Is Petitioner entitled to the renewal of her Class "D" license to serve as a private security officer?License holder not entitled to renewal of license. Renewal was denied based upon abandonment of post while acting as a security officer.

Whether, during the period May 28, 1996, to January 16, 1997, Respondent, a Florida-licensed Private Investigator and private investigative agency licensee, disclosed confidential information without prior authorization of his clients, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether, during the period May 28, 1996, to January 16, 1997, Respondent knowingly violated Section 43-38-16, Georgia Statutes, during the course of business regulated under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(k), Florida Statutes. (Respondent contests the authority or right of Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing, to determine whether Respondent has violated the Georgia statute.) Whether, during the period May 28, 1996, to January 16, 1997, Respondent committed misconduct in the practice of regulated activity under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent obtained information during his investigation but refused to disclose that information, failed to provide requested written reports, and failed to provide a written statement regarding use of retainer funds to his clients.Failure/refusal to disclose his sources to his client and disclosing them to third parties without written release resulted in fine and suspension. Respondent found not guilty of violating another state's statute.

The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of employing an unlicensed person to perform motor vehicle repossessions, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner failed to prove that licensed recovery agent employed unlicensed person to repossess motor vehicles.

The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Shaw Investigations aided or abetted Shaw Investigation Agency, Incorporated, an Alabama private investigative corporation not licensed to conduct business in Florida, and that corporation's private investigator employees, in engaging in unlicensed activity in Florida in violation of Section 493.6118(10(n), Florida Statutes; (2) whether Shaw Investigations failed or refused to cooperate with an agency representative's official investigation by not furnishing documentation required under a subpoena duces tecum in violation of Sections 493.6118(1)(o) and 493.6121(4), Florida Statutes; (3) whether Shaw Investigations committed misconduct in the course of regulated activity by failing to provide a client with written reports and accounting of investigative expenditures in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes; (4) whether Shaw Investigations Agency, Incorporated, performed private investigations in Florida without a license in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 1C- 3.120(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code; (5) whether Shaw Investigation Agency, Incorporated, allowed unlicensed persons to perform private investigative services in Florida in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes; (6) and if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondents engaged in unlicensed private investigation activities and failed to respond appropriately to the agency's investigative subpoena.

The issue is whether Respondent committed misconduct in the practice of regulated activities by falsely reporting that he was on duty at his assigned security post, in violation of Section 493.6118 (1)(f), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.$1000 fine, six months' suspension and two years' probation for security guard's falsely reporting that he was at his post when he was not.

Whether Respondent failed to maintain general liability insurance coverage as required by Section 493.6110, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License and his Class "C" Private Investigator License.Where owner of investigative agency failed to maintain required liability insurance, recommended penalty of imposing Administrative Fine and placing Class "A" license on one-year non-reporting probation.

Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.Security officer was asleep while on duty. Class "D" license should be revoked. No action recommended against Class "G" firearm license.

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended,1 and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Security officer's license revoked for sleeping on duty and for abandoning his post.

Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.Security guard who slept on duty was guilty of misconduct. Revocation of license recommended.

Whether Respondent, Carswell Investigations, Dexter B. Carswell, owner, committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated September 20, 1995; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent carried a concealed weapon not permitted by his license, impersonated a law enforcement officer, and failed to update agency records.