The Issue ISSUES: Whether Respondent had violated Section 479.07(1), Florida statutes, in that no permits were secured for subject sign for the years 1974 and 1975.
Findings Of Fact No permits were applied for or secured.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has proved that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance, as required by section 440.10, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the amount of the penalty, pursuant to section 440.107.
Findings Of Fact On September 18, 2013, the owner and Jesus Rodriguez, representing Respondent, signed a permit application for reroofing of a single-family residence located at 4311 Southwest 15th Street, Miami. An official of the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources approved the plans on September 27, 2013. The record does not disclose when work commenced. However, at about 9:00 a.m. on September 25, 2013, an investigator of the Division of Workers' Compensation was randomly canvassing the area, noticed roofing work at the subject address, and conducted an inspection. The investigator observed three persons on the roof engaged in roofing work. When the investigator asked the three workers for whom they worked, one of them replied, "Oval Construction," and added that it was owned by Pedro Alfaro and Jesus R. Rodriguez (Mr. J. Rodriguez). When asked for a phone number for the owners, the worker gave the investigator a cell number for Mr. Alfaro. Prior to calling Mr. Alfaro, while still at the work site, the investigator researched Oval Construction and learned that it was an active corporation with two corporate officers: Mr. Alfaro and Mr. J. Rodriguez. The investigator learned that the corporation showed no workers' compensation exemptions for the officers or any workers' compensation coverage. While still at the worksite, the investigator then called Mr. Alfaro and asked him if Oval Construction had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Alfaro said that Mr. J. Rodriguez handled such matters, so the investigator told Mr. Alfaro to have Mr. J. Rodriguez call the investigator immediately. Mr. J. Rodriguez did so and informed the investigator that the three workers worked for him, but not under Oval Construction; they worked for Respondent, and Respondent had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. J. Rodriguez stated that he did not have the insurance information at the moment, but would call back with the information. In the meantime, the investigator researched Respondent and learned that it was an active corporation with two officers: Mr. J. Rodriguez and Mr. Alberto Rodriguez (Mr. A. Rodriguez), who were not related. (Mr. J. Rodriguez is deceased.) Both officers had current workers' compensation exemptions, and the database indicated that Respondent leased its employees from South East Personnel Leasing Company. The investigator contacted South East Personnel Leasing and learned that the leasing contract had terminated on July 24, 2013, and Respondent had no current workers' compensation coverage through South East Personnel Leasing. At this point, the investigator called Mr. J. Rodriguez, who repeated that the workers were employed by Respondent, not Oval Construction. Subsequently, the investigator tried unsuccessfully several times to speak to Mr. J. Rodriguez. A few days after the inspection, Mr. A. Rodriguez called the investigator and arranged for a meeting between the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez for October 1, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez met, and the investigator served on him, in the name of Respondent, a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation for the three-year period ending on September 25, 2013. Respondent never produced any business records to Petitioner. On October 2, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez caused the transfer of the building permit for the roofing work from Respondent to Blue Panther Roofing. On October 1, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez signed a Hold Harmless agreement holding Miami-Dade County harmless and assuming responsibility for any work already performed under the building permit issued to Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez testified that he knew nothing about the subject job. But Mr. J. Rodriguez was the qualifying general contractor of Respondent, was an officer of Respondent, and owned 20% of Respondent. In fact, Mr. J. Rodriguez was the only licensed or certified contractor employed by Respondent and was the sole person who could obtain building permits for work to be performed by Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez's lack of knowledge of the subject job is therefore not dispositive because Mr. J. Rodriguez had the authority to, and did, apply for the building permit in the name of Respondent, and he had the authority to, and did, obligate Respondent to do the subject reroofing work. During the above-described three-year period, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 20, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance from October 4, 2010, through January 1, 2013. Additionally, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 23, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance through South East Personnel Leasing from October 18, 2012, through February 20, 2013, and March 7, 2013, through July 24, 2013. This is borne out by the testimony of the investigator. (Tr., pp. 99-101.) Respondent thus did not have workers' compensation coverage for a total of 85 days during the three years at issue, during which time Respondent actively performed construction work in Florida. The three periods of noncoverage during the three years at issue are September 26 through October 3, 2010, for a total of 8 days; February 21, 2013, through March 6, 2013, for a total of 14 days; and July 25, 2013, through September 25, 2013, for a total of 63 days. A conflict in the evidence prevented Petitioner from proving by clear and convincing evidence a fourth period of noncoverage: October 4 through 17, 2012. Additionally, Mr. J. Rodriguez was listed as secretary of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from March 1, 2013, through March 1, 2015, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage periods of September 26, through October 3, 2010, and February 21, 2013, through February 28, 2013. Mr. A. Rodriguez was listed as president of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from October 22, 2012, through October 22, 2014, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage period of September 26, 2010, through October 3, 2010. Mr. A. Rodriguez's wife, Yubanis Ibarra, was also a corporate officer and was not exempt during one week of one noncoverage period: September 26 to October 3, 2010. On October 30, 2013, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $15,594.34 pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is supported by a Penalty Calculation Worksheet, which based the penalty on the three employees found on the job on the day of the inspection as employees during all periods of noncoverage and the three above-identified corporate officers during their respective periods of nonexemption that occurred while they served as officers. Subject to two exceptions, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment correctly calculates the gross payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5, applies the correct manual rates to the gross payroll, determines the correct evaded premium, and determines the correct penalty based on the premium multiplied by 1.5. The first exception is that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a lack of coverage for the above-described 13 days in October 2012. This failure of proof noted in the preceding paragraph concerns four employees who generated total penalties of $2510.88, so the corrected total penalty would be $13,084.46. The second exception concerns the proof of the duration of employment of the three employees working on the roof at the time of the inspection on September 25, 2013. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence their employment only during the noncoverage period of July 24, 2013, through September 25, 2013, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. For the two other noncoverage periods--three, if the period noted in paragraph 15 already had not been rejected--the penalty of $3220.05 has not been established, leaving a net penalty of $9864.41.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of not securing workers' compensation and imposing a penalty of $9864.41. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Melnicoff, Qualified Representative Thomas Nemecek, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Mariem Josefina Paez, Esquire The Law Offices of Mariem J. Paez, PLLC 300 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 304 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Conclusions 479.17 and Section 479.10, Florida Statutes, inasmuch as the failure to secure permits is for the years 1971-1975. RECOMMENDED ORDER: Remove subject signs within (5) five days from date of Final Order unless Respondent either removes said sign and makes application and thereafter secures said permit. DELPHENE STRICKLAND Hearing Examiner Date: 5/14/75
Findings Of Fact 11. — The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 3, 2009, and the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 5, 2010, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-014-D2, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 3, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-014-D2 to ASSOCIATED WINDOW AND DOOR, INC. (ASSOCIATED). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On February 3, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on ASSOCIATED. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On April 10, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $99,761.78 against ASSOCIATED. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569.and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED by personal service on April 13, 2009. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 30, 2009, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $76,081.13 against ASSOCIATED. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contained a Notice of Rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 6. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED by personal service on May 1, 2009. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On May 22, 2009, ASSOCIATED filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09- 3044. . 8. On February 5, 2010, the Department issued a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,256.24 against ASSOCIATED. The Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and is incorporated herein by reference. 9. ‘On February 10, 2010, ASSOCIATED filed a Motion to Close File Due to Settlement in DOAH Case No. 09-3044. A copy of the Motion to Close File Due to Settlement filed by ASSOCIATED. is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.” 10. On February 10, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Errol H. Powell entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the February 10, 2010 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit F.”
The Issue Whether Respondent had violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, in that no permits were secured for subject sign for the years 1974 and 1975.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order imposing a $100 fine for each of the class III violations which have been established, for a total fine of $1200, but that no additional fine be assessed for the unclassified violations. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dorothy K. Emrick Oakland Park Retuirement Annex Ageing and Adult Service, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 John Marfilius Oakland Park Retirement Annex Ageing and Adult Services, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent had violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, in that no permits were secured for subject sign for the years 1973-1975.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 14, 2006, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 30, 2008, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department's Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers' Compensation Case No. 06-283-Dl, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: On August 14, 2006, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (hereinafter "Department") issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers' Compensation Case No. 06-283-Dl to CARLTON REID (REID). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein REID was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. On August 15, 2006, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on REID. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference. On September 6, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to REID in Case No. 06-283-Dl. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $183,710.84 against REID. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein REID was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on REID by personal service on October 26, 2006. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference. On November 17, 2006, REID timely filed a Petition requesting a formal administrative hearing. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was assigned Case No. 06-4937. On February 8, 2007, the Department filed a Stipulated Joint Motion to Close DOAH Case File With Leave to Re-Open, and on February 9, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Barbara J. Staros entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. On July 3, 2008, the Department and REID entered into a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which the Department agreed to issue a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $14,817.78, and REID agreed to pay a penalty in the amount of $14,817.78 in order to resolve Case No. 06-283-D1. On June 30, 2008, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to REID in Case No. 06-283-Dl. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $14,817.75 against REID. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contained a Notice of Rights wherein REID was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days ofreceipt of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on REID's counsel by certified mail on July 7, 2008. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit C" and is incorporated herein by reference. REID did not file a Petition requesting an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent has violated Sections 491.009(2)(h) and (u), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely comply with a prior Board Order and, if so, the determination of an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David Pesek, is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in the State of Florida, and has been so licensed at all times relevant and material to this proceeding. His license number is NT 192. On September 7, 1988, the Petitioner filed an earlier Administrative Complaint against the Respondent in DPR Case No. 0055334. On February 14, 1990, the Respondent signed a stipulation providing for a stipulated disposition of DPR Case No. 0055334. The Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling approved the stipulated disposition at a meeting on April 27, 1990, and on Nay 23, 1990, a Final Order was rendered in DPR Case No. 0055334. The Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334 included the following pertinent language: Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the Executive Director of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling within sixty (60) days of the filing of the Final Order herein. Respondent shall be placed on probation for one (1) year, with the condition of probation that Respondent's billing records and documents be reviewed by a consulting practitioner. The one (1) year probation shall begin to run when consulting practitioner is approved. Such consultant shall submit a written report to the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling six (6) months following the rendition of the Final Order. The consulting practitioner shall be selected by Respondent, subject to approval of the Board. Pursuant to the terms of the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334, the deadline for paying the administrative fine was July 23, 1990. On November 27, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation sent a letter to the Respondent reminding him that he had not complied with the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. By letter dated December 6, 1990, and received on December 13, 1990, the Respondent transmitted his check in the amount of one thousand dollars in payment of the fine. 2/ The fine was paid approximately four and a half months after it was due. By letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent advised the Chairman of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling of the name of a consulting practitioner who was willing to perform the review and reporting functions required by the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. The letter of January 23, 1991, was two months after the deadline for the consultant's report. By letter dated April 1, 1991, the Respondent was advised by staff of the Department of Professional Regulation that his choice of a consulting practitioner had been approved, that the consultant's report would be due six months from the date of the letter, and that the Respondent's one-year probation period would begin as of the date of the letter. /3
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent did not violate Section 491.009(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 491.009(2)(u), Florida Statutes, and finding him guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Imposing a penalty consisting of: (1) an administra- tive fine in the amount of $500.00 (Five Hundred Dollars), (2) issuance of a public reprimand, and (3) a six-month period of probation, which period shall begin on the first day following the Respondent's current probation period and shall be subject to such reasonable conditions of probation as may seem appropriate to the Board. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 7th day of January, 1992.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, 3-12, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Challenged Rule provides that "Possession of any other contraband" is an offense for which discipline may be imposed on inmates. The Challenged Rule also provides that the maximum penalty for this offense is 15 days of disciplinary confinement and loss of 30 days gain time. The Challenged Rule does not include a definition of "contraband." Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 to 3-11, Florida Administrative Code, designates the possession of certain specific items of contraband to be a ground for discipline and provides the maximum penalty therefore. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: . . . constitutes an invalid rule where the rule has exceeded its grant of authority as contain in 944.47, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the rule seeks to define contraband to be "any other contraband" not defined as such by enabling legislation contrary to Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). As matter of fact, the rule . . . goes beyond the statutory definition of contraband with the inclusive phrase "any other contraband" without more. . . . The Petitioner also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes, for essentially the same reason. The Petitioner further alleged that the Challenged Rule is vague and vest unbridled discretion in the Respondent because of the failure to define "any other contraband" in the Challenged Rule. Finally, the Petitioner alleged that the Challenged Rule is arbitrary and capricious because there is "no logical basis in fact to condemn legally lawful material as contraband with the phrase 'any other'. Rule 33-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides a definition of the term "contraband." There is, therefore, no reason to further define the term "contraband" used in the Challenged Rule. The reference to "any other" is merely an indication that the penalty provided for in the Challenged Rule is for the possession of any contraband (as defined elsewhere) other than contraband specifically listed in Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 through 3-11.
