STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS ) AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 96-5351

)

ANNE DOX-HAYNES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in LaBelle, Florida, on March 13, 1997.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Karen D. Simmons

Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of

Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 For Respondent: no appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement and correctional officer, stole money from inmates, in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Administrative Complaint dated August 29, 1996, Petitioner alleged that Respondent was certified as a law

enforcement and correctional officer. As amended, the Administrative Complaint alleged that between October 12 and October 15, 1995, Respondent stole less than $300 from each of two persons, in violation of Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes.

By Election of Rights dated October 7, 1996, Respondent denied the allegations and demanded a formal hearing.

At the hearing, Petitioner called eight witnesses and offered into evidence 15 exhibits, which were all admitted into evidence.

The court reporter filed the transcript on April 8, 1997.

Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order on April 17, 1996.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner certified Respondent on March 22, 1993, as a law enforcement officer and issued her certificate number 135498. Petitioner certified Respondent on July 25, 1995, as a correctional officer and issued her certificate number 156433.

2. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed by the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer.

3. On October 12, 1995, deputies of the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office arrested Ernesto Estepes and escorted him to the Clewiston Substation. At the substation, Mr. Estepes turned over to a deputy $132 in cash and other personal items, including a watch and wallet.

4. Deputies later transported Mr. Estepes to the Hendry County jail, where the $132 and other personal items were transferred. The booking officer received all of the items, including the cash, and turned them over to Respondent.

5. Four days later, when deputies went to find the items, including the cash, to return to Mr. Estepes, they found that everything was missing, including the property receipt that the jail booking officer had completed.

6. Respondent stole Mr. Estepes’ property, including the cash. The property was never recovered.

7. On October 29, 1995, Hendry County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Jose Ramos. They escorted him to the Clewiston Substation, from where he was later transported to the Hendry County jail.

8. The deputy who transported Mr. Ramos received from Mr. Ramos $112.04 in cash and other personal items, consisting of a gold Citizen quartz watch, silver chain, leather belt, and wallet. The deputy completed a property receipt for these items.

9. At the jail, Respondent handled the booking process, which included receipt of the inmate’s property, including cash.

10. Shortly after Mr. Ramos arrived at the jail, Respondent substituted a fraudulent property receipt for the actual property receipt. The fraudulent receipt stated that Mr. Ramos arrived at the jail with only the clothes he was wearing and was unable to

    sign the receipt. Respondent took the property and cash with an intent to derive Mr. Ramos permanently of these items.

11. Mr. Ramos was released shortly after his arrest, but was not given his property. Deputies searched the jail, including the booking area, but were unable to find the property.

12. Shortly after a thorough search had been completed, the property, except for the cash, reappeared in the booking area, which had been searched previously to no avail. The property items were returned to Mr. Ramos.

13. The Hendry County Sheriff’s Office reimbursed the cash to the two inmates. Respondent resigned prior to the completion of the internal affairs investigation.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

14. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes.)

15. Section 943.13(7) requires that law enforcement officers maintain “good moral character.” Section 943.1395(6) provides that Petitioner may revoke the certificate of a law enforcement officer for failure to comply with Section 943.13(7).

16. Petitioner must prove the material allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Company, Inc., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) and Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

17. Petitioner has proved that Respondent, while on-duty, stole property from inmates while discharging her job responsibilities. Petitioner has proved that Respondent lacks good moral character.

RECOMMENDATION

It is

RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the law enforcement and correctional certificates previously issued to Respondent.

ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997.

ROBERT E. MEALE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (904) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Karen D. Simmons Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of

Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489

Anne Dox-Haynes 1447 Ford Circle

Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936

A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice

Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489

Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order must be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 96-005351

Orders for Case No: 96-005351