vs. ) CASE NO. 96-1775
PAMELA E. TURNER-WILLIAMS, )
Respondent. )
Notice was provided, and on June 6, 1996, a formal hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing location was Ocala, Florida. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.
For Petitioner: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire
Should Respondent have her Correctional Certificate No. 83134 disciplined for reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, Case No. 9530?
When Respondent was served with the Administrative Complaint, she contested the facts alleged. As a consequence, the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted on the aforementioned date.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the witnesses, Karen Izzo, Deborah Dobson, Maria Esther Fincher, Alice Smith, Richard Allen Hutchinson, Sr., Sheila Patterson, Elizabeth Scanlon, Cara L. Sachse, Don J. McGuigan, and Corporal Johnny Johnston. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-7, 9, and 11-14 were admitted into evidence.
A hearing transcript was prepared and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 26, 1996. On July 2, 1996, Petitioner timely
filed a Proposed Recommended Order. The fact finding in this Recommended Order is discussed in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
On August 26, 1992, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer. Respondent holds Correctional Certificate No. 831334.
On May 5, 1993, James Alford Hagins, Jr. entered the offices of the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety, Division of Drivers' Licenses, in Ocala, Florida. This office was a location for obtaining drivers' licenses. Although Mr. Hagins is a male, on this occasion, he was dressed as a woman. The purpose for his visit was to apply for a duplicate driver's license in the name of Pamela Edwards Turner-Williams, the Respondent.
Once inside the offices, Mr. Hagins approached Karen Izzo, who at that time was a driver's license examiner for the Division of Drivers' Licenses. Her employment involved the issuance of licenses. Ms. Izzo recognized that Mr. Hagins was a man in women's clothing. In requesting a duplicate license in Respondent's name, Mr. Hagins presented supporting documentation. Ms. Izzo processed the license application in Respondent's name to the extent of preparing a duplicate license with Respondent's name and Mr. Hagins' photograph. In addition to being confident that the applicant for license was not a female, certain questions that Ms. Izzo asked Mr. Hagins convinced Ms. Izzo that he was not the Respondent.
As a consequence, after processing the duplicate license, to include a signature that confirmed under oath that the information in the application was correct, Ms. Izzo notified her supervisor concerning the fraudulent application.
At that time, Stephanie Standridge was Ms. Izzo's supervisor. Ms. Standridge came to the counter where Ms. Izzo was processing the license application for Mr. Hagins and asked Mr. Hagins to accompany her to her office. He complied with that request.
Deborah Dobson, who at that time was an assistant regional administrator for the drivers' license offices in the area, noticed Mr. Hagins. She instructed Ms. Izzo to tell her supervisor to question Mr. Hagins about the application.
On this date, Alice Smith, an employee of the Division of Drivers' Licenses, was in the reception area of the Ocala office. She overheard the Respondent state "Where is Pamela, where is Pamela?", referring to Respondent's first name being used by Mr. Hagins in disguise. Respondent was also pretending to be someone else. At that time, Respondent stated in a loud voice "Well, we've got to go, we've got to go, I've got to go to work". Ms. Smith told Respondent that "Well, she'll be out in just a minute, ma'am, they're finishing up her application". This referred to the processing of the application of Mr. Hagins, who was pretending to be the Respondent.
Ms. Smith had noticed Respondent prior to these events at the reception area when Ms. Smith saw Respondent and Mr. Hagins at the counter where Ms. Izzo was processing the application for duplicate license.
After making her comments about leaving the office, Respondent went around the counter where the reception area was into an area which was restricted to the public. In particular, she went to the office where Ms.
Standridge had taken Mr. Hagins to inquire concerning the application for duplicate license.
In addition to Respondent, Ms. Standridge and Mr. Hagins, Ms. Smith, Ms. Dobson, and Maria Esther Fincher, another employee with the Division of Drivers' Licenses, entered Ms. Standridge's office, or the environs.
When Respondent first entered Ms. Standridge's office, she stated "I've got to go, I'm late for work, Pam come on, let's go". Again, the use of the name "Pam" referred to Mr. Hagins assuming the role of the Respondent. When Respondent made these remarks, Ms. Dobson replied "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but this is the supervisor of the office, and she's questioning this lady (referring to Mr. Hagins) about her application. You can go, but she needs to stay". Respondent then stated "No, we're going, and I'm taking these papers with me." At that point, Respondent picked up some documents that Ms. Standridge had been looking at concerning the application. Those documents included Respondent's driving record, the duplicate license issued to Mr. Hagins as the Respondent, Mr. Hagins' application under oath for the duplicate license, and a Discover credit card. Ms. Dobson did not believe that some of the documents should be removed from the offices of the Division of Drivers' Licenses. Therefore, she told Respondent that Respondent could not take the documents. To prohibit Respondent from taking the documents, Ms. Dobson took one end of the documents and held the documents to thwart Respondent's purposes in removing them. Against her will and without consent, Respondent slapped Ms. Dobson's hand in the struggle. This was followed by Respondent taking her hand and wrist and striking Ms. Dobson between Ms. Dobson's wrist and elbow "real hard". Again, Ms. Dobson did not will this action nor consent to it. At that juncture, Ms. Dobson let go of the documents. Respondent maintained control of the documents. However, when exiting Ms. Standridge's office, some documents were dropped. This included the Discover credit card and some bank envelopes, together with Respondent's driving record and the duplicate license that was issued to Mr. Hagins in Respondent's name.
As Respondent was attempting to leave Ms. Standridge's office, Ms. Smith tried to retrieve the papers. Ms. Smith told Respondent "those are ours, you can't have those". After Ms. Smith grabbed one end of the papers, Respondent pulled them back toward the Respondent; and Ms. Smith let go of the other end.
During the struggle over the papers, Ms. Fincher was hit in the jaw while Respondent was holding the papers over Respondent's head to keep them from being retrieved. Although Ms. Fincher did not exercise her will or consent in being struck by Respondent, Respondent's actions in striking Ms. Fincher were not intentional.
The Discover credit card that had fallen was in Respondent's name. Among the items that were successfully removed from the drivers' license office by Respondent's efforts were mortgage papers, a Form 34 from the drivers' license office, related to an application for a driver's license, a corrections certification card, First Union Bank envelopes, and a Florida firearm's certification card.
After the altercation, Respondent told Mr. Hagins to leave the drivers' license office, which he did. Respondent also left.
Mr. Hagins was followed out of the office and was observed during his escape to have removed a wig and clothing, which he had worn as part of the
disguise. The wig was recovered, together with a black bra, black slip and yellow handbag. The yellow handbag had a Discover credit card bill in Respondent's name.
Respondent was seen entering a van. Ms. Smith took the tag number of that van. The tag number on the van was found to match Respondent's name. The drivers' license office also had the Respondent's home address, which matched the address on the duplicate driver's license which had been issued to Mr. Hagins.
Corporal Johnny Johnston of the Ocala Police Department instituted an investigation of the fraud in obtaining the duplicate driver's license. His efforts took place on May 5, 1993.
Corporal Johnston went to the address which the Division of Drivers' Licenses had for Respondent in Ocala, Florida. Respondent arrived at that address subsequently. Respondent was advised of her rights under the Miranda decision and requested an attorney. Nonetheless, she consented to have Corporal Johnston search her home. During the search, Corporal Johnston observed a valid 1993 Florida driver's license issued to Respondent in the pocket of a Florida Corrections uniform shirt inside a kitchen closet. Corporal Johnston located a Florida Firearm's Certification Card in Respondent's name in a wallet underneath a pillow on the bed in the bedroom. Corporal Johnston recovered an expired Florida driver's license in the name of Respondent, First Union Bank envelopes, Lomas mortgage documents, and a credit card form. Those items were in Respondent's name. Under the pillow was found a plastic bag containing a controlled substance, rolling papers and matches. A field test revealed that the substance in the bag was marijuana. Corporal Johnston utilized a kit in performing the field test, which uses reagents to identify the suspected substance by the color produced in using the reagents.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Administrative Complaint alleges that:
2.(a) On or about May 5, 1993, Respondent, Pamela E. Turner-Williams, did knowingly and unlawfully conspire with another person to supply or to aid in supplying a person, identified as Alfred Hagins, Jr., with a driver's license or identification card by means unauthorized by Florida Statute.
On or about May 5, 1993, Respondent, Pamela E. Turner-Williams, did then and there unlawfully and knowingly be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: not more than twenty grams of cannabis.
On or about May 5, 1993, Respondent, Pamela E. Turner-Williams, did then actually and intentionally touch or strike Maria E. Fincher against the will of said victim.
On or about May 5, 1993, Respondent, Pamela E. Turner-Williams, did then actually and intentionally touch or strike Deborah Dobson against the will of said victim.
To prove the allegations, Petitioner must present clear and convincing evidence.
Petitioner is entitled to impose discipline against Respondent if the acts for which she is accused point out a failure to maintain good moral character. The authority for disciplining for a lack of good moral character is set forth in Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, which includes the possibility that the certificate held by Respondent could be revoked or lesser disciplines imposed.
Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which describes the necessity for a correctional officer to have good moral character, does not define that term as a means to understand the occasion upon which discipline may be imposed, pursuant to Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes.
Moral character is defined at Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, as a means to implement penalties that are enumerated in Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, for failure to maintain good moral character.
Among the grounds for implementing penalties for failure to maintain good moral character, as envisioned by Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, is perpetration by the correctional officer of an act constituting a misdemeanor or criminal offense, whether criminally prosecuted or not, related to possession of cannabis, which is also referred to as marijuana. The substance "cannabis" is described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. Penalties for its possession are announced in Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, to include misdemeanor possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis. Possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis by a correctional officer equates to the failure to maintain good moral character thereby subjecting the correctional officer to the penalties set forth in Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes.
Respondent possessed cannabis in a quantity which would constitute a misdemeanor, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes.
Likewise, in the event a correctional officer perpetrates an act constituting a misdemeanor or criminal offense, whether criminally prosecuted or not, related to battery as described in Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, by actually and intentionally touching or striking another person against the will of the other person or intentionally causing bodily harm to that person, he or she has committed a misdemeanor of the first degree, recognized pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, as a failure to maintain good moral character, thereby subjecting the correctional officer to the penalties set forth in Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes.
Respondent committed a battery on Ms. Dobson, which would constitute a misdemeanor, pursuant to Section 784.03, Florida Statutes.
Finally, a correctional officer is subject to the penalties associated with Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, for failure to maintain good moral character in the event that he or she is involved with the perpetration of an
act or engages in conduct which, according to Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code:
* * *
Shows disrespect of the law of the state or nation; or
Causes substantial doubts concerning the officer's moral fitness for continued service . . .
To this extent, there is a provision involving the unauthorized possession of drivers' licenses or other unlawful acts in relation to the possession of drivers' licenses, which has pertinence to this case. Section 322.212(2) and (4), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, states:
(2) It is unlawful for any person to barter, trade, sell, or give away any driver's license or identification card or to perpetrate a conspiracy to barter, trade, sell, or give away any such license or identification card unless such person has been duly authorized
to issue the license or identification card by the department as provided in this chapter
or in the adopted rules and regulations of the department.
* * *
(4) It is unlawful for any person to agree to supply or to aid in supplying any person
with a driver's license or identification card by any means whatsoever not in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
These provisions in Chapter 322, Florida Statutes, are matters about which a correctional officer must show proper respect in order to maintain good moral character.
Respondent, in the fraudulent attempt to assist Mr. Hagins in obtaining a driver's license duplicate in her name showed disrespect for the law as set forth in Section 322.212, Florida Statutes, by circumstances which were indicative of a conspiracy to barter, trade, sell, or give away that license, and constituted acts in aid of supplying the driver's license duplicate by means not in accordance with law.
The overall course of conduct causes substantial doubt concerning Respondent's moral fitness for continued service as a correctional officer, another indication that Respondent has failed to maintain requisite good moral character.
Respondent did not otherwise violate any statutes or rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed under authority set forth in Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, for the failure to maintain good moral character that has been described, Rule 11B-27.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, allows for the enhancement of penalties associated with multiple counts of failure to maintain the good moral character proscribed by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Rule 11B-27.005(3), Florida Administrative Code, further defines the range of possible penalties for acts which would constitute misdemeanor offenses as previously described.
Rule 11B-27.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth further considerations as to the circumstances in the case when imposing penalties for the misconduct.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes Respondent's
corrections certificate.
DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1996.
The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the Petitioner.
1-9. Subordinate to facts found.
10. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 11-23. Subordinate to facts found.
24. Rejected in the suggestion that Respondent is accountable for striking Ms. Fincher.
25-29. Subordinate to facts found.
30. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 31-33. Subordinate to facts found.
34-35. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. 36-44. Subordinate to facts found.
54. Not supported by competent evidence. 55-59. Subordinate to facts found.
60-63. Rejected in the suggestion that there is competent evidence supporting laboratory results that the substance was marijuana.
64. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489
Pamela Turner-Williams 2731 N.W. 17th Street Ocala, FL 32675
A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement
Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489
All parties have the right to submit to the agency written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten 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.
