STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINSTRATIVE HEARINGS

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

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 85-3589

)

MARGARET C. SEALES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice this matter came on For formal hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly designated Hearing Officer in Orlando, Florida on February 24, 1986. The appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Joseph S. White, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards

and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: No appearance.

By its Administrative Complaint, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission seeks to revoke the Respondent's certification as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. The Petitioner maintains in its Administrative Complaint that the Respondent violated the provisions of Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain the qualifications established in that last-cited section which requires that a correctional officer in the State of Florida have good moral character. Specifically, it is alleged that on or about March 17, l9B5, while on duty at Lake Correctional Institution the Respondent did unlawfully deliver or possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance. In essence, the charges concern an alleged incident which occurred

on the above date in which the Respondent wrote a letter which was intercepted by her co-workers and superiors which revealed that she contemplated an intended transfer of a "50-cent piece" or a certain amount of drugs to an inmate in Lake Correctional Institution for resale. It is thus charged that the Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications established by the above statute, one of which is that a correctional officer in the State of Florida be possessed of good moral character.

The cause came on for hearing as scheduled at which the Respondent failed to appear. At the outset of the hearing, a prehearing stipulation signed by the Respondent, as well as Petitioner's counsel, was filed with the Hearing Officer in which the Respondent acknowledged personally handwriting the intercepted letter, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The Petitioner presented three witnesses and that one exhibit. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the Petitioner indicated that a transcript would be ordered and requested the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On or about March 20, 1986, the Petitioner notified the-Hearing Officer that due to a family emergency he would be away from his office for approximately a week. An extension of time on the submission of his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was allowed, but the Petitioner ultimately elected not to file the pleading.

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, on or about the date alleged above, illegally possessed a controlled substance with intent to wrongfully deliver that controlled substance to another, and if so, what, if any, penalty is warranted under the circumstances.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards for certified law enforcement and correctional officers in the State of Florida. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer on December 2, 1980, and was issued certificate No. 15-84-599-01.

   
   

2. Correctional Officer Teresa Allen worked at Lake Correctional Institute as a guard and at times pertinent hereto was working as a perimeter guard stationed in a pickup truck operating around the periphery of the prison. In the early morning hours of March 18, 1985, Ms. Allen arrived at her duty station in the truck on the perimeter of the fenced confinement area. The Respondent had been witness Allen's counterpart, stationed in that same pickup truck at the same point on the 4:00

   p.m. to 12:00 midnight shift immediately prior to Ms. Allen's shift.

3. When Ms. Allen got into the pickup truck, she observed and retrieved from the floor of the pickup truck, a scrap of aluminum foil, a paper towel and a plastic bag. The paper towel appeared to have been wadded up or torn up but had writing in ink on it. It appeared to her to be the Respondent Margaret Seale's handwriting, inasmuch as she was experienced in observing the Respondent's handwriting. She took the handwritten note or letter on the paper towel to her superiors, Lts. Flowers and Branch. Upon receipt of that letter, Lts. Flowers and Branch reconstructed it with cellophane tape. It ultimately was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The letter indicates that the Respondent intended sending the addressee, someone she called "Baby" a "50-cent piece". She thereafter indicated she could not resist "taking a pinch." After the addressee of the letter was to receive the intended "50-cent piece" the Respondent directed the recipient to destroy all foil and plastic immediately thereafter. The Respondent then directed the recipient of the letter as to how to communicate with her, and urged the recipient not to go anywhere, but to "make some money" with her.

4. Mr. Michael Lanfersiek is a special agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. He is trained in narcotics investigation related to smuggling and trafficking in narcotics, controlled substances and related organized racketeering. He was established to be an expert in narcotics investigation, and in interpreting the jargon used in the "drug trade." It was thus established that a "50-cent piece" refers to $50 worth of drugs or slightly under one gram of heroin or cocaine, for example.

   The reference in the letter to the directed destruction of the foil and plastic refers to the aluminum foil and plastic bag wrapping of the cocaine' or heroin which is trafficked in a powder form and requires such a wrapping. Thus, the witness established that the letter showed that the writer of it had trafficked or transmitted a controlled substance to the recipient of the letter, and was telling him to destroy the wrapping material after receipt of the drug.

   
   

5. Inmate James Bryant had been suspected of trafficking in drugs inside the Lake Correctional Institute. The Respondent was not on any inmate's "visitors approved list," but recently had filed a request form asking to visit the suspected inmate, James Bryant. That inmate was later transferred to Marion Correctional Institute some two months after the Respondent resigned. Mr. Michael Page is the Inspector of Prisons for the Marion County area. Mr. Page is charged with investigating both prison staff and inmates and was familiar with the Respondent's handwriting. It appeared that the handwritten note, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, was written in the Respondent's handwriting and he had this

   confirmed to his satisfaction by a handwriting expert employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Respondent refused to confer with Mr. Page without the presence of her attorney. Some two days after he initially requested an interview with her she resigned.

   
   

6. There is no question that the Respondent authored the subject letter which reveals clearly that she proposed and intended to transmit illicit drugs to another person, established to be an inmate in the Lake Correctional Institution, for the purpose of that person marketing the drugs to others in return for money, of which the Respondent would receive a portion. Indeed, in the prehearing stipulation admitted into evidence on the day of hearing, and signed by the Respondent as well as Petitioner's counsel, it is admitted by Respondent that she personally wrote the note identified as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and that she wrote the note while she was employed as a correctional officer at the Lake Correctional Institution.

   
   

7. Thus, in view of the stipulation, which is accepted, and the unrefuted testimony of the witnesses who were familiar with the Respondent's duty station and hours of employment, her past history of attempting to contact and visit an inmate already suspected of drug trafficking, and her handwriting, it is patently apparent that the Respondent did indeed possess and intend to deliver to another, for resale, illicit controlled substances. No contrary testimony or evidence having been offered, the charges have thus been established.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985).

   
   

9. The statutory authority under which the Respondent is charged provides as follows:

Section 943.1395(5)

The commission shall revoke the certification of any officer who is not in compliance with the provisions of s. 943.13(1)-(10) and shall, by rule, adopt revocation-of- certification procedures pursuant to chapter

120. For the purpose of revocation, the chairman of the commission shall appoint one or more panels of three commissioners each to determine probable cause.

* * *

Section 943.13(7)

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

There is no question that the conduct the Respondent engaged in is inconsistent with the Respondent's having sufficient good moral character to comply with that particular qualification required by the above statutory authority for continued licensure as a correctional officer. Law enforcement officers, including correctional officers, are held to occupy positions of high trust in protecting the public health, safety and welfare from the propensities of those whose custody they are charged with maintaining. For a correctional officer to engage in the very type of conduct for which those in her custody may have been imprisoned, and especially for her to engage in that conduct with inmates inside the prison environment, which demands a high degree of security-for the safety of inmates, staff members and the general public; the protection of which rights and interests is absolutely antithetical to trafficking in drugs, clearly reflects a high degree of depravity and moral turpitude on the part of this Respondent. The exhibition of such a lack of trustworthiness, disregard for the security and safety of others and the disregard of the strictures of the laws she was charged with enforcing in favor of her own pecuniary gain, clearly shows lack of good moral character. She is thus deficient in a necessary qualification for continued licensure as a correctional officer. In short, it has been established that the charges in the Administrative Complaint have been proven without contradiction, and, given the high degree of danger to the public health, safety and welfare associated with the type of conduct the Respondent engaged in, and the circumstances surrounding it, a substantial penalty should be imposed.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore

RECOMMENDED that the certification of Margaret C. Seales as a correctional officer be REVOKED.

DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida.

P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Joseph S. White, Esq. Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Margaret C. Seales

300 Dorsett Avenue

Lake Wales, Florida 33853

Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Criminal Justice Standards

and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee Florida 32302

Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director

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

Docket for Case No: 85-003589

Orders for Case No: 85-003589