Pinellas FL Lawyers | Sherwood Safford S Coleman -- eLawyers

12-001186 PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE vs DOLORES TAYLOR (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 02, 2012

Whether cause exists to suspend Respondent for 60 days without pay.Respondent failed to conduct required inmate checks and falsified official records relating thereto. Sheriff's recommendation of 30-day suspension without pay is justified.

11-000490 JIMMIE DAVIS vs PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 28, 2011

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be terminated from employment with Respondent.Deputy admitted to the alleged violations. Based on the disciplinary guidelines, termination of employment was appropriate.

08-001520 PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE vs PATRICK MILEWSKY (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 27, 2008

The issues are whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent from his employment as a deputy sheriff for allegedly engaging in prohibited conduct pursuant to Chapter 89-404, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4, Laws of Florida (the Civil Service Act), and Petitioner's General Order Section 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.2--relating to loyalty, Rule and Regulation 5.4--relating to duties and responsibilities, and Rule and Regulation 5.6-- relating to truthfulness; General Order Section 3-1.3, Rule and Regulation 3.20--relating to reporting procedures for the use of force; and General Order 3-2--relating to ethical requirements.Respondent should be suspended without pay and reinstated to his position of employment.

09-000702 PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE vs ROBERT HAIMES (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 11, 2009

At issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO or Petitioner), properly disciplined Respondent Robert Haimes for violations of Chapter 89-404, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapters 90-395 and 2008- 285, Laws of Florida (the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Act), and the General Orders and Rules and Regulations of the PCSO.Petitioner demonstrated that Respondent was absent without leave, knowingly caused false time entries to be made, and failed to properly supervise his subordinates. The demotion to deputy and a ten-day suspension were reasonable disciplinary measures.

08-004823 PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE vs CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2008

The issue presented is whether Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO or Petitioner) properly terminated Christopher Hamilton (Respondent) from his employment as a deputy sheriff for engaging in conduct prohibited in Chapter 89-404, Laws of Florida (the Civil Service Act), and Petitioner's General Order Section 3-1.3, Rule and Regulations 3.4(d) and 5.21, and General Order Section 3-1.4, Rule and Regulation 2.17.The employment of a deputy, who is a three-time chronic offender, should be terminated.

08-004824 PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF`S CIVIL SERVICE BOARD vs CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2008

The issue presented is whether Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO or Petitioner) properly terminated Christopher Hamilton (Respondent) from his employment as a deputy sheriff for engaging in conduct prohibited in Chapter 89-404, Laws of Florida (the Civil Service Act), and Petitioner's General Order Section 3-1.3, Rule and Regulations 3.4(d) and 5.21, and General Order Section 3-1.4, Rule and Regulation 2.17.The employment of a deputy, who is a three-time chronic offender, should be terminated.

02-001749 MATTHEW ADAM PEPE vs DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 02, 2002

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his failure to timely complete the ladder evolution of the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination because he was allegedly distracted by an examiner.Candidate for firefighter certification challenged practical examination; failed to demonstrate that examination was faulty.

99-003401BID E. L. COLE PHOTOGRAPHY, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 10, 1999

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.

Sherwood Safford S Coleman