STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS ) AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1398

)

SAMUEL NEWSON, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on August 4, 1992, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. By agreement of the parties, Petitioner was given leave to file the deposition of Stanley A. Tipton on October 1, 1992.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Dawn Pompey Whitehurst, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: William E. Platlow, Esquire

Panza, Maurer, Maynard, Platlow & Neel P.A. 3801 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint dated February 21, 1991, as further amended by order issued March 11, 1992, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The amended administrative complaint contains factual allegations pertaining to three separate incidents and asserts that Respondent's conduct establishes that he has failed to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes. The first incident involved a verbal threat by Respondent against his fellow officer and supervisor, Lieutenant Barry Lindquist, in January 1986. The second incident involved Respondent's conduct in investigating a traffic accident on May 19, 1987. The third incident involved verbal threats by Respondent against several Fort Lauderdale Police Officers on August 27, 1987.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Russell H. Hanstein, Joel Maney, Barbara Johnson, Barry S. Lindquist, Leon O. Walton, Katherine Danner, Lee Spector, and Edward N. Good. Petitioner filed as a late- filed exhibit the deposition testimony of Stanley A. Tipton. Officers Hanstein, Maney, Spector, and Good are police officers employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Ms. Johnson is a telecommunicator employed by the Pompano Beach Police Department. Officers Lindquist, Walton, and Tipton are police officers employed by the Pompano Beach Police Department. Ms. Danner was involved in an automobile accident investigated by Respondent. Petitioner presented two exhibits, which were accepted into evidence.

Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the additional testimony of Earl E. Fluellen, William Knowles, and Paul O'Connell. Officers Fluellen, Knowles, and O'Connell are police officers employed by the Pompano Beach Police Department. Respondent presented three exhibits, which were accepted into evidence.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. The record in this proceeding closed with the filing of Officer Tipton's deposition on October 1, 1992. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for November 2, 1992. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that a recommended order be rendered within thirty days after the transcript is filed. Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that is responsible for the certification of law enforcement officers. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 27, 1981, and was issued certificate number 02-27492.

   
   

   VERBAL THREATS TO OFFICER LINDQUIST ON JANUARY 15, 1986

   
   

2. In January 1986, Officer Barry Lindquist was working as a shift Lieutenant with the Pompano Beach Police Department (PBPD). Respondent was one of the police officers assigned to Officer Lindquist's shift. At the time he gave his deposition in this proceeding, Officer Stanley Tipton was the Chief of Police for Pompano Beach. In January 1986, Officer Tipton was a sergeant with the PBPD. On January 15, 1986, Respondent called in sick and did not report to work. Officer Lindquist asked Officer Tipton to go over to Respondent's house to check on his welfare.

   
   

3. Officer Tipton called the Respondent's house before leaving the police station for the house and spoke to a man (someone other than Respondent) and then to a woman. He advised that he was coming to check on Respondent.

   
   

4. Officer Tipton arrived at Respondent's house at approximately 7:45 p.m. Officer Tipton was greeted at the door by a young man who asked him to come in. He stepped inside the doorway and asked for the Respondent.

   
   

5. The young man proceeded to the rear of the house, and the Respondent subsequently appeared in the hallway. Respondent had on a pair of pants, but no shirt, and he started walking toward Officer Tipton. Officer Tipton observed a

   firearm sticking out of Respondent's waistband and, because he had become apprehensive, stepped backwards.

   
   

6. Respondent recognized Officer Tipton and said "It's a good thing it was you Tipton, 'cause if it was Lindquist, I would have shot him." After Respondent got closer to Officer Tipton, he repeated his threat two additional times and continued to express his anger toward Officer Lindquist. Officer Tipton was of the opinion that Respondent was serious about the threats he had made against Officer Lindquist and that he was angry that Officer Lindquist had sent Officer Tipton to check on him. Officer Tipton observed that Respondent's eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and his balance impaired. Officer Tipton was of the opinion that Respondent had been drinking.

   
   

7. Officer Tipton talked to Respondent, saying that the Respondent would not do what he had threatened, and kept his eye on Respondent's gun. Respondent calmed down and allowed Officer Tipton take the gun from him. Officer Tipton then placed the gun on a table in the hallway. After Respondent calmed down, Officer Tipton and Respondent shook hands and Officer Tipton left the house. As Officer Tipton was leaving, Respondent offered to let him take the gun with him, an offer that Officer Tipton declined. Officer Tipton told Respondent that he was not going to take the gun because Respondent was in his own house and because Officer Tipton did not believe Respondent was going to leave the house and do anything. Officer Tipton left the gun with Respondent.

   
   

8. After Officer Tipton left Respondent's house, the Respondent called the Pompano Beach Police Department and spoke to Barbara Johnson, who is a police department telecommunicator. Respondent asked to speak to Officer Lindquist. Ms. Johnson could tell from Respondent's voice that he was very upset, and during the course of his conversation with Ms. Johnson, Respondent threatened to shoot Officer Lindquist. Ms. Johnson kept talking to Respondent and was able to calm him down.

   
   

9. Ms. Johnson immediately thereafter called Officer Lindquist and told him what had happened and that Respondent wanted Officer Lindquist to call him.

   
   

10. Officer Lindquist called Respondent, who was still upset and angry. Respondent told Officer Lindquist by telephone that "it was a good thing that you hadn't come over to my house because if you had, I probably would have shot you." Officer Lindquist continued to talk to Respondent and calmed him down.

    
    

11. As a result of this incident, Respondent was investigated by PBPD internal affairs and given a thirty day suspension from work.

    
    

    INVESTIGATION OF THREE CAR ACCIDENT ON MAY 19, 1987

    
    

12. On May 19, 1987, Respondent responded to Atlantic Boulevard in Pompano Beach to investigate a traffic accident involving three cars. This incident occurred when car #2 rear-ended car #1 and car #3 thereafter rear-ended car #2. Katherine Danner was the driver of car #3. Respondent arrived at the scene and assumed that Ms. Danner had first rear-ended car #2 (driven by a Mr. Flowers) which had caused car #2 to rear-end car #1. Respondent's assumed that the accident was entirely Ms. Danner's fault without conducting a proper investigation. Respondent told Ms. Danner that the other drivers would probably blame her for the entire accident.

13. Mr. Flowers thereafter told Respondent that he had rear-ended car #1 before Ms. Danner became involved in the accident. Respondent then told Mr. Flowers that he was going to give him a ticket if he stuck to that story. Ms. Danner felt that Respondent was giving Mr. Flowers the opportunity to avoid a ticket by changing his story, and filed a complaint against Respondent with the Pompano Beach Police Department. Following an investigation, it was determined that Respondent had improperly handled the investigation and had exhibited a poor attitude. Respondent received a letter of reprimand reflecting those findings. There were no findings and no allegations that Respondent had falsified his police report or that he had solicited a false statement.

    
    

14. The evidence failed to establish that Respondent solicited a false statement from Mr. Flowers or that he made a false statement in his police report.

    
    

    ASSAULT ON FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE OFFICERS ON AUGUST 21, 1987

    
    

15. At the time pertinent to this proceeding, Joel Maney, Lee Spector, Russell H. Hanstein, Leon O. Walton, Edward N. Good and Captain Robinson, were police officers employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department.

    
    

16. On August 21, 1987, Officer Maney was on regular patrol in the City of Fort Lauderdale on the midnight shift. He was patrolling the area of Northwest 6th Street and Northwest 9th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale. At approximately 2:45 a.m., Officer Maney observed a dark blue, four door car (which he later learned was Respondent's personal vehicle) traveling at a high rate of speed west on Northwest 6th Street. Officer Maney, who was driving a marked patrol car, got behind Respondent's car as quickly as he could and got close enough to read the license plate. Officer Maney observed a Fraternal Order of Police emblem on the license plate, but he could not read the entire tag. Officer Maney suspected that the car might have been stolen, and he tried to run the license number.

    
    

17. While Officer Maney was still following Respondent's car, Officer Spector, who was also driving a marked patrol car, pulled up behind Officer Maney and followed both vehicles. While both officers followed the blue car, it ran two stop signs. Officer Maney decided to stop the car and put on his blue lights and siren. Respondent was the operator and sole occupant of his car. Respondent pulled over within two blocks after Officer Maney put on his blue lights.

    
    

18. After he stopped, Officer Maney got out of his car and approached the driver's side of Respondent's vehicle. Officer Spector got out of his car and approached the passenger's side of Respondent's vehicle. Respondent was wearing his uniform pants and a white T-shirt. Officer Maney asked Respondent for his driver's license and registration. Respondent responded in an agitated voice, saying "I don't have my fucking license."

    
    

19. Officer Maney noticed that the Respondent had a gun stuck in his waistband, and ordered him several times to put both hands on the steering wheel. Respondent was not cooperating with Officer Maney or Officer Spector and in a very agitated voice used profanity against the officers. Officer Maney was of the opinion that Respondent was not acting abusive towards him, but that he was acting in an unprofessional manner.

    
    

20. Respondent eventually gave the gun to the officers and stepped out of the vehicle as instructed. Even after Respondent exited his car, he was

    uncooperative with the officers and refused to let them do a pat-down search. At this point, Officer Maney called for backup officers, and Officers Hanstein, Good, Captain Robinson, and other officers came to the scene.

    
    

21. Respondent was still in an agitated state when the backup officers arrived, and was making comments to no one in particular in a loud voice. Respondent stated that he was a Pompano Beach Police Officer and that he had been trained by Joe Hess and Ed White, two well-known martial arts experts who trained officers at the Broward County Police Academy. Respondent said that he weighed 240 pounds and that he was a "mean mother fucker." He said that he would hurt some people before he went to jail. Respondent looked directly at Officer Hanstein, pointed his index finger at him, and said, "I'm going to kick your ass." Respondent then looked at Officer Spector, pointed his finger directly at him, and said, "Then, I'm going to kick your ass." Respondent was between eight and ten feet away from these officers at the time he made these statements, and there were several other officers in the general area. He was unrestrained at the time he made these statement, and he used a serious, angry tone of voice. Respondent had the apparent ability to carry out his threats, and he caused the officers to be concerned for their safety. At this point, Respondent was arrested and charged with two counts of assault on a law enforcement officer. Both charges were misdemeanors. Respondent subsequently entered a plea of no contest to the two charges.

    
    

22. At no time during the course of the incident did Respondent attempt to swing at or kick at any of the Fort Lauderdale Police Officers. Respondent did not offer any resistance after he was placed under arrest.

    
    

23. At the time of this incident, Officer Hanstein, Officer Spector, and the other Fort Lauderdale officers were in uniform with marked patrol units.

    
    

24. Following his arrest, Respondent's employment with the Pompano Beach Police Department was terminated. His employment was subsequently restored.

    
    

    ALCOHOLIC REHABILITATION

    
    

25. On the night he threatened Officer Lindquist and on the night of his arrest by the Fort Lauderdale Police Officers, Respondent had been drinking. Respondent is an alcoholic and was drinking to excess, which contributed to his misconduct.

    
    

26. Respondent admitted to himself that he was an alcoholic after he was fired following his arrest. He subsequently admitted his problem to his family, to the City Manager of Pompano Beach, and to his police supervisors, and he asked for help. On New Years' Eve, December 31, 1987, Respondent voluntarily checked himself into a five day inpatient program for alcohol detoxification. After successfully completing that program, Respondent joined an outreach program and became active in AA. Respondent successfully completed a course of treatment and therapy with the Broward County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services on August 8, 1988. With the exception of one relapse, Respondent has not had a drink in two years.

    
    

27. Respondent appealed the termination of his employment to the Pompano Beach Civil Service Board, which determined that his misconduct was alcohol related and ordered his reinstatement pursuant to a "One Last Chance Agreement". This arrangement returned Respondent to work on a special one year probationary period. Under the terms of the agreement, Respondent's employment would be terminated without recourse if he violated any PBPD policy or procedure and if

    the violation was alcohol related. Respondent successfully completed that probationary period and has been reinstated to all rights and privileges of any other PBPD officer.

    
    

28. For the last three and one half years, Respondent has worked as a police officer assigned to the city jail. He incurred a three day suspension when he did not report to work following the death of his godson, but his work record has otherwise been acceptable. His supervisor views him as an outstanding employee and his colleagues respect him and consider him to be a dependable, efficient police officer.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

29. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

30. Section 943.13 (7), Florida Statutes, requires that a law enforcement officer possess "good moral character."

    
    

31. Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the allegations against Respondent that he failed to maintain good moral character. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 550 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Evans Packing, supra, 550 So. 2d 112, 116, fn. 5, provides the following pertinent to the clear and convincing evidence standard:

    
    

    That standard has been described as follows:

    [C]lear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the evidence must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must

    be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact the firm belief of (sic) conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.

    Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla.

    4th DCA 1983).

    
    

32. In Zemour, Inc. v. Division of Beverage, 347 So.2d 1102, 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) the court discussed the meaning of moral character as follows:

    
    

    Moral character ... means 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.

    
    

33. In Florida Board of Bar Examiners v. G.W.L., 364 So.2d 454, 458 (Fla. 1987), the court discussed the meaning of good moral character as follows:

    
    

    In our view, a finding of a lack of "good moral character" should not be restricted to

    those acts that reflect moral turpitude. A more appropriate definition of the phrase requires an inclusion of 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.

    
    

34. Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides a definition of "good moral character" for purposes of disciplinary proceedings involving Florida law enforcement officers. The rule states, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    (4) For the purpose of the Commission's implementation of any of the penalties enumerated in Section 943.2395(5) or (6), a certified officer's failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), is defined as:

    * * *

    1. The perpetration by the officer of an act which would constitute any of the following misdemeanor or criminal offenses, whether criminally prosecuted or not: Sections ... 784.011, ... F.S. ...

    2. The perpetration by the officer of an act or conduct which causes substantial doubts concerning the officer's honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state and nation, irrespective of whether such act or conduct constitutes a crime. ...

    
    

35. Section 784.011(1), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

    
    

    1. An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

       
       

36. Assault on a law enforcement officer is a first degree misdemeanor. See, Section 784.07(2)(a), Florida Statutes.

    
    

37. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was guilty of assault on Officer Hanstein and on Officer Spector, and consequently failed to maintain good moral character within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

38. Petitioner also established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made repeated threats against Officer Lindquist. These repeated threats "causes substantial doubts concerning the officer's ... respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state and nation". Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to maintain

    good moral character within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

39. Although Respondent's conduct in investigating the accident involving Ms. Danner was inappropriate, that conduct does not establish that Respondent lacks good moral character. The reprimand imposed by the Pompano Beach Police Department appears to be an appropriate sanction for that misconduct.

    
    

40. Section 943.1395(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    1. The commission shall revoke the certification of an officer who fails to comply with s. 943.13 (1) - (10) ...

    2. Upon a finding by the commission that a certified officer has not maintained good moral character, the definition of which has been adopted by rule and is established as a statewide standard, as required by s. 943.13(7), the commission may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties in lieu of revocation of certification:

       1. Suspension of certification for a period not to exceed 2 years.

       2. Placement on a probationary status for a period not to exceed 2 years, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the commission.

          Upon the violation of such terms and conditions, the commission may revoke certification or impose additional penalties as enumerated in this subsection.

       3. Successful completion by the officer of any basic recruit, advanced, or career development training or such retraining deemed appropriate by the commission.

       4. Issuance of a reprimand.

    
    

41. Rule 11B-27.005(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    1. When the commission finds that a certified officer has committed an act which violates Subsection 943.13(7), F.S., it shall issue a final order imposing penalties within the ranges recommended in the following disciplinary guidelines:

       * * *

       (b) For the perpetration by the officer of an act which would constitute any of the misdemeanor offenses as described in Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), ... the action of the commission shall be to impose a penalty ranging from probation to revocation.

       
       

42. Rule 11B-27.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    1. The commission shall be entitled to deviate from the above-mentioned guidelines upon a showing of mitigating circumstances

    by evidence presented to the commission prior to the imposition of a final penalty. The commission may base a deviation from the disciplinary guidelines upon a finding of one or more of the following mitigating circumstances:

    * * *

    1. The danger to the public;

    2. The length of time since the violation;

    3. The length of time the officer has been certified;

    * * *

    (m) Any effort of rehabilitation by the officer ...

    
    

43. The recommendation which follows takes into consideration that Respondent has been certified as a law enforcement officer since 1981, that the incidents involving the Fort Lauderdale Police Officers and Officer Lindquist were alcohol related, that Respondent has made efforts toward rehabilitation, and that has he has had acceptable job performance since 1987 while continuing to work as a police officer. Also taken into consideration was the fact that no one suffered an injury as a result of the acts attributable to Respondent, and that he has been disciplined by his employer following each of the incidents of misconduct.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact

and the conclusions of law contained herein and which reprimands Respondent for

his failure to maintain good moral character as found herein.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

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 5th day of January, 1993.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-1398

The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner are adopted in material part by the recommended order with the exception of the proposed finding in the second sentence of paragraph 45, which are rejected as being contrary to the findings made.

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-24, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 25 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence.

   While it is apparent that excessive drinking contributed to Respondent's problems, the proposed findings are an overstatement.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 26 and 27 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 31 and 32 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made.

5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 40-46 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made.

6. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 47 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dawn Pompey Whitehurst, Esquire Assistant General Counsel

Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

William E. Platlow, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard, Platlow

& Neel, P.A.

3801 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 200

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308

Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards

Training Commission Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

James T. Moore, Commissioner

Florida 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 to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,

Petitioner,

vs DOAH CASE NUMBER: 91-1398

CJSTC CASE NUMBER: L-2177

SAMUEL NEWSON,

Certificate Number: 02-27492,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

This above-styled matter came on for final action before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") pursuant the Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), F.S., at a public hearing on April 29, 1993, in Altamonte Springs, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer entered herein. Respondent was not present but was represented by counsel at the proceedings.

Upon a complete review of the transcript of the record of hearing held on August 4, 1992, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, the Report, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner dated January 5, 1993, all exceptions filed to said items and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Commission makes the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Commission, having reviewed the Recommended Findings of Fact adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Having reviewed the Recommended Conclusions of Law the Commission adopts the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law.

There is competent and substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings and conclusions.

Having reviewed the disposition of the above styled cause recommended by the Hearing Officer and the exceptions filed thereto, the Commission rejects said recommendation and imposes the penalty proposed by the Petitioner for those reasons expressed in Petitioner's Exception to Recommended Order which are attached here to, adopted and fully incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Respondent is hereby Reprimanded.

Respondent shall be and hereby is placed upon probation for a period of one

(1) year.

As a condition of probation the Respondent shall violate no provision of Chapter 943, F.S., or Chapter 11B, F.A.C. Should such violation be subsequently found to exist pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S., Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure shall be revoked.

Respondent shall make himself available to answer any questions and produce any documents requested by the Commission or its staff during the probation period.

Should Respondent's licensure be suspended or subsequently go inactive after the filing of this order Respondent's probation shall similarly be suspended or go inactive until said licensure shall be reactivated at which time the probationary period shall be reactivated for the remainder of the incompleted term.

Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this final order by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed.

This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Law Enforcement.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May, 1993.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION

RODNEY DOSS, CHAIRMAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished to SAMUEL NEWSON, 1721 NW 7 Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 and William E. Platlow 3801 E. Commercial Boulevard Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 by

U.S. Mail on or before 5:00 P.M., this 24th day of May, 1993.

cc: Pompano Beach Police Department

Docket for Case No: 91-001398

Orders for Case No: 91-001398