Brooks v. Maine State Police, bureau of Dept of Public Safety

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: May 7, 2014
• Docket: YORap-13-030
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

fNTERED NOV o 6 2014

STATE OF Mf\JN~ SUPERIOR COURT YORK, SS. DOCKET NO. AP-13-030

TAOS BROOKS, ) ~~~ /'201'-1 ) Claimant, ) v. ) ) 80C ORDER MAINE STATE POLICE, A BlJREAU ) OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ) SAFETY, STATE OF MAINE, ) ) Respondent. )

Petitioner, Taos Brooks, has filed this 80C appeal challenging the denial of his

application for a concealed handgun permit.

STANDARD OFREV1EW

When the Court reviews a decision of a State agency, its review "is limited to

determining whether the [agency] correctly applied the law and whether its fact findings are

supported by competent evidence." McPherson Timberlands v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n,

1998 ME 177, -~ 6, 714 A.2d 818. This standard of review "is identical to the 'clear error'

standard used by the Law Court." Gulick v. Bd. ofEnvtL Prot., 452 A.2d 1202, 1207-08 (1\{e.

1982). The Court must not disturb the decision of the agency "unless the rules or regulations

plainly compel a contrary result" Rangeley Crossroads Coal v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2008

ME 115, ~ 10, 955 A.2d 223; see also Gerber Dental Ctr. v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n,

531 A.2d 1262, 1263 (1\{e. 1987). The Court must examine the entire record in order to

determine whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5

M.R.S.A. § 1 i007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 549, 552

(Me. 1985).

1 The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that "no competent evidence supports

the [agency's] decision and that the record compels a contrary conclusion." Bischoffv. Maine

State Ret Svs., 661 A2d 167, 170 (Me. 1995) (citation omitted); see also Seven Islands Land

Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulatory Comm'n, 540 A2d 475, 479 (Me. 1982). Additionally, the

Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency simply because the evidence could

give rise to more than one result See Dodd v. Sec'y of State, 526 A.2d 583, 584 (Me. 1987);

Gulick, 452 A.2d at 1209.

DISCUSSION

There is no absolute right to bear firearms under the Maine Constitution. See State v.

Brown, 571 A.2d 816, 818 (Me. 1990). The State is permitted to reasonably regulate the

possession of firearms. Id. The Law Court has held that it is a reasonable regulation for the State

to require permits for concealed firearms. Hilly v. City ofPortland, 582 A2d 1213, 1215 (Me.

1990) ("Maine's concealed firearms statute is a reasonable response to the justifiable public

safety concern engendered by the carrying of concealed firearms. The permit requirements pass

constitutional muster as an acceptable regulation of the individual's right to keep and bear

arms.")

The procedure for obtaining a concealed handguns permit in Maine is governed by 25

M.R. S. § 2003 (20 13 ). Section 2003 contains a host of requirements that an individual must meet

in order to be issued a concealed weapons permit One of the requirements is that the applicant

"has demonstrated good moral character". 25 M.R.S. § 2003(1). To determine whether an

applicant has demonstrated good moral character, 25 M.R.S. § 2003(4) provides, in pertinent

part, that the issuing authority shall make a written decision

based solely upon information recorded by governmental entities within five years of receipt of the application, including, but not limited to, the following matters:

2 A. Information of record relative to incidents of abuse by the applicant of family or household members, provided pursuant to Title 19-A, section 4012, subsection l;

B. Information of record relative to 3 or more convictions of the applicant for crimes punishable by less than one year imprisonment or one or more adjudications of the applicant for juvenile offenses involving conduct that, if committed by an adult, is punishable by less than one year imprisonment; C. Information of record indicating that the applicant has engaged in reckless or negligent conduct; or

D. Information of record indicating that the applicant has been convicted of or adjudicated as having committed a violation of Title 17-A, chapter 45 or Title 22, section 23 83, or adjudicated as having committed a juvenile crime that is a violation of Title 22, section 23 83 or a juvenile crime that would be defined as a criminal violation under Title 17-A, chapter 45 if committed by an adult.

25 M.R. S. § 2003(4)(emphasis added). As the Law Court indicated in Hider, a police chief is not

limited in his consideration to the four factors contained in§ 2003(4). 628 A.2d 158, 161.

The issue before the court is whether the decision by the State Police to deny Claimant's

application was "unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." Driscoll v. Gheewala, 441

A.2d 1023, 1026 (Me.1982). 1 The State Police's finding that Claimant had not demonstrated

good moral character was based upon a series of events detailed in the denial letter, as required

pursuant to 25 M.R.S.A. § 2003(12). These incidents include: trading firearms for a truck from

another state; a call to the Sanford Regional Communications Center in which Claimant inquired

whether he could use deadly force in protecting property against bank repossession; Claimant's

calls to the home of State Representative Nass chastising her for supposedly reporting Claimant

to pnns, blaming her for personal issues, and making degrading comments about her to her

.husband; Claimant's refusal to produce his Maine Medical Marijauna Card or marijuana

1 Respondent has also moved the Court to Dismiss Claimant's appeal .for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Claimant has moved the court to review the denial of his application of a concealed weapon permit on the basis of lack of evidence and a misinterpretation of the evidence presented. These are proper grounds for 80C appeal. The Court denies Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. prescription when requested by :MDEA officers and his 9-1-1 call on the :MDEA, which created a

potentially dangerous situation; and Claimant's refusal to pay child support arrearages arguing

that the mother of his daughter had "kidnapped" his daughter in 2007 despite the District

Attorney's determination that the incident did not warrant criminal charges. The Maine State

Police determined that the totality of these incidents did not demonstrate good moral character on

Claimant's part. The court finds that there is competent evidence supporting the State Police's

determination.

Claimant argues that these activities were all pursuant to his First Amendment right to

petition the government for redress. Therefore, Claimant argues that a denial on the basis of

those incidents would be a violation of his First Amendment right. The State Police's finding that

Claimant had not demonstrated good moral character was not based upon Claimant's exercise of

first amendment rights. The State Police's decision was based upon the manner in which

Claimant sought to petition the government for grievances.

CONCLUSION

The court AFFIRMS the determination of the State Police.

DATE: John O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court

4 PRO SE CLAIMANT Taos Brooks 325 Goose Pond Road Acton, ME 04001

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Laura Yustak Smith, AAG Office of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0666