T.R.G. Investigative Agency/Tony R. Greer vs. Department of Commerce & Insurance

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "T.R.G. Investigative Agency/Tony R. Greer vs. Department of Commerce & Insurance"

Lucy Singleton
6 years ago
Views:

1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law T.R.G. Investigative Agency/Tony R. Greer vs. Department of Commerce & Insurance Follow this and additional works at: This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov

2 Mailed On: BEFORE THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INSURANCE IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) DOCKET NO J TONY RENEE GREER, ) Judge Sitting Alone d/b/a T.R.G. INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY, ) (Tennessee Private Protection ) Services) ) Respondent. ) INITIAL ORDER This contested case came on to be heard on April 9, 2013 in Nashville, Tennessee, before Administrative Judge Joyce Grimes Safley, assigned by the Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division, and sitting for the Tennessee Private Protective Services Program. Mr. Andrew Simpson, Assistant Counsel for the Department of Commerce and Insurance, represented the Department or the State. The Respondent, Mr. Tony R. Greer, was present and represented himself, pro se. The subject of this hearing was Grievant s appeal of the State s action to revoke Respondent s armed guard registration and assess certain civil penalties for operating and/or Engaging in the business of a Contract Security Company without the benefit of such licensure by Respondent in violation of T.C.A The State also moved for the assessment of costs of this action pursuant to T.C.A and TENN. COMP. R. & REG After consideration of the testimony and evidence presented, the arguments of counsel and Respondent Greer, and the entire record in this matter, it is determined that the Department showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Grievant violated T.C.A by operating a contract security company without a contract security company without the licensure mandated by Tennessee State law.

3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Respondent s Armed Security Guard license be REVOKED, that Respondent be ASSESSED AND ORDERED to pay civil penalties in the amount of $10,000.00, and that Respondent be ASSESSED AND ORDERED to pay the costs of this action pursuant to T.C.A and TENN. COMP. R. & REG FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Tony Greer is currently registered by the State of Tennessee as an armed security guard. His registration was issued by the State on March 24, Respondent Greer is the owner of T.R.G. Investigative Agency (Private Investigation Agency) located in Memphis, Tennessee. T.R.G. Investigative Agency has a Private Investigation License issued by the State of Tennessee on May 24, 2004, with an expiration date of June 30, Respondent Greer holds a Private Investigator (PI) license issued by the State of Tennessee with an expiration date of June 30, Respondent Greer does not have, nor has he ever had, a Contract Security Company License issued by the State of Tennessee. 5. Beginning in 2009 and ending sometime in 2012, Respondent, by and through his company, T.R.G. Investigative Agency, a licensed Private Investigation Company, employed several individuals to engage in security and patrol services for multiple residential apartment complexes located in Memphis, Tennessee or its suburbs. 2

4 6. Respondent hired registered armed security guards and registered unarmed security guards to perform security guard services on behalf of Respondent s company, T.R.G. Investigative Agency. 7. At some time during 2012, Respondent submitted an application to the State of Tennessee for a Contract Security Company license. The application was submitted by Respondent in the name of Memphis Public Defense Agency. The Contract Security Company License was not issued to Respondent. The State closed the application for licensure file in or around September, The State introduced numerous (fifteen) affidavits of witnesses in lieu of live testimony at the hearing of this matter. The affidavit testimony was not contradicted. 9. Numerous security guards testified by affidavit that Respondent hired them for the purpose of performing security guard duties (either armed or unarmed), however, Respondent represented to the State inspectors that his company was a private investigation company. 10. At the hearing, Respondent insisted that if his company was a private investigation company, the employees were not used as security guards. 11. The employees, including Valeria Rhodes, Cradler, Anthony Foster, Douglas Davis, Jamie Kimble, Lemonta Lewis, and other security guards employeed by Respondent, consistently testified that they were employed by Respondent s Company, TRG Investigations, to work security but to state to people that they did not work security. TRG employees testifying by affidavit testified that they did not conduct investigations. Rather, armed and unarmed security guards were paid to patrol residential apartment complexes, to note suspicious activity, to enforce 3

5 curfews, to wear uniforms which were similar to law enforcement uniforms, to wear weapons (armed guards), and other security guard tasks. 12. The State introduced contracts from several residential apartment complex managers or owners who had entered contracts with Respondent and TRG Investigations to provide security for apartment complexes. Some of the contracts signed by Respondent were signed by Respondent as the President/Owner of Memphis Public Defense Agency. 13. The State also introduced affidavits from Apartment Complex managers in the Memphis, Tennessee area who testified that they (on behalf of their apartment complex) had entered contracts with Respondent Greer to provide onsite security service. 14. Respondent testified briefly. Respondent s position, very simply stated, was that if he did not call his company a security guard company, he did not have to be licensed as a contract security company. 15. Clearly, the acts and job responsibilities for Respondent s company, as described by numerous witnesses at the hearing, were security guard activities and responsibilities. 1. T.C.A mandates: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW License required to act as contract security officer.--- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to act as a contract security company without having first obtained a license from the commissioner. 2. T.C.A defines Armed Security officer/guard as follows: 4

6 (1) Armed security officer/guard means a security officer/guard who at any time wears, carries, possesses or has access to a firearm or any facsimile of any firearm that may leave the impression that the person is armed and who works in plainclothes or wears dress of a distinctive design or fashion or dress having any symbol, badge, emblem, insignia or device that identifies or tends to identify the wearer as a security officer/guard; 3. T.C.A defines Unarmed Security officer/guard as follows: (19) Unarmed security officer/guard means any individual who never wears, carries or has access to a firearm or any facsimile of a firearm that may leave the impression that the person is armed with a firearm, but who may carry other nonlethal devices as prescribed in this chapter with the proper certification and who works in plainclothes or wears dress of a distinctive design or fashion or dress having any symbol, badge, emblem, insignia, or device that identifies or tends to identify the wearer as a security officer/guard; 4. T.C.A outlines the disciplinary powers of the Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance and the civil penalties which may be imposed. It states, in relevant part: (a) The Commissioner may take disciplinary action upon finding that the holder or applicant has: (1) Violated any provision of this chapter, or any rule promulgated hereunder; (2) Practiced fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (6) Engaged in dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct of a character likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public; (8) Acted as a contract security company or proprietary security company without a valid license; *** (c) The commissioner may assess a civil penalty of up to two thousand dollars ($2000) per occurrence upon any person who operates without the proper license or other authorization required. 5

7 5. In this case, Respondent has misrepresented himself to the State as a Private Investigations Company when in reality he has been running a security guard company for armed and un-armed security guards. 6. Respondent has contracted with at least four (4) residential apartment complexes to provide security guard services for the apartment complexes. Additionally, Respondent sent out a public advertisement stating that his company was an Investigations & Public Safety Agency which provides premium investigations, armed and unarmed public safety services for people and businesses such as yours safety needs body guard escorts loss prevention services. The advertisement or mailer referenced guards and guard services several times. 7. Respondent has instructed his employees to misrepresent their job assignments and their employment duties to the State and others. 8. It is determined that Respondent has violated T.C.A It is further determined that Respondent has violated T.C.A (a) (1) (2) (6) and (8). 9. The State has met its burden of proof that Respondent has committed the above violations. 10. Respondent s Security Guard license is REVOKED. 11. Respondent is ASSESSED a civil penalty in the amount of $10, (Ten Thousand Dollars) in total. Respondent is assessed a $2000 civil penalty for each security guard contract he entered with residential apartment complexes which was admitted into evidence. Additionally, Respondent is assessed a $2000 civil penalty for the advertisement or flier Respondent sent out to the public for guard service. The civil penalties total $10,

8 12. At the hearing, Respondent maintained that as long as the name of his company contains the term investigations, he is not operating a security guard company. 13. It is disturbing that Respondent continues to maintain such a disingenuous and cavalier attitude toward his violations of the State security guard company statutes. Such statutes are in place for the safety and protection of Tennessee s public. 14. Respondent is also assessed the costs of this action pursuant to T.C.A and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs It is so ordered. This order entered and effective this day of July, Joyce Grimes Safley Administrative Judge J. Richard Collier, Director Administrative Procedures Division 7

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. ANTWAN RILEY, Grievant

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. ANTWAN RILEY, Grievant University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law October 2012 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT