Gray v. State of Maine, Department of Public Safety

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: May 22, 2020
• Docket: KENap-19-49
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-19-49

JOSHUA GRAY,

Petitioner ORDER ON PETITIONER'S 80C APPEAL V.

STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Respondent

Before the Court is Petitioner Joshua Gray's 80C petition for review of the Department of

Public Safety's (the "Department's") denial of his application for a Professional Investigator's

License. For the following reasons, the petition is denied.

Backiuound

Joshua Gray is licensed as a professional investigator in Tennessee, Vermont,

Massachusetts and New Hampshire. On January 26, 2018, Mr. Gray applied for a professional

investigator's license in Maine. On August 31, 2018, the Chief of the Maine State Police (the

"Chief") denied Mr. Gray's Application. On October 11, 2018, Mr. Gray filed an 80C petition for

review of the denial of his application. On July 18, 2019, this court remanded Mr. Gray's

application to the Department for the purposes of allowing the Commissioner to determine whether

certain allegedly false statements that Mr. Gray published on social media were published with

"actual malice." Gray v State of Maine, Dep't of Public Safety, KENSC-AP-18-65, (Me. Super.

Ct., Kennebec Cty ., July 17, 2019) After conducting a further investigation, the Chief issued a

written decision on October 2, 2019 in which he determined that Mr. Gray had made certain false statements with actual malice and that these statements demonstrated that Mr. Gray was not fit to

obtain a professional investigator license. This appeal followed .

Standard of Review

The Court reviews an administrative agency's decision for an abuse of discretion, error of

law, or findings not supported by the evidence. Uliano v . Bd. of Envtl . Prot., 2009 ME 89, ~

12,977 A.2d 400 (citation omitted). Questions of Jaw are subject to de novo review. Id (citing

York Hosp. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2008 ME 165, ~ 32,959 A.2d 67). The

reviewing court will affirm findings of fact if they are supported by "substantial evidence in the

record", even if the record contains inconsistent evidence or evidence contrary to the result

reached by the agency. Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Environmental Prot., 2014

ME 116, ~~ 12, 14, 102 A.3d 1181. The party seeking to overturn an administrative decision

must "demonstrate that no competent evidence supports the [agency's] decision and that the

record compels a contrary result." Richardson v. Bd. o/Trs. of the Me. State Ret. Sys., 1998 ME

171, ~ 4 , 714 A.2d 154.

Discussion

In order to obtain a professional investigator license, an applicant must demonstrate that

he possesses good moral character. 32 M .R.S. § 8105(4). Further, the Chief may refuse to issue a

license if the applicant has:

A. Engaged in conduct that evidences a lack of ability or fitness to discharge the duty owed by the licensee to a client or the general public; or

B. Engaged in conduct that evidences a lack of knowledge or an inability to apply principles or skills to carry out the practice for which the person is licensed.

2 Id. § 8113(6).

In this case, the record contains competent evidence to support a finding that Mr. Gray

engaged in conduct evidencing a lack of fitness to discharge duties owed to the general public as

well as the inability to apply principles necessary to act as a professional investigator. For

instance, there is record evidence that Mr. Gray published statements on social media that a

Lieutenant in the Maine State Police was "most likely drunk" when the Lieutenant was involved

in an incident which resulted in the death of two individuals. (R. 157-58, 162.) There is also

evidence that Mr. Gray made these statements based solely on the fact that the Lieutenant was

off-duty at the time of the incident and that the incident occurred close to the Lieutenant's home.

(R. 383 .) Further, there is evidence that Mr. Gray has a lengthy history of engaging in online

diatribes against the same Lieutenant. (See e.g. R. 125, 130, 133, 198-200, 206, 239-41, 245-47;

see also R. 377 .) Finally, Mr. Gray admits that his statements were speculative and that he never

had any facts about the Lieutenant's alcohol consumption. (Pet'r's Br. at 6 .)

Given that the context of this case is a professional licensing matter, this evidence

supports a finding that Mr. Gray's publication of statements to which a defamatory meaning

could be attributed, see Haworth v. Feigon, 623 A.2d 150, 156-57 (Me. 1993) (holding that it

was not error for the factfinder to attribute a defamatory meaning to the appellation "drunk"),

based on nothing more than speculation constitutes reckless disregard for the truth which is

sufficient to deny his application for a professional investigator license. See 32 M.R.S. §§

8105(4), 8113(6).

3 The entry is

The Decision of the Chief of the Maine State Police to Deny Joshua Gray's Application for a State of Maine Professional Investigator License is AFFIRMED

Date: