vs. ) CASE NO. 82-1753
STEPHEN E. AHERN, )
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above- styled case on 12 August 1982 at Orlando, Florida.
For Petitioner: Jeffrey A. Miller, Esquire
By Administrative Complaint filed 21 May 1982 the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the law enforcement certification of Stephen E. Ahern, Respondent. As grounds there for it is alleged that Respondent was guilty of gross immorality in December, 1981, in making certain statements to a 15-year- old boy and in July 1977 in fondling a 15-year-old boy. These acts are also alleged to constitute willful neglect of duty, gross misconduct and incompetence, which seriously reduce hi effectiveness as a law enforcement officer.
At the hearing Petitioner called six witnesses; Respondent called three witnesses, including Respondent; and one exhibit was admitted into evidence.
Stephen E. Ahern is certified as a law enforcement officer in the state of Florida.
While serving on the police force of Groveland, Florida, in 1977 Respondent became Assistant Scoutmaster, then Scoutmaster to a group of Boy Scouts in Groveland. He was recommended by, and replaced, Clyde Puryear as Scoutmaster.
In. July, 1977, Respondent took Lee Womble, a 15-year-old member of his Boy Scout Troop, with him in his pickup to look for a site for a Boy Scout camp. When they returned to Groveland, they stopped at Respondent's apartment. While there Respondent gave Womble a massage (Womble's testimony) and during the course of the massage, pulled down Womble's undershorts and started to masturbate him. Womble was upset, got off the bed, got dressed and went home. Upon his arrival at home, somewhat later than his mother had expected him, Womble appeared to be upset but his mother's questions only led to Womble's response that he could not talk to her about what was bothering him. When Mrs. Womble asked if he could talk to Clyde Puryear, her son replied that he could. Mrs. Womble then called Mr. Puryear at home, told him Lee would like to talk with him, and drove her son to Puryear's house.
Lee Womble told Puryear of the incident in Respondent's apartment.
When Womble had completed his story, Puryear went directly to Respondent's apartment, told Respondent he wanted all of the scout records and equipment, and said "I guess you know why." Respondent asked Puryear no questions, demanded no explanation, and presented Puryear with the records and equipment he asked for. During this visit for the records and equipment, neither Respondent nor Puryear mentioned Womble. Puryear testified he thought Respondent understood he was taking over the scout troop again because of the Respondent's actions that afternoon. Respondent testified he did not know why Puryear wanted the records and equipment but thought Puryear's press of business, which caused Puryear to relinquish the troop in the first place, had eased and he wanted to again be Scoutmaster.
When he learned of the incident involving his son, Herschel Womble called Ernest Downing, the mayor of Groveland, at his home, told him he wanted to talk to him about one of his police officers; and Downing invited him to come by his home. After hearing the story Downing called a meeting for the following day, at which Herschel Womble, Respondent, Chief of Police, Mayor Downing, the police dispatcher, and Puryear were invited. Puryear arrived at the meeting late and did not hear any explanation by Respondent. Downing's recollection of the meeting is that, when confronted with the accusation, Respondent admitted putting his hands on Womble's leg and realized what he was doing and stopped.
As a result of this incident Respondent resigned from the police force.
The Chief of Police, Tommy Merrill, who was also at the meeting, recalled no admission of guilt by Respondent. Because Respondent had been a good police officer, expected to join the Lake County Sheriff's Department, and was engaged to be married to a dispatcher on the Grove land police force, it was agreed everyone would say he resigned because of the rule that both husband and wife could not work on the Groveland police force. This resignation was effective immediately, July 29, 1977. Respondent was married in February, 1978.
Respondent testified that on the occasion in question Womble was giving Respondent a massage rather than receiving a massage from Respondent. Other details of Womble's testimony were not disputed. Respondent had given Womble a massage in his apartment on at least one previous occasion, the massage was being given on a bed, and Womble was stripped to his undershorts for the massage.
While serving as Chief of Police at Mascotte in 1981, Respondent was leader or Scoutmaster of a group of Explorer Scouts. Members of the troop, or post, took turns accompanying Respondent on patrols in the police car. One day in late December, 1981, Respondent returned to the police station with Victor
Valdez, a 16-year-old who had been riding in the police car with Respondent. Mascotte has only three policemen on its force. The Chief takes the day shift and the other two take the night shifts. When the on-duty policeman is out of the office, the office is empty, as the secretary for the police force has an office in the City Hall next door to the police station.
When Respondent and Valdez were returning to the office, they started talking about sex and, after arriving at the office, Respondent told Valdez about his first experience with a woman on his paper route when he was 13 years old. Valdez testified "He said there he learned how to eat pussy." Respondent then told Valdez that he had to jack-off and Valdez could stay and watch or leave the Chief's office and for him not to tell anyone. Valdez left the office and went to the bathroom in the police station. This police station was described as a fairly small building. Inside the building only the Chief's office and the bathroom had doors that could be closed, and there was an open area with desks for the other two policemen. While Valdez was in the bathroom having a bowel movement, Respondent knocked on the door and asked for some toilet paper. Valdez handed Respondent the roll and after taking some off Respondent returned the roll to Valdez. Valdez testified that when he passed the toilet paper to Respondent the latter did not have his gun belt on and his pants were unzipped. Respondent testified he got toilet paper from Valdez with which to blow his nose but denied that his gun belt was off or his pants unzipped. When Valdez came out of the bathroom, they went to a restaurant where Respondent met his wife and Valdez went to his home.
Valdez admitted that he had been arrested with some 11 people on a charge of second degree burglary and was sentenced as a juvenile to perform public service cleaning up around the City Hall and police station. He also admitted that he had had a venereal disease, of which Respondent was aware.
Respondent has been dismissed from his position of Chief of Police of Mascotte (Respondent's Motion to Continue Hearing) . No evidence was presented regarding Respondent's dismissal and no assumptions are made regarding the cause of this dismissal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
Section 943.145, Florida Statutes, establishes grounds for revocation or suspension of certification of law enforcement officers which include:
(c) The commission of conduct by the certificate holder constituting gross immoral-
ity . . . willful neglect of duty, incompetence, or gross misconduct which seriously reduces the certificate holder's effectiveness to function
as a law enforcement officer or a correctional officer.
The acts which the Respondent is alleged to have committed, if true, constitute gross immorality and gross misconduct which seriously reduces the certificate holder's effectiveness as a law enforcement officer.
The testimony of the complaining witnesses is flatly contradicted by Respondent. The demeanor of all witnesses was observed by the Hearing Officer,
the circumstances and details surrounding the acts alleged have been considered, the motives of the various witnesses have been considered, and all of these factors lead to the conclusion that Respondent is guilty as alleged.
With respect to the Womble incident, it is significant that massaging occurred on a previous occasion, and was instituted by Respondent; that the participants were largely unclad; that Respondent returned the scouting records and equipment without comment when, demand was made; that Respondent's resignation from his position on the police force would be reputedly due to his pending marriage and this marriage did not occur for more than six months; the circumstances surrounding the incident, as described by Petitioner's witnesses, were plausible; and Respondent's explanation was not plausible. The fact that this charge is brought some five years after the event reduces the impact of these allegations.
With respect to the incident involving Valdez, again the circumstances on which both parties agree lend credence to Valdez' version of the incident. Here again, Respondent is actively seeking the company of teenage boys by his participation in the Explorer Scout program and by allowing these boys to ride in the police car with him. Absolutely no motive was offered for Valdez to falsify his testimony, while Respondent would have a great deal to gain from his version of the events if his version of the events is accepted. Valdez' demeanor on the witness stand and the circumstances of the man trying to impress a boy with his exploits lends credence to Valdez' version of the events that transpired at the police station upon their return there about noon one day in late December.
Neither Womble's nor Valdez' testimony was impeached. Both freely admitted transgressions they had committed, Womble with having experimented with drugs and Valdez with his arrest for burglary.
Respondent's testimony, that his resignation from the Groveland police force was prompted by the City's policy that prohibited a husband and wife from both being on the police force, is somewhat discredited by the fact that he resigned on 29 July 1977, testified he then planned to get married in October, and was actually married in February, 1978.
No specific evidence was presented to show Respondent was guilty of incompetence or willful neglect of duty.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Stephen E. Ahern is guilty of gross immorality and gross misconduct in fondling Lee Womble in 1977 and in relating sexual explicit stories to Victor Valdez in 1981. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Stephen E. Ahern's certificate as a law enforcement officer.
ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida.
K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1982.
Jeffrey A. Miller, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol
William S. Westfall, Jr. Bureau Chief
