vs.
JEFFERY A. VAN CAMP,
Respondent.
Case No. 13-0407PL
On July 10-11, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Lisa Shearer Nelson of the Division of Administrative Hearings conducted a duly-noticed hearing in this case in Pensacola, Florida.
For Petitioner: Jeffrey P. Dambly, Esquire
For Respondent: James R. Murray, Esquire
Julia Murray, Esquire James R. Murray, P.A. Post Office Box 125 Crestview, Florida 32536
The issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4), in violation of section
943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011), and if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violation(s) proven.
At a date unknown, Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Jeffery A. Van Camp.1/ By use of an Election of Rights form, on December 12, 2013, Respondent disputed the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Commission amended its Administrative Complaint on January 23, 2013, alleging that Respondent had disclosed information in an offense report at a time when the information was confidential, and made false statements in an internal affairs investigation, in violation of sections 815.04(3)(b), 837.02(1), and 838.21, Florida Statutes. The Amended Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Election of Rights were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 24, 2013, for assignment of an administrative law judge.
The case was noticed for hearing to take place April 22-24, 2013. At the request of the parties, the hearing was continued and rescheduled for hearing July 10-12, 2013. Before hearing, the parties filed a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Witness List, and Exhibit List containing a series of stipulated facts which, where relevant, have been incorporated into the Findings of Fact below.
The hearing commenced as scheduled and concluded July 11, 2013. At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Sean Fretenborough, Ulysses Hill, Scott Allday, Lori Trilone, Ricky Shelby, Steve Hardy, Alan Miller, Darilyn Miller, Lisa Dixon, Lori Scott, Randall Bradshaw, and Randy Stull. Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 5 were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Doyle Gresham and William Meloy. Respondent's Exhibits 1-7 were admitted into evidence.
A Transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Division on August 6, 2013. At the request of Petitioner, the deadline for filing the proposed recommended orders was extended to August 30, 2013. Both parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders that have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Respondent is a law enforcement officer certified by the Florida Criminal Justice and Standards Training Commission on July 30, 1986, and holds certificate number 102180.
At the times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office (ECSO). He has since retired.
On October 21, 2011, at 12:07 p.m., Respondent responded to a harassing telephone calls complaint at 1901 St. Mary Avenue. At that address, Respondent met with William Clark, who informed Respondent that Heather Tramuta's public defender had been calling Tramuta, Clark's girlfriend, inappropriately. Respondent spoke with Tramuta by telephone and generated Offense Report ECS01100F030535 (Offense Report 030535).
The ECSO uses an integrated computer system called Smart Cops, produced by CTS Systems. The system includes several integrated database modules, including Offense Report, Master Name Index, Jail, Arrests, Evidence, and Case Management.
An officer initiates an offense report by calling from the field to a Report Taker at the sheriff’s office, who inputs the information provided to him or her into the Offense Report module. Information is provided according to the questions in the program, starting with entering the type of report and location, and then filling in the names of the people involved, as well as any property at issue. The officer then provides a narrative for the report.
The Report Taker inputs the information given, sometimes in shorthand form. He or she then goes back and “cleans it up,” correcting the spelling and grammatical errors,
and then forwards the report to the Senior Report Taker, who reviews it and points out any additional errors. When all corrections are completed, the Senior Report Taker “finishes” the report and forwards it to the supervising officer for review.
The supervising officer has a filter on his or her computer that indicates the different types of items to be tracked. For example, yellow indicates a pending report that has been approved, but officers are to follow up on the initial report. Purple means there is a warrant affidavit. Gray is a report still being corrected by the Report Takers. White is a report that is ready for the supervising officer’s approval.
The Offense Report module is integrated with other modules in the Smart Cop system. For example, every name listed in an offense report is also listed in a Master Name Index (MNI). If someone knew the name of an individual involved in an incident but not the Offense Report number, they could access the Offense Report by accessing the MNI and querying that person’s name. The MNI will show every report in which that person has been involved, whether as a suspect, a victim, or a witness. Officers frequently access the MNI when preparing Offense Reports to obtain information on the individuals involved in the report they are initiating.
The Offense Reports and MNI modules of Smart Cop are available to nearly all ECSO employees; other modules are available based on need. The State Attorney’s Office and Pensacola Police Department, as well as other law enforcement agencies throughout the region, have access to the information in the program through a module called Data Share. To access information through Data Share, agencies use a web portal hosted through the secure criminal justice information system from FDLE, and use that interface to log on and pull information from the database in a web format. However, it is not possible for someone to use Data Share to actually print an ECSO report in the same format that ECSO does.
Smart Cops also has a report called a transaction log report. The transaction log report is a user-interfaced front- end report that identifies whenever someone has interfaced with the offense application in some way. A similar report can be run for accesses to the MNI.
On October 21, 2011, Respondent accessed the Master Name Index Record of Heather Tramuta at 12:32 p.m. and 12:37 p.m.
On October 21, 2011, at 3:30 p.m., Respondent contacted Report Taker Lori Trilone to initiate Offense Report
030535, which resulted in a logged access for Offense Report 030535.
Because of the nature of the report, Respondent also contacted his supervisor, Sergeant Lisa Dixon, to advise her of the report he was initiating. Sergeant Dixon, in turn, alerted people in her chain of command that a report of a somewhat sensitive nature was coming through the system.
On October 21, 2011, between 3:32 p.m. and 3:34 p.m., Report Taker Lori Trilone accessed the MNI record for Heather Tramuta eight times. These accesses occurred while Respondent was calling in the Offense Report 030535 to Trilone.
On October 21, 2011, between 3:31 and 3:34 p.m., Sergeant Lisa Dixon, Respondent’s supervisor, accessed the MNI record of William Clark four times. These accesses were related to a separate inquiry by Mr. Clark that Lieutenant Joye, Sergeant Dixon’s supervisor, had directed her to handle, and were unrelated to Offense Report 030535.
According to event logs for Offense Report 030535, Report Taker Lori Trilone worked on completing Offense Report 030535 on October 21, 2011, between 3:30 p.m. and 4:11 p.m.
On October 21, 2011, Offense Report 030535 also was accessed through ECSO's computer program as follows:
at 3:31 p.m. by Report Taker Darilyn Miller;
at 3:55 p.m. by Detention Deputy Randall Bradshaw;
at 4:13 p.m. by Sergeant Lisa Dixon;
at 4:22 p.m. by Commander Ricky Shelby;
at 4:55 p.m. and 5:53 p.m. by Sergeant Lisa Dixon;
at 6:02 p.m. and 6:04 p.m. by Sergeant Alan Miller; and
at 8:12 p.m. through 8:20 p.m. by Senior Report Taker Lori Scott as she updated and finished the report.
Lori Scott marked Offense Report 030535 as finished at 8:20 p.m. on October 21, 2011.
On October 22, 2011, Respondent accessed the MNI record of Heather Tramuta at 6:50 a.m. and 6:52 a.m. There were no other recorded accesses to the MNI records of Heather Tramuta or William Clark on October 21 or 22.
Sergeant Lisa Dixon accessed and approved Offense Report 030535 on October 22, 2011, at 6:55 a.m.
On approximately October 28, 2011, Offense Report 030535 was posted online on the website LEOAffairs.com. At that time, it was still confidential criminal justice information, as the matter remained under investigation at the time of the report's disclosure.
Documents can be printed from Smart Cop in two formats. The older, “Legacy” format is text-based and contains no graphics. The newer “CTS” format is the default format and is windows-based, with different fonts and graphics, such as the sheriff’s star. There is conflict in the testimony as to whether a person could print an offense report in both formats in October 2011, when pulling the offense report from the MNI module. Regardless, the copy of Offense Report 030535 posted online was in the newer, CTS format.
Sergeant Lisa Dixon saw Offense Report 030535 on LEOAffairs. She then notified her supervisor, Lieutenant Joye, of the posting.
Lieutenant Scott Allday was directed by his Commander, Darlene Dickey, to see if he could find out how the post was released. Lieutenant Allday narrowed his “window” for purposes of determining accesses to Offense Report 030535 based on the text in the version that was posted. He determined that the posted version was the same as the version approved by Sergeant Dixon, except that there was no supervisor’s signature on the posted version: that portion of the report was circled but left blank. That window starts at 8:20 p.m. on October 21, when the report was finished by Lori Scott, and ends at 6:55 a.m. on October 22, when Sergeant Dixon approved it.
Lieutenant Allday testified that he did not investigate past October 22, 2011, once he narrowed the window to the period described above. Lieutenant Allday’s decision to look only at this period of time is based on the text of the posted copy of the Offense Report 030535, and the lack of a supervisor’s signature. However, the quality of the posted copy is very poor. When asked whether the supervisor’s signature could have been whited out, no witness could refute that possibility. While it is not clear, the possibility that the signature was in fact whited out exists. If so, then it is possible that the window of time in which the document could have been accessed would widen to up to and include October 28, 2011.
Lieutenant Allday spoke to Sergeant Dixon, Commander Shelby, Colonel Hardy, Lori Trilone, Lori Scott, Linda Aiken, Kelly Richards (an attorney), reporter Katie McFarland, Cheryl Gooden, and perhaps some others in the course of his investigation. Only one person told him that he or she had printed a copy of the report; none indicated they had disclosed the report to anyone. Colonel Hardy had printed a copy of the report, but he printed his copy on October 24, and his copy was printed in Legacy format as opposed to the CTS format posted
online. When Lieutenant Allday asked Colonel Hardy about the report, the printed copy in Legacy format was still on his desk.
Once an offense report is downloaded and printed, it can be copied and the date and time those copies were printed would not be known. Moreover, while the audit logs track accesses to the different components, they do not necessarily track saves. Someone could access the document, view it and save it to a thumb drive, and later print from the thumb drive. Only the access and view would be recorded on an audit log.
Lieutenant Allday contacted the person in charge of LEOAffairs to see if he could provide the IP address of the site that uploaded the information to the website, and was unable to obtain that information.
Respondent was interviewed during the investigation and admitted that he had printed a copy of Offense Report 030535, but denied providing it to anyone or posting it online. He indicated that he had shredded the report. Printing a report is not against ECSO policy.
Respondent was not asked in the Internal Affairs’ interview whether he knew how to upload a document on a website. Respondent credibly denies knowing how to do so. Lieutenant Allday stated at hearing that he is familiar with Respondent’s
computer skills, and would be surprised if Respondent knew how to upload a document to an online forum.
No witnesses with whom Lieutenant Allday spoke told him that Respondent had given them a copy of the offense report.
Consistent with his interview during the internal affairs investigation, Respondent testified credibly that he routinely printed copies of offense reports he has filed so that he had them for reference. He kept them in milk carton crates in the trunk of his patrol car.
In January 2012, Respondent went on stress leave.
Before turning in his patrol car, he removed all of his personal belongings, and shredded all of the copies of offense reports in the trunk of his car. Offense Report 030535 was one of many, possibly a few hundred, offense reports shredded at that time.
Respondent was not aware of the internal affairs investigation and was not interviewed until after he shredded the documents and went on stress leave.
There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is one of a few people who both accessed and printed Offense Report 030535. However, there is no real evidence to support the allegation that Respondent released the report to anyone or that Respondent posted the report online, or that Respondent lied during his internal affairs interview.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2012).
This disciplinary action by Petitioner is a penal proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent’s certification as a law enforcement officer. Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Dep’t
of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Sterne & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
As stated by the Supreme Court of Florida,
Clear 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 testimony must be precise and lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such a weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Slomowitz
v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).
Section 943.13 establishes the minimum qualifications for certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. Subsection (7) provides that an officer must have "good moral
character as determined by a background investigation under procedures established by the commission."
Subsections 943.1395(7) and (8) state:
(7) 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:
Revocation of certification.
Suspension of certification for a period not to exceed 2 years.
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.
Successful completion by the officer of any basic recruit, advanced, or career development training or such retraining deemed appropriate by the commission.
Issuance of a reprimand.
(8)(a) The commission shall, by rule, adopt disciplinary guidelines and procedures to administer the penalties provided in subsections (6) and (7). The commission may, by rule, prescribe penalties for certain offenses. The commission shall, by rule, set forth aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered when imposing the penalties provided in subsection (7). (b)1. The disciplinary guidelines and prescribed penalties must be based upon the severity of specific offenses. The guidelines must provide reasonable and meaningful notice to officers and to the public of penalties that may be imposed for prohibited conduct. The penalties must be consistently applied by the commission.
The Administrative Complaint contains the following factual allegations:
(a) On or about February 24, 2012, the Respondent, Jeffery A. Van Camp, did unlawfully make a false statement, which he did not believe to be true, under oath administered by Sergeant Scott Allday in an official proceeding, to wit: Escambia County Sheriff’s Office Internal Affairs Investigation I2011-025, in regard to a material matter.
On or about February 24, 2013, the Respondent, Jeffery A. Van Camp, did willfully, and without authorization take data or disclose data or supporting documentation, residing or existing internal to a computer, computer system, or computer network, to wit: Escambia County Sheriff’s offense report ECSO11OFF030535, which was considered confidential as provided by Chapter 119 Florida Statutes.
On or between October 21, 2011 to October 27, 2011, the Respondent, Jeffery A. Van Camp, did unlawfully obstruct, impede, or prevent a criminal investigation or a criminal prosecution to disclose active criminal investigative or intelligence information as defined in Chapter 119 or to disclose or use information regarding either the efforts to secure or the issuance of a warrant or other court process or court order relating to a criminal investigation or criminal prosecution when such information is not available to the general public and is gained by reason of the public servant’s official position.
The actions of the Respondent did violate the provisions of Section 815.04(3)(b); 838.21; or any lesser included offenses, Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a); (a);
(a) [sic], Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to maintain the
qualifications established in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a law enforcement officer in the state of Florida have good moral character.
Petitioner did not prove the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence.
Petitioner presented the testimony of Lieutenant Allday regarding what Respondent told him in his interview, which is an admission that he printed the document and a denial that he posted it online. However, neither the date of the interview nor a copy of the actual statement was provided. Further, the Amended Administrative Complaint does not identify exactly what false statement Respondent is alleged to have made. Without a copy of the actual statement, there is little basis to find that he made a statement that was false.
Most importantly, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent posted Offense Report 030535 online. To prove he was the instigator of the post was a daunting task, and clearly Respondent had access to and printed the report. However, there is no violation of policy to print a report. Respondent credibly testified that he routinely printed reports where he was the initiating officer. The fact that he shredded the report does not support the inference that he had posted it online, in light of the unrebutted and credible evidence that this report was one of
many that Respondent shredded at one time when cleaning out his patrol car.
Taken as a whole, the evidence indicates that while access can be tracked, not all instances where a report is printed can also be tracked, in light of the ability to save the information and print it from another source, such as a thumb drive. Likewise, once a report is printed, there is no way to track how many times it is copied. Under these circumstances, making the inference that Respondent posted Offense Report 030535 from the admission that he printed the report requires a leap that the undersigned is not willing to make.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint.
DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2013.
1/ The original Administrative Complaint is not in the record at the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Jeffrey P. Dambly, Esquire
James R. Murray, Esquire James R. Murray, P.A. Post Office Box 125 Crestview, Florida 32536
Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
