J-E03008-15

2016 PA Super 49

IN RE: APPLICATION OF JOHN P. 

CLADER, TRADING AS LT 

INVESTIGATIONS, FOR A PRIVATE 

DETECTIVE LICENSE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2094 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County

Civil Division at No(s): CV128-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., 

SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J. 

DISSENTING OPINION BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2016

While the Majority points out the public policy considerations at issue 

when law enforcement officers seek a private detective license, I believe 

that, for purposes of a private detective license, a school police officer’s 

position does not equate with other law enforcement positions. 

Furthermore, I view the court’s limitation upon the license issued pursuant 

to the Private Detective Act of 1953 (“Act”), 22 P.S. § 11, et seq., as an 

added safeguard that is not improper under the Act. Therefore, I would 

affirm the order of the trial court granting Mr. Clader a private detective 
J-E03008-15

- 2 -

license, subject to certain restrictions. Accordingly, very respectfully, I 

dissent. 

Regarding the issuance of a private detective license, the Act provides, 

in part:

When the application shall have been examined, and such 

further inquiry and investigation made as the court of quarter 

sessions or the district attorney shall deem proper, and when the 

court of quarter sessions shall be satisfied of the good character, 

competency and integrity of such applicant, ... the court of 

quarter sessions shall issue and deliver to such applicant a 

certificate of license to conduct such business ...

22 P.S. § 16(a). Therefore, the applicant must demonstrate good character, 

competency, and integrity. Although law enforcement officers are not 

statutorily barred from holding private detective licenses, case law 

establishes that, as a matter of public policy, law enforcement officers may 

not simultaneously hold a license as a private detective. See In re 

Centeno, 5 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2012) (corrections officer); In re Kuma 

K-9 Security, Inc., 506 A.2d 445 (Pa. Super. 1986) (police captain); 

Commonwealth v. Gregg, 396 A.2d 797 (Pa. Super. 1979) (probation 

officer); In re Stanley, 201 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 1964) (constable). See 

also, In re Application of Millennium Consulting & Assocs., 804 A.2d

735 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (full-time members of borough police department); 

Little v. Freeman, 484 A.2d 873 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (mayor). I recognize 

these cases stand for the principle that the appearance of impropriety or the 

potential for abuse and conflict of interest warrants the denial of a private 
J-E03008-15

- 3 -

detective license in cases involving applicants who are law enforcement 

officers. However, I do not believe the instant case is controlled by this 

precedent. A review of the above-cited cases, in chronological order, guides 

my analysis.

In the case of In re Stanley, 201 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 1964), this 

Court dealt with a private detective who was elected constable for the FortyFifth Ward of the City of Philadelphia, and became clothed with authority “to 

execute warrants of arrest, to arrest on sight for breach of the peace, 

vagrancy and drunkenness, to carry a weapon concealed upon his person 

and to be present at polling places in order to keep the peace.” Id. at 289. 

The Stanley Court found the constable’s “extraordinary authority” was not 

conferred upon private citizens and raised public policy concerns that the 

constable would use that authority for the benefit of private persons when 

acting as a private detective. Id. Therefore, this Court sustained the 

suspension of a private detective license while the constable served in his 

elected position. 

Commonwealth v. Gregg, 396 A.2d 797 (Pa. Super. 1979), involved 

two probation officers who, by statute, were “peace officers” with “police 

powers and authority throughout the Commonwealth” to arrest probation or 

parole violators with or without a warrant. Id. at 798, citing 19 P.S. § 1091. 

The Gregg Court found that in addition to their statutorily granted powers, 

the probation officers could “conceivably examine the police records of any 
J-E03008-15

- 4 -

individual.” Id. at 798. This Court concluded the probation officers should 

not hold private detective licenses while they continued in their public 

employment, and reversed the trial court’s order granting the licenses. Id. 

Furthermore, in Little v. Freeman, 484 A.2d 873 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), 

involving a declaratory judgment action, the Commonwealth Court affirmed 

the trial court’s holding that the appellant’s position as the duly elected 

Mayor of the Borough of Kennett Square created at least the appearance of 

a conflict of interest with his employment as a private investigator. Id. at 

874. The Mayor had submitted an affidavit stating that he had potential 

access to certain police records, but he and his employees under the private 

detective license would not conduct private investigations in the borough. 

Id. The Commonwealth Court agreed with the trial court that the Mayor’s 

intention did not remove the appearance of a conflict of interest. Id. 

In Kuma K-9 Security, Inc., 506 A.2d 445 (Pa. Super. 1986), this 

Court addressed the situation where a private detective agency retained a 

police captain as a consultant. This Court reasoned that the agency, through 

its consultant, “would have access to information and be in a position not 

enjoyed by other private detectives” and that this potential advantage to the 

agency “would create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and a 

potential source of abuse.” Id. at 449. Therefore, this Court conditioned its 

affirmance of the trial court’s grant of a private detective license to the 

agency on the resignation of the police captain from the agency. 
J-E03008-15

- 5 -

More recently, in In re Application of Millennium Consulting & 

Associates, 804 A.2d 735 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), the Commonwealth Court 

affirmed the denial of a private detective license to a firm that consisted of 

two partners who were active, full-time members of the Kutztown Borough 

Police Department. In support, the Court cited Kuma K-9 Security, Inc., 

supra; Gregg, supra; In re Stanley, supra, and Little, supra. See 

Millennium Consulting & Associates, 804 A.2d at 736–737. The 

Commonwealth Court noted, “Police patrolmen have access to various 

resources that the public does not, such as police department files, reports, 

and other non-public databases. That singular access is precisely the 

rationale supporting the decisions just discussed.” Id. at 737.

Finally, this Court, in In re Centeno, 5 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2010), 

considered the Commonwealth’s claim that “the trial court erred in granting 

a private detective license to appellee because a prison guard is a peace 

officer and so is prohibited from holding a private detective license.” Id. at 

1249 (quotations omitted). The Centeno Court agreed with the 

Commonwealth, stating that “corrections officers are also considered law 

enforcement officers,” and “[t]he Courts of Pennsylvania have consistently 

held that a law enforcement officer cannot simultaneously hold a license as a 

private detective.” Id. at 1249. 

In contrast to the individuals in the above-cited cases, Mr. Clader has 

limited law enforcement-type powers and duties as a school police officer. 
J-E03008-15

- 6 -

Specifically, the duties of a school police officer are “[t]o enforce good order 

in school buildings, on school buses and on school grounds.” 24 P.S. § 7-

778(c)(1). Section 7-778(c)(2) provides that, if authorized by the court, a 

school police officer has the same powers that are presently or may 

thereafter be exercised under authority of law or ordinance by municipal 

police wherein the school property is located. Finally, under Section 7-

778(c)(3), a school police officer, if authorized by the court, can issue 

summary citations or detain individuals until local law enforcement is 

notified. Here, Mr. Clader is authorized by the court with the powers and 

duties specified in 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(1-3). 

The policy of the Wallenpaupak Area School District School Resource 

Officer Program includes objectives to “[i]nvestigate [and] document any 

violation of law and make arrests for summary offenses,” and “[d]etain 

students that violate any law that constitutes a misdemeanor or a felony.” 

N.T., 6/3/2014, at 9–10, 15; Petitioner’s Exhibit 1. Mr. Clader testified that 

he had issued citations for summary offenses, but had not made any arrests 

for felonies or misdemeanors. N.T., 6/3/2014, at 10. He also stated he had 

been involved in six or seven misdemeanor or felony investigations, which 

had been turned over to the Pennsylvania State Police. Id. at 10–11. Mr. 

Clader testified the specific policy of the Wallenpaupack Area School District 

is that school police do not make felony or misdemeanor arrests. Id. at 13. 
J-E03008-15

- 7 -

Furthermore, Mr. Clader stated the Wallenpaupack Area School District 

has an Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) assignment number. However, 

the ORI number only gives school police access to driver’s license, 

registration and stolen vehicle information. Id. at 12. Therefore, although 

Mr. Clader can obtain certain information from the Commonwealth Law 

Enforcement Assistance Network (CLEAN), he has no access to criminal 

background information that is provided to other types of law enforcement 

officers. See N.T., 6/3/2014, at 11–13, 15; Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, Letter 

from Pennsylvania State Police to Mr. Clader, 9/30/2013 (explaining that the 

“‘VS’ ORI will permit your agency to access Drivers License, Registration and 

Hot File Information only. Criminal History Information is restricted to 

Criminal Justice/Law Enforcement.” (emphasis added)). 

I read 24 P.S. § 7-778 to draw a distinction between school police and 

municipal police, which, I believe, is demonstrated by Mr. Clader’s 

testimony, discussed above. When viewed in context of the statute and the 

school system’s mission, Mr. Clader’s power is limited, in terms of scope and 

jurisdiction, in comparison to the broad county-wide or state-wide powers of 

police, probation and corrections officers. As then Justice (now former Chief 
J-E03008-15

- 8 -

Justice) Castille explained in his dissent in In Interest of R.H., 791 A.2d 

331 (Pa. 2002) (plurality):1

Although school police may be authorized to exercise the same 

powers as municipal police on school property pursuant to 24 

P.S. § 7-778(c)(2), these powers must be viewed in the context 

of the statute as a whole and in light of the function of schools. 

The duties of the school police are not solely, or even 

predominantly, to investigate criminal conduct, but rather the 

prescribed duty is to “enforce good order in school buildings, on 

school buses and on school grounds.” § 7-778(c)(1). Thus, 

school police are authorized to detain individuals, but only “until 

local law enforcement is notified.” § 7-778(c)(3). Most 

importantly, the salaries of school police are paid by the school 

district, § 7-778(e), and they are, “at all times,” employees of 

the school district, § 7-778(g). Thus, it is the school district, not 

the police department, that school police answer to. When § 7-

778 is read in toto, it is apparent that school police officers 

appointed under the statute are not so much law enforcement 

officials charged with ferreting out criminal activity -- as the lead 

opinion necessarily assumes in granting relief here -- but are 

specialized members of the school staff, employed and 

compensated by the school district, whose purpose is to assist 

teachers and school administrators in the important, unique 

requirement of maintaining safety, order, and discipline.

Id. at 341–342 (Castille, J., dissenting). 

This analysis highlights the difference between school police officers 

and other law enforcement officers.2 In the order appointing Mr. Clader as a 

____________________________________________

1

In In Interest of R.H., 791 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2002) (plurality), the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that where a student was taken 

into custody and questioned on school grounds, school police officers “were 

‘law enforcement officers’ within the purview of Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 

U.S. 436 (1966)].” Id. at 334.

 

2 The Commonwealth asserts that “the full municipal police powers granted 

to Mr. Clader ... demonstrate a sworn school police officer is most akin to a 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-E03008-15

- 9 -

school police officer for the Wallenpaupak Area School District, he was 

authorized “to possess and exercise all of the powers and duties set forth in 

24 P.S. Section 7-778(c)(1-3).” Order, 6/27/2013. As such, under 24 P.S. 

§ 7-778(c)(1) and (c)(2), Mr. Clader was authorized to exercise the same 

powers while on school property as the municipal police, including the power 

to arrest, issue summary citations and detain individuals until local law 

enforcement is notified, in order to “enforce good order in school buildings, 

on school buses and on school grounds,” pursuant to 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(1). 

His power, in terms of scope and jurisdiction, is limited, consistent with his 

duties as a school district police officer employed by the school district. 

Therefore, given the limited powers and duties of school police, I 

would find no error in the trial court’s decision to grant Mr. Clader’s 

application for a private detective license. Furthermore, I believe that, while 

it was not necessary for the trial court to impose restrictions in order to 

grant the private detective license to Mr. Clader, the trial court could 

properly impose restrictions as an additional safeguard.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

municipal officer as in Millennium Consulting.” Commonwealth’s 

Substituted Brief, at 17. However, the Commonwealth offers this conclusory 

statement without any practical analysis to demonstrate how Mr. Clader’s 

work for the school district would create the appearance of a conflict of 

interest or potential for abuse.
J-E03008-15

- 10 -

Nothing in the Act prevents the court from granting a private detective 

license subject to limitations, such as the one imposed in this case, as 

follows: 

This Certificate of License is also issued subject to the limitation 

that [Mr. Clader], who has previously been appointed as a school 

police officer for the Wallenpaupak Area School District, shall not 

engage in any private detective business, as defined by the Act, 

in any matter involving school administrators, teachers, 

employees, officials, parents or students of the Wallenpaupack 

Area School District, without prior approval of the Court and 

notice thereof to the Pike County District Attorney.

Order and Certificate of License, 6/26/2014. 

In fact, this Court, in Kuma K-9 Security, Inc., supra, affirmed the 

trial court’s order granting a private detective license to the appelleeagency, “subject to compliance with the conditions set forth in this Opinion.” 

Id., 506 A.2d at 449. Specifically, the Kuma Court ordered as a condition 

to the agency’s retention of the license that a police captain, who was 

employed as a consultant, “sever all ties with Kuma and resign as a 

consultant to the company.” Id. at 449. Our Court stated: “We note that 

under 22 P.S. § 15 the district attorneys of the various counties have the 

power to enforce the provisions of the act. Any violation of this order would 

thus be grounds to seek revocation of Kuma’s license.” Id. 

The trial court explained that it carefully crafted its order to 

“specifically eliminate[] any potential for abuse that would normally exist 

when allowing an official with police powers to be licensed [and] eliminate[] 

the appearance of impropriety because the Applicant is prohibited from using 
J-E03008-15

- 11 -

any information he may obtain on such individuals against them in his 

private business.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/2014, at 3. As such, I believe 

this court-ordered limitation serves as an added safeguard for the school 

community, and is not improper under the Act.

Accordingly, I dissent.

Judge Panella joins this dissenting opinion.