C. W. MATHIS, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-628
) DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY ) AND MOTOR VEHICLES, FLORIDA ) HIGHWAY PATROL and CAREER )
Respondent. )
C. W. Mathis was on January 22, 1977, a state trooper, employed by Appellee, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Florida Highway Patrol, in Orlando, Florida.
By letter dated February 22, 1977, Trooper Mathis, the Appellant, was notified that he was being suspended for eight (8) hours without pay by the Appellee, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Florida Highway Patrol for:
"Leaving the workstation without authori- zation and negligence, in violation of Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Personnel Rules and Regulations 2.lC, willful violation of statutory authority, rules, regulations or policies, and General Order 43, l.A.(4), pages 43-2 and 43-4, Florida Highway Patrol Manual."
Trooper Mathis appealed this suspension which is the subject of the bearing. The Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, has jurisdiction of the cause.
On January 22, 1977, Trooper Mathis was on State Road 400, out of his assigned authority, and running radar at approximately 8:50 A.M. He pursued and stopped a car which was clocked at speeding 75 miles per hour. Trooper Mathis asked the driver for a drivers license and when the driver stated he had none, Trooper Mathis told him to get out of the vehicle and asked the driver's name and proof of ownership of the vehicle. The driver indicated that his information was in the glove compartment and both Trooper Mathis and the driver obtained an instrument from the glove compartment of the driver's automobile.
In the stopped vehicle was a white male passenger. Trooper Mathis returned to the patrol car and had the driver sit in the right front seat of the patrol car. Mathis then left the left front seat of the patrol car to obtain the vehicle identification number from the automobile and returned to the patrol car where the driver or violator was sitting. Mathis then called the radio dispatcher for a "check for wanted" personal (10-29). Trooper Mathis was looking down and when he looked up the automobile he had stopped was gone, driven obviously by the passenger who was left seated in the stopped vehicle.
The driver of the automobile seated in the patrol car with Trooper Mathis told Trooper Mathis that he didn't see his car leave and that he had picked up the white male passenger hitchhiking on State Road 400 at the Turnpike.
Trooper Mathis then proceeded west on State Road 400 in hopes of finding the car. He also called the station and asked radio operator Roundtree to copy a vehicle identification number without asking for a "check for wanted" 10-29. Radio operator Roundtree ran the first vehicle identification number (1Y27D 57106363) given by Trooper Mathis and it came back nothing on file. (The second vehicle identification number (1Y27D5T1O6367) later came back registered to the following: Eva Kuhn, 25 North Westview Avenue, Feasterville, Pennsylvania, on a 1975 Chevrolet, license number A02326.)
Radio operator Roundtree then ran the tag number for 10-29 thinking that both vehicle identification numbers he had run were negative for wanted. The tag came back negative.
After a search of the area and not locating the vehicle Trooper Mathis asked to meet with a deputy sheriff. The meeting with the deputy was for his passenger to make a "stolen car" report. When the violator finished his report with the deputy he advised Trooper Mathis that he had relatives visiting at Disney World and would like to be dropped off there. Trooper Mathis then brought him to Disney World and left him there. It was later found that the driver-violator had stolen the vehicle.
Appellee, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, contends: Trooper Mathis was negligent and should be Punished for (1) failing to ask for a proper 10-29 ("check for wanted") on the vehicle identification number; (2) failing to keep the stopped vehicle under surveilance so that the passenger was able to drive it away unnoticed; (3) failing to require identification from the violator-driver before believing the violator's story.
Appellant, C. W. Mathis, contends: (l) that under the circumstances it was excuseable that he failed to immediately ask for a proper 10-29 "check for wanted"; (2) that the traffic was very heavy and he was obliged to go very fast if he were to properly find the violator and do the job for which he was paid; (3) that the radio operator was inexperienced and should have made the proper calls which would have notified Trooper.
Mathis that the driver-violator was not the owner of the stopped vehicle.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
General Order No. 43, pages 43-2 and 43-4, Florida Highway Patrol Manual, authorizes suspension after an oral reprimand and a written reprimand to an employee.
The Appellant, Mathis received two written reprimands before the incident which is the subject of this hearing. The reprimand dated July 21, 1975 was based on negligent operation of a patrol car. The reprimand dated October 8, 1976 was based on negligence inasmuch as Appellant failed to use his blue light or siren while using the shoulder of the road enroute to investigate an accident.
The Appellant was charged with "Leaving Work Station Without Authorization" and "Negligency" under General Order 43. He did leave his work station and was negligent in his work as shown by the "Findings of Fact", supra.
Rule 22A-1.1O(6) and (7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: "(6) Suspensions.
A suspension is defined as the action
taken by an agency against an employee to temporarily relieve the employee of duties and place the employee on leave without pay.
An agency head may suspend any employee for any of the reasons listed in Section 22A- 7.10(7)(b), or for any other dust cause, for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days in any calendar year. Upon request of the agency head, the State Personnel Director
may approve an extension of the suspension for a period not to exceed an additional
60 calendar days. If court action is
pending, the State Personnel Director may approve an additional extension of a suspension when requested by the agency head.
An employee who has permanent status shall have the right to appeal a suspension to the Career Service Commission in accordance with Section 22A-10.05.
(7) Dismissals
* * *
(b)An agency head may dismiss any employee for just cause. Just cause shall include, but not be Iinited to, negligence, inefficiency, or inability to perform assigned duties; insubordination; willful violation of the provisions of these or agency rules and regulations; conduct unbecoming a public employee, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude."
The suspension of Appellant was for willful violation of agency regulations negligence which is "just cause" as shown in the "Findings of Fact", supra. Cf. Florida A & M University v. Lewis, 327 So.2d 862.
Dismiss appeal; the suspension was for just cause.
DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building, Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1977.
Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator
Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
C. W. Mathis
Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire Department of Highway Safety
