J-S03039-15

2015 PA Super 87

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: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.

OPINION BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 20, 2015

The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered June 26, 2014, in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, issuing John P. Clader, trading as 

LT Investigations, a private detective license subject to certain restrictions. 

The Commonwealth contends the trial court erred in granting Clader a 

private detective license pursuant to The Private Detective Act, 22 P.S. § 11 

et seq (“the Act”) because (1) Clader is an appointed school police officer 

with law enforcement powers, and (2) the court had no statutory authority 

to grant a limited private detective license. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.
J-S03039-15

- 2 -

Clader is a school police officer, who works as Director of School 

Security for the Wallenpaupack School District in Pike County, Pennsylvania. 

On January 23, 2014, he petitioned the court for a private detective license

pursuant to the Act. The Commonwealth opposed the petition, and a 

hearing was held on June 3, 2014. Thereafter, Clader was granted a license 

by the trial court, subject to the following limitation:

[T]he Petitioner, who has previously been appointed as a school 

police officer for the Wallenpaupack Area School District, shall 

not engage in any private detective business, as defined under 

the Act, in any matter involving school administrators, teachers, 

employees, officials, parents or students of the Wallenpaupack 

Area School District without prior written approval of the Court 

and notice thereof to the Pike County District Attorney.” 

Order and Certificate of License, 6/26/2014. This appeal followed.1

The Commonwealth first argues that the trial court erred because the 

issuance of a private detective license to Clader, an individual with law 

enforcement powers as part of his public employment, demonstrates a 

potential for abuse and is a conflict of interest. Secondly, the 

Commonwealth maintains that the Act does not allow the court to grant a 

private detective license subject to limitations. We discuss these arguments 

together.

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth timely complied with the order of the trial court to file 

a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement of errors 

complained of on appeal.
J-S03039-15

- 3 -

At the outset, we note our standard of review is plenary. See Phillips 

v. A-Best Prod. Co., 665 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Pa. 1995). The question 

whether a school district police officer can hold a private detective license 

pursuant to the Act is an issue of first impression. Therefore, we look to 

analogous case law as a starting point.

This Court, in Commonwealth v. 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, referencing the powers of a corrections officer, as follows:

[A] corrections officer of a county corrections institution may 

exercise the powers of a peace officer in the performance of that 

person’s duties generally in: 

(1) Guarding, protecting, and delivering inmates.

(2) Protecting the property and interests of the county.

 

(3) Capturing and returning inmates that may have escaped.

Id., citing 61 P.S. § 1734. The Court opined:

The Courts of Pennsylvania have consistently held that a law 

enforcement officer cannot simultaneously hold a license as a 

private detective. See: In re Kuma K-9 Security, Inc., 351 Pa. 

Super. 471, 506 A.2d 445 (Pa. Super. 1986) (issuance of private 

detective license made contingent on resignation of police officer 

as consultant); Commonwealth v. Gregg, 262 Pa. Super. 364, 

396 A.2d 797 (Pa. Super. 1979) (denying the issuance of private 

detective license to a probation officer); Stanley Appeal, 204 

Pa. Super. 29, 201 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 1964) (private 

detective license was suspended upon its holder being elected as 
J-S03039-15

- 4 -

a constable). Thus, although the trial court was correct in 

observing that there is no reported decision precluding a 

corrections officer from holding a license as a private detective, 

the weight of authority is in favor of the position espoused by 

the Commonwealth, namely that “as a matter of public policy, 

persons vested with the authority of a peace officer, by virtue of 

their public employment, cannot be licensed as private 

detectives, because of the obvious potential for abuse and 

conflict of interest.” Brief of Appellant, p. 4. See generally: In 

re Application of Millennium Consulting & Associates, 804 

A.2d 735, 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (potential for abuse, as 

opposed to evidence of actual abuse, and appearance of 

impropriety are reasons for denial of private detective license to 

active duty law enforcement officers).

Id. Therefore, this Court reversed the order issuing a private detective 

license to the prison guard petitioner. 

In re 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, the issuance of a license 

to the agency was conditioned upon the police captain severing all ties and 

resigning as a consultant. Id.

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

Court held probation officers should not be granted private detective 

licenses. The Gregg Court relied on In re Stanley, 201 A.2d 287 (Pa. 
J-S03039-15

- 5 -

Super. 1964), wherein this Court sustained the suspension of a private 

detective license to an individual elected as a constable, and explained:

“A constable’s authority to execute warrants of arrest, to arrest 

on sight for breach of the peace, vagrancy and drunkenness, to 

carry a deadly weapon concealed upon his person and to be 

present at the polling places in order to keep the peace, is not 

conferred upon private citizens, including private detectives. To 

give these powers, conferred upon a duly elected constable for 

the benefit of the public, to a person licensed to act for [sic] 

private persons, creates the distinct possibility of grave abuses. 

The public policy against allowing one clothed with such 

extraordinary authority to act as a private detective for private 

employers seems obvious.” Stanley Appeal, 204 Pa.Super. at 

32, 201 A.2d at 289.

Gregg, at 798. This Court reasoned that not only did probation officers 

have police powers, as in Stanley, but also had access to criminal records of 

any individual, a privilege not enjoyed by all other private detectives and 

which created the potential for abuse. Id. at 798–799. 

Finally, in In re Application of Millenium 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. The Commonwealth Court noted “[t]he concern is that a 

public official given authority for the benefit of the public might use that 

authority for the benefit of private persons.” Id. at 736 (citation omitted). 

In reaching its conclusion, the Commonwealth Court reiterated “... where 

public officials are involved, even the appearance of a conflict of interest 

should be avoided.” Id. at 737 (quotations and citation omitted).
J-S03039-15

- 6 -

Turning to the powers of an appointed school police officer, 24 Pa.C.S. 

§ 7-778, provides, in pertinent part: 

(a) Any school entity or nonpublic school may apply to any 

judge of the court of common pleas of the county within 

which the school entity or nonpublic school is situated to 

appoint such person or persons as the board of directors of 

the school entity or administration of the nonpublic school 

may designate to act as school police officer for said school 

entity or nonpublic school. The judge, upon such 

application, may appoint such person, or so many of them 

as he may deem proper, to be such school police officer 

and shall note the fact of such appointment to be entered 

upon the records of the court. The judge may, at the 

request of the school entity or nonpublic school, grant the 

school police officer the power to arrest as provided in 

subsection (c)(2), the authority to issue citations for 

summary offenses or the authority to detain students until 

the arrival of local law enforcement, or any combination 

thereof.

****

(c) Such school police officer so appointed shall severally 

possess and exercise all the following powers and duties: 

(1) To enforce good order in school buildings, on school 

buses and on school grounds in their respective 

school entities or nonpublic schools. For purposes of 

this clause, the term “school bus” shall include 

vehicles leased by the school entity or nonpublic 

school to transport students and vehicles of mass 

transit used by students to go to and from school 

when the school police officer is responding to a 

report of an incident involving a breach of good order 

or violation of law.

(2) If authorized by the court, to exercise the same 

powers as are now or may hereafter be exercised 

under authority of law or ordinance by the police of 

the municipality wherein the school property is 

located.
J-S03039-15

- 7 -

(3) If authorized by the court, to issue summary 

citations or to detain individuals until local law 

enforcement is notified.

24 Pa.C.S. § 7-778(c). 

In Commonwealth v. Williams, 749 A.2d 957 (Pa. Super. 2000), 

this Court recognized that for school police officers to have the authority of 

municipal police officers, they must have been authorized by the court 

pursuant to Section 7-778 of the Public School Code.2Id. at 963. In this 

case, the court’s order appointing Clader as a school police officer for the 

Wallenpaupack School District specifically authorized Clader “to possess and 

exercise all of the powers and duties set forth in 24 P.S. Section 7-778(c)(1-

3).”3 As Clader was authorized to exercise the powers of municipal police, 

the issue is whether there exists a potential for abuse and conflict of interest 

that warrants the denial of a private detective license while he works as a 

school police officer.

____________________________________________

2

In Williams, the school police officers were not authorized to exercise the 

powers of municipal police. Id., 749 A.2d at 963. This Court held the school 

police officers, who were empowered under Section 7-778(c)(1) to enforce 

order in school buildings, on school buses, and on school grounds, acted 

without authority when they conducted search and seizure of student’s 

vehicle parked on city street, off school property. Id. 

3 Order, dated 6/27/2013, attached as Exhibit “A” to Answer of the District 

Attorney to Application of John P. Clader Trading as LT Investigations for a 

Private Detective License.
J-S03039-15

- 8 -

Clader’s authorized powers must be considered in the context of the 

Section 7-778, which provides that a school police officer’s authority is 

limited to school purposes. 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 Pa.C.S. § 7-778(c)(1). In conjunction with the officer’s 

arrest power, 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. It bears further note that the salaries of school police are paid by 

the school district, Section 7-778(e), and they are, “at all times,” employees 

of the school district, Section 7-778(g).4 

____________________________________________

4

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in an opinion announcing the judgment of the 

Court, held 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.” Id. at 334. We note this decision addressed 

Miranda concerns, and, as a plurality decision, is not binding precedent. 

The dissenting remarks of then Justice Castille, now retired Chief Justice, are 

apt to the present discussion: 

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 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03039-15

- 9 -

Plainly, the authorized powers of school police are limited, in terms of 

both scope and jurisdiction, compared to the broad county-wide or statewide powers of police, probation, and correction officers. Consistent with 

Section 7-778(c)(1-3), the policy of the Wallenpaupack School District limits 

school police to “Investigate, document any violation of law and make 

arrests for summary offenses,” and “Detain 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. Clader testified that he had issued citations for 

summary offenses, but had not made any arrests for felonies or 

misdemeanors. He stated he had been involved in six or seven 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

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).
J-S03039-15

- 10 -

misdemeanor/felony investigations, and those had been turned over to the 

Pennsylvania State Police. Id. at 10–11. The specific policy of the 

Wallenpaupack Area School District is that school police do not make felony 

or misdemeanor arrests. Id. at 13. 

Furthermore, Clader testified he cannot obtain criminal history 

information as a school police officer. While Clader stated the 

Wallenpaupack Area School District has an “ORI number,”5assigned by the 

Pennsylvania State Police, he explained this number gives school police 

access to driver’s license, registration and stolen vehicle information.6 Id. at 

12. Therefore, Clader is without access to criminal background information. 

We find Section 7-778 draws a distinction between school police and 

municipal police, and we conclude Clader’s limited school police authority 

does not present the concern that this authority might be used for the 

benefit of private persons.7 Therefore, based on our review of Section 7-

____________________________________________

5 Clader explained, “ORI is a number you are assigned so you can file nontraffic citations or other things at District Justice Courts.” N.T., 6/3/2014, at 

12.

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

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

7 The Commonwealth argues that “[t]he obvious potential for abuse and 

conflict of interest that exists in county probation officers and correctional 

officers exists with a sworn police in the school setting,” Commonwealth 

Brief at 13–14, but does not discuss what information Clader has access to 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03039-15

- 11 -

778 and the testimony presented at the hearing on the petition, and in light 

of Clader’s limited police authority in school areas only, and his non-access 

to criminal history information, we conclude that Centeno and the 

precedent cited therein, that holds a law enforcement officer may not 

simultaneously hold a private detective’s license, are not controlling in this 

case to preclude the issuance of a private detective license to Clader, while 

he is employed as a school police officer. 

Moreover, we find no error in the court’s decision to include a 

limitation on the license, specifying that Clader cannot engage in any private 

detective business “in any manner 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 without the court’s prior approval and notice to the 

District Attorney.”8 The Commonwealth contends the Act does not allow the 

court to grant a private detective license subject to limitations upon the 

nature of matters the detective may investigate. The Commonwealth, 

however, does not point to any authority in the statute or case law to 

support its position. Therefore, we find this argument unavailing.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

at the school district that is likely to be used improperly in his work as a 

private detective. 

8 Order and Certificate of License, 6/26/2014.
J-S03039-15

- 12 -

Here, the trial court, recognizing that Clader is authorized as provided 

in Section 7-778(c)(1-3), 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 

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

private business.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/2014, at 3. We find that the 

limitation serves as an added safeguard for the school community, and is not 

improper under the Act. 

Given the limited scope and jurisdiction of school police powers, and 

the absence of any authority that prohibits the court’s reasonable restriction 

upon Clader’s private detective license, we find no basis upon which to 

disturb the decision of the trial court.

Order affirmed. 

Judge Panella joins in this opinion.

President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott files a dissenting opinion.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/20/2015