STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ISABEL MACHIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-6684

)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS )

AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on March 7, 1990, in Miami, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Isabel Machin

9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201

Miami, Florida 33174

For Respondent: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst

Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of

Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer should be approved.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on September 13, 1989, when the Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training (Division) notified the Petitioner that her application for certification as a correctional officer had been denied. The basis for the denial was Petitioner's alleged involvement with an inmate during her employment at the Dade Correctional Institution and her alleged misrepresentations regarding that relationship. The Petitioner disputed the allegations and requested a formal hearing to review the certification denial. Apparently, the Petitioner erroneously believed that she had already been certified by the Division and that the instant action was an effort to revoke her certification.

The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on November 28, 1989.

At the hearing, the Division presented the testimony of the following witnesses: John R. Thompson, Correctional Officer Chief at the Dade Correctional Institution; Marvin L. Callahan, Correctional Officer Inspector I at the Dade Correctional Institution; and Susan Garnett, an administrative sergeant employed by the Dade Work Camp, an affiliate of the Dade Correctional Institution. The Division's exhibits identified by A-1, A-3, A-4,. A-5, A-6, A-7, and A-8 ware admitted into evidence. The Petitioner testified in her own behalf.

After the hearing, the transcript of the proceedings was filed on March 29, 1990. The Division filed a proposed recommended order which has been considered in the preparation of this order. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the attached appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made:

1. On or about January 1, 1989, Petitioner was employed as a probationary employee with the Dade Correctional Institute (DCI) in Miami, Florida.

   
   

2. The DCI is a twenty-five acre compound which houses approximately 944 inmates. The compound is comprised of eight dormitories, vocational shops, an educational building, two dining hall satellites, and a main dining hall. For each work shift, correctional officers are stationed within each dormitory, along the perimeter area, inside the radio control room, and throughout the grounds. The minimum number of correctional officers required for each shift is

1. Because of the limited number of officers on-duty during a given shift, their responsibilities, and security considerations, it is imperative that correctional officers maintain a level of detachment from inmates. Petitioner was aware of this mandate at the time of her employment with the DCI.

   
   

   1. On or about January 19, 1989, Corrections Officer Garnett instructed the Petitioner to perform an inventory with an inmate, DeMarco, to verify state property numbers. Later in the day, when Officer Garnett questioned DeMarco regarding the inventory sheet, she was told that Petitioner had directed another inmate, Williams, to perform the inventory. Since this was contrary to the original instructions, Officer Garnett contacted the Petitioner by radio to determine the location of the inventory sheet. At that time Petitioner informed Officer Garnett that the inventory was complete and that the sheet was in her pocket. When confronted in person and directed to produce the inventory sheet, Petitioner admitted she had given the inventory work to inmate Williams, that the inventory was not completed and that she had misrepresented the matter. Subsequently, the inventory was retrieved from Williams.

      
      

   2. Inmates are not normally allowed access to the DCI clothing room. Officer Garnett had authorized inmate DeMarco to assist Petitioner with work in the clothing room. Inmate Williams was not authorized to work the clothing room. Petitioner allowed inmate Williams access to the clothing room. Initially, Petitioner denied having done so, but later recanted and admitted that she had allowed inmate Williams to assist her in the clothing room.

   3. Personal relationships between correctional officers and DCI inmates are prohibited. Petitioner was counseled on numerous occasions about the rules and procedures which prohibit discussions of a personal nature with inmates. Fraternization is considered a serious security breach for which an officer may be terminated from employment. On or about January 23, 1989, Petitioner admitted she had had personal discussions with inmates (including inmate Williams) but assured Major Thompson that she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Petitioner continued to have personal conversations with inmates after the counseling session of January 23, 1989.

      
      

   4. Specifically, Mr. Callahan witnessed a personal conversation between Petitioner and inmate Williams which took place within a dormitory that inmate Williams was not assigned to be in. Later, Petitioner wrote a love note to inmate Strausser which was found at her duty post. A search of inmate Strausser's cell revealed he had possession of Petitioner's home telephone number. Petitioner initially denied her relationship with inmate Strausser but later told Major Thompson that they are engaged to be married.

      
      

   5. Petitioner's employment with DCI was terminated in June of 1989.

      
      

   6. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, she is not certified as a correctional officer. Petitioner has, however, completed all - educational/training requirements to become certified.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

   7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.

      
      

   8. Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, provides that as a minimum qualification for certification as a correctional officer a person shall:

      
      

      (7) Have a good moral character as determined by a background investigation under procedures established by the commission.

      
      

   9. In this case, the Petitioner has failed to establish that she has a good moral character. To the contrary, the Division has shown the Petitioner has a propensity to misstate facts. Over the course of her brief employment with the DCI, Petitioner failed to follow the guidelines regarding conversations with inmates, failed to candidly answer inquiries into her acts, and failed to admit wrongdoing. Such conduct casts a serious cloud on Petitioner's moral character. Further, given the position of trust which is afforded a correctional officer, good moral character is of paramount importance. As an applicant for certification, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing good moral character. This she has failed to do.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer.

DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOYOUS D. PARRISH

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1990.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6684 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER:

None submitted.

RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted.

2. With the date being corrected to January 19, 1989, paragraph 6 is accepted.

3. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are accepted.

4. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as hearsay or irrelevant.

5. To the extent that Petitioner admitted having inmate Williams in the clothing room to, Major Thompson, paragraph 22 is accepted.

6. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted.

7. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant.

8. Paragraphs 27 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant.

9. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are accepted.

10. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant.

11. Paragraphs 39 through 54 are accepted.

12. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant.

13. Paragraph 56 is accepted.

14. Paragraphs 57 through 59 are accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Isabel Machin

9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201

Miami, Florida 33174

Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of

Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Docket for Case No: 89-006684

Orders for Case No: 89-006684