Act of 1953 dictates the procedure to apply for a
private detective license and what is required for issuance of a private
detective license as follows:
§ 14. Application for licenses
Any person…intending to conduct a private detective
business, the business of investigator, or the business of
watch, guard or patrol agency, or the business of a
detective agency, and any person…intending to conduct
the business of furnishing or supplying information as to
the personal character of any person, or as to the
character or kind of the business and occupation of any
person, partnership, corporation, society, or association, or
any person or group of persons, or intending to own,
conduct, manage or maintain a bureau or agency for the
above mentioned purposes, or, while engaged in other
lawful business activities, also intending to engage in any
one or more of the activities set forth in subsections (a),
(b) and (c) of section two of this act…shall, for each such
bureau or agency, and for each and every sub-agency,
office and branch office to be owned, conducted, managed
or maintained by such person…for the conduct of such
business, file, in the office of the clerk of the court of
quarter sessions of the county wherein the principal office
of such business is located, a written application, duly
signed and verified, as follows:
(a) If the applicant is a person, the application shall
be signed and verified by such person…. The application
shall state the full name, age, residence, present and
previous occupations, of each person or individual so
signing the same, that he is a citizen of the United States,
and shall also specify the name of the city, borough,
-9-
J-E03008-15
township, or incorporated town, stating the street and
number if the premises have a street and number, and
otherwise such apt description as will reasonably indicate
the location thereof, where is to be located the principal
place of business, and the bureau, agency, sub-agency,
office or branch office for which the license is desired, and
such further facts as may be required by the court of
quarter sessions, to show the good character, competency
and integrity of each person or individual so signing such
application. Each person or individual signing such
application shall, together with such application, submit to
the court of quarter sessions his photograph, in duplicate,
in passport size, and also fingerprints of his two hands,
recorded in such manner as may be specified by the court
of quarter sessions. Before approving such application, it
shall be the duty of the court of quarter sessions to
compare such fingerprints with fingerprints of criminals
now or hereafter filed in the records of the Pennsylvania
State Police. Every such applicant shall establish, to the
satisfaction of the court of quarter sessions and by at least
two duly acknowledged certificates, that such
applicant…has been regularly employed as a detective, or
shall have been a member of the United States
government investigative service, a sheriff, a member of
the Pennsylvania State Police, or a member of a city police
department of a rank or grade higher than that of
patrolman, for a period of not less than three years. Such
application shall be approved as to each person or
individual so signing the same by not less than five
reputable citizens of the community in which such
applicant resides or transacts business, or in which it is
proposed to own, conduct, manage or maintain the
bureau, agency, sub-agency, office or branch office for
which the license is desired, each of whom shall certify
that he has personally known the said person or individual
for a period of at least five years prior to the filing of such
application, that he has read such application and believes
each of the statements made therein to be true, that such
person is honest, of good character, and competent, and
not related or connected to the person so certifying by
blood or marriage. The certificate of approval shall be
signed by such reputable citizens and duly verified and
acknowledged by them before an officer authorized to take
oaths and acknowledgment of deeds.
- 10 -
J-E03008-15
22 P.S. § 14(a) (internal footnote omitted).
§ 16. Issuance of licenses; fees; bonds
(a) When the application shall have been examined,
and such further inquiry and investigation made as the
court of quarter sessions or the district attorney shall
deem proper, and when the court of quarter sessions shall
be satisfied therefrom of the good character, competency
and integrity of such applicant, …and a period of ten days
from the date of the filing of the application shall have
passed, the court of quarter sessions shall issue and
deliver to such applicant a certificate of license to conduct
such business, and to own, conduct or maintain a bureau,
agency, sub-agency, office or branch office for the conduct
of such business on the premises stated in such
application, upon the applicant’s paying to the court of
quarter sessions for each such certificate of license so
issued, for the use of the county, a license fee of two
hundred dollars ($200), if the applicant be an individual,
…and upon the applicant’s executing, delivering and filing
in the office of the clerk of the court of quarter sessions a
corporate bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars
($10,000), conditioned for the faithful and honest conduct
of such business by such applicant, which surety bond
must be written by a corporate surety company authorized
to do business in this Commonwealth as surety, and
approved by the court of quarter sessions with respect to
its form, manner of execution and sufficiency. The license
granted pursuant to this act shall last for a period of two
years, but shall be revocable at all times by the court of
quarter sessions for cause shown. …
22 P.S. § 16(a).
Pennsylvania case law strongly disapproves of issuing private detective
licenses to those in any position of public trust. In re Kuma K-9 Security,
Inc., 506 A.2d 445 (Pa.Super. 1986). “In evaluating whether a candidate
can properly hold a private detective license, Pennsylvania appellate courts
- 11 -
J-E03008-15
have looked not only at the potential for abuse that would exist if an official
with police powers were to be licensed, but also at the appearance of
impropriety.” In re Millennium Consulting & Associates for a Private
Detective License, 804 A.2d 735, 736 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002). “The concern is
that a public official given authority for the benefit of the public might use
that authority for the benefit of private persons.” Id. “Public policy is best
served when an individual with police powers is not also granted a private
detective license.” Id. Thus, Pennsylvania “[c]ourts have consistently held,
based upon public policy, that a person may not be granted a private
detective license if simultaneously he would be employed as a public official
with police powers.” Kuma K-9 Security, Inc., supra at 448.
Of grave concern is a police officer’s access to information not
otherwise obtainable by private citizens and other private detectives; the
potential for the police officer to use his position to the advantage of his dual
role as a private detective creates at least the appearance of a conflict of
interest and a potential source of abuse which our courts seek to avoid. Id.
at 449 (requiring private detective firm’s “consultant,” who was also
employed as police captain, to resign and sever all ties with private detective
firm in order for firm to retain its private detective license). See also
Millennium Consulting & Associates, supra (holding borough police
officers were not entitled to private detective licenses, based on public policy
to avoid appearance of conflict of interest; police have access to various
- 12 -
J-E03008-15
resources to which public does not have access, such as police department
files, reports and other non-public databases).
In the case of In re Stanley, 201 A.2d 287 (Pa.Super. 1964), this
Court similarly held that suspension of a private detective license was
warranted for the duration of the licensee’s position as an elected constable:
The court below properly held that, as a matter of public
policy, it is incompatible for one vested with the authority
of a constable to carry on the business of private
detective. …
A constable’s authority to execute warrants of arrest, to
arrest on sight for breach of the peace, vagrancy and
drunkenness, to carry a deadly weapon concealed upon his
person and to be present at the polling places in order to
keep the peace, is not conferred upon private citizens,
including private detectives. To give these powers,
conferred upon a duly elected constable for the benefit of
the public, to a person licensed to act for private persons,
creates the distinct possibility of grave abuses. The public
policy against allowing one clothed with such extraordinary
authority to act as a private detective for private
employers seems obvious. Therefore, the action of the
court below in suspending his license during the time when
he holds this authority is proper.
Id. at 289. See also Little v. Freeman, 484 A.2d 873 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1984)
(affirming declaratory judgment that appellant’s position as Mayor of
Borough of Kennett Square created appearance of conflict of interest with
appellant’s employment as private investigator).
This Court has extended the public policy rationale in this context to
probation officers and corrections officers as well:
In Stanley we listed the obvious areas of conflict present
in that case, but did not intend that to be a comprehensive
- 13 -
J-E03008-15
list nor did we mandate that only persons who fall within
the precise parameters of Stanley would be denied private
detective licenses. On the contrary, our concern was that
persons holding public office and given extraordinary
authority for the benefit of the public might use that
authority specifically for the benefit of private persons.
Though the authority of a probation officer is not identical
to that of a constable, probation officers are vested with
powers not allowed private persons. The legislature has
delineated the authority of probation officers as follows:
Probation officers…are hereby declared to be peace
officers, and shall have police powers and authority
throughout the Commonwealth to arrest with or
without warrant, writ, rule or process, any person on
probation or parole under the supervision of said
court for fail(ure) to report as required by the terms
of his probation or parole or for any other violation of
his probation or parole.
The Act of August 6, 1963, P.L. 521, s 1, 19 P.S. s 1091.
Lay persons, including private detectives, have no such
police powers.
In addition to their statutorily granted powers, probation
officers have been permitted to request and examine
police records. … Private citizens, however, are not privy
to such information. …
Commonwealth v. Gregg, 396 A.2d 797, 798 (Pa.Super. 1979) (reversing
trial court’s order granting private detective licenses to two probation
officers) (internal footnote and quotation marks omitted). See also In re
Centeno, 5 A.3d 1248 (Pa.Super. 2010) (reversing trial court’s order
granting private detective license to corrections officer; pursuant to
statutory authority, corrections officer may exercise powers of peace officer
in performance of his duties generally in guarding, protecting, and delivering
- 14 -
J-E03008-15
inmates, protecting property and interests of county, and capturing and
returning inmates who might have escaped; as matter of public policy,
persons vested with authority of peace officer by virtue of their public
employment, cannot be licensed as private detectives because of obvious
potential for abuse and conflict of interest).
These cases make clear that Pennsylvania, as a matter of public policy,
prohibits individuals who, by virtue of their public employment status, have
powers and authority not commonly held by private citizens, including
private detectives, because these individuals might abuse their public power
and authority to benefit private persons. See id.; Kuma K-9 Security,
Inc., supra; Gregg, supra; Stanley, supra. The mere appearance of
impropriety or the potential for a conflict of interest is sufficient to warrant
the denial of a private detective license. See Kuma K-9 Security, Inc.,
supra; Stanley, supra; Millennium Consulting & Associates, supra;Little, supra. In other words, Pennsylvania law has no precedent for
granting a private detective license, with or without restrictions, to someone
with any law enforcement powers. See id.
The Public School Code of 1949 explains the appointment process for a
school police officer and dictates a school police officer’s powers and duties,
as follows:
§ 7-778. School police officers
(a) Any school entity or nonpublic school may apply
to any judge of the court of common pleas of the county
- 15 -
J-E03008-15
within which the school entity or nonpublic school is
situated to appoint such person or persons as the board of
directors of the school entity or administration of the
nonpublic school may designate to act as school police
officer for said school entity or nonpublic school. The
judge, upon such application, may appoint such person, or
so many of them as he may deem proper, to be such
school police officer and shall note the fact of such
appointment to be entered upon the records of the court.
The judge may, at the request of the school entity or
nonpublic school, grant the school police officer the power
to arrest as provided in subsection (c)(2), the authority to
issue citations for summary offenses or the authority to
detain students until the arrival of local law enforcement,
or any combination thereof.
* * *
(c) Such school police officer so appointed shall
severally possess and exercise all the following powers and
duties:
(1) To enforce good order in school buildings, on
school buses and on school grounds in their respective
school entities or nonpublic schools. For purposes of
this clause, the term “school bus” shall include vehicles
leased by the school entity or nonpublic school to
transport students and vehicles of mass transit used by
students to go to and from school when the school
police officer is responding to a report of an incident
involving a breach of good order or violation of law.
(2) If authorized by the court, to exercise the same
powers as are now or may hereafter be exercised
under authority of law or ordinance by the police
of the municipality wherein the school property is
located.
(3) If authorized by the court, to issue summary
citations or to detain individuals until local law
enforcement is notified.
24 P.S. § 7-778(a), (c)(1-3) (emphasis added). This statute expressly
- 16 -
J-E03008-15
confers law enforcement powers on school officers. See id.
Instantly, on June 27, 2013, the court appointed Mr. Clader as a
school police officer for the Wallenpaupack Area School District. The court’s
appointment order authorizes Mr. Clader to possess and exercise all powers
and duties delineated under Section 7-778(c)(1-3). Consequently, Mr.
Clader has authority to: (1) enforce good order in school buildings, on school
buses, and on school grounds in the Wallenpaupack Area School District; (2)
exercise the same powers granted to and exercised by the police of the
municipality wherein the Wallenpaupack Area School District school property
is located; and (3) issue summary citations or detain individuals until local
law enforcement is notified. See id.
While employed as a school police officer in the position of the Director
of School Security for the Wallenpaupack Area School District, Mr. Clader
filed a petition for a private detective license on January 23, 2014. The
Commonwealth opposed Mr. Clader’s petition, on the ground that the
issuance of a private detective license to Mr. Clader, because of his law
enforcement powers, creates the potential for abuse and poses a conflict of
interest. The court held a hearing on the petition on June 3, 2014. On June
26, 2014, the court granted Mr. Clader’s request for a private detective
license subject to the following restrictions:
This Certificate of License is also issued subject to the
limitation that [Mr. Clader], who has previously been
appointed as a school police officer for the Wallenpaupack
Area School District, shall not engage in any private
- 17 -
J-E03008-15
detective business, as defined under the Act, in any matter
involving school administrators, teachers, employees,
officials, parents or students of the Wallenpaupack Area
School District without prior written approval of the [c]ourt
and notice thereof to the Pike County District Attorney.
(Order, filed June 26, 2014, at 2).
The record confirms Mr. Clader possesses powers and authority that
private citizens and other private detectives do not, due to his employment
as the Director of School Security for the Wallenpaupack Area School
District. For example, the court authorized Mr. Clader to issue summary
citations.1 See 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(3). Mr. Clader admits he has issued
summary citations for offenses occurring on school property. Private citizens
have no authority to issue summary citations. See Commonwealth v.
Demor, 942 A.2d 898 (Pa.Super. 2008) (explaining private citizens have no
authority to issue summary citations). Mr. Clader has also participated in
the investigation of multiple misdemeanor and felony offenses, and he has
express authority to detain students suspected of such offenses pursuant to
the objectives set forth in the Wallenpaupack Area School District’s School
1
The Public School Code of 1949 and accompanying court order appointing
Mr. Clader as a school police officer, also expressly authorizes Mr. Clader to
“exercise the same powers as are now or may hereafter be exercised under
authority of law or ordinance by the police of the municipality wherein the
school property is located.” 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(2). Certainly, private
citizens have no authority to exercise the same powers as their municipal
police. On appeal, Mr. Clader claims neither Palmyra Township, Pike County,
nor Drecher Township, Wayne County (where the school buildings of the
Wallenpaupack Area School District are located) have municipal police. The
record contains no information concerning the municipal police presence (or
lack thereof) in the relevant area or the powers and duties of any such
officers, now or in the future.
- 18 -
J-E03008-15
Resource Officer Program. (See Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, Hearing June 3,
2014, at 1.) Private citizens generally lack authority to detain others for
misdemeanor and felony offenses. But see Commonwealth v. Corley,
462 A.2d 1374 (Pa.Super. 1983), aff’d, 507 Pa. 540, 491 A.2d 829 (1985)
(discussing limited circumstances in which private citizen can make “citizen’s
arrest”; private citizen can make citizen’s arrest only for felonies or
misdemeanors which arrestor personally observes).
As well, in his role as Director of School Security, Mr. Clader obtained
an ORI assignment number, which permits Mr. Clader to access driver’s
license, registration, and “hot file” (stolen vehicle) information. Mr. Clader
uses the ORI assignment number to file non-traffic citations or other
documents with the district justice courts. Significantly, the ORI assignment
number grants Mr. Clader assess to CLEAN, which is accessible only by duly
authorized agencies and contains highly sensitive information. (See
Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, Hearing June 3, 2014, at 1.) Thus, Mr. Clader has
access to various documents via CLEAN which private citizens and private
detectives do not.
The public policy concern here is that given Mr. Clader’s statutorily
enumerated powers under 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(1-3) and authority to access
records unavailable to private citizens and other private detectives, Mr.
Clader might use his authority to benefit private persons in the course of his
private detective business. See Centeno, supra; Kuma K-9 Security,
- 19 -
J-E03008-15
Inc., supra; Gregg, supra; Stanley, supra. Whether Mr. Clader would
actually misuse or abuse his power and authority is immaterial. The public
policy is in place to ensure against even the appearance of impropriety or
potential for a conflict of interest. See Kuma K-9 Security, Inc., supra;Stanley, supra; Millennium Consulting & Associates, supra; Little,
supra. In light of these circumstances, the trial court erred when it granted
Mr. Clader’s petition for a private detective license.2
Further, no provision in the Private Detective Act of 1953 permits the
trial court to issue a private detective license and then impose restrictions on
the license. See 22 P.S. § 11, et seq.; 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b) (stating:
“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter
2
The fact that Mr. Clader’s authority under Section 7-778(c) is limited to the
“jurisdiction” of school property does not alter our position. The crux of the
public policy concern is the applicant’s ability to use and abuse power and
authority granted to him by virtue of his public employment, which private
citizens and private detectives lack—not the geographic scope of where that
authority reaches. See Centeno, supra; Kuma K-9 Security, Inc.;
Gregg, supra; Stanley, supra.
Additionally, Commonwealth v. Williams, 749 A.2d 957 (Pa.Super. 2000),
appeal denied, 564 Pa. 710, 764 A.2d 1069 (2001), on which Mr. Clader
heavily relies, is not dispositive here. In Williams, this Court vacated a trial
court’s order denying a suppression motion because school police officers
acted without statutory authority when they opened the defendant/student’s
vehicle parked on a city street off school property, searched its interior,
and seized guns from the vehicle. Williams did not involve an application
for a private detective license and stands only for the legal proposition that a
school police officer’s authority under Section 7-778 is limited in jurisdiction
to the places specifically delineated under that statute. Because the school
police officers in Williams were not in a school building, on a school bus, or
on school grounds when they conducted the search and seizure, this Court
decided the trial court erred in concluding that the officers had acted within
their statutory authority. Williams, supra at 961, 963.
- 20 -
J-E03008-15
of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit”);
Williams, supra at 962 (stating: “[A]s a court, we may not disregard the
letter of the statute in favor of fostering gun-free areas surrounding school
grounds, since to do so amounts to an exercise of judicial legislation by
reading something into the statute that is not there”). Moreover, imposing
restrictions on Mr. Clader’s private detective license does not alleviate the
appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest. The court’s action also
raises a question concerning the difficulty inherent in enforcing those
restrictions, absent blatant abuse. See Little, supra (holding that
notwithstanding appellant’s vow that neither he, nor any other employee
under license of his employer’s private detective firm, would conduct private
detective business in Borough of Kennett Square, appellant’s position as
Mayor of that borough creates at least appearance of conflict of interest;
appellant’s vow to restrict his private detective business does not suffice to
remove appearance of conflict of interest; potential for abuse arising from
appellant’s access to records not ordinarily available to private detectives, as
well as arising from his limited police powers, creates appearance of
impropriety constituting conflict of interest). Therefore, the trial court erred
when it granted Mr. Clader’s petition for a private detective license, even
with the imposition of certain restrictions. Accordingly, we reverse.
Order reversed.
- 21 -
J-E03008-15
President Judge Emeritus Bender, Judge Bowes, Judge Shogan, Judge
Lazarus, Judge Stabile and Judge Jenkins join this opinion.
Judge Ott files a dissenting opinion in which Judge Panella joins.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/24/2016
- 22 -