Whether the first paragraph of the answer to Question 10 of the "Frequently Asked Questions" about "Volunteer and Employee Background Checks" posted on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's (Department's) public website (Challenged Statement) is a rule that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioner.Information posted on Respondent`s website did not constitute a rule. The petition filed pursuant to Section 120.56 (4), Florida Statutes, which challenged the posting, was dismissed.

The issue in this case is whether a contract on Florida Department of Law Enforcement Bid No. B-904 should be awarded to Petitioner, E. L. Cole Photography, Inc., as the only responsive bidder.Petitioner failed to prove that an error in the bid submitted by the winning bidder on the Invitation to Bid was not a minor irregularity.

The issue in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer by the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated November 30, 1990, and as amended on November 16, 1992.Evid. insufficient to establish that respondent improperly disseminated con- fidential documents to private investigator; CJSTC main witness not credible

The issue is whether the certification as a correctional officer issued to Willie L. Tillman (Tillman) should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.Certification properly revoked for lack of good moral character as shown by physical abuse of inmates and dishonesty.

The issue is whether the Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character.Correction office found to possess small amount of cannabis. Held that, although rules addressed use, possession reflected adversely. Suspension.

This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that he used his law enforcement badge and credentials to misrepresent himself as acting in a formal law enforcement investigative capacity, when he was actually engaged in a private matter. The Respondent denies any misconduct.Evidence insufficient to show officer failed to maintain good moral character. Hearsay evidence insufficient unless admissible over objection.

The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent's correctional officer's certification should be disciplined.Correction officers license-plea guilty to federal charge tantamount to petty theft, good moral charaacter established, making false affidavit not established.

The issue in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.Certification as law enforcement officer revoked; Respondent falsified test results and applications for firearms license.

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs in connection with the Respondent's voluntary dismissal of the Administrative Complaint in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 90-920 should be granted.Petitioner did not establish that he was a small business party; voluntary dismissal by agency does not automatically justify an award of attorney fees

The issues considered in the course of this hearing concern the petition of Lanier Business Products, Inc. which challenged the validity of Respondent's award of a contract to Eastman Kodak Company through a bid process related to Bid No. 83-50, in lieu of the Petitioner's right to entitlement to that contract in that bid process. Petitioner claims that it is entitled to the award of the contract given the fact that it was the lowest responsive bidder for the project. By contrast, Respondent believes that the bid of Petitioner was unresponsive in two particulars, and as a consequence Respondent argues that it was appropriate to award the contract to Eastman Kodak, the only responsive bidder in this circumstance. On the subject of the two items within the bid specifications which Respondent claims that the Petitioner did not offer an adequate response, they are : 1. The alleged failure of the Petitioner's proposed equipment to comply with requirements for film transport speed of a minimum of twelve feet per second, and 2. The alleged interruption of the microfilm reader-printer operation when changing lenses in the equipment which Petitioner offered in response to the bid solicitation. By stipulation of counsel the inquiry was limited to a consideration of those two points of contention. 1/Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) finding bid unresponsive was in error. Lowest responsive bidder was unfairly removed from bid process. FDLE should award contract or pay damages.