In Re: Application of John Clader
135 A.3d 1062
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Appellee John P. Clader, Director of School Security for Wallenpaupack Area School District and a former state trooper, was appointed a school police officer with authority under 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(1-3) (including issuing summary citations, detaining individuals, and, if authorized, exercising municipal police powers on school property).
- As school security director he obtained an ORI number giving access to driver/registration and "hot file" data and access to CLEAN (but not criminal history information).
- On Jan 23, 2014 Clader petitioned for a private detective license under the Private Detective Act of 1953; the Commonwealth opposed, citing conflict-of-interest and abuse-of-power concerns.
- The trial court granted the license but imposed a restriction: Clader may not perform private-detective work involving Wallenpaupack administrators, teachers, employees, officials, parents or students without prior court approval and notice to the Pike County DA.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court (en banc) reversed, holding public policy bars issuing a private detective license to anyone vested with police powers and that the Act does not authorize issuing a license subject to judicially imposed restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a school police officer with statutorily conferred police powers may hold a private detective license | Commonwealth: School police have law-enforcement powers and special access to databases; permitting dual status risks abuse and the appearance of impropriety — license should be denied | Clader: School police powers are limited in scope/geography; he lacks arrest authority for misdemeanors/felonies per district policy and lacks access to criminal histories; public-policy cases don’t address school police | Held: Reversed — public policy forbids licensing anyone vested with police powers (appearance of impropriety sufficient) |
| Whether a court may grant a private detective license with case-specific restrictions | Commonwealth: No statutory authority to issue "limited" or "qualified" licenses; restrictions don’t cure appearance of impropriety and are difficult to enforce | Clader: Trial court’s restrictions are reasonable, tailored, and permissible as safeguards | Held: Reversed — the Act contains no provision for restricted licenses; restrictions cannot eliminate the public-policy concern |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kuma K-9 Security, Inc., 351 Pa.Super. 471 (Pa. Super. 1986) (public policy disfavors licensing individuals with police powers; appearance of impropriety suffices)
- In re Millennium Consulting & Associates, 804 A.2d 735 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (full‑time police officers not entitled to private detective licenses because of special access to nonpublic resources)
- In re Stanley, 204 Pa.Super. 29 (Pa. Super. 1964) (constable’s extraordinary public authority incompatible with private detective work)
- Commonwealth v. Gregg, 262 Pa.Super. 364 (Pa. Super. 1979) (probation officers’ peace-officer powers and access to records preclude licensing)
- Little v. Freeman, 86 Pa.Cmwlth. 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (mayor’s position created appearance of conflict with private-detective work despite assurances)
- In re Centeno, 5 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2010) (corrections officer may not hold private detective license as matter of public policy)