STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, ) CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND ) TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

FRED J. ST. AMAND, JR., )

)

Respondent. )

Case No. 03-0877PL

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on May 1, 2003, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Florence Snyder Rivas, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Linton B. Eason, Esquire

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

For Respondent: No appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated May 12, 2000, and filed March 11, 2003, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Administrative Complaint dated May 12, 2000, and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on March 11, 2003, Petitioner, Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), seeks to revoke the law enforcement certificate of Respondent, Fred J. St. Amand (Respondent or St. Amand).

St. Amand timely requested a hearing to challenge the proposed discipline, but did not appear at the final hearing. On April 30,2003, Respondent filed a letter requesting a continuance which was denied.

For reasons set forth fully in the record, the tribunal made a factual finding that Respondent made a conscious decision, in bad faith, not to appear. More specifically, Respondent had actual knowledge that the proceedings were going forward, and that no legitimate grounds for a continuance existed. In the ensuing weeks, neither Respondent nor his attorney of record, nor any new attorney, has contacted DOAH to request additional time to present a defense.

The final hearing therefore proceeded, and Petitioner presented the testimony of nine witnesses and introduced 12 exhibits. A transcript of the proceedings was filed on May 19, 2003, and a timely Proposed Recommended Order was submitted by Petitioner.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to this case, St. Amand was a certified law enforcement officer employed as a detective by the North Miami Beach Police Department.

2. St. Amand occupied a position of the highest trust as a member of the detective bureau. He abused that trust by engaging in repeated acts of lewd behavior in the workplace. The nature and quantity of the behavior was sufficient to provoke complaints to the Dade County State Attorney's Office which resulted in an investigation concerning sexual harassment and indecent exposure.

3. In the course of that investigation, St. Amand compounded his offenses by lying consistently and repeatedly to investigators.

4. Five witnesses, all of whom were entirely credible, testified in detail regarding incidents they had witnessed in which St.Amand masturbated, or simulated masturbation, at work.

5. One such incident took place in the community patrol office. St. Amand's semen was collected from the carpet in that office.

6. One of his former partners in the family violence unit said it was "second nature" to St. Amand to grope himself, simulate masturbation, and make vulgar comments. He did so in front of male as well as female colleagues.

7. St. Amand falsely denied under oath that any of the incidents his colleagues testified to ever happened.

8. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its law enforcement officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that law enforcement officers who lack good moral character, or who make false statements under oath, may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement.

9. The public has every right to expect that those who serve and protect will do exactly that--not harass and embarrass colleagues and citizens who are conducting business in tax- supported buildings.

10. St. Amand's conduct did substantial damage to his colleagues' morale, and to his department's reputation for

    professionalism.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

11. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding.

12. Petitioner has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

13. Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, establishes the minimum qualifications for law enforcement officers in Florida, including at subsection (7):

    Have a good moral character as determined by a background investigation under procedures established by the Commission

    
    

14. "What constitutes good moral character is a matter to be developed by facts, evaluated by the agency, with a judicial review of same ever available. . . ." White v. Beary, 237 So. 2d

    263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).

    
    

15. Here, the facts overwhelmingly establish St. Amand's lack of good moral character. In Zemour, Inc. v. Division of Beverage, 347 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the court defined moral character as ". . . not only the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, but the character to observe the difference; the observance of the rules of right conduct, and conduct which indicates and establishes the qualities generally acceptable to the populace for positions of trust and confidence. An isolated unlawful act or acts of indiscretion wherever committed do not necessarily establish bad moral character. "

16. St. Amand's acts of boorishness and depravity were not isolated, and went well past indiscretion. In Florida Board of

    Bar Examiners Re: G.W.L., 364 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1978), the Florida

    Supreme Court, in a case involving admission to the bar, stated that a finding of a lack of good moral character,

    should not be restricted to those acts that reflect moral turpitude, but rather extends to acts and conduct which would cause a reasonable man to have substantial doubts about an individual's honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation.

    
    

17. Here, the facts overwhelmingly establish that

    
    

    St. Amand lacks the requisite moral character for a career in law enforcement. The sexual misconduct he repeatedly demonstrated in the workplace demonstrates a lack of respect for himself, his fellow officers, and the public they serve. It should go without saying that the sexual conduct of a police detective must be above reproach.

18. Even if St. Amand's sexual acting out could be excused, and it cannot, his repeated lies to fellow officers who investigated the charges render license revocation the only consequence adequate to assure the public of the state's commitment to requiring the highest professional standards of its law enforcement officers.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. Amand's law enforcement certificate be permanently revoked.

DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS

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 16th day of June, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Fred St. Amand, Jr.

2429 Northwest 184 Terrace Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029

Rod Caswell, 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

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

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: 03-000877PL

Orders for Case No: 03-000877PL