STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, ) CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS )

AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-2637

)

CLAYTON J. FORD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on September 24, 1999, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire

Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Michael Braverman, Esquire

2650 West State Road 84, Suite 101A Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 31, 1998, Petitioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Clayton J. Ford, alleging that Respondent had violated certain statutes and a rule regulating his conduct as a correctional officer. Respondent timely requested an evidentiary hearing regarding those allegations. This cause was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the evidentiary proceeding.

At the commencement of the final hearing, the Commission moved ore tenus to correct the date alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and that motion was granted.

The Commission presented the testimony of Mark Jeter, Pamela Gray, Marvel Williams, and Kees Van Gils. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Marvin Ramsey and Orlando B. Santana. Additionally, the Commission's Exhibits numbered 1-8 and Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1-5 were admitted in evidence.

Both parties submitted after the conclusion of the final hearing proposed recommended orders. Those documents have been considered in the entry of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer on October 1, 1987, and was issued correctional certificate numbered 83658. Respondent has been

   employed since that time by the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, assigned to the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Institute, the stockade. He is also certified by the Commission as an instructor and has taught at the Academy.

2. Respondent is a very professional, "by-the-book" correctional officer. He is considered by his supervisors to be an excellent correctional officer who performs his job efficiently. He has received numerous commendations while at the Department, including a humanitarian award and the Department's monthly recognition award. His annual evaluations rate him consistently above satisfactory or outstanding but for some need for improvement in attendance.

3. January 28, 1994, was Respondent's birthday. He and Pamela Gray, the woman with whom Respondent then lived, walked on the beach together and then went to Denny's Restaurant. While there, they encountered three young women whose car had been stolen while they were inside Denny's. Respondent offered them a ride home, and they accepted.

4. Respondent, in Gray's car, and Gray drove the women to Hamlet Estates Apartments and entered through the security gate. Once inside the complex, Respondent and Gray were walking the women to their apartment when they saw a juvenile walking around looking in the recreation room. They commented to each other that it was too late for a child that age to be out.

5. Since it was after 3:00 a.m., Respondent and the others approached the juvenile who appeared to be 10 to 12 years old. Respondent asked him why he was out at that time of the morning, and the juvenile said he lived there. Respondent asked him which apartment he lived in, and the juvenile stated an apartment number. The young women with Respondent and Gray advised that the apartment complex used letters, not numbers, on the apartments there.

6. Respondent asked the juvenile to show Respondent where he lived, and Respondent and the boy walked off together. The boy was unable to identify an apartment where he lived. The boy was also evasive about his name and telephone number. Respondent and the juvenile returned to where Gray was waiting for them.

7. The young women went to their apartment, and Respondent and Gray drove the juvenile to the security guard booth at the entrance to the complex. Gray waited in the car, while Respondent and the juvenile walked over to the booth and spoke to the security guard.

8. Respondent identified himself to security guard Marvel Williams as Officer Ford and showed her his correctional

   officer badge. Respondent asked Williams if the juvenile lived there, and she confirmed that he did not. Respondent used the telephone to call the telephone number the juvenile told him was his parents' telephone number, but the number was disconnected.

9. Respondent was concerned about leaving the juvenile at the complex where the juvenile had no right to be. He was concerned that something might happen to the child or that the child might be intending wrongdoing. Respondent then called the Miami-Dade Police Department precinct nearby and requested that a patrol car be sent to pick up the juvenile and take him home. Respondent was told that no unit was available to come there.

10. Respondent then decided that he would drive the juvenile to the precinct and leave him there until the police could take him home. He told the juvenile to come with him, and they walked over to Gray's car. Respondent opened the back door, and the juvenile got in. Respondent then got in the car and drove out of the complex.

11. Because the security guard had some concern about a child going somewhere with a stranger, she copied down Respondent's license number and a description of the vehicle as Respondent exited the complex. She then pushed the redial button on the telephone to verify that Respondent had in fact called the police and discovered that he had. She then wrote an incident report describing what had happened.

12. When Respondent arrived at Station 6, he, Gray, and the juvenile went inside. Respondent and the juvenile approached the desk officer, and Gray sat down in the waiting area. Respondent introduced himself as Officer Ford and showed the police officer his correctional officer badge and identification. He then told

    the police officer what had transpired and requested that the police take the juvenile home. At the request of the police officer, Respondent wrote down his name, his badge number, his identification number, and his beeper number. The desk officer then buzzed the door to the back area to unlock it and allow Respondent and the juvenile to enter the back area of the station.

13. Respondent held the door for the desk officer and the juvenile, and the juvenile walked into the back area. Respondent told the desk officer that he was tired and was going home. He then walked out of the station, and he and Gray drove home. The desk officer did not try to stop Respondent from leaving.

14. Not knowing what to do next, the desk officer contacted his supervisor, asking him to come to the station to deal with the juvenile. When his supervisor arrived, he described what had happened. In doing so, he told his supervisor that Respondent was an off-duty police officer. This erroneous assumption arose from the fact that Miami-Dade police officer badges and correctional officer badges look alike, but for the wording across the top of the badge.

15. The desk officer's supervisor called Respondent's beeper, and Respondent returned the call. In a hostile and profane manner he told Respondent to return to the station and fill out appropriate paperwork. Respondent told him he would not come back to the station and hung up on him. The supervisor

    again beeped Respondent, and Respondent again called him back. The supervisor threatened to call Respondent's precinct and report him to internal affairs, and Respondent advised him that Respondent was not a police officer but was a correctional officer. The supervisor then contacted correctional internal affairs and reported Respondent for impersonating a police officer.

16. The police attempted to find out the juvenile's name and address, but he only gave them false information. They finally fingerprinted him and discovered that his fingerprints were on file and that there were several outstanding warrants/pick-up orders against him. Instead of taking him home, they transported him to juvenile hall.

17. Respondent did not identify himself as a police officer to anyone that night.

18. Respondent did not restrain the juvenile or imprison him against his will. The juvenile went with Respondent both to the security guard booth and to the police precinct without protestation.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

19. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto. Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

20. The Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent alleges that on January 28, 1994, Respondent unlawfully,

    forcibly, by threat, or secretly confined, abducted, imprisoned, or restrained another against that person's will. There is no competent, credible evidence to support this charge. The juvenile did not testify, and the hearsay testimony offered to support this charge is not credible.

21. The Administrative Complaint further alleges that on that date Respondent unlawfully and falsely pretended to be a police officer during the commission of a felony, to wit: the false imprisonment, by identifying himself as a police officer and requesting assistance from the desk police officer. The Commission has also failed to prove this allegation. The evidence demonstrates that the police officer working at the front desk that night made the assumption that Respondent was a police officer. The testimony to the contrary is not credible. Rather, the credible testimony is that Respondent identified himself as Officer Ford, an appropriate designation for a correctional officer, and left his name, badge and identification number, and his beeper number, all of which readily identified Respondent accurately.

22. Since the Commission failed to prove that Respondent falsely imprisoned the juvenile or falsely represented himself to be a police officer rather than a correctional officer, then the Commission failed to prove that Respondent violated Section 943.1395(6) and/or (7), Florida Statutes, and/or Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to

maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring a correctional officer to have good moral character.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice

Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Michael Braverman, Esquire 2650 West State Road 84 Suite 101A

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 99-002637

Orders for Case No: 99-002637