The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 18, 1996, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers. Section 943.12(3), Florida Statutes (1997). Ms. Gilbert was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer on March 12, 1993, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 136544. On July 1, 1994, Ms. Gilbert was employed as a sworn law enforcement officer by the Metro-Dade Police Department. On July 1, 1994, Officer William Romero was employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department as a law enforcement officer. He was first employed on March 29, 1993, and was still on probation on July 1, 1994. He was working as a uniform patrol officer, and, at the time of the incident in question, he was working alone. On the evening of July 1, 1994, a black female flagged down Officer Romero while he was patrolling the neighborhood. When Officer Romero stopped, she told him that an elderly, Hispanic male was in the vicinity armed with a handgun. Officer Romero promptly confronted the person pointed out by the black female and told him to turn around. When the man did so, Officer Romero saw a revolver sticking out from the waistband of the man's trousers. Although the gun was not in the man's hand at the time, Officer Romero immediately drew his firearm and told the man to put his hands up. The man did not respond but continued to talk with very slurred speech, and he appeared intoxicated to Officer Romero. After a few moments, the man grabbed the revolver in his waistband, but it stuck, and he was not able to remove it. Officer Romero overpowered the man, and they fell to the ground and wrestled. Officer Romero was able to remove the gun from the man's waistband, and he threw it onto a nearby grassy area. Officer Romero handcuffed the man and picked up the gun. He opened the cylinder of the revolver and saw that there were no bullets in the cylinder. Officer Romero took the gun back to his patrol car, and put the suspect in the car as well. Officer Romero then called fire rescue because the man was elderly and intoxicated, and Officer Romero was concerned because they had wrestled for what seemed like several minutes. Officer Romero did not speak with the black female who had flagged him down after she initially told him about the man with the gun, nor did he interview any other persons in the area. Lieutenant Kevin Lindahl arrived on the scene immediately after Officer Romero placed the suspect in the patrol car. Officer Romero explained the situation to Lieutenant Lindahl, showed him the suspect's handgun, and specifically told him that the gun was unloaded during his altercation with the suspect. When he showed the gun to Lieutenant Lindahl, the cylinder was open, and it was obvious that there were no bullets in the gun. Lieutenant Lindahl left the scene a short time after he arrived. As Lieutenant Lindahl was leaving the scene, then- Officer Gilbert and Officer Willie McFadden arrived. These officers were the primary unit assigned to the call. At the time of the July 1, 1994, incident, Officer McFadden was on probation as a new law enforcement officer, and Officer Gilbert had recently completed her probation. They were assigned to the same squad but were not routinely assigned to work together. When they arrived at the scene, both Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert approached Officer Romero as he sat on the driver's side of his patrol car. Officer Romero told them what happened after he was flagged down; Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden were both privy to Officer Romero's remarks.2 Officer Romero gave the suspect's revolver either to Officer McFadden or to Officer Gilbert. Officer McFadden asked Officer Romero whether the gun was loaded. Officer Romero responded that the gun was not loaded, and Officer McFadden examined the gun and confirmed that the cylinder was open and that there were no bullets in the cylinder. Both Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden understood Officer Romero's statement that the gun was not loaded to refer to the time during which Officer Romero and the suspect struggled over possession of the gun, when Officer Romero took the gun from the suspect. Officer Romero turned the suspect over to Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden and then left the scene. Officer Romero sought out and spoke with his acting sergeant, Officer Sandra Leon. He told her about the incident and advised her that Lieutenant Lindahl had appeared at the scene. During this conversation, Officer Romero told Officer Leon that there were no bullets in the gun. It was important to him because he was a rookie police officer and the July 1 incident was the first time he had confronted an armed suspect; he was nervous because he almost shot the suspect. Officer McFadden spoke with several witnesses at the scene who told him that the suspect's revolver had been loaded at some point during the afternoon and that the bullets had been removed from the gun. He was also told that the suspect had put the gun to someone's head and pulled the trigger twice but that the gun did not discharge. Officer McFadden "asked around for the bullets; no one could give me the bullets. And I immediately said then the gun is unloaded, we can't find any bullets."3 None of the witnesses Officer McFadden interviewed told him that the suspect had discharged the gun before Officer Romero arrived. Officer McFadden did not interview witnesses in the house in front of which the altercation took place. Rather, he stayed with the suspect while Officer Gilbert went into the house and spoke with several witnesses. She was told by Brenda Smith, the woman who had flagged down Officer Romero, that, earlier in the afternoon, the suspect had discharged the firearm into the air outside the house. Ms. Smith also told Officer Gilbert that the suspect entered the house after discharging the gun, pointed the gun at her and another person in the house, and pulled the trigger twice; the gun did not fire but just clicked when the hammer fell. Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert stayed at the scene about 30 or 40 minutes. They discussed the offenses with which to charge the suspect and began preparing the required paperwork, which consisted of the arrest affidavit, the offense/incident report, and the property receipt. During the discussion at the scene, Officer McFadden raised the possibility of charging the suspect with the offense of "using a firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances" (hereinafter "using a firearm while under the influence"), a crime defined in Section 790.151, Florida Statutes (1993), and identified as a first degree misdemeanor. Officer McFadden looked up the offense in the police manual setting forth crimes and their elements.4 The focus of discussion between Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden was the statutory requirement that the firearm be loaded; they did not discuss whether the charge was appropriate in light of the fact that the offense was a misdemeanor. Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert continued discussing the offense of using a firearm while under the influence as they drove the suspect to the Dade County Jail and as they completed the arrest affidavit, which they did while sitting in the patrol car in the jail parking lot. Officer Gilbert told Officer McFadden during this discussion that a witness had told her that the suspect had discharged the gun earlier in the afternoon, before Officer Romero arrived on the scene. Officer Gilbert believed that it was appropriate to charge the suspect with this offense because he was intoxicated and because she had been told that the gun had been discharged during the afternoon. Since she had been told that the gun had been discharged, Officer Gilbert reasoned that the gun had been loaded at some point during the afternoon, a fact which was corroborated by the witness statement given to Officer McFadden. Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden agreed to charge the suspect with the offense of using a firearm while under the influence.5 Officer Gilbert filled out the arrest affidavit in the jail parking lot, in Officer McFadden's presence. She included the charge of using a firearm while under the influence, and she inserted the phrase "since the gun was loaded" into the narrative portion of the arrest affidavit, squeezing it in at the end of one line of printing as she was editing and completing the affidavit. As revised, the narrative in the completed arrest affidavit contains the following sentence: "V-01 advised that he and V-02 was in fear of their life being taken [when the suspect pointed the gun at them and pulled the trigger] since the weapon was loaded." Officer Gilbert did not mention in the arrest affidavit narrative that the witness Brenda Smith had told her that the suspect had discharged the revolver earlier in the afternoon. Before they left the patrol car, Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden signed both pages of the affidavit, attesting by their signatures that "I swear that the above Statement is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief."6 The offenses set forth in the arrest affidavit when Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden signed it in the parking lot of the jail were aggravated assault, discharging a firearm in public,7 carrying a concealed firearm, resisting arrest, and using a firearm while under the influence. Probable cause existed to arrest the suspect regardless of whether the offense of using a firearm while under the influence was properly charged. Although Officer McFadden had searched the suspect at the scene, he was searched again by the corrections officers at the jail. This search produced a knife and six bullets, which were found in the suspect's clothing. Officer Gilbert was told that these items were on the suspect's person, and, based on the information that the suspect was carrying a knife, she added to the arrest affidavit the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. Officer McFadden was aware that Officer Gilbert added the concealed weapon charge, which he considered an appropriate charge under the circumstances. The arrest affidavit was turned in at the jail. Officer McFadden completed the first page of the required offense/incident report at the station, after he and Officer Gilbert left the suspect at the jail.8 He included the charge of using a firearm while under the influence, and he cited the charge to Section 790.151, Florida Statutes. Officer McFadden claimed that he was not aware that he had included that offense in the report, that he was simply copying the information from the arrest affidavit completed by Officer Gilbert without thinking about what he was writing.9 At some point, Officer McFadden stopped working on the offense/incident report and began completing the property report. While Officer McFadden was preparing the property report, Officer Gilbert completed the narrative portion of the offense/incident report. Although Brenda Smith was listed in the report as a witness, Officer Gilbert did not mention in the narrative that Ms. Smith had reported that the suspect had discharged the gun during the afternoon, nor did she include in this narrative any statement regarding whether the gun was loaded or unloaded. Officer Gilbert cannot explain these omissions. As acting sergeant and the supervisor of Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert on July 1, 1994, Officer Sandra Leon was responsible for reviewing the offense/incident report at issue in this proceeding and ensuring that all of the information provided was complete and correct. Officer Leon reviewed the offense/incident report on the evening of July 1, 1994, and she noticed that the offense of using a firearm while intoxicated was included in the report. She was not familiar with this offense, so she looked up the statute defining the offense. She noted that an element of the offense was that the firearm be loaded, and she remembered that Officer Romero had told her that the gun was not loaded when he struggled with the suspect. Nonetheless, without speaking with either Officer McFadden or Officer Gilbert, Officer Leon signed the offense/incident report and forwarded it through channels pursuant to the usual procedures. At the time she signed the report, Officer Leon knew that the narrative did not include all of the elements of the offense of using a firearm while under the influence, and she recalled that Officer Romero had told her that the gun was not loaded at the time he arrested the suspect. The next day, in a brief encounter, Officer Leon "casually" asked Officer Gilbert whether the gun was loaded.10 According to Officer Leon, Officer Gilbert responded affirmatively, and Officer Leon did not pursue the matter any further with Officer Gilbert. Officer Leon and Officer Gilbert did not engage in a conversation regarding the offense/incident report, and Officer Leon asked Officer Gilbert only the one question. Shortly after she spoke with Officer Gilbert, Officer Leon spoke with Officer McFadden about the condition of the gun because he had also signed the offense/incident report. According to Officer Leon, Officer McFadden appeared "visibly upset" during this conversation, and Officer Leon attributed this to the fact that, because he had signed the offense/incident report, he and Officer Gilbert were "equally at fault."11 Officer McFadden told Officer Leon that the gun was not loaded. Finally, Officer Leon spoke again with Officer Romero, who confirmed that the gun was not loaded when he took it from the suspect. Four or five days later, Officer Leon brought the matter to the attention of Lieutenant Lindahl, who had taken several days off from work after the July 1 incident. Officer Leon went to Lieutenant Lindahl because, even though she had signed and submitted the offense/incident report, she was concerned that there was a problem with charging the suspect with the offense of using a firearm while under the influence. Officer Leon told Lieutenant Lindahl that she had asked Officer Gilbert about the condition of the gun and that Officer Gilbert told her that it was loaded. Lieutenant Lindahl then had a copy of the arrest affidavit sent to his office via facsimile.12 Lieutenant Lindahl reviewed the arrest affidavit and questioned Officer Romero and Officer McFadden about the condition of the gun. Officer Romero reiterated his story that the gun was not loaded when he took it from the suspect. Officer McFadden told Lieutenant Lindahl that he had told Officer Gilbert repeatedly that the charge of using a firearm while under the influence was improper because the gun was not loaded, but he did not tell Lieutenant Lindahl that Officer Gilbert had told him that a witness reported that the suspect had discharged the gun before Officer Romero arrived at the scene. Lieutenant Lindahl did not ask Officer Gilbert why the charge of using a firearm while under the influence was included on the arrest affidavit and in the offense/incident report. Rather, he decided it was appropriate to refer the matter to the police department's internal affairs section, and he promptly filed a complaint against Officer Gilbert.13 Lieutenant Lindahl based his decision to file the complaint against Officer Gilbert on the statements of Officer Romero and of Officer McFadden. Lieutenant Lindahl concluded that Officer Gilbert included the charge of using a firearm while under the influence in the arrest affidavit even though she knew that the gun was not loaded and that this was an essential element of the offense. Lieutenant Lindahl testified that, if the gun had in fact been discharged, the charge of using a firearm while under the influence "would have been appropriate."14 Lieutenant Lindahl did not speak with Officer Gilbert after he filed the complaint because she was the subject of an internal affairs investigation, and it would have been improper for him to interfere in the investigation by talking with her. It is not unusual for arresting officers to charge a suspect with an offense when all of the elements of the offense are not present. If a charge included in an arrest affidavit is not appropriate, the responsible police officers bring it to the attention of the assistant state attorney handling the case, who sees that the unsupported charge is stricken from the arrest affidavit. When Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert met with the assistant state attorney at what is called the "prefile conference" to discuss the arrest on July 1, 1994, they asked the assistant state attorney whether, in his opinion, the charge of using a firearm while under the influence should be stricken from the arrest affidavit because the gun was not loaded. The assistant state attorney reviewed the statute and concluded that the charge should be dropped. On October 20, 1994, Officer Gilbert gave a sworn statement to the internal affairs investigator for the Metro-Dade Police Department. In that statement, Officer Gilbert testified that she overheard Officer Romero state that the gun was unloaded at the time of the altercation; that she and Officer McFadden agreed to charge the suspect with using a firearm while under the influence; that the charge and the phrase "since the gun was loaded" were on the arrest affidavit before Officer McFadden signed the affidavit; and that she never spoke with Officer Leon about the offense/incident report. The evidence presented by the Commission is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Gilbert knowingly made a false statement that was intended to mislead when she included in the arrest affidavit the offense of using a firearm while under the influence and inserted in the affidavit the phrase "since the gun was loaded." Rather, based upon the consideration of all of the evidence presented herein and upon the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the persuasive evidence supports the finding that Ms. Gilbert acted in good faith when she included the charge and the phrase "since the gun was loaded" in the arrest affidavit. It was Officer Gilbert's understanding from the statement of Brenda Smith that the suspect had discharged his gun prior to the arrival of Officer Romero and that the suspect was intoxicated when he did so, and Officer McFadden agreed with Ms. Gilbert that the offense of using a firearm while under the influence could appropriately be charged.15 In any event, Ms. Gilbert's use of the phrase "since the gun was loaded" in the arrest affidavit was, under the circumstances, ambiguous. Pursuant to her testimony, which is credited, Officer Gilbert assumed that, because the suspect discharged the gun, the gun had, at some point, been loaded; Officer Leon and Lieutenant Lindahl assumed that the phrase referred to the time period in which the suspect was involved in the altercation with Officer Romero. The first opportunity Officer Gilbert was given to explain what she meant by the phrase was in the sworn statement she gave on October 20, 1994. The evidence presented by the Commission is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Gilbert gave false statements, which she did not believe to be true, in her sworn statement given on October 20, 1994, to the Metro-Dade Police Department's internal affairs investigator. First, the conflicts in the testimony of Officer McFadden and Ms. Gilbert have been resolved on the basis of the evidence presented herein, and the persuasive evidence supports the finding that Ms. Gilbert did not make a false statement under oath when she stated that Officer McFadden signed the arrest affidavit after she included the offense of using a firearm while under the influence and inserted the phrase "since the gun was loaded." Second, contrary to the position taken by the Commission, Ms. Gilbert did state in the October 20, 1994, sworn statement that she had overheard Officer Romero state that the gun was not loaded when the suspect was arrested. Third, although Ms. Gilbert's testimony in her sworn statement that she had never discussed the report with Officer Leon conflicts with Officer Leon's testimony that she asked Officer Gilbert if the gun was loaded, it is reasonable to infer that, due to the brief, casual nature of Officer Leon's inquiry to Ms. Gilbert and the length of time which elapsed between the incident and her sworn statement, Ms. Gilbert simply forgot that Officer Leon had asked her that one question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Hawanda Gilbert dated June 28, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1999.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint concerning unlawfully committing a battery upon a person he had placed under arrest and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and enforcing the practice standards of law enforcement officers. The Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer being certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 12, 1986, and holding Law Enforcement Certificate No. 82811. He was employed by the DeFuniak Springs Police Department as a law enforcement officer during the period of October 29, 1985, until his termination on November 13, 1997. On April 12, 1997, Daniel Robertson was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his girlfriend. The vehicle was stopped by Officer James Burnham of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department for a traffic violation at approximately 3:00 a.m. When the officer approached the vehicle, he detected a strong odor of alcohol which he believed to come from the driver. He asked the female driver to step out of the vehicle and submit to a field sobriety test. Upon completion of the test, he placed her under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. While the officer conducted the field sobriety test on the driver, the passenger, Daniel Robertson, began arguing with Officer Burnham about the test and creating a verbal disturbance. Officer Burnham radioed for other officers to respond to the incident. Officers Travis Howell and the Respondent, Kenneth G. May, of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department, together with a civilian, Bradley Stafford, responded to Officer Burnham's call for assistance. Stafford was a civilian authorized by the police department to ride along with Officer Howell as an observer. Once his girlfriend was arrested, Mr. Robertson became concerned about driving the vehicle home, since he owned the pick-up truck in question. Officer Burnham advised him that if he could pass a sobriety test in the field, then he would be allowed to drive home. Officer Burnham administered two field sobriety tests to Robertson and advised him that he had failed both tests and could not drive his vehicle. Mr. Robertson began again loudly arguing with Officer Burnham, after being told to quiet down. Officer Burnham advised him that he was under arrest for disorderly intoxication and told him to place his hands behind his back. Mr. Robertson refused to place his hands behind his back and Officers Burnham, Howell and May, the Respondent, had to physically subdue Mr. Robertson as they attempted to handcuff him with his hands behind his back. Because Officer Burnham had already placed the female driver in the back seat of his patrol car, he asked the Respondent to transport Mr. Robertson to the county jail. The Respondent thereupon escorted Mr. Robertson to the Respondent's police car. Officer Howell followed the Respondent and Mr. Robertson but never physically touched Robertson. The Respondent physically placed Robertson into the back seat of the police car. Robertson was verbally complaining, using foul language, but did not physically resist being placed in the police car. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain and berate the Respondent until the Respondent finally slapped him one time in the face, while Robertson was seated in the car with his hands cuffed behind his back. Robertson was then transported to the Walton County Jail by the Respondent and charged with disorderly intoxication and resisting arrest without violence. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain to the Respondent, although he was not physically resistant or physically struggling with the Respondent. Once they were inside the jail with his hands still cuffed behind his back and in the presence of other officers, the Respondent sprayed Robertson in the eyes with pepper spray. Mr. Robertson was continuing to be verbally abusive at this point, but his hands were cuffed behind his back and he engaged in no physical contact with the Respondent. The Respondent maintains that he sprayed Mr. Robertson with pepper spray because Robertson was coming toward him in a threatening manner. This account of events is belied by the testimony of Officer Howell, however, which is more credible under the circumstances, as it is not self-serving and which is accepted. The Chief of Police of DeFuniak Springs, Mr. Ray Burgess, and the Assistant State Attorney, Clayton Adkinson, felt that an unbiased investigation was needed and therefore requested the services of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct the investigation into Mr. Robertson's complaint. Special Agent Carl Causey with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) was assigned to conduct an investigation into Robertson's complaint against the Respondent and did so. He interviewed numerous witnesses including Robertson, Officers Burnham and Howell, and the civilian who rode with Officer Howell on the night in question, as well as the Respondent. Respondent stated at his interview with Agent Causey that he told Officer Burnham that Mr. Robertson had intentionally kneed him in the groin while he was placing him into the police car and therefore Robertson should be charged with resisting arrest with violence. This statement was contrary to the statements of officers Burnham and Howell and Mr. Bradley Stafford. It is also contrary to the statements those three individuals made in their testimony at hearing. During Agency Causey's second interview with Officer Burnham, Officer Burnham denied that the Respondent ever told him that Robertson had kneed him during the process of getting Robertson into the patrol car. Upon completion of his investigation, Agent Causey filed an investigative report. Agent Causey also arrested the Respondent and charged him with two counts of battery on Mr. Robertson. The Respondent pled no contest to those charges in the Walton County Court and was adjudicated guilty on both counts of misdemeanor battery involving Mr. Robertson.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and as elucidated by the other authority referenced herein and that the Respondent's certification be subjected to a six-month suspension, followed by a one-year probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1999. H. R. "Bob" Bishop, Jr., Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether the law enforcement officer's certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, should be revoked for failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, based on two incidents of misconduct. A third incident alleged in the second unnumbered paragraph of paragraph two of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed at the beginning of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Nicholas R. Small was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer before the occurrence of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint was filed after a letter of complaint was received from a citizen in April, 1985. This delay in bringing the matter to the attention of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission staff accounts for the delay in the filing of the complaint. On June 13, 1978, Mr. Albert Lee Taylor, his wife and their three small children, were leaving Miami in the family car which was being driven by Mr. Taylor. They were on their way to visit a sick relative in Lake Placid, Florida. Due to Mr. Taylor's work schedule they were unable to begin their trip until after midnight. The Taylors are black. The Respondent, Mr. Small, was a police officer for the City of Hialeah Gardens. He observed the Taylor vehicle as it passed his police car at the corner of N.W. 81st Street and l03rd Avenue. Mr. Small pulled Mr. Taylor's vehicle over because he believed there were deficiencies in the tag light on the car. When Mr. Small left the patrol car and walked to Mr. Taylor's car, he told Mr. Taylor to get out of the car and walk to the back of Taylor's vehicle, which Mr. Taylor did. While using his flashlight, Mr. Small observed a handgun setting in an area between the bucket seats of Taylor's automobile. Mr. Small took possession of the gun. Mr. Taylor carried the gun for protection during the family's travel. Mr. Small arrested Mr. Taylor and while doing so required him to place his hands on the hood of the police car to conduct a pat- down search of Mr. Taylor. The police car engine was running. The hood of the police car was hot to the touch which made it difficult for Mr. Taylor to take the position which Mr. Small required him to assume. Small told Mr. Taylor to spread his legs so that he could be patted-down. Mr. Taylor had recently had hip surgery to replace the ball joint of his hip with an artificial joint. This restricted his range of motion and any attempt to move the leg beyond its range resulted in severe pain. Mr. Taylor spread his legs as far as his hip condition would permit without pain. Mr. Small became dissatisfied with Mr. Taylor's stance and told him to spread his legs more. Mr. Taylor told Mr. Small that he had already spread his legs as far apart as he could with a pin in his hip. Mr. Taylor's wife, who was near by, told Mr. Small that she was a nurse, that Mr. Taylor had a pin in his hip, and that he could spread his legs no further apart. Mr. Small told Mrs. Taylor to "shut up" and shouted that he did not care about that. Mr. Small took his leg and placed it between Mr. Taylor's feet and, by pushing outward, forced Mr. Taylor's legs further apart. Mr. Taylor lost his balance and, as a result of the action, fell on the hood of the car. This caused Mr. Taylor severe pain at the time and resulted in increased pain and tenderness in the leg for several weeks. Mr. Small took Mr. Taylor to jail. Mr. Taylor was never convicted of any crime as the result of that arrest. The next incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place on October 24, 1981, when Mr. Small was a uniformed officer for the City of Opa- Locka. Mr. Small had been sent to the scene of a disturbance near Rutland Street and 22nd Avenue. Rayfield Brown, Lloyd Johnson, and his two-year old daughter Fiona were there. Mr. Small and other officers arrived and Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were arrested and placed in Mr. Small's police car. After the arrest Mr. Small got into the police car to drive Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown to the police station. On the way to the police station, Mr. Small turned onto Rutland Street. Mr. Brown looked at the sidewalk on the street corner and saw Mr. Johnson's child, Fiona, standing alone on the sidewalk and crying. Mr. Johnson saw his daughter as they passed the corner and asked Mr. Small to stop the car and pick the child up. Mr. Johnson pleaded with Mr. Small to pick up his daughter so that she would not be left alone on the street but Mr. Small did not stop to attend to the child or take any other action to assure that another officer would take care of the child, thus leaving her abandoned in a urban residential area.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the law enforcement officer certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2383 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner The substance of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been accepted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent No proposed findings of fact were submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter Kneski, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 626 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on September 22, 1988, and was issued Certificate Number 73974. At all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the Putnam County Sheriff's Office as a law enforcement officer holding the rank of lieutenant. On July 12, 2004, while operating a patrol vehicle, Putnam County Deputy Sheriff Michael Kelly backed the vehicle and accidentally struck a second patrol vehicle issued to another Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, Robert Younis.1 At the time Deputy Kelly struck the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis, Deputy Kelly was traveling approximately two miles per hour. As a result of the collision, both vehicles were slightly damaged with the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis sustaining a small indentation on the left front fender. Shortly after the collision and on the same date, Deputy Kelly contacted his supervisor, Sergeant Michael Oglesbee, and verbally reported the incident to him. On November 8, 2004, Deputy Kelly arranged for the damage to the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis to be repaired at Deputy Kelly's own expense, at a local automotive repair shop, One Stop Auto Body. On November 16, 2004, Putnam County Sheriff's Office Captain Rick Ryan was present at One Stop Auto Body and observed the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis under repair. Prior to this observation, Captain Ryan had not been aware of the damage or the repairs being made to the patrol vehicle. On November 23, 2004, Deputy Kelly submitted a written report regarding the collision incident to the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. On November 30, 2004, Respondent provided a sworn statement to Lieutenant Rick Lashley of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office as part of an internal investigation. Facts determined by the evidence presented Although Sheriff's Office policy required him to do so, Deputy Kelly did not submit a written report about the incident at the time he reported the incident to Sergeant Oblesbee. Shortly after calling Sergeant Oglesbee, Deputy Kelly then called Deputy Younis to inform him of the incident. Because the damage to the vehicles was insignificant, Deputy Kelly did not immediately take steps to get the vehicles repaired. Deputy Kelly did not attempt to get the vehicles repaired until the matter was brought to his attention by Sergeant Oglesbee in November. He then took steps to get the vehicles repaired at his own expense. Deputy Kelly believed that it was his responsibility to pay for the amount of the insurance deductible. Deputies Kelly and Younis took their patrol vehicles to One Stop Auto Body for repair. At the time of the incident, Respondent was a candidate for Sheriff of Putnam County. Because he was involved in his political campaign, Respondent was often off duty and difficult to reach. Respondent was not on duty the day of the incident. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard Ryan was a captain with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office and was chief of patrol. On November 16, 2004, he went to One Stop Auto Body to get estimates on a patrol car repair. While there, he noticed another patrol car there for repairs. He had been unaware that another patrol car had received damage. He determined that the patrol car was assigned to Deputy Younis. Upon determining that the patrol car belonged to Deputy Younis, he called Sergeant Oglesbee to inquire as to why Deputy Younis's patrol car was in the repair shop. Upon learning that Sergeant Oglesbee knew about the damage, he called a meeting in his office that afternoon. Captain Ryan, Sergeant Oglesbee, Lieutenant Bowling, Deputies Younis and Kelly, and Respondent were present. Deputy Kelly does not recall any formal or informal discussion of the incident with Respondent until the November 18, 2004 meeting. According to Captain Ryan, Respondent told him at the meeting that Respondent learned of the incident a couple of weeks before. Captain Ryan worked with Respondent for between 16 and 17 years, and never had reason to disbelieve or doubt what Respondent said. As a result of the meeting, Captain Ryan instructed Respondent to write Sergeant Oglesbee a memorandum of record for not following policy, instructed Sergeant Oglesbee to write Deputy Kelly a memorandum of record for not following policy, and determined that he, Captain Ryan, would write a memorandum of record regarding Respondent. On November 17, 2004, Captain Ryan learned that Sheriff Douglas ordered Lieutenant Bowling to initiate an administrative inquiry. Lieutenant Bowling instructed Deputy Kelly, Sergeant Oglesbee, and Respondent to each write a statement of their recollection as to what happened regarding the incident. The matter was than turned over to Mr. Lashley to conduct an investigation. On December 2, 2004, Lieutenant Bowling wrote a memorandum to Lieutenant Rick Lashley regarding what was said by whom at the November 16, 2004, meeting. His memorandum described Respondent's response as learning about the incident "a week or two ago." This is substantially consistent with Captain Ryan's recollection of what was said at the meeting. Lieutenant Lashley was with the personnel office of the Sheriff's Office and was the internal affairs investigator. During questioning by Lieutenant Lashley, Respondent realized that he had been told about the incident in October, after a truancy roundup, rather than November, and acknowledged this during his interview. This is consistent with Deputy Younis's recollection that he did not discuss the incident with Respondent until a "truancy roundup" which took place sometime in October.2 Lieutenant Lashley's primary concern was not that Respondent recalled during the interview that he learned of the incident in October rather than November. Lashley commented, "Well, first he had told us in November...and then he told me in October, which is okay, you know. I mean, because people do start recalling stuff." While Lieutenant Lashley described Respondent's initial confusion as to whether or not he learned of the incident in October or November as "just inconsistencies," Lashley's real concern was whether or not Respondent actually learned of the incident around the time that it happened (July 2004). Consistent with Lieutenant Lashley's primary concern, Respondent was charged with making a false statement under oath on November 30, 2004, during the interview with Lieutenant Lashley. The key to the charge is whether Sergeant Oglesbee actually contacted Respondent shortly after the incident happened as opposed to learning about it in the fall. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled attempting to call Respondent the day of the incident using Nextel, but could not recall the substance of the conversation. When asked whether he was certain as to whether he actually reached Respondent, he responded: Q Okay, and from your testimony, I take it that you are not a hundred percent sure that you actually did contact Lieutenant Hardy? A I'm testifying on my past practice. Q Okay. But you don't have any specific recollection of speaking with him about this incident? A I cannot recall the conversation. Q And you could not swear to actually having notified him in July when this incident happened? A Just based on past practice, that it was--it would have been deemed by myself a very important issue, based upon his major supporters having been involved in a minor fender bender, but yet based upon the political atmosphere, it would have been considered a major incident. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled that there were several informal conversations regarding the incident but he did not recall Respondent's ever being present during any of them. He also acknowledged that Respondent was often unavailable for several days at a time during his campaign for Sheriff. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled a telephone or Nextel conversation with Respondent towards the end of October during which Respondent commented that Deputy Younis's patrol car needed to get repaired. When asked during his interview with Lieutenant Lashley, during which he was under oath, when he was first made aware of the incident, Respondent answered in pertinent part as follows: Hardy: Going back listening to these tapes, going back to the truancy roundup, that's when I believe I was first made aware of the dent on the vehicle, was because I observed it and I asked where the dent came from and when the deputy explained it to me, I asked if it had been reported because I was concerned about the time line. He said he reported it to Sgt. Oglesbee. I said get with Sgt. Oglesbee and let's get it taken care of. Lashley: That was during the truancy roundup, correct? Hardy: Correct. Lashley: ...or detail, back in first week in October? Hardy: That's, that's, that's where I, I remember it. Uh, I remember that it was in East Palatka, so it was at the truancy roundup, it would have to be. Lashley: Would it be safe to say that Younis and Kelly were the ones that told you of it then or, is that who you said... Hardy: It would probably have been Younis because it was his vehicle that had the damage to it, that I observed. So he had to have been there because it was his car.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jeffrey S. Hardy. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Katrina Morgan, is a female who was employed by Respondent as a probationary Correctional Officer at the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner first worked for the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office from January 2001, through April 1, 2001, as a Correctional Officer. At the time, Petitioner was aware that the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office had a policy that required a Correctional Officer to personally call his or her immediate supervisor at least one hour before the scheduled start of the shift if he or she is unable to report for duty. The policy requires the officer to personally call so that inquiry can be made into how sick he or she is and when the officer might return. The information is necessary so that appropriate numbers of staff can be scheduled and planned for. Unfortunately, Petitioner’s son was involved in a serious traffic accident that resulted in serious injuries to him. As a result of her son’s injuries, Petitioner had many days of absence from her employment. She frequently failed to notify her supervisor when she was unable to report for duty. Such failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding notification in such circumstances. As a result of the policy violations by Petitioner, she received several written warnings from her shift supervisor, then Sergeant Donald Little. In addition to written warnings, Sergeant Little spoke with Petitioner on the telephone about the proper utilization of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call- in policy. Eventually, after several such absences, Lieutenant Johnson contacted Petitioner to tell her that he could not permit Petitioner to stay employed with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and offered her an opportunity to resign. Petitioner verbally resigned her position with the Sheriff’s Office on March 21, 2001, and later faxed her written resignation to the Sheriff’s Office on March 22, 2001. After she left Columbia County, Petitioner was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections where she had, also, been previously employed. She worked for a period of approximately five to six months with the Department of Corrections and decided to return to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office because it would give her better working hours for her family needs. On April 28, 2003, Petitioner reapplied for employment as a Corrections Officer with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Knowing her past performance would be an issue and that attendance was an important issue at the jail, Petitioner stated on her April 28. 2003, application as follows: Was forced to give up my position with the Columbia County Jail back in 2001. If given the opportunity I will do whatever it takes to be sure the Columbia County Jail can depend on me. I will make sure I will report to my shift on time, no matter what the circumstances are, I hope you will give me a second chance to prove you can count on me. In the process of reviewing Petitioner’s background summary the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office became aware of some serious areas of concern in her employment history. Specifically, that she had been terminated from the Department of Corrections (DOC) New River Correctional Institute for attendance problems, and that she had poor work performance and problems with calling in at S&S Food Store. This history caused an initial recommendation against rehiring Petitioner. However, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office was experiencing a severe staff shortage and as a result was desperately in need of new Correctional Officer. Because of the shortage, Petitioner was offered employment with the Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner was sworn in by the Sheriff as a Correctional Officer on November 6, 2003, and given a second chance to prove she was dependable. At this ceremony, the Sheriff personally spoke with Petitioner about attendance issues and that she was being given a second chance. In response, Petitioner gave the Sheriff assurances that this time she would comply with policies. The Sheriff told Petitioner that any further attendance problems would be cause for termination. On November 7, 2003, Petitioner began working in the Respondent’s field training program under the direction of Field Training Officer Howard. Beginning on November 19, she was placed on the night shift and assigned Officer Siraq as her field training officer. The field training program uses daily observation reports (DORs) to evaluate new officers through the field training process. The program is a multi-week training program that trains a new officer while on the job. Eventually, the new officer will work all three shifts at the prison. On November 19, 2003, Officer Siraq was not at work due to illness. Therefore, Petitioner was assigned Officer Chad Sessions as her field training officer. Petitioner was working in the control room at the Columbia County Jail with Officer Sessions, who engaged in a series of very explicit phone calls in Petitioner’s presence. In his telephone conversations he made a number of sexually explict statements, including stating he was going to fuck the girl he was speaking about; that he was “the candy man” and that he was coming to have sex with the girl and that he would do so from behind. Petitioner told Officer Sessions several times that she did not want to hear the sexual comments, but he nonetheless continued in his conversation. Officer Sessions engaged in three such phone calls lasting about 20 minutes. After repeating that she did not wish to have to deal with these types of comments, Petitioner left the control room approximately four times so that she did not have to listen to Officer Sessions conversations. On the daily observation report completed by Officer Sessions for that date, Officer Sessions wrote that Petitioner had engaged in several phone calls and breaks and that she needed to improve on staying at her assigned post without as many distractions. Petitioner spoke to Officer Sessions about his comments on the Daily Observation Report and told him that she did not agree with his statements and refused to sign the document because of her disagreement with him. Officer Sessions took the DOR to Corporal Barcia and informed Barcia that Petitioner would not sign the agreement. He thereafter came back to Petitioner and told her that Barcia had ordered the Petitioner to sign the DOR. Petitioner signed the DOR, but did not put any comments on the DOR in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section regarding her disagreement with Officer Sessions or the reason she left her post in the control room. At the end of the shift on the morning of November 20, 2003, Petitioner drafted a memorandum to now Lieutenant Little requesting time off from work. Petitioner did not mention the incidents with Officer Sessions that had occurred on her shift. In the memorandum, Petitioner stated that she had spoken with Beverly Jackson during her swearing-in ceremony regarding specific days off, and that Ms. Jackson had approved the time off. Also, Petitioner spoke to Officer Howard about the incident on the morning after her shift that ended on November 20, 2003. Petitioner told Officer Howard about Officer Sessions’ remarks and the fact that she initially refused to sign the DOR and Corporal Barcia’s orders to sign the DOR. Officer Howard was concerned when Petitioner gave him this information and told her that he would speak with Lieutenant Little. Officer Howard contacted Lieutenant Little to report the information given to him by Petitioner. Lieutenant Little was on vacation and received the call at home. Officer Howard stated that he needed to report this complaint because Petitioner stated she was uncomfortable with the language used by Officer Sessions in the control room. Lieutenant Little advised Officer Howard that the issue would be addressed upon his return from vacation. Upon returning to work on November 24, 2003, Lieutenant Little called a meeting to discuss Petitioner’s complaints about Officer Sessions’ DOR and phone calls. Petitioner attended the meeting, along with Officer Howard and Corporal Barcia. At this meeting, Petitioner stated that she disagreed with the DOR that Officer Sessions had issued her for November 19, 2003. Specifically, she disagreed with the ratings she received on the DOR. Petitioner was asked why she had not included her disagreements in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section of the DOR. After receiving no reply, Lieutenant Little instructed her that she could make those comments on the DOR, but that they would need to be initialed and dated accordingly. In the comments Section, Petitioner wrote: I had three phone calls, each one was no longer than three-four minutes. The phone calls were in regards to my children. (Staying in assigned post) Ofc[.] Sessions had me escorting I/M’s back and forth and taking paperwork to Ms. Morgan and other sections. When Ofc[.] Sessions was on the phone I would exit the main control room because I didn’t want to hear about his personal business. [Initialed: KM and dated 11-24-03] With regard to her complaints regarding Officer Sessions’ personal phone conversations, Petitioner was very vague in her recount at the meeting. Lieutenant Little asked Petitioner to state with particularity her complaint. She was asked to reduce her complaints to writing and to be as factual and detailed as she could so that Lieutenat Little could properly investigate the matter. Petitioner claims that Lieutenant Little instructed her not to be detailed about the incident. However, Petitioner’s recollection is not given any weight. He instructed her to write the incident report at a sergeant’s desk that was available to write her report. Corporal Barcia sat in the room with Petitioner while she wrote the report since the office was also used by him. Petitioner claimed she felt intimidated by the presence of Corporal Barcia. However, Corporal Barcia did nothing to intimidate her. He did not ask questions about her report or read her report. Petitioner’s testimony regarding her feelings of intimidation is not credible. Lieutenant Little forwarded the report up the chain of command to Captain Smithey. Officer Sessions was disciplined for his conduct and reprimanded in writing regarding his unprofessional phone conversations of November 19, 2003. Officer Sessions was also required to write a letter of apology to Petitioner. The letter of apology was also placed in Officer Sessions’ personnel file. Petitioner testified she never received Officer Sessions’ letter of apology. At some point after his return from vacation, Lieutenant Little received Petitioner’s memo requesting leave from work. After he reviewed the memo and noted Petitioner’s statements regarding Ms. Jackson’s approval, Lieutenant Little contacted Ms. Jackson regarding Petitioner’s claim. Ms. Jackson told Lieutenant Little that she had not given any such approval and would not have done so since she did not have the authority to grant leave. Based on the information from Ms. Jackson and the fact that Ms. Jackson has no authority to approve leave requests for any Columbia County Sheriff’s Office employees, Lieutenant Little concluded that Petitioner was untruthful in her statements in the memorandum about time off. Such untruthfulness was a serious matter regarding Petitioner’s appropriateness to remain employed with the Sheriff’s Office. Lieutenant Little was also very concerned with the fact that Petitioner was already requesting time off since her attendance had been an issue in the past and she was being given a second chance for employment. In the meantime, as part of the field training program, Petitioner was assigned Officer Harris as her field training officer for a different shift. On November 28, 2003, only eight working days after being sworn in by the Sheriff, Petitioner became ill with a flu- type illness. There was no credible evidence that she was incapacitated by this illness to the point that she could not personally call her supervisor as the policy required. As in the past, Petitioner failed to report for duty and failed to properly call-in to her supervisor. This failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy for such absences. On November 29, 2003, Officer Harris, noted on Petitioner’s DOR that she exhibited unacceptable performance with regard to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures; namely, Petitioner needed to utilize the proper chain of command when calling-in. Petitioner wished to explain why she did not follow the call-in policy. Below Officer Howard’s comments, Petitioner inserted comments in a section of the DOR designated for field training officers’ use. Because her comments were in the inappropriate Section Petitioner was instructed to white-out the comments and to place them in the proper section titled, “Trainee’s Comments.” The original, whited-out statement read: The morning I called in Officer Howard was contacted first when I called main control. Mrs. Harris wasn't in yet and didn't have her number. When I called back at the main control, I was directed to speak with Corporal Green. The comments that Petitioner rewrote in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section on the same date were significantly changed by Petitioner to read as follows: The morning I was unable to come to work my husband contacted Ofc[.] Howard [and] was instructed to call Mrs. Harris[.] [W}hen he called Mrs. Harris wasn’t in yet so he was instructed to call back in 20 min[utes]. He was told to relay the message to me, for me to call Cpl. Green. I did so at 1:30 p.m. According to this account by Petitioner, she only made one phone call at 1:30 p.m. to her supervisor well-after the start of her shift and in violation of the Sheriff’s Office policy. Petitioner’s phone records reveal that five telephone calls were made on November 28, 2003, with four of them to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office Jail. Petitioner testified that her husband, Ralph Morgan, made the first three telephone calls, between the times of 5:39 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. Contray to her comments written on her November 29, 2003, DOR, the Petitioner testified that she telephoned the Jail two times that day, once at 6:24 a.m. and again at 1:20 p.m. However, Petitioner’s memory of the calls she made is not credible, given the more credible written statement she made on the DOR shortly after her absence occurred. Petitioner admits that none of the phone calls, either from Petitioner’s husband or herself complied with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding sick leave. On December 2, 2003, Lieutenant Little sent a memorandum to Captain Smithey recommending that the Petitioner be considered for termination. Lieutenant Little formulated his opinion based upon: Petitioner’s past attendance problems with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office; her most recent failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy with regard to calling-in and attendance; and her untruthfulness with regard to her request for days off. As a result, and based upon the Sheriff’s recent imposition of strict probationary guidelines on Petitioner’s recent hiring Captain Smithey concurred in the recommendation. There was no evidence that either Little’s or Smithey’s actions were related to any complaint Petitioner had made regarding Officer Sessions. Captain Smithey forwarded the recommendation to the Sheriff. The Sheriff consulted with members of his command staff and reviewed Petitioner’s performance during her probationary period. The Sheriff determined that Petitioner had not satisfied the agency’s standards for the probationary period and had failed in the second chance he had given her. On December 3, 2003, the Sheriff withdrew the Petitioner’s appointment as a probationary Corrections Officer. At hearing, Petitioner admitted that the Sheriff’s decision to terminate her had nothing to do with her complaints to Lieutenant Little about Officer Sessions, but was rather based upon Petitioner’s failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedure. She felt that it was Lieutenant Little and other Officers who had conspired against her to get her terminated. However, there was no credible evidence to demonstrate that such a conspiracy existed. After Petitioner’s termination she contacted the Sheriff to schedule a meeting to discuss her termination. At that meeting, Petitioner spoke with the Sheriff about her complaints regarding Officer Sessions and the issues she had with her DORs. The Sheriff was unaware of the issues she had with Sessions. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that her DOR had been altered or whited-out because she had made complaints to her supervisor in it. Petitioner brought with her to the meeting correct DORs from Officer Sirak as well as the November 29, 2003, DORs. Petitioner told the Sheriff that she believed her DORs were altered in retaliation for a complaint she had made to one of her supervisors. The Sheriff testified that Petitioner did not talk to him about anything with regard to Officer Sessions or sexual harassment during the post-termination meeting. The Sheriff explained to Petitioner that his decision to terminate her was based upon her failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office procedures. With regard to Petitioner’s DORs, the Sheriff made copies and told her that he would look into her concerns. The Sheriff investigated Petitioner’s concerns, but discovered that all of the DORs that had been changed were changed in order to correct errors made on them. There was no credible evidence to the contrary regarding these DORs. The Sheriff did not discover any reason to change his decision regarding Petitioner’s termination. During discovery, Petitioner originally claimed that it was her November 19, 2003, DOR that had been whited-out, and that she had physically witnessed Officer Howard white it out in his office. Petitioner later recanted her testimony and stated that it was in fact her November 29, 2003, DOR which had been whited-out. With regard to her November 29, 2003, DOR being whited-out, Petitioner changed her testimony to reflect that she witnessed Officer Howard white-out the DOR on November 29, 2003. Despite Petitioner’s numerous attempts to explain her version of the facts with regard to who did what and when to her DORs, even her modified testimony is inconsistent with the facts on record. The record reflects that Officer Howard was not on duty on November 29, 2003. He was off for the holiday beginning on November 27, 2003. His time card reflects that he was on annual leave for the Thanksgiving holiday starting on November 27, 2003, and that he did not return to work until the following, Monday, December 1, 2003. The 29th was a Saturday and Officer Howard worked weekdays and did not go to the jail on the 29th. Regardless of the fact that Petitioner could not have seen Officer Howard white-out her DOR because he was not at work on the day she specified, Petitioner’s testimony with regard to the DORs themselves also proved to be inconsistent with the facts. Petitioner asserted that the reason her DOR was whited- out was that she had included comments regarding sexual language she had overheard Officer Sessions use on the night of November 19th. However, upon examination of the November 29th DOR in question, it was discovered that Petitioner did not mention anything at all with regard to sexual comments or Officer Sessions, but that the comments she had inserted were actually her attempts at justifying why she had failed to properly call-in to her supervisor the day before. As indicated earlier, the reason the comments were whited-out was that Petitioner had inserted them in a Section designated for field training officer use only. As a result, Petitioner was required to move them to the appropriate Section designated as “Trainee’s Comments.” At hearing, Petitioner produced, after her deposition had already been taken, a new DOR allegedly drafted on November 28, 2003, by Officer Harris. This DOR was not contained in Petitioner’s personnel file and it is not known where the newly discovered DOR came from. There is no record evidence, other than Petitioner’s own assertions, that Petitioner’s November 28th DOR is authentic. Suspiciously, Petitioner did not produce this document in response to Respondent’s Request for Production. Nor did Petitioner mention it in her Answers to Interrogatories. She testified that she did not find it in all her papers until after her deposition. Petitioner’s testimony regarding this newly discovered DOR is not credible. Finally, Petitioner offered evidence regarding purportedly similary-situated employees. These employees were Charles Bailey, Thomas Daughtrey and Chad Sessions. Officer Charles Bailey had been employed with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office two times in his career. During his first employment, Officer Bailey was terminated for attendance problems similar to the problems Petitioner experienced in her employment with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. When Officer Bailey was hired back, he was given strict probationary terms to abide by, including that he: be on time for all scheduled tours of duty; follow all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedures; and to generally abide by all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures. During his second- chance employment Officer Bailey abided by all of the conditions set out for him. He did not abuse sick leave and he called-in properly pursuant to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy when he needed to take leave. Officer Bailey left the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office on good terms after his second employment. Officer Bailey is not similarly situated in any relevant aspects to Petitioner. Unlike Petitioner, Officer Bailey abided by all of his conditions upon rehire and properly followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy when he missed time. Officer Thomas Daughtry was a new employee and in the field officer training program. He was not a second-chance employee. During his training he missed several days, however, despite the fact that Officer Daughtrey missed some days during his training, Officer Daughtrey followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy every time he requested time off. Nevertheless, because he did in fact miss days during his training, Officer Daughtrey was given unsatisfactory reviews and was required to re-do part of his training. Because he properly called in and he was not a second-chance employee, Officer Daughtrey is not similarly situated to Petitioner in any relevant aspects. Officer Chad Sessions was employed two times with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Both times Officer Sessions resigned under good terms. Petitioner has attempted to compare his second employment with that of her second, probationary employment, specifically with regard to a written reprimand Officer Sessions received for failure to follow call-in policy on September 10, 2004. When Officer Chad Sessions was given a reprimand for failing to call-in properly on September 10, 2004, he was not a probationary trainee. Rather, Officer Sessions was a Field Training Officer, and the reason he was unable to phone the jail was due to the phone outages caused by Hurricane Frances. Officer Sessions could not phone the jail and he could not be reached because of the high winds and heavy rain produced by Hurricane Frances. Because Officer Sessions was not a probationary employee, and taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances surrounding the incident, Lieutenant Little decided to issue him a written reprimand. Furthermore, there is no record evidence that Officer Sessions came to the Sheriff’s Office with a prior termination and a poor employment history similar to that of Petitioner. As a result, Officer Sessions is not similarly situated to Petitioner in all relevant aspects.
Recommendation Based on upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition For Relief should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Katrina R. Morgan 4777 Shavesbluff Road Macclenny, Florida 32063 T.A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Leonard J. Dietzen, III, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Petitioner, Deputy Michael Hughes, violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; and (2) Whether Petitioner violated Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.1.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: At all times pertinent to this case, Deputy Hughes was employed by the Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff. At the time of hearing, Deputy Hughes had over eighteen years' experience with the Sheriff's Office. On January 12, 2002, Deputy Hughes was working as a deputy sheriff and as a Field Training Officer in the Field Training Section of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. He was accompanied throughout his shift by a trainee, Deputy Mark Shorter. At approximately 2:55 a.m. on January 12, 2002, Deputies Hughes and Shorter responded to 5125 Betty Street in St. Petersburg to assist Deputies Michael Pulham and Vance Nussbaum, who were already on the scene of a traffic stop where the driver was suspected of having active warrants for his arrest. Deputies Hughes and Shorter had already responded to two calls at 5125 Betty Street, both involving complaints by neighbors that persons in the house were causing a public disturbance. After the traffic stop, the deputies noticed yet another disturbance occurring in the residence at 5125 Betty Street. The four deputies entered the residence. As the deputies walked in, one of the occupants, later identified as Donald Hillebrand, punched Deputy Hughes in the mouth with his closed fist. The deputies attempted to place Mr. Hillebrand under arrest for battery upon a law enforcement officer. A melee ensued between the four deputies and several occupants of the residence. Donald Hillebrand was subdued, handcuffed, and arrested. Two women who participated in the fight were also arrested. Mr. Hillebrand was then escorted to Deputy Hughes’ cruiser and placed in the rear seat, without the use of a seat belt. Two other arrestees, Lisa Ruthven and Barbara Metzler, were placed in the rear of the Pulham/Nussbaum cruiser for transport. Because several other people were coming out of the residence and the situation remained volatile, the deputies decided they would regroup at a more secure location a short distance from the Betty Street residence to complete their paperwork on the arrests. From the time he was placed in the back of the cruiser, Mr. Hillebrand spewed a stream of racial invective at Deputies Hughes and Shorter in the front. Mr. Hillebrand is white. Deputies Hughes and Shorter are black. Lt. John Bocchichio, the shift commander, met the four deputies at the secure location. He noted that Mr. Hillebrand was screaming "nigger this and nigger that" from the rear of Deputy Hughes' cruiser. While Deputies Hughes and Shorter completed their paperwork at the rear of their cruiser, Lt. Bocchichio opened the door of the cruiser, leaned into the car, and attempted to speak to Mr. Hillebrand in an effort to calm him. Mr. Hillebrand continued yelling and screaming, and eventually spit at Lt. Bocchichio, who gave up and closed the door of the cruiser. Lt. Bocchichio did not tell Deputy Hughes that Mr. Hillebrand spit at him, but he thought Deputy Hughes might have seen the spitting through the rear window of the cruiser. Alex Metzler, another participant in the brawl at the Betty Street residence, rode up to the secure location on a bicycle. He claimed he was merely riding to a store, but the deputies believed he was there to interfere with them. The deputies arrested him, handcuffed him, and placed him in the rear of Deputy Hughes' cruiser along with Mr. Hillebrand. Mr. Metzler was seated on the passenger's side, and Mr. Hillebrand was seated on the driver's side of the back seat. Both men were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. The cruiser had a plexiglass shield behind the driver's side of the front seat, and a steel cage behind the passenger's side of the front seat. Deputies Hughes and Shorter, with Shorter driving the cruiser, commenced their travel to the Pinellas County Jail facility, located at 144th Avenue and 49th Street in Clearwater. Mr. Hillebrand continued his tirade at both Deputy Hughes and Shorter, calling them "niggers," inviting them to "suck his dick," and offering to perform various sex acts on their mothers. While the cruiser was traveling on 49th Street approaching 144th Avenue, Mr. Hillebrand leaned over to Mr. Metzler’s side of the police cruiser and spit through the steel cage into the face of Deputy Hughes. Deputy Hughes instructed Deputy Shorter to stop the vehicle. Deputy Shorter stopped the cruiser in the left-hand turn lane at the intersection of 49th Street and 144th Avenue, within sight of the jail. After the cruiser was stopped, Deputy Hughes exited the vehicle, walked around the rear of the vehicle and opened the rear driver’s side door. Mr. Hillebrand was lying on the back seat across Mr. Metzler. Deputy Hughes admitted that he was angry at being spat upon, but maintained that his purpose in stopping and exiting the vehicle was to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him a second time by securing his seatbelt. Deputy Hughes reached into the back seat of the vehicle in an attempt to make Mr. Hillebrand sit up on his side of the seat. Mr. Hillebrand resisted. Deputy Hughes noted that Mr. Hillebrand was on top of the seat belt buckle and decided that he needed to remove Mr. Hillebrand from the vehicle. Mr. Hillebrand continued to resist, lying back on the seat and using his legs and feet to prevent his removal from the vehicle. Deputy Hughes leaned into the vehicle in order to grasp Mr. Hillebrand's shoulders to gain hold of him. At this point, Mr. Hillebrand agreed to cooperate. He sat up, turned to sit sideways in the vehicle and placed his feet on the ground outside of the vehicle. Mr. Hillebrand then stood up outside the cruiser. Deputy Hughes testified that he thought Mr. Hillebrand was attempting to head-butt him, though he admitted that Mr. Hillebrand's actions were also consistent with the moves that a handcuffed person would have to employ to exit a vehicle. In response to the perceived head-butt, Deputy Hughes struck Mr. Hillebrand in the chest with a forearm strike and followed with a knee strike to the abdomen. Deputy Hughes briefly pinned Mr. Hillebrand against the rear quarter panel of the cruiser, then returned him to the back seat and attempted to fasten Mr. Hillebrand with the seat belt. Deputy Hughes was unable to fasten the seat belt because the buckle had worked its way under the back seat. Deputy Hughes looped the shoulder harness portion of the seat belt over Mr. Hillebrand’s chest and tucked the end of it underneath the seat to give Mr. Hillebrand the impression that the seat belt was properly fastened. Deputy Hughes closed the rear door of the vehicle and returned to his own seat in the cruiser. Deputy Shorter resumed the drive to the Pinellas County Jail, which took no more than two minutes. Mr. Hillebrand was turned over to corrections officers without further incident and charged with two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer (one for punching Deputy Hughes and one for spitting on Deputy Hughes) and one count of resisting an officer with violence. Deputy Hughes admitted that he did not prepare a use of force report as to this incident. His arrest report detailed the brawl at the Betty Street residence, but made no mention of the subsequent stop after Mr. Hillebrand spit on him. After the incident, Mr. Hillebrand's mother filed a complaint alleging the physical abuse of Donald Hillebrand during the course of the arrest. The complaint triggered an investigation by the Inspections Bureau of the Sheriff's Office regarding the incidents leading to the arrest of Mr. Hillebrand and the use of force by Deputy Hughes and the other deputies involved. At the conclusion of the investigation, an Administrative Review Board reviewed the allegations and evidence compiled by the Inspections Bureau and determined that Deputy Hughes had violated the Pinellas County Civil Service Act and the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the Shriff's Office. The Administrative Review Board's memorandum, dated August 3, 2002, set forth the following specific violations: Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five Violation), 5.15 relating to the Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners, to-wit: Arrestees/Prisoners shall be kept secured and treated humanely and shall not be subjected to physical abuse. The use of physical force shall be restricted to circumstances specified by law when necessary to accomplish a police task. Synopsis: On January 12, 2002, you removed a secured prisoner from the rear of your cruiser while enroute [sic] to the jail and subjected him to physical force, which was not specified by law or necessary to accomplish a police task. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 3.20, relating to the Use of Force Reporting, to wit: Whenever a member either on or off duty, is required to use physical force against another person, the member shall immediately notify a supervisor of the action taken and complete the necessary documentation for review. Synopsis: On January 12, 2002, you used physical force against another person, but failed to complete the necessary Use of Force Report for review. The Administrative Review Board did not conclude that Deputy Hughes pulled Mr. Hillebrand out of the cruiser for the purpose of abusing him, or that Deputy Hughes used such force as would constitute a violation of state law or the United States Constitution. The Board unanimously concluded that the force utilized with regard to Mr. Hillebrand was unnecessary and served no legitimate law enforcement purpose, thereby violating General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners. The Board found that Deputy Hughes' actions toward Mr. Hillebrand were inappropriate, given that his reason for stopping the car and commencing the chain of events that led to his use of force was to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him again. The Board found that Deputy Hughes could have avoided being spit on without pulling Mr. Hillebrand out of the vehicle, and thus that there was no legitimate law enforcement purpose served by his use of force. The Board noted several factors to support its finding. Deputy Hughes stopped the cruiser less than two minutes from the jail, where corrections officers could have taken Mr. Hillebrand out of the cruiser without the use of force. Deputy Hughes could have found something in the cruiser, such as a rain slicker, to place over the cage behind him and block any further spit from the rear of the vehicle. Once the prisoner was secure and in custody, Deputy Hughes' primary duty was to transport him safely to jail without exposing the prisoner, the law enforcement officers, or the public to the risk of further injury. By stopping the vehicle and opening the rear of the caged and locked police cruiser, Deputy Hughes exposed himself, his partner, both prisoners, and possibly the general public to an unnecessary risk of injury. Deputy Hughes' actions created the situation that resulted in the need to use force on Mr. Hillebrand, and those actions were not necessary to accomplish the primary police task of transporting Mr. Hillebrand safely to the jail without further incident or injury. In short, the Board found that Deputy Hughes used appropriate force for the situation, but found that he violated regulations by allowing the situation to develop in the first place. Sheriff's Office General Order 10-2 provides guidelines for imposition of discipline by an Administrative Review Board, including a point system based on the number and severity of violations. The violations found against Deputy Hughes resulted in a cumulative point total of 65 points: 50 points for the violation of General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners and 15 points for the violation of General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 3.20, relating to use of force reporting. Sheriff's Office General Order 10-2 provides that the point total accumulated by Deputy Hughes allows for discipline ranging from a seven-day suspension to termination of employment. Deputy Hughes received the minimum seven-day suspension. Deputy Hughes appealed only the finding with regard to the violation of General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners. Deputy Hughes did not contest the finding that he violated General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 3.20, relating to use of force reporting. Deputy Hughes contended that he acted in self-defense to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from continuing to spit on him. This contention was illogical. By opening the rear of the vehicle and manhandling his prisoner, Deputy Hughes made it easier for Mr. Hillebrand to spit on him again. Further, the self-defense contention was beside the point, as the Sheriff's Office did not allege that Deputy Hughes had no right to protect himself. Rather, the Administrative Review Board found that Deputy Hughes chose the worst of several possible methods to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him. The essential finding was that Deputy Hughes used poor judgment, not that he used excessive force. Deputy Hughes also contended that the Sheriff's Office was at fault for not equipping his cruiser with restraints designed to prevent prisoners from spitting. Whatever the value of such restraints, their absence did not prevent Deputy Hughes from improvising a protective device from the materials available in his cruiser. Finally, Deputy Hughes pointed to the fact that the Sheriff's office has no rule or regulation prohibiting a deputy from attempting to seat belt a prisoner in the rear of the vehicle to prevent him from spitting through the open portion of the cage. It defies reason to contend that the Sheriff's Office must develop a rule or regulation for every possible condition that may occur in the field, or that an experienced deputy may abandon common sense in the absence of a rule or regulation covering a situation in which he finds himself. The evidence presented at the hearing fully supported the findings of the Administrative Review Board and the penalty imposed upon Deputy Hughes for the violation of General Order 3- 1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a Final Order finding Michael E. Hughes guilty of violating the Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as set forth in the August 3, 2002, inter-office memorandum and upholding the suspension of Michael E. Hughes from his employment as a deputy sheriff with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office for a period of seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Afienko, Esquire Kenneth J. Afienko, P.A. 560 1 Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Jean H. Kwall, General Counsel Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
