STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION )

OF LICENSING, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-1098

)

TONY W. TWIDDY, )

)

Respondent. )

) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION )

OF LICENSING, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-1184

)

A. T. DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC., )

and ARLINE HALPIN, Owner, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in these consolidated cases on June 2, 1993, in Miami, Florida, before J. Stephen Menton, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Henri C. Cawthon

Assistant General Counsel Division of Licensing

The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

For Respondents: Myron B. Berman, Esquire

Post Office Box 1113

North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in these cases is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed by the Petitioner, the Department of State, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In a three-count Administrative Complaint dated February 1, 1993, the Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (the "Department"), charged Tony W. Twiddy a/k/a Anthony W. Twidy, with; (1) performing the services of a recovery agent without a Class "E" Recovery Agent license in violation of Section 493.6118(g), Florida Statutes; (2) directing the activities of licensees or exercising operational control over the activities of a licensed agency, the

A. T. Detective Agency, without being licensed as a manager as required by Section 493.6101(13), Florida Statutes; and (3) conducting regulated activities in a deceitful manner as a result of his directing and conducting repossessions for A. T. Detective Agency with full knowledge of his ineligibility for licensure under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Twiddy disputed the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned to Hearing Officer William Dorsey.

In a separate five-count Administrative Complaint dated February 4, 1993, the Department charged A. T. Detective Agency, Inc., and Arline Frances Halpin, its owner, with violating various provisions of Section 493.6118(1), Florida Statutes. Count I charged the A. T. Detective Agency and Arline Halpin with employing Tony W. Twiddy to perform repossessions when he did not have a valid Class "E" Recovery Agent license or Class "EE" Recovery Agent Intern license.

Count II charged A. T. Detective Agency and Arline Halpin with allowing an unlicensed or improperly licensed person, Tony W. Twiddy, to direct activities of licensees or exercise operational control over the regulated activities of the company even though he was not licensed as a manager. Count III charged A.

T. Detective Agency and Arline Halpin with failing to maintain a complete and accurate inventory of personal effects or other personal property recovered in the course of repossessions as required by Section 493.6404(1), Florida Statutes. Count IV charged A. T. Detective Agency and Arline Halpin with failing to give written notification within five working days of a repossession and failing to advise debtors of the whereabouts of personal effects or other inventory property as required by Section 493.6404(2), Florida Statutes. Count V charged A. T. Detective Agency and Arline Halpin with failing to give written notification to debtors at least 45 days prior to disposal of personal property as required by Section 493.6404(2), Florida Statutes. A. T. Detective Agency and Arline Halpin disputed the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. This case was also transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned to Hearing Officer Dorsey.

The Administrative Complaint against Tony W. Twiddy was designated as Case No. 93-1098 and the Administrative Complaint against A. T. Detective Agency was designated as Case No. 93-1184. As noted above, both cases were assigned to Hearing Officer William R. Dorsey. The Respondents in both cases were represented by the same attorney and all parties agreed that the cases involved the same factual issues. In an Order of Consolidation and Notice of Hearing dated March 26, 1993, the cases were consolidated. Prior to the hearing on the consolidated cases, the cases were transferred to Hearing Officer J. Stephen Menton, who conducted a hearing on the allegations in both Administrative Complaints. This Recommended Order will address the specific charges in each Administrative Complaint and conclude with a separate recommendation regarding the charges against each of the Respondents.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of six witnesses: Bill Greely; Allen Clark, the senior towing inspector for the Broward County Consumer Affairs Office; James Schooler; Susan H. Schooler; Clark M. Lawyton; and Fred P. Speaker, the regional supervisor in the West Palm Beach Regional Office for the Department. During the hearing, Petitioner had 22 exhibits marked for identification. Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 5, 6 8, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 were accepted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 4 and 7 were not properly authenticated. Those exhibits were accepted for the purpose of establishing the documents that were given to Ms. Schooler. The hearsay contents of those exhibits have been noted in accordance with Section 120.58(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's remaining exhibits were either withdrawn or not offered.

Respondents Tony W. Twiddy and Arline Halpin testified on their own behalf and offered seven exhibits into evidence, all of which were accepted except Respondents' Exhibit 2 which was not offered.

During the hearing, the parties stipulated that no evidence would be presented regarding Count V in Case No. 93-1184 and the Department agreed that Count should be dismissed. As discussed in more detail below, the parties also stipulated that, with respect to Count III and IV in Case No. 93-1184, Respondents A. T. Detective Agency and Halpin were guilty of one violation per month from August 1990 through December 1992.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. Petitioner and Respondents have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. A ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact is included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:

1. Respondent Arline Halpin ("Halpin") and Respondent Tony W. Twiddy ("Twiddy") have lived together since some time in 1990 in a residence they own jointly.

   
   

2. Twiddy previously held a Class "E" Recovery Agent license issued by the Department that expired on April 14, 1988. Twiddy's attempts to renew that license were denied by the Department.

   
   

3. By Final Order dated May 3, 1989, the Department revoked the Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license No. A00-01398 issued to T. S. T. Detective Agency, Inc., a company owned and operated by Twiddy and also revoked the Class "C" Private Investigator license No. C00-00811 issued to Twiddy. In that Final Order, the Department ordered Twiddy to cease conducting regulated activities.

   
   

4. In a Final Order dated July 20, 1990, the Department imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000 against Twiddy as a result of a finding that he performed unlicensed repossessions between October 13, 1989, and January 15, 1990, in Broward County, Florida, and because he failed or refused to cooperate with Department investigators in violation of Section 493.319(1)(o), Florida Statutes (1989).

5. Twiddy contends that he did not receive notice that his Class "E" and Class "C" Private Investigator licenses had been revoked until January 7, 1991. The evidence established, however, that in August of 1990 Twiddy was aware of problems with his licensure status. Furthermore, it is clear that Twiddy knew or should have known that he did not have a valid Class "E" or "EE" license from April 14, 1988 to the present. Based upon all of the evidence, it is concluded that, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, Twiddy was aware that he was not licensed to conduct repossessions.

   
   

6. Halpin received a Class "C" Private Investigator's license and a Class "E" Recovery Agent license on May 30, 1990. She also received a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license for A. T. Detective on August 10, 1990.

   
   

7. Effective October 1, 1990, the Department began issuing Class "R" Recovery Agency licenses. Prior to October 1990, a recovery agent did not have to work for a licensed agency. A. T. Detective received a Class "R" Recovery Agency license on November 20, 1990.

   
   

8. Halpin is the sole shareholder and president of A. T. Detective Agency, Inc. ("A. T. Detective") and A. T. M. Towing, Inc. ("A. T. M.").

   
   

9. A. T. Detective is engaged in the business of repossessing automobiles.

   A. T. Detective employs licensed repossessors to locate and seize cars that were to be repossessed. A. T. M. is engaged in the towing business, including the towing of illegally parked cars and the towing of repossessed cars.

   
   

10. Both A. T. Detective and A. T. M. operate out of the same location. Twiddy is the general manager for A. T. M.

    
    

11. Twiddy denies any ownership, employment or managerial involvement with

    A. T. Detective. Twiddy contends that he simply coordinated the towing activities performed by A. T. M. for A. T. Detective. There is no evidence that Twiddy received any direct payments from A. T. Detective or that he was officially an employee of that company. However, the evidence established that he was actively engaged in the management of the company, he was actively involved in the employment decisions, he engaged in skip-tracing on behalf of the company and he directed the employees of both the detective agency and the towing company. In sum, the evidence established that Twiddy, with the knowledge and acquiescence of Halpin, was actively engaged in running the operations of A. T. Detective.

    
    

12. While the evidence established that Twiddy directed the activities of some of A. T. Detective's licensed repossessors and that he was present during many of the repossessions, no persuasive or conclusive evidence was presented of any specific repossessions by Twiddy after May 1990 without a licensed repossessor being present.

    
    

13. During the course of the hearing, Respondents Halpin and A. T. Detective stipulated that on one occasion per month during the period from August 1990 through December 1992 they failed to maintain a complete and accurate inventory of personal effects or other personal property recovered in the course of repossessions as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1184. Consequently, those Respondents violated Section 493.6404(1), Florida Statutes, on 29 occasions during the time period.

14. Similarly, Respondents Halpin and A. T. Detective conceded that on one occasion per month during that same time period they failed to give written notification to a debtor advising the debtor of the whereabouts of personal effects within five working days of a repossession. Accordingly, those Respondents violated Section 493.6404(2), Florida Statutes, on 29 occasions during the time period.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

16. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, sets forth the regulatory standards and licensing requirements for the private security industry including private investigation and recovery agencies. Pursuant to Section 493.6121, Florida Statutes, the Department has the authority to investigate the business and business methods of any licensed or unlicensed person, agency or employee thereof in order to enforce the provisions of Chapter 493.

    
    

17. The Department has the burden of proof in this proceeding and must prove the allegations set forth in the Administrative complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Pic'n Save v. Department of Business Regulation, 601 So.2d

    245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

    
    

18. As noted in the Preliminary Statement, the Department filed separate Administrative Complaints against Twiddy and against Halpin and A. T. Detective. Halpin and A. T. Detective have been charged with employing an unlicensed repossessor, Twiddy, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes.

    
    

19. Section 493.6118(1)(n), provides as follows:

    
    

    1. The following constitute grounds for which disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken by the department against any licensee, agency, or applicant regulated by this chapter, or any unlicensed person engaged in activities regulated under this chapter.

       * * *

       (n) Employing or contracting with any unlicensed or improperly licensed person or agency to conduct activities regulated under this chapter when such licensure status was known or could have been ascertained by reasonable inquiry.

       
       

20. The evidence was insufficient to establish any particular car that Twiddy repossessed without a licensed recovery agent present. However, the evidence did establish that Twiddy engaged in skip tracing to locate vehicles and also coordinated the efforts of the recovery agents on behalf of A. T. Detective. The act of locating vehicles is included in the definition of repossessing. See, Rods Recovery Agency v. Department of State, 606 So.2d 458,

    459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Therefore, it is concluded that Twiddy was permitted to engage in regulated activities on behalf of the company without being properly licensed as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1184.

21. Count II of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1184 charges Halpin and A. T. Detective with permitting Twiddy to exercise operational control over the agency in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes.

    
    

22. Pursuant to Section 493.6401(3), Florida Statutes:

    
    

    (3) Any individual who performs the services of a manager for a Class "R" recovery agency or a Class "RR" branch office must have a Class "MR" license. A Class "E" licensee may be designated as the manager, in which case the Class "MR" license is not required.

    
    

    It is not clear from the statute whether all persons acting in a managerial capacity must qualify under this section or whether a company is simply required to designate one manager. There is no evidence that A. T. Detective designated any employee as a manager under this section. Since Twiddy was permitted to act as the manager of the company without holding any license, it is concluded tht Halpin and A. T. Detective are guilty of the violations alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.

    
    

23. Respondents Halpin and A. T. Detective have admitted to violations of Sections 493.6404(1) and (2) on one occasion per month from August 1990 through December 1992 as alleged in Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1184.

    
    

24. Count I of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1098 charges Twiddy with performing the services of a recovery agent without a Recovery Agent license in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes. As indicated above, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Twiddy repossessed any particular vehicle without a licensed recovery agent present. However, the evidence was sufficient to establish that he engaged in regulated activities on a consistent basis for approximately two years after he was aware that his Class "E" Recovery Agent license had expired.

    
    

25. The evidence was also sufficient to establish that Twiddy was guilty of the violations alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1098 because he directed the activities of licensees and exercised operational control over A. T. Detective without being properly licensed as a manger as required Section 493.6101(13), Florida Statutes.

    
    

26. Count III of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1098 charges Twiddy with conducting regulated activities in a deceitful or fraudulent manner in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes. While Twiddy engaged in regulated activities without a license, there is no specific evidence of fraud or deceit on his part. Since Count III was premised upon the same allegations set forth in Counts I and II, it is essentially subsumed within the conclusions set forth above. Accordingly, Count III should be dismissed.

    
    

27. Section 493.6118(2), Florida Statutes, sets forth the disciplinary action that can be imposed by the Department upon finding a violation of subsection (1). Subsection (2) authorizes the Department to issue a reprimand, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 for every count or separate

    offense, place the licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the department may specify and/or to suspend or revoke a license.

    
    

28. Section 493.6120, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

    
    

    (3) Any person who violates or disregards any cease and desist order issued by the department commits a misdemeanor of the first degree...in addition, the department may seek the imposition of a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000.

    
    

29. In a Final Order entered on May 3, 1989, the Department directed Twiddy to cease conducting regulated activities. Twiddy contends that he did not receive a copy of this Final Order until January of 1991. The evidence suggests that Twiddy may have been avoiding formal service of the Final Order on him. In any event, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Twiddy continued to engage in regulated activities after January of 1991.

    
    

30. Rule 1 C-3.113, Florida Administrative Code, (the "Rule") sets forth the disciplinary guidelines for violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Subsection (1)(a)9 and 11 provide that a fine of $250 per agent will be imposed against an agency employing unlicensed recovery agents and a fine of $1,000 will be imposed against an agency who allows an unlicensed person to exert operational control over the agency.

    
    

31. Subsection (1)(a)29 of the Rule provides that a fine of $500 will be imposed upon an agency for failure to maintain an inventory of personal effects found in a recovered vehicle. This provision appears to be inconsistent with Subsection (1)(d)1 which provides that a fine of $250 will be imposed on a recovery agency that fails to maintain an inventory of personal effects or other personal property recovered in the course of a repossession. Subsection (1)(d)12 provides that a fine of $250 will be imposed for the failure to notify a debtor in writing of the location of personal property within 5 days.

    
    

32. The Rule addresses the imposition of administrative fines and does not set forth specific guidelines for imposing the other disciplinary penalties set forth in the statute.

    
    

33. Subsection (2) of the Rule sets forth the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in individual cases. The Rule provides that the Department can deviate in an amount equal to fifty percent of the stated penalty after considering the delineated aggravating and mitigating factors. Those factors include the severity of the offense, the danger to the public, the number of repetitions of the offense, the length of time since the violation, the number of times the licensee has previously been disciplined, the length of time the licensee has engaged in prohibited activity, the actual physical, financial or emotional damage, the deterrent effect of the penalty, the effect of the penalty on the licensee's livelihood, the actual knowledge of the licensee pertaining to the violation, attempts by the licensee to correct or prevent the violation and "any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances."

    
    

34. In determining the appropriate penalty to impose against Halpin and A.

T. Detective as a result of the violations of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against them, it is noted that Respondents acquiesced in Twiddy's involvement in the operations and management of the

recovery business since its inception. There is no evidence of any previous disciplinary action against these Respondents, nor is there any evidence of any damage to the public. With respect to Counts III and IV, Respondents have stipulated that they violated the applicable requirements once a month during a twenty-nine month period. There is no evidence of any damage to the public.

35 With respect to Twiddy, the evidence was clear that he was aware that he was not licensed to engage in any recovery activities. Nonetheless, he deliberately tried to circumvent those requirements. There is no evidence of any harm to the public. Subsection (1)(b)2 provides that a fine of $150 will be imposed for a violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g) for performing services without a valid license. Subsection (1)(b)6 of the Rule provides that a fine of

$500 will be imposed upon an unlicensed person exerting operational control over a licensed agency or individuals.

The Department has requested a fine of $2000 be imposed against Twiddy. While Subsection (1)(b)27 provides that a fine of $1,000 can be imposed for violation of a cease and desist order issued by the Department, Twiddy was not specifically charged with a violation of the prior Final Order.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a Final Order finding

Respondents Arline Halpin and A. T. Detective Agency, Inc., guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III and IV of the Administrative Complaint issued in Case No. 93-1184, that a fine of $1,000 be imposed for the violations of Counts I and II, a fine of $250 be imposed for the violations of Count III and a fine of $250 be imposed for the violations of Count IV. In addition, the Class "R" Recovery Agency license issued to A. T. Detective Agency should be suspended for six months following which a probationary period of six months should be imposed. Arline Halpin's Class "E" Recovery Agent license should be placed on probation for a period of one year. Count V of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. It is further

RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a Final Order finding Respondent Tony W. Twiddy guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1098, that he be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $225 for Count I and $750 for Count II and that he be ordered to cease and desist all regulated activities. Count III of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of April, 1994.

J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 22nd day of April 1994.

APPENDIX

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact:

1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8.

2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2.

3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3.

4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4.

5. Rejected as unnecessary.

6. Rejected as unnecessary.

7. Adopted and pertinent in part in Findings of Fact 5.

8. Rejected as unnecessary.

9. Adopted and pertinent in part in Findings of Fact 11.

10. Adopted and pertinent in part in Findings of Fact 11.

11. Adopted and pertinent in part in Findings of Fact 11.

12. Adopted and pertinent in part in Findings of Fact 11.

13. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

14. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

15. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

16. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

17. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

18. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

19. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11.

20. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

21. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

22. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

23. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

24. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

25. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

26. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

27. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

28. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

29. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

30. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed generally in Findings of Fact 11 and 12.

31. [no proposal submitted]

32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1.

33. Rejected as unnecessary.

34. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13.

35. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14.

Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact:

Respondents' proposed Findings of Fact and conclusions of law consists of a mixture of argument, proposed factual findings and proposed conclusions of law. No specific rulings are made with respect to Respondents' proposals because separate Findings of Fact have not been identified.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Division of Licensing

The Capitol, MS #4

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Myron B. Berman, Esquire Post Office Box 1113

North Miami Beach, Florida 33160

The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

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 STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 93-1098

TONY W. TWIDDY,

Respondent.

/ DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION

OF LICENSING,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO: 93-1184

A.T. DECTECTIVE AGENCY, INC., and ARLINE HALPIN, OWNER,

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 June 2, 1993, before J. Stephen Menton, a duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearing. A Recommended Order was submitted by the Hearing Officer on April 22, 1994, a copy of which is attached. Neither party filed objections.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. It is noted that the agency allowed Mr. Twiddy to perform regulated activities for approximately two years after it was learned he had been denied renewal of his Class "E" Recovery Agent's License.

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, as to Count I in the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1098, it is ORDERED that Respondent Tony W. Twiddy pay an administrative fine in the amount of Two Hundred Twenty-Five ($225.00) Dollars. As to Count II, Respondent Twiddy shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty ($750.00) Dollars.

Count III is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Tony W. Twiddy shall CEASE AND DESIST performing all activities regulated under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, until properly licensed.

As to Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 93-1184, it is ORDERED that Respondent A.T. Dectective Agency, Inc., and Arline Halpin, Owner, pay an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars.

As to Count III, Respondent A.T. Dectective Agency, Inc., and Arline Halpin, Owner, shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty ($250.00) Dollars.

As to Count IV, Respondent A.T. Dectective Agency, Inc., and Arline Halpin, Owner, shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty ($250.00) Dollars.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Class "R" Recovery Agency License issued to

A.T. Dectective Agency, Inc., is hereby A-SUSPENDED for six months.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Class "R" Recovery Agency License and the Class "E" Recovery Agent License of Arline Halpin are hereby placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, the terms of which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

Count V is hereby DISMISSED.

The total administrative fine of $975.00 imposed against Respondent Tony W. Twiddy shall be paid by certified check or money order made payable to the Department of State, Division of Licensing, within thirty (30) days.

The total administrative fine of $1,500.00 imposed against Respondent A.T. Dectective Agency, Inc., and Arline Halpin, Owner, shall be paid by certified check or money order made payable to the Department of State, Division of Licensing, within thirty (30) days.

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 Deputy Clerk of the Division of Licensing, Department of State, The Capitol, Mail Station #4, 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 in the appellate district where the party resides. 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 15th day of June, 1994.

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 this 15th day of June 1994 to Myron B. Berman, Esquire, Post Office Box 1113, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160.

Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing

The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO: 93-1184

1. DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC., and ARLINE HALPIN, OWNER,

   
   

   Respondent.

   /

   
   

   TERMS OF PROBATION

   
   

   Pursuant to the Final Order dated June 15, 1994, Respondent's Class "R" Recovery Agency License, Number R90-00070, and Class "E" Recovery Agent License, Number E90-00063, have been placed on probation for a term of one (1) year under the supervision of the Department of State, Division of Licensing. The terms of probation are as follows:

   
   

   1. The Department shall appoint a "Probation Manager" who shall monitor the probationary period which begins June 15, 1994, and ends June 14, 1995.

      
      

   2. The Probation Manager shall conduct any necessary on-site inspections of Respondent's place of business to ensure compliance with Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.

2. No later than the tenth of each month beginning July 10, 1994, and for eleven consecutive months thereafter, the Respondent shall make a full and truthful written report to the Probation Manager. The report shall include:

1. Any changes in business address and telephone number;

   
   

2. Any changes in corporate officers or ownership of the business;

   
   

3. A list of employees who were newly employed or terminated during the previous month, and the reasons for any terminations.

Compliance with the above-referenced reporting requirements does not relieve Respondent from the reporting or filing requirements of the Bureau of License Issuance.

1. Respondent shall immediately notify the Probation Manager of any written complaints filed against Respondent or employees.

   
   

2. Upon request and reasonable notice, Respondent shall make available to the Probation Manager any documents which may be necessary to determine if the terms of probation have been followed.

If Respondent violates any of the conditions of probation, or any provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, the Department may take further administrative action as is deemed appropriate and may consider Respondent's probationary status in imposing disciplinary action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this 15th day of June, 1994.

/st

c: Miami Regional Office

John M. Russi, Director Division of Licensing

Docket for Case No: 93-001098

Orders for Case No: 93-001098