Berardi, In re
| Citation | 129 A.2d 705,23 N.J. 485,63 A.L.R.2d 767 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. A--69,No. 671,I,671,A--69 |
| Parties | , 63 A.L.R.2d 767 In the Matter of the Hearing on an Order to Show Cause Why the Private Detective License,ssued to Nicholas P. BERARDI Should Not Be Revoked for Cause. Nicholas P. BERARDI, Appellant, v. Joseph D. RUTTER, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
George Pellettieri, Trenton, argued the cause for appellant (Pellettieri & Rabstein, attorneys).
Christian Bollermann, Deputy Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, which affirmed an order of the Superintendent of the State Police revoking the license of the appellant, as a private detective, pursuant to the authority of N.J.S.A. 45:19--12. This appeal is taken under R.R. 1:2--1(a); Art. VI, Sec. V, par. 1(a), Constitution of 1947.
A private detective license was issued to the appellant in January 1953, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 45:19--8 et seq. (L.1939, c. 369, as amended and supplemented). In 1955 an information was returned to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey charging the appellant with violation of Title 26 U.S.C.A. 3616(a), which statute makes it a misdemeanor to deliver '* * * to the collector * * * any false or fraudulent * * * return * * * with intent to * * * evade the * * * assessment intended to be made * * *.'
The information specifically charged the appellant 'claimed exemption for his mother, Elizabeth, and his son, Robert, as dependents, when in fact, as he then and there well knew, he was not legally entitled to claim said people as dependents'. The appellant pleaded Nolo contendere to this information and a judgment of conviction was entered on the plea. The imposition of the sentence was suspended; he was fined $500 and placed on probation for five years.
N.J.S.A. 45:19--12, Inter alia, provides 'the license so granted by the superintendent shall be valid for a period of five years but shall be revocable by the superintendent after hearing for cause.' The Superintendent of the State Police instituted a proceeding to revoke the appellant's license by issuing an order to show cause why the appellant's license 'should not be revoked for cause.' This was served together with the 'Charges' which contained the single specification that he pleaded Nolo contendere to the information charging he delivered a false return to the Collector of Internal Revenue and that upon the plea of Nolo contendere the aforesaid sentence was imposed.
Counsel for the appellant stipulated at the hearing that 'the sole question here was whether or not this plea and conviction and sentence is sufficient cause under the statutes warranting the superintendent to take whatever disciplinary action in his discretion he might deem necessary under the circumstances,' and the defendant and his counsel further stipulated 'that it would not be necessary to produce any witnesses except the defendant.'
On the hearing the formal proofs of the plea and conviction and sentence were offered together with a transcript of the proceedings before the Federal District Court judge on the reception of the plea. The defendant took the stand and testified as to the reasons that motivated him in entering the plea and his version of his tax difficulty that resulted in the information being returned.
The Superintendent made the following findings of fact:
'It is my opinion that a person with the aforesaid authority and who has been convicted of a misdemeanor in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500.00 and was placed on probation for a period of five years is not a fit person to engage in the activities of a private detective within the State of New Jersey.
'I further find as a fact that the aforesaid conviction and sentence is sufficient cause for the revocation of the Private Detective License #671 Heretofor issued to Nicholas P. Berardi'.
Under R.R. 4:88--8 an appeal was taken to the Appellate Division and the revocation of the license was affirmed. In that court the appellant attacked the constitutionality of the statute on the ground that it amounted to an unlawful delegation of power with respect to the power to revoke the license. In construing the phrase 'for cause' for which revocation may be had, the court held that it related to the same standards established for the issuance of the license of a private detective, viz. good character, competency and integrity of the applicant. And it further held that the standards or qualifications set forth in N.J.S.A. 45:19--16 relating to employees of a licensee could be considered additional specifications or qualifications for the determination of the good character, competency and integrity of the licensee. It concluded that the Legislature presumably prescribed the same standards, both for the detective and for his employees, and therefore it presumably contemplated that a conviction (even though based on a plea of Nolo contendere) would also suffice as a disqualification of the licensee himself, citing Kravis v. Hock, 136 N.J.L. 161, 54 A.2d 778 (E. & A.1947).
The appellant argues here that nowhere in the statute is 'cause' for revocation defined with any particularity and nowhere does the statute fix or establish any proper standards for the determination of what such 'cause' is or may be.
We are in accord with the Appellate Division, that in ascertaining the presence of standards and norms to support delegated powers, it is fundamental we are not confined to the four corners of the particular section, but are obligated to examine the entire act in the light of its surroundings and objectives, nor need the standards be set forth in express terms if they may be reasonably inferred from the statutory scheme as a whole. Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 93 A.2d 385 (1952); Schierstead v. City of Brigantine, 20 N.J. 164, 119 A.2d 5 (1955).
We are likewise in accord with the view of the Appellate Division that the same standards that control the granting of the application for the license apply with equal force in a proceeding for the revocation of the license 'for cause.'
Under this statute every individual or individual member of a firm, association or corporation applying for a license must be vouched for by the written approval of five reputable citizens, property owners of the county where it is proposed to conduct the business. The application must contain not only the facts as to the identity of the applicant but also 'such other facts as may be required by the superintendent as will tend to show the Character, competency and integrity of Each person or individual signing Such application.' (Italics supplied.) Any person who states any fact falsely is guilty of a misdemeanor. N.J.S.A. 45:19--11.
The Superintendent, when satisfied from the examination of any application and such further inquiry and investigation as he shall deem proper as to the Good character, competency and integrity of the applicant and the persons named in the application, shall issue and deliver to the applicant a license. N.J.S.A. 45:19--12. This section further requires that no license shall be issued for a person who has not at least 'five years' experience as an investigator or as a police officer with an organized police department of the state or a county or municipality thereof, or with an investigative agency of the United States of America or any State, county or municipality thereof.'
The statute does definitely establish certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Recycling & Salvage Corp., Matter of
... ... Weiner v. Borough of Stratford, supra (15 N.J. 295 [104 A.2d 659 (1954) ] ). The whole ordinance may be [586 A.2d 1311] looked to in the light of its surroundings and objectives for the purpose of deciding whether there are standards and if they are sufficient. In re Berardi, 23 N.J. 485, 491 [129 A.2d 705] (1957). They need not be minutely detailed. Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117 [93 A.2d 385] (1952). As Justice Jacobs there pointed out, "the exigencies of modern government have increasingly dictated the use of general rather than minutely detailed standards in ... ...
-
Avant v. Clifford
... ... In re Berardi, 23 N.J. 485, 129 A.2d 705 (1957).' Assoc. of N.J. State Col. Fac. v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 112 N.J.Super. 237, 258, 259, 270 A.2d 744, 756 (Law Div.1970) ... Upon this reasoning it is clear that the control and governance of the correctional institutions and rule making in the ... ...
-
Gilman v. City of Newark
... ... Page 596 ... statutes. N.J.S.A. 33:1--25; R.S. 45:10--9, N.J.S.A.; N.J.S.A. 45:14--12; N.J.S.A. 45:7--62(h); N.J.S.A. 45:19--16(d) ... The court deems it to be a sufficient guide to the authorities charged with the issuance or renewal of licenses. Cf. Berardi v. Rutter, 42 N.J.Super. 39, 125 A.2d 877 (App.Div.1956), affirmed 23 N.J. 485, 129 A.2d 705, 63 A.L.R.2d 767 (1957). The mere fact that the standards set forth are general rather than specific does not militate against their acceptance and validity. The exigencies of modern government have ... ...
-
State v. Hudson County News Co.
... ... 467, 100 A. 696, 709 (1917); Bailey v. State, 161 Ala. 75, 49 So. 886 (1909); cf. State v. Wohlfort, 123 Kan. 62, 254 P. 317 (1927); People v. Wallach, 62 Cal.App. 385, 217 P. [173 A.2d 27] 81 (1923); State v. Constable, 90 W.Va. 515, 112 S.E. 410 (1922). See also Berardi" v. Rutter, 42 N.J.Super. 39, 45, 125 A.2d 877 (App.Div.1956), affirmed, 23 N.J. 485, 490, 129 A.2d 705, 63 A.L.R.2d 767 (1957); and compare State v. Kohn, 42 N.J.Super. 578, 127 A.2d 451 (Cty.Ct.1956) with State v. Kinney Bldg. Drug Stores, Inc., 56 N.J.Super. 37, 151 A.2d 430 (Cty.Ct.1959) ... \xC2" ... ...