J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: JOHN L. WALLACE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA :
:
:
:
: No. 1221 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered March 23, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-MD-0000356-2018
IN RE: STEADFAST PROTECTION LLC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA :
:
:
:
: No. 1222 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered March 23, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-MD-0000356-2018
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and COLINS, J.*
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 09, 2020
After careful review, I conclude that the trial court erred in granting the
applications for a private detective license in both of the above-captioned
matters. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
Appeal at 1221 EDA 2018
Although I agree with a large portion of the rationale espoused by the
Majority, I do not conclude that Wallace possessed or established the required
work experience pursuant to 22 P.S. § 14. Section 14 provides, in part, as
follows:
Any person, partnership, association, or corporation,
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, partnership,
association, or corporation, 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 [22 P.S. § 12], except exclusively as to the financial
rating, standing and credit responsibility of persons, partnerships,
associations, or corporations, 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, partnership, association or corporation 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, and if the applicant is a partnership or
association, the application shall be signed and verified by each
individual composing or intending to compose such partnership or
association. 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,
township, or incorporated town, stating the street and number if
the premises have a street and number, and otherwise such apt
-2-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
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, if he be a person, or, in the
case of a partnership, association, or corporation, at least
one member of such partnership, association, or
corporation, 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.
22 P.S. § 14(a) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
-3-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
The trial court concluded that Wallace satisfied the work experience
requirement and stated as follows:
Pennsylvania case law is limited as it pertains to the
operation of the statute governing private detective licenses. To
be granted a … license, the petitioner must establish that he or
she was employed as a law enforcement agent of a rank higher
than patrol man or “regularly employed as a detective” for three
years or more. See 22 P.S. § 14. In conjunction with filling out the
application, the applicant must have at least two letters of
recommendation representing the applicant’s investigatory
experience. Id. In order to meet the investigatory experience
requirement under the Private Detective Act of 1953, each
applicant must 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
at least three years. 22 P.S. § 14 (West). In the alternative, an
applicant seeking a private detective license must establish that
he has been “regularly employed as a detective” for at least three
years. Id. The … issue that has been brought before this [c]ourt is
what qualifies as being “regularly employed as a detective[?]”
While the Act does not provide a definition for “detective”, it does
specify an enumerated list of descriptions that qualify as
investigative experience under the Act, including:
[(b) “Private detective business” shall also mean and
include, separately or collectively, the making, for hire,
reward, or for any consideration whatsoever, of any
investigation or investigations for the purpose of obtaining
information with reference to any of the following matters,
notwithstanding the fact that other functions and services
may also be performed for fee, hire, or reward:]
(1) Crimes or wrong done or threatened against the
government of the United States of America or any
state or territory of the United States of America.
(2) The identity, habits, conduct, movements,
whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions,
reputation, or character, of any person, group of
persons, association, organization, society, other
groups of persons, partnership, or corporation.
-4-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
(3) The credibility of witnesses or other persons.
(4) The whereabouts of missing persons.
(5) The location or recovery of lost or stolen property.
(6) The causes and origin of, or responsibility for,
fires, or libels, or losses, or accidents, or damage, or
injuries, to real or personal property.
(7) The affiliation, connection, or relation, of any
person, partnership, or corporation, with any union,
organization, society, or association, or with any
official member or representative thereof.
(8) With reference to any person or persons seeking
employment in the place of any person or persons who
have quit work by reason of any strike.
(9) With reference to the conduct, honesty, efficiency,
loyalty, or activities, employes, … agents, contractors
and subcontractors.
(10) The securing of evidence to be used before any
authorized investigating committee, board of award,
board of arbitration, or in the trial of civil or criminal
cases.
(11) The furnishing, for hire or reward, of watchmen,
or guards, or private patrolmen, or other persons, to
protect persons or property, or to prevent the theft of
the unlawful taking of goods, wares and merchandise,
or to prevent the misappropriation or concealment of
goods, wares or merchandise, money, bonds, stocks,
choses in action, notes, or other valuable documents,
papers, and articles of value, or to procure the return
thereof, or the performing of the service of such guard
or other person, or any of said purposes.
-5-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
[22 P.S. § 12(b).1]
* * *
In In re Kuma K-9 Secur. Inc., [506 A.2d 445, 448 (Pa.
Super. 1986)], the Court specified it was an appropriate approach
to analyze and compare an applicant’s experience, separately or
collectively, while considering the list of activities under 22 P.S. §
12. [Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc.,] 506 A.2d 445, 448 (Pa. Super. 1986).
The Court stated that the term “regularly employed as a detective”
was not limited to positions within law enforcement agencies. Id.
In In re Kuma, the applicant was employed with a private
detective agency for eleven years and he participated in hundreds
of investigations, where he had engaged in nine of the eleven
activities listed under 22 P.S. 12. [Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc.,] at 448.
Citing this experience, the Court determined the applicant was
qualified for a private detective license under the statute. Id. at
449; see also In re Sentry Sec.[, Inc.], 417 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super.
1980) (stating that an individual who conducted over 800 criminal
investigations and completed the investigative duties, in the past
six years as a patrol officer and officer in charge, was a person
“regularly employed as a detective” within the Private Detective
Act of 1953).
Here, [Wallace’s] experience as an interrogator and linguist
in the United States Marine Corp[s] for five years, undoubtedly
satisfies the statutory three-year investigative experience
requirement.2 [Wallace’s] experience as an interrogator and
linguist is similar to the applicant in In re Kuma who had
conducted several criminal investigations for private detective
agency. The Private Detective Act of 1953 mandates experience
where investigative skills are paramount, as evidenced by the
statute’s enumerated list. Since the statute does not require the
applicant’s experience to have been completed within a law
____________________________________________
1 The trial court applied these factors based on this Court’s decision in In re
Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., 506 A.2d 445 (Pa. Super. 1986). In Kuma K-9 Sec.,
Inc., this Court opined that “the term ‘detective’ or the phrase ‘regularly
employed as a detective’ [are not] limited to persons employed by law
enforcement agencies.” Id. at 447 (citation omitted). A private detective
license may be granted to persons who, although not employed by a law
enforcement agency, obtained experience in the functions of a “private
detective” set forth in Section 12(b). Id. at 448.
-6-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
enforcement agency, we find that [Wallace’s] experience
constitutes the investigative skills contemplated by the statute.
2While [Wallace] did not provide any further evidence
to establish the duties of an interrogator linguist, this
[c]ourt gleaned … that an interrogator for the United
States Marine Corp[s] would conduct interrogations in
a different language.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/19, at 2-5.
I interpret the work-experience components of Section 14, or the
alternative factors enumerated in Section 12(b), to be a condition precedent
to licensure. It is undisputed that Wallace did not serve as a law enforcement
officer for more than three years above the rank of patrolman. Accordingly,
Wallace could not establish the requirements under Section 14, and the trial
court properly looked to the alternative factors set forth in 22 P.S. § 12(b).
Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., 506 A.2d at 448. Nevertheless, I discern nothing in
the record establishing that Wallace satisfied the alternative factors.
In his application, Wallace included his DD-214 form memorializing his
honorable discharge from active duty in the Marine Corps and listing his
primary specialty as a “cryptologic linguist, Spanish[, for a period of] 03 Years,
08 Months[.]” Wallace’s Application, 1/23/18, at Exhibit A. However, the only
information relative to Wallace’s work experience was that he served as an
interrogator and linguist. Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/19, at 1, 2, and 5. The
trial court noted that the Commonwealth objected on the grounds that Wallace
did not satisfy the work-experience requirements; however, without further
inquiry, the trial court granted Wallace’s application. Id. at 2, 5.
-7-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
In its opinion, the trial court cited Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., and Sentry
Sec., Inc., in support of its conclusion. Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/19, at 4-5.
Those cases are distinguishable.
In Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., the applicant produced evidence that “he took
part in hundreds of investigations involving nine of the eleven activities listed
in 22 P.S. § 12(b).” Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., 506 A.2d at 448. Similarly, in
Sentry Sec., Inc., the applicant testified that he “participated in
investigations involving over 800 criminal arrests” while employed as a police
officer involving “interviewing witnesses and suspects, obtaining physical
evidence, preparing complaints and testifying in court.” Sentry Sec., Inc.,
417 A.2d at 192.
In the case at bar, there was no evidence regarding Wallace’s
experience. I fail to see how the trial court “gleaned” Wallace’s qualifications
in the absence of any evidence. Trial Court Opinion, 6/26/19, at 5 n.2. Based
on the record, I am unable to agree with the trial court’s finding. Rather, I
conclude that Wallace failed to satisfy any of the factors from Section 12(b),
i.e., the condition precedent, to be an eligible candidate for a license.
Therefore, I would find that the trial court erred when it granted Wallace’s
application for a private detective license, and I would reverse the order
appealed at 1221 EDA 2018.
-8-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
Appeal at 1222 EDA 2018
In the appeal at 1222 EDA 2018, the Commonwealth avers that the trial
court erred in granting Steadfast, a business entity, a private detective
license. The Commonwealth asserts that the sole member of Steadfast,
Wallace, was not qualified for a license in his individual capacity, and
therefore, Steadfast was not qualified for a license. Commonwealth’s Brief at
7. The record does not reveal a separate trial court opinion at this docket
number. However, the facts are the same, except that this appeal involves
the order granting Steadfast a private detective license.
Pursuant to 22 P.S. § 14(b), a business entity does not qualify for a
private detective license unless the entity’s owners and officers satisfy the
requirements set forth for an individual under 22 P.S. § 14(a).2 See Kuma
____________________________________________
2 Section 14(b) states as follows:
(b) If the applicant is a corporation, the application
shall be signed and verified by the president,
secretary and treasurer thereof, and shall specify the
name of the corporation, the date and place of its
incorporation, the location of its principal place of
business, and the name of the city, borough 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 bureau, agency, sub-agency, office or branch
office for which the license is desired, the amount of
the corporation’s outstanding paid up capital stock
and whether paid in cash or property, and, if in
property, the nature of the same, and shall be
-9-
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
K-9 Sec., Inc., 506 A.2d at 448 (in order for a business entity to possess a
private detective license, an eligible, individual applicant must satisfy the
qualifications for a license); see also 22 P.S. §§ 14, 16 (enumerating the
qualifications for a business entity to obtain a license). Thus, Steadfast could
not obtain a license unless Wallace, as Steadfast’s sole owner and officer,3
satisfied the requirements for licensure. 22 P.S. § 14(b).
In the appeal at 1221 EDA 2018, I concluded that the trial court erred
in granting Wallace a private detective license because Wallace did not meet
____________________________________________
accompanied by a duly certified copy of its certificate
of incorporation. Each and every requirement of
clause (a) of this section as to a person or
individual member of a partnership or
association shall apply to the president,
secretary and treasurer, and each such officer,
his successor and successors, shall, prior to
entering upon the discharge of his duties, sign
and verify a like statement, approved in like
manner, as is by clause (a) prescribed in the
case of a person or individual member of a
partnership or association. In the event of the
death, resignation or removal of such officer, due
notice of that fact shall forthwith be given in writing
to the court of quarter sessions, together with a copy
of the minutes of any meeting of the board of directors
of said corporation, certified by the secretary,
indicating the death, resignation or removal of such
officer, and the election or designation of the
successor of such deceased, resigned or removed
officer.
22 P.S. § 14(b) (emphasis added).
3 Wallace is the sole owner of Steadfast and the individual applicant on
Steadfast’s behalf. Steadfast’s Application, 1/23/18.
- 10 -
J-S09004-20
J-S09005-20
the statutory qualifications. Because I conclude that Wallace is not qualified
for a license, I would find that Steadfast does not have a qualified applicant.
Accordingly, I conclude that Steadfast is not eligible for a private detective
license as a business entity. Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., 506 A.2d at 448; 22 P.S.
§§ 14, 16. I would reverse the order granting Steadfast a private detective
license.
Conclusion:
In sum, I conclude that the trial court erred in granting Wallace a license
because Wallace failed to satisfy the minimum qualifications, and I would
reverse the order appealed at 1221 EDA 2018. Because I conclude that
Wallace was not qualified to obtain a private detective license, I also conclude
that Steadfast, having Wallace as its sole owner and officer, did not qualify for
a license as a business entity. Therefore, I would also reverse the order
appealed at 1222 EDA 2018.
- 11 -