STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ) DIVISION OF LICENSING, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 89-0117
)
LAWRENCE E. SINGLETON, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held in this case before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Arnold H. Pollock, on May 3, 1989, in Tampa, Florida.
APPEARANCES
Petitioner: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel Department of State
The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Respondent: Douglas M. Wycoff, Esquire
705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's Class A and Class C licenses as a Private Investigative Agency and Private Investigator, respectively, should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
On December 15, 1988, an Administrative Complaint was filed in this case by David C. Register, Director, Division of Licensing for the Department of State, which was furnished to the Respondent by certified mail on the same day. In this Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent is guilty of several violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, and seeks to discipline his licenses. Thereafter, on December 29, 1988, Respondent's counsel filed an Answer and Request for Formal Administrative proceedings on his client's behalf and on January 10, 1989, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. On February 10, 1989, the undersigned set the case for hearing in Tampa on April 6, 1989, but, on February 24, 1989, pursuant to Petitioner'S Motion for Continuance, an Order granting the continuance until May 3, 1989, was entered.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Janet R. Yonts, Respondent's client in the matter at issue here; Carolyn F. Grabau, an associate of Ms. Yonts; James W. Strong, Ms. Yonts' Maine attorney; Virginia J. Bates, also an associate of Ms. Yonts; and Dwight H. Chastain, a special investigator with the Department's Division of Licensing. Petitioner offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 for Identification, but neither was admitted.
Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of Bert
A. Wahl, Jr.; Ms. Grabau; and Ms. Yonts. He introduced Respondent's Exhibits A through I. The undersigned took official recognition of Chapter 493, Florida statutes.
A transcript was provided on June 14, 1989. Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order. Counsel for Respondent filed, at the same time he filed his Proposed Recommended Order, a Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint based on his assertion that the Complaint failed to allege that Respondent was engaged in the performance of private investigation at the time alleged. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and a review of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lawrence
E. Singleton, held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license issued by the State of Florida under license number A 0001058, issued on October 12, 1987, to expire June 30, 1989. From 1969 through 1976, he also held a Class "C" Private Investigator license No. 227-C, and on July 7, 1988, applied again for a Class "C" license. From late 1976, however, to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988, he did not hold a valid "C" license in Florida.
In 1986, Respondent agreed to sponsor Paul E. Hartigan for a Class "CC" Investigator Intern license utilizing his, Respondent's, license, Number GK 0001058 or 000007271. Neither was a bona fide Class "C" license, however. The sponsor form signed by the Respondent indicated he held a class "C" license. This was incorrect. As of June 23, 1988, Respondent was notified by the Department, by certified mail, that he did not possess a valid Class "C" or "A" license. That letter was correct as to the Class "C" license, but it was incorrect as to the Class "A" license.
Janet R. Yonts, a well to do, eccentric, elderly woman who is active in animal rights causes in Florida and elsewhere, first met Respondent in 1986 through Mr. Bert Wahl, Jr., also active in those causes. In March 1988, she again contacted Respondent to do some work for her. She was looking for a private investigator to secure evidence of animal abuse against a Mr. Curtis, operator of the King Kong Zoo in Brooksville, Florida, who was suspected of abusing his animals. A corollary effort of Ms. Yonts, and one which she gave to Respondent, was to secure help for a friend, Ms. Bates, in her efforts to remove her trailer home from Mr. Curtis' property.
Ms. Yonts was, for the most part, satisfied with Respondent's performance in their 1986 dealings. At that time, she paid him between $3,000 and $4,000 without receiving either an itemized statement or a report.
Mr. Singleton attempted to get the evidence that Ms. Yonts desired concerning Mr. Curtis but denies he was in any way employed to move Ms. Bates'
trailer. Ms. Bates was occupying her own trailer in a rental space on Mr. Curtis' property and had fallen behind in her rent payments when Mr. Curtis raised the rental payments considerably.
Though Respondent denies any substantial effort to achieve the release of Ms. Bates' unit, and though he claims that what efforts he made did not constitute private investigation, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, in March or April 1988, he met with Ms. Bates and Mr. Curtis' stepson to discuss the possibility of getting the trailer off the property. Respondent contends that this meeting dealt primarily with an effort to get Mr. Curtis' stepson to provide evidence against his stepfather regarding the animal abuse allegations. In addition, he made at least one reconnaissance trip to the site, a trip on which he made a video tape which he played at the hearing. On that visit, he was unable to find the trailer in question because it had already been moved by someone else at Ms. Bates' direction
As a result of the arrangement between Ms. Yonts and Mr. Singleton, however, she paid him $1,400.00 of which $500.00 was to be and was paid to Ms. Bates far back rent payments. The balance was to be used by Respondent both in his efforts to secure release of the trailer and to gather evidence against Mr. Curtis on the animal abuse allegations.
There is substantial question in Ms. Yonts' mind as to how and where the remaining $900.00 was actually used. She made many phone calls to Respondent in an effort to get him to give her an accounting of the money spent and a report of his actions along with a bill for his services. He either ignored her requests or refused to provide such an accounting. Ms. Yonts also tried to get an accounting through her friend, Ms. Grabau, who was familiar with Mr. Singleton and what he was to do, and her efforts were also to no avail. Ultimately Ms. Yonts requested her Maine attorney, Mr. Strong, to contact Mr. Singleton and request an accounting and statement. When this was done, Respondent initially agreed to provide it, but immediately thereafter refused. Because Mr. Strong did not show a written authorization from Ms. Yonts, Respondent took the position that the confidentiality of his relationship with his client precluded him from releasing any information. He took the same position with Ms. Yonts' Florida attorney, Mr. Horan, who requested, both telephonically and in writing, an accounting and statement from the Respondent. At no time was either furnished.
Respondent denies having received any request from Ms. Yonts and indicates he would have provided such requested information if he had been asked. By the same token, he also states that if either attorney or anyone purporting to represent Ms. Yonts had shown him a written authorization from her to release the information, he would have done so at that time. His testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Granted his reluctance to release the information to Ms. Grabau, both attorneys communicated with him on their professional letterhead, indicating their representative status, and he neither provided them with the information nor indicated what he would accept as authorization. Neither did he call Ms. Yonts to verify the authorization. It is clear Mr. Singleton had no intention of providing any statement or accounting to Ms. Yonts or her representatives for the $900.00 she gave him. At the hearing, however, he testified he spent well in excess of $1,000.00 worth of time in pursuit of her interests and that he earned every bit of the $900.00 fee she paid. Even at the hearing, however, he did not itemize and it is not at all unreasonable that Ms. Yonts should request an itemization. Having requested one, it is also not unreasonable that she should receive it.
There was substantial issue raised by Respondent as to Ms. Yonts' competence to testify and to recall with any degree of accuracy the substance of her dealings with him. He made much of her inability to recall the actual address of her daughter whom she has not seen for several years. She related, however, that her daughter, from whom she is estranged, a not unusual situation, had recently moved. He alleged she rides around in a limousine with a basset hound who is not house broken, but she denied that, requesting to keep her animals out of the discussion. When his counsel asked her when she last combed her hair, she stated that she didn't comb it, but then quickly pointed out that she recently had a permanent and brushes it instead. While Respondent claims that Ms. Yonts, in her automobile outside of Ms. Grabau's house when she retained him to represent her in the matters in issue here, invited him to go to Australia with her, claiming they could have a good time, she unequivocally denies that happened. She admits to having been hospitalized for mental problems at one time in the past but claims she voluntarily admitted herself and was released when she recovered. She also admits that sometime around 1974, her not insubstantial property was placed into a conservancy but she has since been restored to full control over it and the conservancy has been cancelled.
It is clear from the testimony given at the hearing and from personal observation of all parties, that while Ms. Yonts may be eccentric and unusual, while her syntax in speech may be unusual, and while she may be somewhat unsure as to the exquisite details of occurrences (times and dates), her testimony as a whole makes it clear she is competent to testify and her credibility is good. She is past seventy years of age. Though she may be reluctant to discuss her pets, this does not mean her recollection of past facts is faulty and when she claims to have repeatedly requested a statement and accounting of her fee from the Respondent, she is believable. Her eccentricities and idiosyncrasies in no way detract from the weight of her testimony in regard to the fundamentals of her story. Respondent's innuendo that she was coached as to what to say in her testimony by the Department's investigator is unsubstantiated and without merit.
Ms. Yonts paid Respondent a substantial sum for the work he did for her on the prior occasion and at that time also got no itemization. Apparently, none was requested then. In the instant case, however, after she decided she could no longer work with him, while in the course of a conversation with someone about her dissatisfaction, it was suggested to her that she should get an itemization from Respondent as to the disposition of the money she had given him. When she entered the agreement with him, no set fee was agreed upon. She took it for granted Respondent would do what was necessary and would thereafter charge her a reasonable fee for his services. There was no request then for an itemized report. However, after the termination of their relationship, and after she spoke with another detective agency where she again was advised to get an accounting, she then requested one from Respondent. It was only when her repeated efforts to contact Respondent failed that she requested Horan and Ms. Grabau to speak with Respondent, and admittedly, she did not advise him that either was her representative.
Respondent was first licensed in Florida as a private investigator in 1969 and, to the best of his knowledge, was licensed as such continuously ever since. As was seen before, however, his licensing history shows otherwise. In 1976 his "C" license was changed to an "A" license and he has maintained his "A" license throughout. Respondent changed from a "C" license to an "A" license because of the large number of investigator interns who wanted to work for him. He claims he called the Secretary of State's licensing office in Tallahassee at the time and was told by whomever answered the phone that to use interns in his work, he needed an "A" license. He also claims he was told he would have to
change the "C" license to an "A" license when, in reality, he could have maintained both. In order to act as an investigator, one must hold a "C" license, but one may own and operate an investigative agency with merely an "A" license if one does not perform investigative work himself.
Each year, after the change over, Respondent's "A" license was renewed. He relied completely on these automatic renewals as well as the fact he did what was advised by Department personnel to indicate he was properly licensed. Even in the case of Mr. Hartigan, the intern, who had been denied licensure because the Department claimed no record of Respondent, his "master," having a "C" license, when Respondent sent in evidence of his license status, Hartigan was licensed. He felt this was additional evidence of the propriety of his licensure status. Respondent is aware of the requirement in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, that interns holding a "CC" license work under the supervision of the holder of a "C" license. Since Hartigan was licensed with a "CC" license while working for Respondent, who in reality held only an "A" license at the time, Respondent now claims that the Department is estopped from denying he was properly licensed as the holder of a "C" license at the time. All of this relates to the period of time during which Respondent was performing investigative services for Ms. Yonts. The issue of estoppel is a legal issue which will be discussed and resolved in the Conclusions of Law, infra.
While Mr. Singleton admits to having done work for Ms. Yonts in 1986, his employment was arranged by Mr. Wahl and he did not meet her until about a year and a half later when Ms. Grabau advised him Mr. Curtis was suing Ms. Yonts because of the surveillance he had done. He met with Ms. Yonts at Grabau's house where they talked both inside the house and outside in her car. It was at this time Ms. Yonts allegedly suggested he accompany her to Australia as her bodyguard, a suggestion he interpreted as a pass. As was noted previously, Ms. Yonts denies this and her story is the more credible.
It was also at this time that Ms. Yonts asked Respondent to continue the investigation into Mr. Curtis' activities. He claims that at this time he advised Ms. Yonts, and she agreed, that nothing would be committed to paper, reports or bills. He claims Ms. Yonts never told him that either Mr. Strong, in Maine, or Mr. Horan, in Florida, were her attorneys nor did she give him any authorization then to release the information he discovered to anyone other than her, and he was unable to reach her directly since he had no phone number for her. This may well be true because Ms. Yonts is, if nothing else, mobile.
Respondent denies ever being hired by Ms. Yonts to move Ms. Bates' trailer. This may be true, however, he was retained by her to assist Ms. Bates in extricating herself from the situation in which she found herself regarding her trailer. He was sent money by Ms. Yonts with instructions to deliver
$500.00 to Ms. Bates, which he did. Nonetheless, somewhat later, when it became obvious to him there would be some trouble over the trailer and Ms. Yonts' relationship with Curtis, he decided to look further into the matter. It was at this point he drove out to the park to find the trailer but discovered it had, by that time, been moved. In his opinion, his activities regarding the trailer had nothing to do with private investigations, however, either in practice or under the definition outlined in Section 493.30, Florida Statutes.
There came a time in their relationship when Respondent "fired" Ms. Yonts as his client by long distance phone call because the evidence she was looking for regarding Curtis' abuse of animals simply was not there. When he told her that, she got quite upset, he claims, but soon calmed down: He claims great compassion for Ms. Yonts and believes she is being used by many people.
From their day-to-day relationship he concluded she did not possess all her faculties and was not living a realistic existence. He kept the $900.00 remaining from the $1,400.00 he received from Ms. Yonts because he believed he earned it as a result of his continuing investigation on her behalf. Though he claims to have kept a rough calculation of hours and mileage spent in this investigation in his records, he has never produced them to Ms. Yonts or her agents, or at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
In a three Count Administrative Complaint filed herein, Petitioner, Department of State, seeks to discipline the Respondent for:
performing the services of a private investigator when not properly holding a Class "C" Private Investigator License as required by Section 493.304(3), in violation of Section 493.319(1)(g);
willfully refusing to provide his client with a written report of his investigative activities and a billing for same when requested in violation of Section 493.319(1)(f); and
accepting money in a fiduciary capacity from a client and thereafter failing to use same as directed, in violation of Section 493.319(1)(f).
With regard to the allegation relating to his activities without holding a proper license, Respondent interposes two defenses to the charge. First, he contends that the activity he performed in connection with Ms. Bates' trailer did not constitute the activities of a private investigator. He also claims that even if they did, the Department is now estopped from claiming he was not properly licensed when it treated him as though he possessed a "C" license through all the years between 1976, when he converted his "C" license to an "A" license at the suggestion of a Department representative, and the date of reissue upon commencement of the investigation. He also asserts that the Department licensed Mr. Hartigan on the basis of his license even though the Department requirements stipulate an investigative intern, as Hartigan was, must serve under the supervision of a "C" license holder. Respondent contends that because the Department instructed him to change his "C" license and has thereafter, by its actions, consistently treated him as though he had a "C" license, it cannot now claim his licensure status was inappropriate and discipline him therefor.
Treating first the issue of whether Respondent's activities constituted private investigation, Section 493.30(4) defines "Private Investigation," in pari materia, as:
... investigation by a person or persons for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following matters:
The identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation, or character or any person, group of persons, association, organization, society, or other group of persons or partnership, or corporation.
The credibility of witnesses or other persons.
Assuming, arguendo, that the inquiry into the status of Ms. Bates's trailer and assistance in settling Curtis' claim for rent does not constitute the business of private investigation, certainly the investigation into Curtis' activities with regard to animal abuse at his zoo does. Respondent admits it does when he now claims to owe Ms. Yonts nothing, having used up the $900.00 balance of the $1,400.00 she paid him in fees for investigative hours and mileage and when he justifies not releasing any report of accounting to her or her representatives because of the confidentiality of his investigative work product. Clearly, that portion of his activity constitutes private investigation.
As to the issue of estoppel, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against the State only under rare and very exceptional situations, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation v. C. P. Developers, Inc., 512 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1DCA 1987); Bryant v. Peppe, 238 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1970).
When appropriate, the elements of equitable estoppel are a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; reliance on that representation; and a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel, caused by the representation and reliance thereon, State of Florida, supra; Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 500 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1DCA 1986, review denied 506 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1987)
In the instant case, Respondent's evidence, uncontroverted by the Department, indicates that he at one time held a "C" private investigator license and changed it to an "A," private investigation agency license upon the recommendation and guidance of a representative of the Department. By Respondent's own testimony, the change from the "C" license to an "A" license took place when he called the Secretary of State's Tampa office to inquire how he could legitimately have other investigators work for him. He was told he must have an "A," agency, license and it would appear he mistakenly assumed that meant "instead" of his "C" license rather than "in addition to" his "C" license. The change was made and thereafter, the Department continued to renew the "A" license when necessary. Having initially denied to issue a "CC" intern licence to Mr. Hartigan, it thereafter changed its position and issued it even though the statute requires an intern train under a "C" license holder.
It would appear this is not one of those rare circumstances when the requirements for satisfactory reliance in the doctrine of equitable estoppel are met. Respondent mistakenly interpreted the representation of the Department's staffer, and it's reissue of an "A" license does not mean that he was properly licensed. His licensing position was changed by his own misunderstanding and the Department cannot now be held to be estopped from disciplining him for operating under the wrong license.
The second and third counts laid against Respondent deal with his alleged failure to provide his client with a written report of his activities in her behalf and a bill for same when requested, charged as a violation of Section
493.319(1)(f), and his alleged acceptance of money in a fiduciary capacity from a client and thereafter failing to use it as directed. The cited section permits the Department to discipline an investigative license upon:
(f) Proof that the licensee is guilty of fraud or deceit, or of negligence, incompetency, or misconduct, in the practice of his business for which the license is held ....
The evidence clearly established that Respondent was hired by Ms. Yonts to conduct an investigation into the activities of Mr. Curtis for animal abuse violations and that he was also retained to assist Ms. Bates with her difficulties with Mr. Curtis regarding the rent for the trailer space she occupied on his property. The evidence also establishes that Respondent performed some investigatory activity with regard to the former purpose and he admits to having transferred $500.00 of the money he received from Ms. Yonts to Ms. Bates at Yonts' request.
Respondent also admits to having received requests from Ms. Graubau, Mr. Strong, and Mr. Horan for both reports of the results of his investigations and an itemized accounting for the remaining $900.00 of the $1,400.00 he received from Mrs. Yonts. He claims, however, he did not know who these people were, notwithstanding both Strong and Horan represented themselves as her attorney, and he refused to release any information without a written authorization from Ms. Yonts to do so. Respondent also denies having received any request for a report or accounting from Ms. Yonts directly, but the weight of the evidence, including her testimony, refutes that contention. Giving Respondent the benefit of the doubt, he was not incorrect in refusing to release any reports to Grabau, Strong, or Horan without written authorization, but upon written identification of both Strong and loran as his client's attorneys, his refusal to provide an accounting of the money expended, without divulging details of the investigation or any confidential information, constitutes misconduct. Certainly his refusal to account to has employer, Ms. Yonts, does. Consequently, his culpability with regard to the misconduct alleged in Count II is established.
The allegation that he failed to use the money he received from Ms. Yonts as she directed is not established, however. The evidence clearly shows he received $1,400.00 from Ms. Yonts' bank, with instructions to give $500.00 to Ms. Bates. He did that. The reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence admitted is that he was to use the remaining $900.00 to further the investigation of Mr. Curtis. Though he has steadfastly refused to account to Ms. Yonts or her representatives for this money, at the hearing, his uncontroverted testimony indicated he had used it up in the course of his ongoing investigation of Mr. Curtis. While detail was not forthcoming, nonetheless, the evidence tends to establish he used the money properly and he cannot be found guilty of the allegation in Count III.
Respondent has, throughout his later relationship with Ms. Yonts, demonstrated an attitude inconsistent with that to be expected of an investigatory professional and has been found guilty of misconduct. As a result, disciplinary action sufficient to impress upon him the need for scrupulous compliance with the terms of the statute under which he is licensed is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, as to his current licenses as a Private Investigator and Private Investigative Agency, be placed on probation for a period of six months under such terms and conditions as the Department may specify; that he be reprimanded; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00.
RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 11th day of July, 1989.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0117
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on a;; of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
By the Petitioner:
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein except that the signature block indicating Respondent held a "C" license was pre-printed on the form.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Respondent received $1,400 from Ms. Yonts as a fee to both assist Ms. Bates and look into the alleged animal abuse by Mr. Curtis.
Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence and law.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
8-11. Accepted and incorporated herein.
12. Accepted and incorporated herein.
By the Respondent:
Last sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance rejected as argument and comment on the evidence.
First, second and last sentences rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. Balance accepted and incorporated herein.
3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein.
5 & 6. Accepted.
Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of pertinent law and a comment on the allegations.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence.
Accepted.
12 & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Rejected as to 1st and 2nd sentences. Third and fourth sentences irrelevant. Fifth sentence accepted.
First and Second sentences rejected as argument. Third sentence rejected. Petitioner offered evidence to this effect which was objected to by Respondent. Balance accepted.
Rejected as conclusive in Findings of Fact. Last sentence rejected as not a pertinent finding of fact.
First sentence a recitation of evidence. Balance irrelevant.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Department of State
The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Douglas M. Wycoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, Florida 33602
Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING,
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 89-0117
LAWRENCE E. SINGLETON,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
This cause came before the Department of State, Division of Licensing, for consideration and final agency action. A formal administrative hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on May 3, 1989 before Arnold H. Pollock, a duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order was submitted by the Hearing Officer on July 11, 1989.
The Department of State, Division of Licensing (hereafter "Division") hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order, with the exception of the first Finding of Fact.
The Hearing Officer's first Finding of Fact states that Respondent did not hold a valid "C" license from late 1976 to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988. After a complete review of the record, the Division finds that not until 1980 when Section 493.30 and 493.308(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, were enacted, was it necessary for a Class "A" licensee (e.g., Respondent) to hold a Class "C" license to himself perform private investigations.
Therefore, the Division modifies the Hearing Officers first Finding of Fact and finds that the Respondent did not hold a valid "C" license from June 1980 to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988.
Modification of this Finding of Fact does not alter the Hearing Officers Conclusions of Law. The Division adopts the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law on the first Finding of Fact.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT: Respondent Lawrence E. Singleton, as to his current licenses as a Private Investigator and Private Investigative Agency, be placed on probation for a period of six months under the terms and conditions the Department has set forth in the attached Terms of Probation; that he be reprimanded; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00 within 30 days of the date of this order.
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
This Order constitutes final agency action. Any party who is adversely affected by this Order may seek judicial review under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Such proceedings are commenced by filing a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Department of State, Office of Legal Affairs, The Capitol, Room LL-10, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the applicable filing fees, with the First District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Department.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida this 18th day of August, 1989.
John M. Russi, Director Division of Licensing
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by
U.S. Mail to Douglas M. Wyckoff, Esquire, 705 East Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, Florida 33602 on this 18th August, 1989.
Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State
The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
=================================================================
ATTACHMENT TO AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING,
Petitioner,
Case No. 89-0117
LAWRENCE E. SINGLETON
Respondent.
/
TERMS OF PROBATION
Pursuant to Department of State Order dated August 18, 1989, Lawrence E. Singleton has been placed on probation under the supervision of the Department of State, Division of Licensing. The terms of probation are as follows:
The Department shall appoint an individual who will be known as the "Probation Manager." It shall be the responsibility of the Probation Manager to monitor the probationary period.
The Probation manager shall conduct a quarterly on-site inspection of the Respondent's place of business from which he will be conducting private investigative activities to ensure compliance with the requirements delineated in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
No later than the tenth of each month beginning September 1, 1989, and for six consecutive months thereafter, the Respondent will make a full and truthful written report to the Probation Manager. The report shall include: a) a list of Respondents clients for whom he performed investigative services in the previous month; b) a list of employees who were newly employed or terminated from employment during the previous month.
The Respondent shall make available such documents which may be necessary to determine if the terms of probation have been followed.
If the Respondent violates any of the conditions of Probation, or any provisions of Chapter 493, the Department may take further administrative action as is deemed appropriate and may consider Respondent's probationary status in imposing disciplinary action.
DONE THIS 18th day of August, 1989.
John M. Russi Director
Division of Licensing
cc: Regional Office Office of Cabinet & Legal Affairs
================================================================= AMENDED AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING,
Petitioner,
vs CASE NO.: 89-0117
LAWRENCE E. SINGLETON,
Respondent.
/
AMENDED FINAL ORDER
This cause came before the Department of State, Division of Licensing, for consideration and final agency action. A formal administrative hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on May 3, 1989, before Arnold H. Pollock, a duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order was submitted by the Hearing Officer on July 11, 1989.
The Department of State, Division of Licensing (hereafter "Division") hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order, with the exceptions.
The Hearing Officer's first Finding of Fact states that Respondent did not hold a valid "C" license from late 1976 to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988. After a complete review of the record, the Division finds that not until 1980 when Section 493.30 and 493.308(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, were enacted, was it necessary for a Class "A" licensee (e.g., Respondent) to hold a Class "C" license to himself perform private investigations.
Therefore, the Division modifies the Hearing Officer's first Finding of Fact and finds that the Respondent did not hold a valid "C" license from June 1980 to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988.
The Division also finds that the Respondent did not intentionally violate Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, with respect to either the licensing violation or the findings regarding his employment by Ms. Janet Yonts.
Modifications of the Findings of Fact as set forth above do not alter the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law, which are adopted and incorporated herein.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT: Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, pay the administrative costs of this action in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. It is further ordered that if the Division finds probable cause to exist on any complaint
received within six months of the date of this order, or any violation of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, by the Respondent as a Private Investigator or Private Investigative Agency, Respondent's license may be summarily suspended pending an order of reinstatement. It is further ordered that the Respondent, for the next six months, shall submit monthly reports on the 5th day of each month to the Division's regional office at 400 West Robinson Street, Room 110, Orlando, Florida, 32801, which include names or case numbers of clients for whom work was performed the previous month, and any personnel changes in the agency. It is further ordered that the Division may conduct reasonable on-site inspections of Respondent's agency.
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
This Order constitutes final Agency action. Any party who is adversely affected by this Order may seek judicial review under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Such proceedings are commenced by filing a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Department of State, Office of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL-10, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the applicable filing fees, with the First District Court of Appeals, or with the District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the day this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Department.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida this 17th day of November, 1989.
John M. Russi Director
Division of Licensing
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by
U.S. Mail to William M. Furlow, Esquire, Post Office Box 1877, Tallahassee, Florida, 32302-1877, this 27th day of November, 1989.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Regional Office Filed with Agency Clerk
License File Office of Legal Affairs
Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing
The Capitol, MS #4
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
(904) 487-0482
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 11, 1989 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 18, 1989 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 11, 1989 | Recommended Order | Issuance of wrong type license no entitlement to keep it. Investor's failure to provide reports as requested and agreed upon is misconduct |
