STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS ) TRAINING COMMISSION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 92-1396
)
JAMES F. WATSON, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This matter came on for hearing in Crestview, Florida, before Robert T. Benton, II, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on September 9, 1992. The Division of Administrative Hearings received the hearing transcript on September 24, 1992, and the record closed on October 19, 1992, with the filing of the transcript of the deposition of Frederick Terrell Kirkland.
Respondent's proposed recommended order was filed on November 17, 1992, and petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed on November 30, 1992. The attached appendix addresses the parties' proposed findings of fact by number.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Joseph S. White, Esquire
Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee Florida 32302
For Respondent: Stephen W. Foxwell, Esquire
Florida Police Benevolent Association
300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By administrative complaint dated November 22, 1991, petitioner alleged that respondent, to whom the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission had "issued Certificate Number C-0919 . . . [o]n or about May 1988, . . . did then unlawfully and knowingly submit an untruthful report concerning . . . his actions and actions of others for the purpose of misleading the Department of Corrections' officials regarding the assault of Inmate Samuel Collier"; and during the same month "did . . . knowingly make false statements concerning
material matters to the Department of Corrections' officials during an internal investigation with the intent to mislead such investigators"; and so "did violate the provisions of Section 943.1395(5), (6), Florida Statutes and Rule 11B-27.001(4)(b) (c), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a correctional officer in the State of Florida have good moral character."
When respondent requested formal administrative proceedings, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1991), where it was subsequently consolidated for hearing with Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. Henry A. Faircloth, No. 92-1395 and Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. Charles W. Pumphrey, No. 92-1397.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent James F. Watson holds a certificate as a correctional officer, No.05-86-502-04 issued by petitioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission; and has held it at all pertinent times. In the spring of 1988, he worked for the Florida Department of Corrections at Holmes Correctional Institution, where he held the rank of Sergeant or Correctional Officer II.
On May 25, 1988, Sergeant Watson came to Sergeant Pumphrey's assistance as he escorted an inmate, Samuel Collier, across a prison yard into the security complex. The inmate took a swing at Sergeant Watson, who grasped the inmate's right arm while Sergeant Pumphrey gripped his left. Seeing their difficulty, Inspector William T. Nobles brought a pair of handcuffs which Sergeant Pumphrey used to secure the inmate's hands behind his back.
Inside the security complex, before they reached the hall onto which Major Faircloth's office opened, they encountered Major Faircloth and Ms. Parmer, a correctional officer who worked as an administrative lieutenant. Major Faircloth, both sergeants and the inmate started down the hall, and Lieutenant Parmer "stepped out of the way so they could go down the hallway." T.220.
Although she came within three or four feet of the inmate, Lieutenant Parmer did not observe any injuries. T.220. The mail room officer, who was also within three or four feet of the inmate about this time, saw no injuries on the inmate's face either. T.233-4. Neither did Sergeant Pumphrey, at this point.
T.541. Testimony that Samuel Collier's T-shirt had "a little spot of blood," id., on it when he entered the security complex has not been credited.
As he walked by them, Major Faircloth turned to Sergeants Michael Sheppard and William Paul and Inspector Nobles, who were in a group talking, and told them "to wait right there, [and not to] let any inmates come down" (T.66) the hall toward Major Faircloth's office. After he had given this order, Major Faircloth followed Messrs. Collier, Watson and Pumphrey into the office and closed the door. T.43.
From the hall, the inmate was heard interrupting Major Faircloth, cursing loudly "and raising sand." Id. During the three or four minutes that elapsed before Major Faircloth came back out of his office, four to six noises that "sounded like licks being passed," (T.44) were audible through the closed door at intervals of 30 seconds to a minute. "It sounded like flesh meeting flesh." T.150; T.178. The inmate yelled, "[D]on't hit me anymore." T.235.
Major Faircloth emerged from his office without the inmate or Sergeants Pumphrey and Watson, reentering the hall where Sergeants Sheppard and Paul and Inspector Nobles still stood. Sergeant Sheppard noticed spatters of blood on Major Faircloth's shirt, although Major Faircloth was not bleeding, as far as he could see. T.46. Ms. Hutching, the mail room officer, told Major Faircloth he needed to change shirts, "[b]ecause he had blood spattered all over his shirt." T.238.
Sergeant Paul was asked "to go get three shirts . . . two white shirts and one brown shirt . . . [o]fficers' uniform shirts." T.151. Major Faircloth walked toward the control room, then stopped in front of the mail room and flexed his swollen right hand. When the mail room officer inquired, Major Faircloth responded, "I knocked that son of a bitch's tooth out." T.238. Frederick Terrell Kirkland, a classification supervisor who is not related to the assistant superintendent, saw Major Faircloth that day and noticed his hand and his blood-spattered shirt. Deposition of Kirkland.
When assistant superintendent Kirkland arrived, he spoke to Major Faircloth, then accompanied him as he went back into the office where the inmate, respondent and Sergeant Pumphrey remained. At some point Lieutenant Chesnut entered Major Faircloth's office. After a few minutes, Mr. Kirkland, opening then closing the office door behind him, left to go down the hall to the bathroom. When he returned, Sergeant Sheppard opened Major Faircloth's office door to let the assistant superintendent back in.
As he opened the door for Mr. Kirkland, Sergeant Sheppard "saw Major Faircloth slap the inmate in the face." T.482. Samuel Collier was seated in a chair at the time, his hands still behind him in handcuffs. Standing behind Mr. Collier, Sergeant Pumphrey rested his hands on the inmate's shoulders, facing Major Faircloth, who stood in front of inmate Collier. Sergeant Watson stood by the office door. Nothing obstructed respondent's view of Major Faircloth's striking Samuel Collier, although he turned his head and looked at Sergeant Sheppard when the door opened. T.51.
"[D]id you see the son of a bitch kick me?" Major Faircloth asked the assistant superintendent. T.83. He later apologized to Mr. Kirkland for hitting the inmate in front of him. T.330, 343. After Samuel Collier had been taken away, Major Faircloth asked William Paul "to get an inmate to go clean the blood up out of his office. But then he said, no not to get the inmate, that the inmate didn't need to see that mess, for [Paul] to clean it up [him]self." T.153.
In order to place Samuel Collier in solitary confinement, which was the course decided upon, he had to be sent elsewhere, because appropriate facilities were not then available at Holmes Correctional Institution. Karen Roberts, a nurse who worked at Holmes Correctional Institution, was summoned. After she drew blood, took the inmate's temperature and pulse, and made notes recording his vital signs, Mr. Collier was driven in a van to Okaloosa Correctional Institution.
When Michael G. Foley, M.D., chief health officer at Okaloosa Correctional Institution, saw him shortly after lunch on May 25, 1988, Samuel Collier still had "alcohol on his breath." The parties stipulated that laboratory tests on the blood Ms. Roberts took from the inmate "revealed a .17 blood alcohol content." T.10. He had reportedly been drinking "buck," a home brew concocted from prison foodstuffs.
Ms. Roberts had noticed a laceration of the upper lip which she felt "did not need suturing" (T.111) and swelling around the eyes, which she testified she attributed to the fact that Mr. Collier was crying. She "[w]anted to put ice on his eyes . . . [but] it was impossible to keep ice," (T.113) or so she testified, so she did not try it. Samuel Collier's injuries, including loose teeth Ms. Roberts overlooked, are consistent with blows received in a fight and could not have been caused by a fall against a fence post coupled with a fall out of a chair onto the floor. T.188.
Samuel Collier's injuries resulted at least in part from blows Major Faircloth administered in respondent's presence. T.188, 196. When Dr. Foley examined Mr. Collier, both of the inmate's upper eyelids were swollen. An area of his scalp was swollen. There was "a massive hematoma to the upper lip, which is a massive swelling" (T.186) that made it protrude. He "had tenderness, abrasions and contusions to both cheeks. . . [and] some loose upper incisors."
T.187. Dr. Foley ordered x-rays "to make sure there w[ere] no fractures." T.
184. The radiologist concluded that no bones were broken, according to Dr. Foley.
Meanwhile, Major Faircloth told some correctional officers that they "were supposed to say that he had hurt his hand doing yard work." T.294. When Sergeant Sheppard asked about filing a report, Major Faircloth told him not to "worry about it, you didn't use force," (T.58) "you're not on the duty roster, they don't even know you were here" (T.94) or words to that effect. Major Faircloth's directive contravened Department of Corrections policy, which requires any correctional officer observing force being used against an inmate to prepare a "use of force report . . . and forward it to the Inspector General's office." T.59.
That day, respondent Watson filed a written report, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, reciting that he and Sergeant Watson had used force against Samuel Collier to restrain him on the way to the security complex. Concerning events in Major Faircloth's office, the report stated:
When the inmate would not sit down and after Major Faircloth had ordered him to be placed in the chair, I got him by the right arm with both my hands and we placed him in the chair, holding to him. Inmate Collier['s] resistance caused him to twist out of the chair, falling to the floor. I then grabbed for his arm once again and Sgt. Pumphrey got the other arm and we pulled him from the floor, placing him back in the chair. I used only a minimum amount of force to control the situation and prevent injuries.
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. Respondent's report mentioned force Sergeant Pumphrey used in helping him get Samuel Collier into the chair in the major's office and recited that "Lt. Chesnut placed the rag across the inmate's mouth, to prevent him from spitting on any one else." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. But respondent's report omitted any mention of the force Major Faircloth had used against Samuel Collier.
On June 28, 1988, while he was interrogated by Inspector G. L. McLain, respondent falsely denied under oath that he had seen Major Faircloth hit Samuel
Collier and injure his hand. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p.14. Inspector McLain had authority to administer the oath in the course of his official duties, and did administer an oath to respondent before interrogating him on June 28, 1988.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Because the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission referred respondent's hearing request to the Division of Administrative Hearings, the "division has jurisdiction over the formal proceeding". Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.).
License revocation proceedings have been said to be "'penal' in nature". State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487,
491 (Fla. 1973); Kozerowitz v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 289 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1974); Bach v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 378 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 v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987). See Addington
v. Texas, 441 U.S. 426 (1979); Ferris v. Austin, 487 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 393 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Walker v. State Board of Optometry, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Reid v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 188 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966).
Here petitioner is proceeding under statutory provisions that include what was codified in the spring of 1988 as Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, (1987) which authorized the
Commission . . . [to] revoke the certification of any officer who is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(10).
Among the subsections referenced by Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes (1987), is Subsection 943.13(4), Florida Statutes (1987), now codified as subsection seven, requiring that correctional officers "[h]ave a good moral character as determined by a background investigation under procedures established by the Commission."
Effective July 1, 1988, Chapter 88-51 s.5, Laws of Florida (1988), what was originally codified as Section 943.1395(6), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), provided:
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.
943.13(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 two years.
Placement on a probationary status for a period not to exceed two 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 subsection.
Successful completion by the officer of any basic recruit, advanced, or career development training or such retraining deemed appropriate by the Commission.
Issuance of a reprimand.
Effective April 8, 1992, the foregoing subsection was renumbered and amended to list revocation as a possible sanction for failure to maintain good moral character. Chapter 92-131, s.5, Laws of Florida (1992). At the same time, subsection five of Section 943.1395 was renumbered and amended to delete authority for revocation of a certificate solely on grounds of not maintaining good moral character. Id. Finally, a new subsection eight was added requiring, inter alia, that "prescribed penalties must be based upon the severity of specific offenses." Id.
Statutes stating new grounds for revocation should not be given retroactive effect, Middlebrook v. Department of State, 5655.2d727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Hector v. Department of Professional Regulation, 504 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Norman Curtis Lewis v. Criminal Justice Standards Commission, 462 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Nechtman v. Saker, 271 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), but the substantial restatement of an old ground in a new statute authorizes disciplinary action on the preexisting ground under the new statute. Drury v. Harding, 461 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla. 1984); Solloway v. Department of Professional Regulation, 421 So.2d 573 (3d DCA 1982) rev. den. 430 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1983). At all pertinent times, failure to maintain good moral character as defined by Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, has been grounds for disciplinary action.
In the spring of 1988, the CJSTC's Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes "a statewide standard," provided, in pertinent part:
For the purposes of the Commission's implementation of any of the penalties enumerated in Subsection 943.1395(5) or (6), a certified officer's failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), is defined as:
The perpetration by the officer of an act which would constitute any felony offense, whether criminally prosecuted or not, or
The perpetration by the officer of an act which would constitute any of the following misdemeanor or criminal offenses, whether criminally prosecuted or not: Sections . . . 837.012, . . . 944.35(3), 944.35(7)(a) or
The perpetration by the officer of an act or conduct which causes substantial doubts concerning the officer's honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state and nation, irrespective of whether such act or conduct constitutes a crime.
Section 837.012 makes it a misdemeanor knowingly to make a false statement in regard to any material matter while under oath, even if not in an official proceeding. Section 117.10 authorizes law enforcement and correctional officers to administer oaths as notaries public when engaged in the performance of their official duties, as Inspector McLain was, when he interrogated respondent.
Subsections 944.35(4) and (5) require Department of Corrections employees who use force on an inmate or who witness inmate abuse to report what they have done or witnessed in writing. Subsection (7)(a) provides criminal penalties if an officer submits such a report which is knowingly or willfully inaccurate, incomplete or untruthful.
Rule 11B-27.005, Florida Administrative Code, which sets out disciplinary guidelines, was originally adopted before May of 1988, but has been amended since. Rule 11B-27.005, Florida Administrative Code, now provides:
When the Commission finds that a certified officer has committed an act which violates section 943.13(7), F.S., it shall issue a final order imposing penalties within the ranges recommended in the following disciplinary guidelines:
. . .
(b) For the perpetration by the officer of an act which would constitute any of the misdemeanor offenses as described in
11B-27.0011(4)(b), F.A.C., but where there was not a violation of section 943.13(4), F.S., the action of the Commission shall be to impose a penalty ranging from probation to revocation. Specific violations and penalties that will be imposed, absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances include the following:
. . .
Violation Penalty
. . .
4. False Reports,
Statements Falsification
of Application Revocation
. . .
The Commission shall be entitled to deviate from the above-mentioned guidelines upon a showing of aggravating or mitigating circumstances by evidence presented to the commission if pursuant to Section 120.57(2), F.S., or to a hearing officer if pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., prior to the imposition of a final penalty. The Commission may base a deviation from the disciplinary guidelines upon a finding of one or more of the following aggravating or mitigating circumstances:
Whether the officer used his or her official authority to facilitate the misconduct;
Whether the misconduct was committed while the officer was performing his or her other duties;
The officer's employment status at the time of the final hearing before the Commission;
The recommendations of character or employment references;
The number of violations found by the Commission;
The number of prior disciplinary actions taken against the officer by the Commission;
The severity of the misconduct;
The danger to the public;
The length of time since the violation;
The length of time the officer has been certified;
The actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by the misconduct;
The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed;
Any effort of rehabilitation by the officer;
The effect of the penalty upon the officer' livelihood;
The penalties imposed for other misconduct;
The pecuniary benefit or self-gain to the officer realized by the misconduct;
the officer's compliance with the terms and conditions of any Commission-ordered probation;
Whether the misconduct was motivated by unlawful discrimination;
Prior Letter of Guidance;
The effect of disciplinary or remedial action taken by the employing agency and/or recommendations of employing agency administrator.
Respondent Watson's false statements violated Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence clearly and convincingly established that Mr. Watson gave incomplete and misleading information in the use of force report he submitted. He did not state, as Section 944.35(4) required him to, that Major Faircloth struck Samuel Collier. This was no inadvertent omission. Respondent Watson later specifically denied, under oath, to Inspector McLain, that Major Faircloth struck Samuel Collier. This sworn falsehood violated Section 837.012.
The respondent's conduct also ran afoul of Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Clear and convincing evidence showed that respondent deliberately filed a materially false and incomplete report, and later lied under oath. His prevarications under oath concerning the incident reasonably give rise to substantial doubts about Mr. Watson's honesty and his respect for the rights of others.
Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), authorizes penalties short of revocation for misconduct evincing bad moral character. See
Short v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, 589 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In its current form, Rule 118-27.005, Florida Administrative Code, specifies revocation as the penalty for false reports and statements (absent mitigating circumstances), but the pertinent language was adopted after May 25, 1988, and does not, therefore, govern. See Willner v. Department of Professional Regulation, 563 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The lesser penalties authorized by Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), are available in an appropriate case, to the extent contemplated by Rule 11B-27.005, Florida Administrative Code, as it read before its amendment on March 29, 1989.
Without invoking Rule 11B-27.005, Florida Administrative Code, petitioner's counsel argues that revocation is the appropriate penalty in the present case. Petitioner's proposed recommended order contends, at page 16:
Honesty and truthfulness are fundamental essentials to the integrity of the criminal justice profession. Further, an officer's loyalty must be first to the law. Instead, the Respondents priority was to protect Respondent Faircloth from the consequences of his misconduct. In so doing, they exhibited a willingness to accept intolerable misdeeds of a fellow officer. Such a gross defect in conscience and character militates against a mitigated penalty and requires revocation of certification.
On the assumption that Rule 11B-27.005, Florida Administrative Code, as it existed in May of 1988, controls, but that respondent is entitled to the benefit of any mitigating factors the rule creates (although immune to any detriment on account of aggravating circumstances created by the rule, see Willner v.
Department of Professional Regulation, 563 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)) petitioner's argument is persuasive.
When correctional officers testify falsely under oath in furtherance of their own, personal notions of justice (or for any other reason), they undermine the rule of law, and arrogate to themselves powers our constitutions and laws repose elsewhere. A willingness to try to conceal the unlawful use of force against a "person for whose welfare respondent was responsible, and the untruthfulness about these important matters indicate the type of bad moral character that should disqualify would-be correctional officers." Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. Aubrey Minor, No. 89-6409 (DOAH; June 1, 1990). See, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. David
L. Sanders, DOAH Case No. 89-2770; and Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. Jose Galvin, DOAH Case No. 88-2724. On the assumption (rejected here) that Rule 11B-27.005, Florida Administrative Code, does apply in its current form, application of the current rule would also require revocation of respondent's certificate.
It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED:
That petitioner revoke respondent's certificate as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ROBERT T. BENTON, II
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 8th day of April, 1993.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-1395
Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 3-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24-31 and 32-47 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material.
Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2 are immaterial as to respondent Pumphrey.
With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, it was not clear that a fence and gate were in place at the time.
With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, Major Faircloth first joined the group before they reached his office.
With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 23, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish the exact number of times Major Faircloth hit Collier. Sergeant Sheppard saw him slap Collier only once. But the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that Major Faircloth landed additional blow(s), causing his knuckles to swell, and that respondent saw this.
Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-7, 11, 13-17, 20-21, 28-29, 32, 40 and 43 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material.
With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 8, 9 and 10, it was not clear that there was a need to pass between those two posts. That Collier hit or fell into a post was not established by the weight of the credible evidence.
With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact Nos. 45-46 and 7, the weight of the credible evidence did not establish that Collier was bleeding when he reached the security complex.
With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 19, credible evidence did not establish that Collier leapt from the chair and fell, striking a desk and the floor.
Respondent's proposed findings of fact No. 22, 24, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39, 42, 44,
47 and 48 pertain to subordination matters.
Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 were not escorted by credible evidence.
With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37, the nurse's testimony that she thought Collier's eyes were swollen because he had been crying has not been credited.
With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 41, the weight of the evidence did not establish that nobody saw Collier's injuries before he left HCI.
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Joseph S. White, Esquire Gina Cassidy, Esquire
Department of Law Enforcement
P. O. Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Stephen W. Foxwell
Florida Police Benevolent Association
300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement
P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Michael Ramage General Counsel
Department of Law Enforcement
P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Criminal Justice Standards
Training Commission
P. O. Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the agency written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 17, 1993 | Final Order filed. |
| May 19, 1993 | CC Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1993 | Transcript (Vols 1-3); Deposition of Frederick Terrell Kirkland filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1993 | (Respondents) Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1993 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 9/9/92. |
| Apr. 08, 1993 | Case No/s: 92-1395, 92-1396, 92-1397 unconsolidated. |
| Nov. 17, 1992 | (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| May 22, 1992 | Order sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 92-1395, 92-1396, 92-1397, 92-1398 and 92-1399) |
| May 05, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No/s. 92-1395, 92-1397, 92-1398 & 92-1399) filed. |
| May 05, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 7-10-92; 10:00am; Crestview) |
| Mar. 17, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to Hearing Officer`s Initial Order filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1992 | Ltr. to RTB from Gina Cassidy re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Mar. 06, 1992 | Initial Order issued. |
| Feb. 28, 1992 | Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 14, 1993 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 08, 1993 | Recommended Order | Revocation of correctional officer's certificate recommended for filing false report and lying under oath about inmate's beating. |
