STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GERALD E. SASLAW, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2320S

) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION ) OF LICENSING, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on March 28, 1985 in Plantation Key, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Gerald E. Saslaw, pro se

6 Gumbo Limbo

Key Largo, Florida

For Respondent: James B. Antista, Esquire and

Tom Murray, Investigator Department of State

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUE

The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to and eligible for licensure as a Class "C" private investigator.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, 1/ I hereby make the following relevant factual findings.

Pursuant to an application dated April 19, 1984, Petitioner, Gerald Saslaw, applied for a Class C private investigator's license.

By letter dated June 15, 1984, Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing, by its Director, Mary Gast, advised Petitioner that his application for a Class C license was denied because "according to our investigative report, you do not meet the requirements. . . ." Director Gast cited Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes, as statutory authority for the denial. (Respondent's Exhibit 1)

The Respondent performed a background investigation of the Petitioner as required by Section 493.309, Florida Statutes. (Respondent's Exhibit 2)

An applicant for licensure under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, must demonstrate the proper qualifications for licensure and must furnish a statement of employement history and qualification on Section 7 of the application form and a separately attached affidavit of experience. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)

Respondent verified Petitioner's educational experience acquired at Miami- Dade Community College during 1963 through 1965 and credited Petitioner with 6 months investigative experience. Respondent allowed the Petitioner to substitute his education credits on a ratio of 3 semester hours for 1 credit hour and based on his earnings of 31 hours which included credit for his attendance at the police academy and the fire college, he was awarded 3 times 31 hours or 91 hours, which translated to the award of 6 months credit toward the two-year experience requirement.

Petitioner was employed as a patrolman with the City of Miami Police Department from July 5, 1966 through January 27, 1968. During his tenure with the police department, Petitioner served as a patrolman and worked in the Liberty City and inner- city sections of Miami, Florida. During this period of time, Petitioner never achieved a rank or level of responsibility above patrolman.

Petitioner listed a Sergeant Quinn of the Miami police department as a reference from which the Respondent could determine verification of his experience with that department. Sergeant Quinn was no longer employed by the City of Miami police department during the time that Respondent conducted its investigation of Petitioner's investigative experience. A review of the available personnel records submitted by Petitioner and the City of Miami police department failed to satisfy that Petitioner acquired investigative experience within the meaning of Section 493.30, Florida Statutes, during his tenure of employment as a police officer with the City of Miami Police Department from 1966 through 1968. (Respondent's Exhibit 2)

Petitioner was employed as a firefighter with the City of Miami from 1968 through 1981. During that period, Petitioner served as a firefighter and was transferred to the Fire Prevention Bureau on or about October 23, 1970 through approximately November 16, 1971. At that time, he was reassigned to regular firefighting duties.

Respondent interviewed Chief Proli who, during times material herein, was Chief of the Miami Fire Department and he confirmed that Petitioner, during times noted hereinabove, was assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau. That Bureau is separate and distinct from the Arson Investigations Bureau which works out of the Fire Marshall's office and is in charge of arson investigations. In the Fire Prevention Bureau, employees there check plans and look for violations of the fire code. Additionally, the Department interviewed a Mr. Easterling who is in charge of the State Fire Marshall's office and who is familiar with the various fire marshalls statewide. The interview with Mr. Easterling failed to reveal any evidence that the Petitioner served as an investigator with the Fire Marshall's office or that he performed any other investigative work other than that in the Fire Prevention Bureau's office. Mr. Easterling noted that the Fire Prevention Bureau is not involved with causes and origins of fires.

Based on the investigation of Petitioner's work experience with the City of Miami Police Department and the Fire Department of the City of Miami, Respondent

was unable to verify that Petitioner's duties involved experience as an investigator or that he had other investigative experience within the meaning of Section 493.30, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Respondent did not award Petitioner any credit for investigative experience based on his employment with the City of Miami Police Department or with the Fire Department for the City of Miami.

Petitioner offered no other evidence which could be credited as investigative experience within the meaning of Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

   
   

3. The authority of the Respondent is derived from Section 493, Florida Statutes.

   
   

4. Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes, sets forth the specific requirements for the issuance of a Class "C" private investigator's license as follows:

   
   

   In addition to the above requirements, an applicant for a Class "C" license must have two years experience or training in one, or

   a combination of more than one, of the following:

   1. Private investigative work or related fields of work that provided equivalent

      experience or training;

   2. College course work and seminars related to privateinvestigation, except that no more than one year may be used from

      this category; or

   3. Work as a Class "CC" -licensed intern.

   
   

5. The Department properly determined and awarded Petitioner with 6 months experience for college course and seminar experience relating to private investigative work.

   
   

6. Petitioner failed to demonstrate private investigative duties in related fields of work that provide equivalent experience or training. Rule 1C- 3.01, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's work experience was not substantially identical and equal in force to private investigative work as contemplated by Section 493.30, Florida Statutes.

   
   

7. Petitioner's service as a rank and file patrolman did not involve a significant and determinable level of investigative responsibility. Evidence reveals that Petitioner's employment as a police officer involved routine patrol duties, not of an investigative nature.

8. Finally, petitioner's employment with the Fire Department with the City of Miami involved primarily firefighting duties and a brief tenure, as noted hereinabove, with the Fire Prevention Bureau, which work did not entail the investigative work as that term is defined in Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for a Class "C" private investigator's license be denied. 2/

RECOMMENDED this 17th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1985.

ENDNOTES

1/ Respondent's counsel has submitted a pronosed memorandum supportive of the Department's position which was considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.

2/ This recommended denial does not prevent the Petitioner from resubmitting his application for a Class "C" private investigative license and have that license application investigated by the Respondent to determine whether or not the Petitioner has, since the filing of the instant application, satisfied the requirements for the issuance of such license.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gerald E. Saslaw

6 Gumbo Limbo

Key Largo, Florida

James B. Antista, Esquire and Tom Murray, Investigator Department of State

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mary Gast Director

Division of Licensing Winchester Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 84-002320

Orders for Case No: 84-002320