Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 TOW TRUCK DENIAL 05-17-93PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1 5-17-93 G E N DAadum' DATE: MAY 17, 1993 Inter -Com T TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: SUBJECT: APPEAL OF LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD DENIAL OF CITY TOW TRUCK PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Tustin City Council uphold the City's License and Permit Board and Chief of Police denial of Dwayne Davis' request for a City tow truck driver permit. Tustin City Code Section 3432a requires each tow truck driver operating within the City to obtain a valid tow truck driver permit from the City. Upon receipt of the application, the Tustin Police Department conducts a series of investigations pertaining to the applicant's citizenship, past experience, driving record, driving qualifications, and past arrests and convictions other than traffic citations. Tustin City Code Section 3433d authorizes the Police Department to deny such applications upon determination that any of the following applied to the driver: (1) Under the age of 18 years; (2) Convicted of a felony; (3) Convicted of reckless driving, any provision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, California Penal Code, California Vehicle Code, or any other code directly related to the operation of a vehicle; (4) Physical impairments affecting ability to operate vehicle safely; (5) Not of good moral character; (6) Not able to speak, read and write English sufficiently to deal with potential customers; (7) Does not hold a valid driver's license; (8) Falsified information on application. On February 16, 1993, the Tustin Police Department formally denied Mr. Davis' application for a City tow truck driver permit (Attachment A): This decision was based upon the Police Department's determination that the applicant was not of good moral character, as evidenced by his conviction of Penal Code §12031 City Council Report Page 2 (loaded weapon concealed in a vehicle) and the circumstances of that violation. Prior to the actual issuance of the formal denial by the City, Mr. Davis learned of the Police Department's intent and on January 20, 1993, filed an appeal to the City's License and Permit Board for review of the matter (Attachment B). The City issued a formal denial on February 16, 1993, once a full background check was completed. On March 10, 1993, the City's License and Permit Board heard testimony from Mr. Davis and a witness for the applicant, regarding the denial of the permit. After full consideration of the matter, the License and Permit Board determined that there was sufficient evidence supporting the Police Department's finding that the applicant is not of good moral character, as evidenced by his conviction of Penal Code §12031 and the circumstances of that violation. The Board's written decision to uphold that denial was sent to Mr. Davis on March 26, 1993 (Attachment C). On March 29, 1993, Mr. Davis submitted an appeal of the License and Permit Board decision in this matter (Attachment D). Also, on April 5, 1993, the Community Development Department received a letter from the applicant's mother, Ms. Joan Wood, testifying to the good moral character of the applicant (Attachment E). According to the Tustin City Code Section 1536, any decision of the License and Permit Board may be appealed to the City Council for hearing. Thereafter, the City Council may affirm, reverse, revise or modify the decision of the License and Permit Board. POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. All of the information presented by Mr. Davis seems to be an effort to retry his criminal case. That case has already been tried in criminal court and Mr. Davis was convicted of possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle; not coincidentally, that vehicle was an OPTS (Official Police Tow Service) tow truck. 2. Mr. Davis' written documents also attempt to make the owner of Candice Tow the issue at hand. The issue is Mr. Davis' conduct and criminal history, not Mr. Tocher's. 3. Mr. Davis also dismisses management of liability as trivial. In today's litigious society, managing liability is a prime function of government. Mr. Davis must understand his current difficulties are a direct result of his conduct, and that conduct raises the liability issue. City Council Report Page 3 Staff believes that the intent of the City of Tustin's Vehicular Business sections of the Tustin City Code is to preserve and protect the public safety of potential clients and others doing business or otherwise coming into contact with any agent of licensed taxi, tow truck ambulance drivers and ice cream vendors doing business within - the City. Intense background checks are conducted by the Tustin Police Department to uncover evidence that would clearly indicate any potential threat to this public safety. Staff believes that the evidence uncovered (conviction of having a loaded weapon concealed in a tow truck) is evidence of the applicant's poor moral character which warrants denial of the request for a tow truck driver permit. Therefore, staff recommends that Council uphold the decision of the License and Permit Board and Police Department and deny Mr. Davis' current appeal. Doug Franks Chief of Police DO:kd\toutruck.ccr Christine A. SgLngleton Assistant Cit Manager Community Redevelopment Agency City DATE A7"TA�HMEN 0 A ' Of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 (714)544-8890 Certified Mail 4:2 Pte-$%% SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS DRIVER APPLICATION -. Toy,✓ T,��,e �� �N,c Dear Applicant: This is to advise you that the Chief of Police has denied the application for miscellaneous driver permit upon determination that the applicant is in violation of one or more of the provisions of Ordinance 769, Part Section .Sd( .5-). See attached. When any application for any permit pursuant to this Part has been denied, or when any permit has been revoked, the applicant or permittee may make a written appeal to the License & Permit Board within ten (10) days of receipt of such denial or revocation. Upon receipt of such an appeal, the License & Permit Board shall set the matter for a hearing allowing at least five (5) days' written notice to the applicant or permittee. The License &;Permit Board shall consider all relevant evidence at such hearing. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please do not . hesitate to contact me at (714) 544-8890, extension 271. Sincerely_, 7�d�eJ Nena McNamara �s-ot�eE�f1 1/%c Department Clerk/Business Licenses!„6u� "_2.c C �� P 087 435 464 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAILW7 FOR IWERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) spnt .✓ar.rX_.l�,�J,�s Sbaat and No. �/a � �✓�/u�o-s r P. State nd 'Coda Qa /I f !y(' Postage S 9 Cegdwd Fee .� r I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 m d Denial or Termination of Permit The Chief of Police shall deny application for a permit, or having issued .a permit,shal.l revoke or sus- pend the same, upon determination of any of the follow- ing applied to the drive; (1) Under the age of 18 years; (2) who has been convicted of a felony (3) who, within a period of.two (2) years immedi- ately preceding such application, has been convicted of reckless driving or any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, California Penal Code, California Vehicle Code, or any other code, which is directly con- cerned with the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverage or drug, or combina- tion of alcohol and drug; (A) who has physical impairments, hh.*.heaps or deficiencies of such nature as to interfere with said driver's ability to competently perform the duties of his employment, or to operate such vehicle safely; (5) who is not of good moral character; (6) who is not able to speak, read and write the English language sufficiently to deal with customers; (7) who does not hold a valid operator's license issued by the Motor Vehicle Department of the State of California; (8) who falsifies the application for said permit. (Ord.' No. 691) A driver's permit shall remain valid indefinitely provided that its validity shall expire upon the drive terminating his employment with the emplover for whom the permit was issued and may be terminated by revocation by the Chief of Police for cause as in this Part othcr wise provided. e Lists Of Drivers Each licensed tow truck company shall furnish to the Chief of Police by the tenth (10th) day of each monttl a list of its currently employed drivers." C p -- ATTACHMENT B January 20, 1993 To whom it may concern: The first thing I would like to say is "Thank you for the opportunity to finally tell the whole story, or should I say, nightmare, to the board of permits without lawyers or judges saying "Objection", "Sustained", "Objection", "Sustained." You will know what I mean as you read on. The reason I am writing to you is because of a towing permit that was denied to me by the Tustin police depaXtment because of two charges that were brought against me by the so called owner of Candice Towing formerly Pacific Coast Towing . Candice Towing is still towing out of your city today. If you study the documents attached you will clearly see that I, Dwayne Davis, was set up by Pat Tocher. After seven years of service to this man I had enough of his criminal activity by frauding people from Tustin and Santa Ana out of thousands of dollars by illegally charging the residents of Tustin a city of Santa Ana only PPI fee. Now welcome to the world of PPIs' (Private Property Impounds). For those not familiar with PPI towing, it is the illegal parking of cars on private property . Examples are: Someone in your car port, no parking permit or parked in red curb on private property (CVC 22658). I specialized in the towing of PPIs' for seven years in the city of Tustin and Santa Ana. Not everyone likes PPIS'. Most police officers don't because, for awhile there, about two years ago the law was abused. Tow drivers removing permits, shutting car doors while people are unloading groceries and towing them off are examples. But after seven years of service, I have never impounded a bad car, damaged a car, stolen a car and to this very day I have a perfect DMV record. Finally, a year ago, January 1,1992 CVC 22658 was amended to read: (No towing company can act as the agent of the private property and tow cars at their discretion). Most tow companies were upset but I was happy to see the new law come into effect. When a car is towed the responsibility or reasons the car was impounded is left to licensed security companies or managers or legal agents of the private property. About a year and a half ago the city of Santa Ana imposed a $25.00 fee for each PPI called in. Anytime you remove a car from private property you must have a signed card and the driver must call in the vehicle to the respective or city police agency where the car was removed from. Each car must be called in. That was and still is -the law. Getting back to the illegal tactics of Candice Towing: for a period of at least one year Patrick Tocher was charging the $25.00 city of Santa Ana fee to the residents of Tustin. If questioned by the people picking up their cars they were told that because of his towing company being in the city of Santa Ana, they are charged the city fee also. (which is fraud) All I could do as a driver, when I did the gate release, I would read the receipt and notice the $25.00 charge under labor. They in turn, would ask me about the city fee and I would tell them to question the dispatcher about it and tell them their friends car was impounded out of Tustin and they were never charged a city fee at all. Everyone that questioned the charge that I talked to, the money was refunded immediately. I told the people to not mention my name as to where they got their information for fear of losing my job. After Mr. Tocher filed bankruptcy, not because of money problems, but because of not wanting to pay a large cash lawsuit stemming from a Tustin resident who sued him for medical damages. My wife went to work for him weekend days only for the new company Candice Towing (same management, same owners) She was asked to charge this illegal fee or else she would be fired. For about a week she did but then decided to tell me about it. She told me in the lobby, which has camera and sound. I then responded to her that I had had enough and I was leaving in about a week to go to work for another towing agency and I told her that if she is asked to do this anymore to refuse and walk away because she would be as guilty as him. Overcharging is not only morally wrong but is illegal. Penalties are: Four times the amount back and when you are talking $120.00 times 4 back for each case of overcharging you are well into the thousands of dollars considering the fact he has done this for one and a half years now. My wife and I are eyewitnesses to this illegal act and all the police had to do was respond to it. Three days after warning my wife to walk away, I was flagged down to do a jump start on a Camero. It was a bad area so I told the two men that I wouldn't work on their car in that neighborhood but I would tow it to the front of the towing yard and charge them just a service call. The current dispatcher came out of the office and informed me that if I didn't call this in as a PPI she would call the SAPD and tell them you stole the car and are stripping it. I informed her it was not a PPI but a jumpstart for two men and that they would be there in fifteen minutes. She called Pat Tocher and told him I stole the car and was stripping it in his warehouse. I called him and informed him it was not a PPI and I could not call it in as a PPI and to do so would be fraud and grand theft auto. He said no problem and he just wanted to go back to sleep. I then told the dispatcher I would wait the fifteen minutes for the two men and if they didn't show up to go ahead and call the police and let them know about the car. I waited fifteen minutes and they didn't show up. I dropped the car and pushed it across the street. I informed the dispatcher to call the police and if they needed to know anything about the car I would be back later because I had two more PPI at Southcoast Villas to do. I did the two PPIS' and on the way back with the second one two Santa Ana PD units were in front of the tow yard. I got out of the truck. The officer asked if I was Dwayne Davis. I said "Yes" He said, "Come over here and tell me about this car". I said "Sure" The policeman asked if I had any guns or knives on me. I told him no. He then put his knee in my back and frisked me. He said I was clean but told me that the towing dispatcher told the SAPD dispatcher that I stole the Camero and was stripping it. He asked if I would mind sitting in the back of his police car, uncuffed, and I agreed. After five minutes in the back of the squad car , Mr. Pat Tocher showed up and went inside the tow truck and also the agent of the properties went in the tow truck two or three different times. The police weren't paying any attention to the two people going in and out of the tow truck because they were there on the Camero. Forty-five minutes goes by and the officer comes back and gives me my license back and told me I"would be out in five minutes and they knew I didn't steal the car. The car had been stolen five hours earlier from another location other from where I had picked it up. You cannot strip and put a car back together and do two PPIS' in the course of thirty minutes. I replied "Yes, I know. I don't know why she said I stole it." The officer went into the towing office to tell Mr. Tocher there wasn't any charges against me or the towing company. While sitting in the back of the police car I heard over the police radio 2207 South Lyon negative on the escort. I then wondered what was going on. The officer walked over to the rear passenger of the police unit, opened the door, and said "I hate to do this, but you are under arrest for having a concealed and loaded weapon underneath the front passenger seat of the tow truck." I replied, "What gun?" He described it. I replied, "The way you found it and the condition you found it in isn't the way I had it." He then cuffed me , got in the car and asked me the following: Why after telling Pat Tocher that there weren't any charges to be filed against me or his company he then replied that Dwayne Davis carries a nine mm SMW handgun underneath the passenger front seat of the tow truck which violates 12025 and 12031 of the penal code. I replied I'm not the investigator, you are but I think it is a setup. The police officer asked me if there were any problems between Patrick Tocher and me. I said no, not that I know of. I have towed seven years for this man with no damages, made him countless amount of money but no, we do not associate as friends. He then brought me to the police station, cited and released me. That evening I talked to Pat Tocher and all he said was he wanted to teach me a lesson. Attached are copies of two police reports. I will try to point out the discrepancies in the police reports. The reason why this is so long is because this whole incident has marred my perfect record with one misdemeanor charge has cost me my livelihood because Tustin is denying me my Tustin towing permit over this charge that I do not deserve. I am thirty years old with two children and a wife and in these hard economic times I am going to lose my job because the company I work for now does everything legally. They tow out of Tustin, Santa Ana, Orange and FV. Tustin is the only one that is denying me a permit even after seven years of me towing out of the city of Tustin. The reason for denial from the police was they didn't want the liability. I questioned their thinking because the only liability I have is the actual towing of the cars off of the property not the legalities because the law changed January 1992 CVC code 22658. As far as liability is concerned High Standard (where I work now) and I are fully insured for the vehicles we impound. I have never broken the law of 22658 nor will I ever. I defended the residents of Tustin and because of telling my wife to quit and walk away I lost my right to privacy, I am losing my job which I need, my integrity for sticking up for what is right. I have tried for the past six months to have something done about the illegal acts of Candice Towing but to no avail. The man who rips people off continues to tow out of your city but the man who tried to turn him in loses his privilege to tow from your city. Tustin PD has had a wait and see attitude about my towing permit until the court case was over. After being denied a public defender twice and going through countless lawyers and them wanting three to four thousand dollars just to keep me out of jail, I was forced to defend myself. Here is the outcome in i-� laymens terms. The primary 12025 of the penal code was a hung jury being dismissed. Convicted on 12031 of the penal code I paid no fine, did no jail time, and have three years informal probation. If I break any law I go to jail so this is why I am not a liability. In the police report it says the gun was not loaded but because the clips were in the side case of the carrier it makes it a loaded weapon. I know that Pat Tocher put the clips in the side pouch while I was in the back of the SAPD unit. Remember, I indirectly. called them . No one would put a loaded gun underneath the front passenger seat of the tow truck unless they have a death wish. Please take the time to read the police reports and I have highlighted the discrepancies for you. I could not afford to get an attorney because I thought it was more important to feed and clothe my family. The Tustin PD has given me the miscarriage of justice punishment of all that is deny me my permit which makes me lose my job over something that stems from introducing the tactics of a corrupt man who continues to tow and rip people off every day. Thank you for your time and please grant me a hearing so the real truth and any questions which I haven't answered can be brought to my attention and justice be done. Sincerely, �� ���� •JAW"" � Dwayne Davis 4 R609793345 4C3Z84706 DATE: 11/30/92 TIME: 13:09 � REO VALID FROM: 03/31/92 TO 03/31/93 � I_ICHs3/B470b YkMD:5sO 19 KEsFORD PTM sF!K. Itd s; FD1.F47IF2LCAb3051 ;RlJ! s'VA6kNTINE pA E:�D. C"ANI-YIM, Ol7tIV1� "2Z��'S I.YON.,CIIY$SANTA ANA, SOLD:00/00/90 RCIDs08/04/9:?-"Oi;2b:08�1 l.2 1.00U:?. � -- L/O "ASSOC COMMLktIAL CORPS PO BX 2189 '1TYsANAHEIM ZIP :92825 TYCSTAE131 PU6!Rstl AXLE -2 FltlHTs07520 VF.H .f3 ,BODY:Y CLASsHH *—YRs92 REG 3TATU8s• .. 0004/92 VR INSPECTION EXEMPTION; , 03/21/90 PREV LIC 1/685057 CLEARANCE INFORMATION RFCORbS =`r OFFICE 'WORK QATF TECH/ID s3FE1 if, VALUE PxCFI�`FtAlF: T1r. C43 03/x21/90 5T 0002 00697.00 00/00/00 1:00 C43 03/20/90 5R 0616 ,106691;00 PRIOR SUSPENSE.. 143 03/24/91 34 03�i9 .;; ;(Fn75�:00 00/00/00 PUT 143 03/22/92 5R (1125 60742.00 06/00/00 POT C43 05/0�i/92 5R 0007-''061$4:00 00/00/00 FOO 542 OA/04/92 '07 0011 '00609.00 00/00/00 FOO END j f Lop "S Ck e b OAA re Re .--1 ( A 1 ?' 4 S ta %�%i ALL AMERICA CITY 1982 MAYOR�� Dan.yburw, 7 CITY MANAGE( MAYOR PRO TEM kj David N. Ream --- :.Miguel A. Pulido CITY ATTORNEY P- avi COUNCILMEMBERS catlorl Ist Edward J. Cooper - .Y)ohn Acosta % CLERK OF THE COUNCII Daniel E Grisel Janice C. Guy Patricia A. McGuigan, fi Rick Norton Robert L. Ric' CIT.)0 FSAN1A ANA POLICE DEPAi WENT«L-` 24 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA • P.OB6x 1981 SANTA ANA,.CALIFORNIA 92702� T NO une24,:1991- cl it ar Mr. at. To Pa C: _-Coast:Towin 'C' o 220 n. - 2 7i06 Santa"iAna 9 ,CA- 7 Dear Mr.% her on Junes Council of Santa Ana passed Resolution 91-05)L ar'jous fees forservices rendered by the Cit resolution is a y,' 5 n:.item that directs the Polid,o charge towLn com _Ales $25 for each Private Prop ASy P -u on 11,+ 10 of the C,�Jifornia , Vehicl iivate property or his agent to repqr- of all vehicles to the law enforcd*m,e r lona This information must then be, e em nd made available for citizen Inquirie Thit letter is to form you that starting'July 1, 1991, there w i ll, be a S25 char' for each Private Property Impound. Bi 11 ing for this service wi b e -done through the City's Finance Department on a bi-monthly_basis. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. /_- 141 17-b Ad, X -S S41 PAUL M . WALTERS ,-.Chief of Police 71 I'J C Y vA Community Development Department March 26, 1993 Dwayne A. Davis 1812 S. Goldenwest Santa Ana, California 92702 ATTACHMENT C FILE COPY CERTIFIED MAIL City Of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 544-8890 FAX(714)832-0825 SUBJECT: LICENSE AND PERMIT BOARD HEARING - DENIAL OF TOW TRUCK PERMIT APPEAL Dear Mr. Davis: On March 10, 1993, the City of Tustin License and Permit Board considered your appeal of the decision of the Chief of Police denying your application for a City tow truck driver permit. Attached, please find the License and Permit Board decision denying this appeal. Any person may appeal a decision of the License and Permit Board by filing a written statement of appeal with the City Clerk, within ten (10) days after receipt of this notification. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me at (714) 544-8890, extension 291. Respectfully, Dana Ogdon Senior Planner D0:kbc\davisd.1tr cc:,,'Jim Rourke /Doug Franks /Robert Schoenkopf ,/Nena McNamara Christine Shingleton P 087 435 400 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NC INSUNANC[ COVFPP(,( ppW,,,FC NCI FCO INIE"U'CNA1 MAIL ISee Reverse) bWA'YNE A. DAVIS P 0. State and ZIP Cod, Postage LICENSE & PERMIT BOARD HEARING OF MARCH 10, 1993 APPEAL OF DWAYNE A. DAVIS Re: Appeal of the decision of the Chief of Police denying the application of Dwayne A. Davis for a tow truck driver permit. The License & Permit Board met on March 10, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. in the Tustin City Hall. Present: Dana Ogdon, (Alternate Member designated by City Administrator) Lt. Robert Schoenkopf, T (Alternate Member designated by Chief of Police) Officer Paul Garaven Raydeena McNamara, Department Clerk/Business Licenses James G. Rourke, City Attorney Dwayne A. Davis, Applicant Jessie Jenson, Witness for the Applicant The hearing was opened at 10:00 a.m. and the Applicant made a comprehensive statement about himself, his morale character, his background as a tow truck driver, his version of the incident for which he was arrested in the City of Santa Ana and charged with possession of a concealed weapon in his tow truck, having a loaded weapon in a vehicle and his conviction on the loaded weapon in a vehicle charge and a finding of not guilty on the concealed weapon charge. The Board addressed various questions to the Applicant to which he responded. The Board addressed various questions to the Applicant's witness, Jessie Jenson, to which he'.responded. The hearing was closed and the Applicant and his witness left the meeting. Board members and Staff discussed the matter. There was submitted into evidence and considered by the Board the following: 1. The Intercom of Tustin Police Department, Traffic Division, dated February 16, 1993; 2. Application of Dwayne A. Davis; 3. Fingerprint sheet with photographs of Applicant; 4. Santa Ana Police Department report, case number 92-53119 (three pages); 5. Narrative continuation of Police Report number 92-53119 with Applicant's comments thereon; 1GR:jab:D:031993(A288.jab) —1— 6. Teletype dated November 30, 1992 with comments thereon; 7. Handwritten statement of the Applicant dated April_25, 1992 regarding Night Dispatcher; a. Supplemental report of Santa Ana Police Department in case number 92-53101, with comments of the Applicant thereon (four pages); 9. Copy of bill text of AB 1390 with comments of Applicant thereon (three pages); 10. Copy of letter dated June 24, 1991, from City of Santa Ana Police Department to Mr. Pat Tocher with comments of the Applicant thereon; T 11. Copy of letter by certified mail, dated February 16, 1993, of Nena McNamara, Department Clerk/Business Licenses, to Dwayne A. Davis notifying the Applicant of hearing; 12. Copy of letter by certified mail, dated February 23, 1993, from Nena McNamara, Department Clerk/Business Licenses, to Dwayne A. Davis advising Mr. Davis the hearing had been rescheduled to 10:00 a.m. on March 10, 1993. The Board and Staff present then discussed the matter. After consideration of the testimony and written materials filed, Board advises and determines that the evidence supports the finding that the Applicant is not of good moral character, as evidenced by his conviction of Penal Code §12031 and the circumstances of that violation. Based upon the foregoing finding and determination, the Board upholds the decision of the Chief of Police in denying a tow truck driver's permit to Applicant, Dwayne A. Davis. Dated: Dana Ogdo (Alternate Member Designated y City Administrator) ,I,j� Robert S oenkopf ^A terAate Member designated Chief of Police) (Absent) Tom Brennan, Chamber of Commerce JGR:jeb:D:031993(A288.jeb) —2— March 27, 1993 City Clerk City Of Tustin ATTACHMENT RECEIVED MAR 2 9 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY AdM Dear Sir/Madam: I am making a written appeal in response to the decision that was made by the Tustin Permit Board. I find, like many others that know of my case, that the decision which was made is unfair and borders on discrimination and slander. No one on the Tustin Permit Board has ever met me or known me for thirty years. How can they come to the conclusion, after talking to me for thirty minutes, that I am of bad moral character? That is a pretty strong statement to make of anyone especially of someone who has never been in jail for anything and has always retained an error free DMV record and has been known to be honest and fair to everyone even to the extent of trying to be honest with the citizens of Tustin who were being charged a fee which is not legal and went into the pockets of a person who is at the present still towing out of the city of Tustin and is still one of the most dishonest people I know. Why is it that this person is not considered to be of bad moral character and receive the same restrictions that the Tustin Permit Board wants me to accept? The towing application has strong reasons for denying a permit. Examples are: DUI, Drugs and Felonies. My conviction was and still remains a misdemeanor, even though someone may want to make it into a felony, it is not one that may exclude me for a towing Permit according to Your records Just because of one charge ever in my lifetime occurs it does not mean I am of bad moral character. The board was not there when I received high honors in a christian school nor have they looked at my perfect DMV record, towing record, attendance. It takes a lifetime to know if someone is of bad moral character, not thirty minutes. I have only had one misdemeanor charge, this one, and I had a witness to explain the reasons why the charge is false and to testify to my honesty. Evidently this was not considered by the board. I have no felonies or drug charges and I am of good moral character. I have paid enough for this conviction. I have lost my job, I am unemployed and I have two children and a wife that love me and know that I am morally good. Yet we all suffer from a decision of people who do not know me or know that I am one of the nicest people you can meet and who has a good head on his shoulders. 1 If someone were of bad moral character it would show up in records like DMV, Justice Dept and Police Depts. throughout ones lifetime. That's what bad moral character is. Someone who is always in trouble. Some may not 1* ones attitude at times but that human and is also why Americans are so different But not morally wrong. Sincerely, Dwayne Davis d ATTACHMENT E April 3, 1993 Tustin Board of Permits 15222 Del Amo Ave. Tustin, Ca. 92680 Dear Sir/Madam: I am writing in regards to a decision which was made recently by the Tustin Board Of Permits to deny Dwayne Davis, my son, a towing permit in the city of Tustin. The reason given for this decision was stated as being one of whom is not of good moral character. This is a very strong statement to make about Dwayne who is 'without any derogatory records throughout the years to substantiate this reason for denial. I am having a very hard time trying to keep on believing in a system that condones a man who has cheated residents of Tustin through the years and still continues to operate in the City of Tustin and yet denies my son, who is a victim of a set up, the rights he deserves. After reading through the list of reasons why the Chief of Police can deny applications for a permit I failed to find any that would pertain to Dwayne Davis not receiving a permit. A felony was listed but Dwayne has one misdemeanor on his record and he even had a witness to explain the situation. I am very confident that if Dwayne could have afforded a lawyer to be able to ask the right questions at the right time and in the right way he would not have been found guilty of anything. I do hope that you will reconsider giving Dwayne his permit because it has cost him many jobs and hurt his family and the rest of my family severely. If you feel you cannot reverse your decision about giving him the permit then I strongly suggest that the reason you give is not number five on your list "Who is not of good moral character." Thank you for reading this letter and I would like to be able to get my trust back in the system believing that it works for the good of all. Sincerely, Join M. Wood cc: Police Chief Doug Frank cc: Lt. Robert Schoenkopf