Judges: ROBERT T. BENTON, II
Agency: Department of Law Enforcement
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 1993
Summary: Whether petitioner should take disciplinary ace ion against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?Prison guard's occasional off-duty use of cannabis merits reprimand.
88-5249STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND ) TRAINING COMMISSION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-5249
)
MACK T. SHORT, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This matter came on for hearing in Gainesville, Florida before Robert T. Benton, II, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 30, 1989. The Division of Administrative Hearings received the hearing transcript on June 16, 1989. The parties filed proposed recommended orders on July 18, 1989. The attached appendix addresses proposed findings of fact by number.
The parties are represented by counsel:
For Petitioner: Joseph S. White, Esquire
John L. Rosner, Esquire Post Office Box 1189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire
Post Office Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether petitioner should take disciplinary ace ion against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By administrative complaint dated October 6, 1988, petitioner alleges that respondent Mack T. Short "between April, 1987 and July 17, 1987, . . . did . . . unlawfully and knowingly be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cannabis and did introduce the said substance into his body," which "violate[d] the provisions of Section 943.1395(5), (6), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a correctional officer . . . have good moral character."
FINDINGS OF FACT
On and after June 19, 1985, respondent Mack T. Short has been certified as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate No. 14-85-502-05.
Two years ago, when, like respondent, he worked at the Florida State Prison as a correctional officer, Guy William Carstens "usually had some" (T.
84) marijuana with him.
Messers. Carstens and Short "carpooled" (T. 83) to and from work in the spring of 1987. On "a couple of occasions after work," (T. 84) in April or May of that year, Mr. Short accepted Mr. Carstens's offer to share a pipe or cigarette filled with marijuana. All told, in the course of a year or so, the two men smoked marijuana together five or ten times. T. 88,92.
Dale D. Farrow, another correctional officer at the Florida State Prison who bought marijuana from Mr. Carstens periodically over a year's time and regularly smoked it, grew apprehensive of finding himself "up for criminal charges possibly" (T. 80) when he learned from Mr. Carstens that an inmate had threatened to turn Mr. Carstens in, after a $10,000 marijuana transaction went sour.
In fact, the inmate did report the drug deal he had with Mr. Carstens to prison authorities, but they did nothing about it. After speaking to the inmate, Mr. Farrow, who has worked at Florida State Prison as a correctional officer for more than seven years, contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), informing personnel there that Mr. Carstens "was dealing in narcotics and that several other correctional officers were buying narcotics from him and using narcotics." T. 16.
FDLE passed this information on to the Inspector General's Office within the Department of Corrections. When Mr. Carstens was eventually apprehended, arresting officers found more than a pound of marijuana in the trunk of his car.
At one time Mr. Carstens Stored marijuana in a shed behind the house respondent shared with his wife and small child. Mr. Short, who had made the shed available to him as storage for two bucket seats and some motorcycle parts, was apparently unaware of any marijuana in the shed. He was not home when Mr. Farrow saw Mr. Carstens unlock the shed door, enter and remove a sizable quantity of marijuana
After his arrest, Mr. Carstens, who was Promised more lenient treatment if he implicated others, named respondent (among Several other correctional officers) as a drug offender. Convicted of Possession (but not distribution despite, e.g. testimony under oath in the present case that he did distribute), Mr. Carstens was placed on five years' probation.
Mr. Farrow, who, like respondent, was never Prosecuted criminally, continues to work as a guard at Florida State Prison. There was no indication that Petitioner intends to take any action affecting Mr. Farrow's certification as a law enforcement officer.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In response to the administrative complaint filed against him, respondent requested a formal administrative Proceeding, and the Criminal
Justice Standards and Trading Commission (CJSTC) referred the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings, in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1987). Accordingly, "the Division has jurisdiction over the formal proceeding. " Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1987).
License revocation proceedings have been said to be `penal' in nature. State ex rel. Vining vs. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487,
491 (Fla. 1973); Kozerowitz vs. Florida Real Estate Commission, 289 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (reh. den. 1980). Strict procedural protections apply in disciplinary cases, and the prosecuting agency's burden is to prove its case clearly and convincingly. Ferris vs. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
See Addington vs. Texas, 441 U.S. 426 (1979); Ferris vs. Austin, 487 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Anheuser Busch, Inc. vs. Department of Business Regulation,
393 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Walker vs. State Board of Optometry, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Reid vs. Florida Real Estate Commission, 188 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966). A licensee's breach of duty justifies revocation only if the duty has a "Substantial basis," Bowling vs. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) in the evidence, unless applicable statutes and rules create a clear duty, which the evidence shows has been breached.
The CJSTC is authorized and required to "revoke the certification of any officer who is not in compliance with the provisions of S. 943.13(1)-(10)," Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and Subsection 7 of S.
943.13 specifies that law enforcement officers "[h]ave a good moral character as determined by a background investigation under procedures established by the commission." Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1987). But, under settled principles of statutory construction, the CJSTC is authorized to revoke a law enforcement officer's certification on account of bad moral character, only in accordance with Section 943.1395(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.)
By rule the CJSTC has defined "a certified officer's failure to maintain good moral character [to include] unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225." Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code. Cannabis is among the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-22.00225(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Marijuana and cannabis are synonymous. Section 943.1395(6) Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.) Provides:
Upon a finding by the commission that a certified officer has not maintained
good moral character, the definition of which has been adopted by rule and is established as a Statewide standard, as required by s.
943.137(7), the commission may enter an order imposing one or more of the following Penalties in lieu of revocation of certification:
Suspension of certification for a period not to exceed 2 years.
Placement on a Probationary status for a period not to exceed 2 years, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the commission. Upon the violation of such terms and conditions, the commission may revoke certification or impose additional penalties as enumerated in this sub- section.
Successful completion by the officer of any basic recruit, advanced, or career development
training or such retraining appropriate by the commission.
Issuance of a reprimand.
Because the evidence adduced here clearly and convincingly established that respondent unlawfully used cannabis, petitioner is authorized (but not required) to take action ranging from a reprimand to suspension.
RECOMMENDATION
Particularly in light of the treatment Petitioner has accorded Mr. Farrow, whose moral character the evidence called at least as clearly into question as respondent's, it is
RECOMMENDED:
That Petitioner reprimand the respondent.
DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ROBERT T. BENTON, II
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1989.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5249
Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material.
Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 8, 9, and 12 were not convincingly established by credible evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615
Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION,
Petitioner,
vs. DOAH CASE NO. 88-5249
CJSTC CASE NO. C-1390
MACK T. SHORT,
Certificate Number 14-85-502-05.
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
This above-styled matter came on for final action before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") pursuant the Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), F.S., at a public hearing on July 26, 1990, in Sarasota, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer entered herein. Respondent was neither presented nor represented by counsel at the meeting. Respondent's motion for continuance was considered by the Commission and denied.
Upon a complete review of the transcript of the record of hearing held on below in this cause, the Report, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner dated November 9, 1989, all exceptions filed to said items and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Commission makes the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Commission, having reviewed the Recommended Findings of Fact adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having reviewed the Recommended Conclusions of Law and the exceptions filed there to, (which are attached here to and incorporated by reference) the Commission adopts the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law except where they are contradicted by the Petitioner's Exceptions which are attached here to, adopted and fully incorporated herein by reference.
There is competent and substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings and conclusions.
The disposition of the above styled cause recommended by the Hearing Officer is hereby rejected as unsupported by the Conclusions of Law of the
Commission and for those reasons stated in Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order which have been approved and adopted in toto and incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Respondent's Certificate, Number: 14-85-502-05, is hereby REVOKED.
Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this final order by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed.
This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Law Enforcement.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 1990.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION
MICHAEL A. BERG, CHAIRMAN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished to MACK T. SHORT, 718 Lauria Street, Starke, Florida 32091, by U.S. Mail on or before 5:00 P.M., this 3rd day of October 1990.
cc: All Counsel of Record
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION,
Petitioner,
vs. DOAH CASE NO. 88-5249
CJSTC CASE NO. C-1390
MACK T. SHORT,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
This cause came on to be heard before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") at a public meeting on January 24, 1991, in Ponte Vedra, Florida, upon Respondents Request for Reconsideration of the action taken by the Commission on July 26, 1990, as reflected in the Final Order filed in this cause on October 3, 1990, by the Commission, and an Order of the District Court of Appeal in the State of Florida First District granting Respondents Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellant's Initial Brief which motion stated as grounds the time needed to present the Request for Reconsideration to the Commission. Upon review of Respondent's Motion to the District Court and the Order issued as a result thereof the Commission concluded that the District Court being familiar with the Florida Supreme Court opinion expressed in Taylor v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 520 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1988) intended to relinquish jurisdiction to the Commission for the purpose of reconsideration even though such relinquishment was not expressly provided for in said order.
Accordingly Respondent's request for reconsideration was Granted and the matter heard pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), F.S., sua sponte. The Petitioner was represented by Joseph White. The Respondent was present and represented by counsel at the Commission meeting.
Upon consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, the exceptions filed there to, the arguments of the parties and after a review of the complete record in this matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The Final Order of the Commission filed in this cause on October 3, 1990, shall stand.
This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Law Enforcement.
DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of April, 1991.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION
EDWARD M. SPOONER, CHAIRMAN
Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished to MACK T. SHORT, 718 Lauria Street, Starke, Florida 32091, by U.S. Mail on or before 5:00 P.M., this 16TH day of APRIL 1991.
cc: All Counsel of Record
================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
MACK T. SHORT, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IS FILED
vs. CASE NO. 90-3097
DOAH CASE NO. 88-5249
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION,
Appellee.
/ Opinion filed November 12, 1991.
An Appeal from an Order of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission.
Carla D. Franklin and Rodney W. Smith, of Smith and Fletcher, P.A., Alachua, for Appellant.
Joseph S. White, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
SHIVERS, Judge.
This appeal is from an administrative order rejecting a hearing officer's recommended penalty and revoking Appellant's certification as a law enforcement officer. We reverse and remand to the hearing officer for reconsideration with instructions that his recommended penalty be adopted by Appellee.
Mack Short worked at the Florida State Prison as a correctional officer certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. In April 1987 the Department of Corrections began an investigation into possible marijuana use by a correctional officer named Carstens. A correctional officer named Farrow contacted the investigators and said Carstens was trafficking drugs. Farrow also said he smoked marijuana with Short. Carstens was arrested; and he told the investigators that he had smoked marijuana with Short and stored marijuana in a shed on Short's property. Short denied the accusations.
Short resigned from his job at the prison in August 1987. He was told by the prison's personnel manager that the Commission would not seek decertification against him. Eight months after Short began working as a police
officer in Starke, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined there was probable cause to file an administrative complaint against Short based on the evidence from the investigation of Carstens. The complaint was filed on October 6, 1988.
A hearing was conducted on May 30, 1989. The hearing officer entered a recommended order on November 9, 1989. The hearing officer's findings of fact noted that Farrow "continues to work as a guard at Florida State Prison. There was no indication that petitioner intends to take any action affecting Mr.
Farrow's certification as a law enforcement officer." The hearing officer concluded as a matter of law that according to section 943.1395(6), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), "petitioner is authorized (but not required) to take action ranging from a reprimand to suspension." The hearing officer made the following recommendation: "Particularly in light of the treatment petitioner has accorded Mr. Farrow, whose moral character the evidence called at least as clearly into question as respondent's, it is [recommended that] petitioner reprimand the respondent."
The Assistant General Counsel for the Commission filed exceptions to the recommended order. The exceptions were (1) the conclusion of law that the penalty range was from reprimand to suspension is incorrect because sections 943.1395(5) requires revocation, and F.A.C. Rule 11B-27.005(3)(d) authorizes "a penalty ranging from suspension to revocation;" and (2) the recommended penalty is insufficient because the position of a correctional officer is one of great public trust, and it is irrelevant whether Farrow was disciplined.
On October 3, 1990, the Commission entered a final order revoking Short's certification. The order adopted and incorporated the hearing officer's findings and conclusions except where they were contradicted by the Assistant General Counsel's exceptions, which were also adopted and incorporated.
A notice of appeal was filed in this court on October 17, 1990. The Commission subsequently granted a request for reconsideration. A hearing on the request for reconsideration was conducted on January 24, 1991. The Commission heard testimony that the day before the hearing a probable cause determination was conducted in regard to Farrow's 1987 use of marijuana; and an administrative complaint against Farrow was forthcoming. The Commission's Assistant General Counsel orally amended its exceptions to add that the probable cause hearing against Farrow is a ground to reject the hearing officer's rationale. On April 16, 1991, the Commission upheld the October 1990 order.
Short argues on appeal that the Commission cannot reject the recommended penalty without properly rejecting, amending or substituting at least one recommended finding of fact or conclusion of law; and a mere disagreement as to the seriousness of the offense is not a sufficient reason for increasing the penalty. Bradley v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm'n, 577 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citing Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved, 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988)).
The Commission answers that it did not abuse its discretion by interpreting subsections 943.1395(5) and (6) to authorize revocation of an officer's certification for a violation of section 943.13(7), especially since F.A.C. Rules 11B-27.005(3)(d) and (5) authorize revocation as a penalty in this case.
By rejecting the hearing officer's conclusion chat suspension was the most severe penalty available, the Commission argues it complied with the requirements of Bradley. The Commission also argues that the administrative
complaint filed against Farrow renders the hearing officer's reasoning ineffectual.
Short replies that the investigation of Farrow could not have influenced the Commission's decision to enhance the recommended penalty. Short also argues that because the hearing officer chose the least severe penalty, it is irrelevant that the most severe penalty may be revocation instead of suspension.
We agree with Short. Section 120.57(1)(b) (10), Florida Statutes (1987) , states in part
The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order, but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. The agency may accept the recommended penalty in a recommended order, but may not reduce or increase it without a review of the complete record and without stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the investigation of Farrow is not a part of the record to which the Commission could cite in satisfaction of section 120.57(1)(b)(10). An agency cannot create or use new facts never before the hearing officer to support a rejection of the recommended penalty. Cf., Ong v. Department of Professional Regulation, 565 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Friends of Children v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
The Commission misreads Bradley to hold that once any finding of fact or conclusion of law is rejected, amended or substituted, the Commission is empowered to modify the hearing officer's recommended penalty at will. The correct and logical rule is that the rejected, amended or substituted finding or conclusion must provide a rational basis for increasing or reducing the recommended penalty--a basis other than mere disagreement with the seriousness of the offense. See Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved, 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988).
In this case the Commission rejected the hearing officer's conclusion of law that the penalty range for Short's offense was reprimand through suspension. The Commission correctly argues that revocation is a permissible penalty.
However, the fact that revocation was available to the hearing officer is not a rational basis to increase the penalty from the most lenient to the most severe. In fact, the severity of the Commission's increase highlights Short's position and our ruling that the basis for the increase was a mere disagreement with the seriousness of the offense.
We do not know and will not presume whether the hearing officer would have recommended a reprimand if he had known the penalties included revocation.
Other permissible penalties include retraining or probation. Section 943.1395(6), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988).
Accordingly, we reverse the revocation of Short's certification as a law enforcement officer. We remand this case to the hearing officer for the sole purpose of allowing him to reconsider the recommended penalty in light of our ruling that the penalty range includes revocation. The recommended penalty shall then be adopted by the Commission without modification.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., CONCUR.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,
Petitioner,
vs. DOAH CASE NUMBER: 88-5249
CJSTC CASE NUMBER: C-1390
MACK T. SHORT,
Certificate Number: 14-85-502-05,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
This above-styled matter came on for final action before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") pursuant the Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), F.S., at a public hearing on July 30, 1992, in Tampa, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Penalty on Remand of the Hearing Officer entered herein. Respondent was neither present nor represented by counsel at the Commission proceedings.
Upon a complete review of the transcript of the record of hearing held on May 30, 1989, in Gainesville, Florida, the Report, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner subsequently filed and the Order of the Hearing Officer dated December 16, 1991, issued pursuant to an Order of Remand from the District Court, and the subsequent Order of the Hearing Officer issued on March 30, 1992, modifying his recommended penalty, all exceptions filed to
said items and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Commission makes the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Commission, having reviewed the Recommended Findings of Fact continues to adopt and incorporate by reference the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer issued on November 9, 1989.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having reviewed the Recommended Conclusions of Law filed March 30 1992, in response to Petitioner's Motion to Correct Order on Remand and the exceptions filed there to, (which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference) the Commission adopts the Hearing Officer's most recently expressed conclusions of law except where they are contradicted by the Petitioner's Exceptions which are attached hereto, adopted and fully incorporated herein by reference.
There is competent and substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings and conclusions.
The disposition of the above styled cause recommended by the Hearing Officer is hereby rejected as unsupported by the Conclusions of Law of the Commission as well as those reasons put forth in Petitioner's Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommended Penalty on Remand which is hereby approved and adopted and fully incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Respondent's Certificate, Number: 14-85-502-05, is hereby REVOKED.
Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this final order by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed.
This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Law Enforcement.
DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1992.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION
RODNEY DOSS CHAIRMAN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished to MACK T. SHORT, 718 Lauria Street, Starke, Florida 32091, by U.S. Mail on or, before 5:00 P.M., this 6th day of November, 1992.
COPIES FURNISHED:
All Counsel of Record
Docket for Case No: 88-005249
Orders for Case No: 88-005249
