The issue in these cases is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed by the Petitioner, the Department of State, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.Respondent who did not have a current license was improperly allowed to manage and operate a repossession agency.

Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint by subcontracting with individuals named therein to provide private investigative services at a time when they were not licensed as a Class "A" investigative agency. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, by allowing an improperly licensed person, John Polk, to direct the activities of licensees, or exercise operational control over the regulated activities of Morse Security Group, Incorporated. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count VI in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to report to the Department the termination of persons listed in that count. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by directing the activities of licensees, thereby acting as a manager, subsequent to the voluntary deactivation of his Class "C" private investigator's license and Class "M" private investigative/security agency manager's license. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by misrepresenting his agency by advertising in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 1993, that his agency is "Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agency", when it is not. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to certify the completion or termination of the internship of William J. Smithberger when he had the duty as a sponsor to do so.Named persons were employees of respondent; improperly licensed person did- not act as manager; principal did not ocnduct investigations while inactive.

Whether or not Respondent engaged in unlawful or illegal conduct as is specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein dated March 6, 1991, and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.Respondent engaged in forgery and other misconduct in his private investigative business.

Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?Evidence did not establish that security guard engaged in shoplifting as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(i), Florida Statutes by impersonating a police officer.Evidence did notprove respondent impersonated a police officer.

Whether Respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(f) and 934.03, F.S. by placing wireless microphones on intern private investigators to intercept oral communications during an investigation.Intercepting oral communication without authority violates section 493.6118(1)(f) F.S. and is a third degree felony.

Whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent failed to provide appropriate hours of classroom instruction contrary to certification.

Whether Respondent conducted or advertised the business of a recovery agency without a valid license, during the period of October 1, 1992 to December 22, 1992, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes.Respondent conducted business of recovery agency without valid license; intern acted independently of sponsor; reprimand; fine.

The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of fraud or deceit in the practice of activities regulated under Chapter 493 and knowingly violating a statutory prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm in the course of business regulated by Chapter 493.Making false statment to petitioner's investigator is deceit in practice of business for which reprimand - $1000 fine should be assessed.

The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Petitioner's applications for Class "A" and a Class "C" investigative licenses should be denied based on a lack of good moral character.Evidence of petitioner's lack of good moral character, aliunde the crime of which he was acquitted was sufficient to deny application for license.