The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent was certified by the Commission on March 1, 1983, and was issued certificate number 06-83-502-01. Prior to January, 1990, the Respondent was employed as a correction officer at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI). During the course of his training and experience as a correction officer Respondent has become familiar with cannabis and is able to recognize the controlled substance both by sight and smell. Respondent has confiscated cannabis from inmates at TCI at least one hundred times. On January 17, 1990, Respondent went to the Cool Breeze Bar in Seminole County, Florida. On that date, the bar was under surveillance by the narcotics and vice unit as it was thought to be a known gathering place for individuals selling illegal narcotics. As part of his surveillance of the bar, Deputy Shea observed a man later known to be the Respondent passed out in an automobile. The automobile belonged to Respondent and he was its only occupant. When Deputy Shea approached the vehicle he observed what appeared to be a marijuana pipe on the dash of the car at approximately arm's length from the Respondent. On further search Deputy Shea retrieved an envelope containing a substance which he later field tested. That substance field tested positive for cannabis. Deputy Shea's investigation was initiated after he opened the car door and smelled an aroma which he identified with burnt cannabis. After the Respondent was aroused from his sleep, Deputy Shea patted him down and placed him under arrest. The Respondent was disoriented and remained so during the time Deputy Shea searched the vehicle. Respondent had been drinking heavily. Deputy Shea marked the seized items for identification and later sent them to the sheriff's laboratory for additional testing. That testing was performed by Ms. Alt. Ms. Alt weighed and tested the items seized from Respondent's vehicle and determined that the plant material was cannabis and weighed less than 20 grams. Respondent knew on the evening of January 17, 1990, that cannabis had been smoked in his car but claimed he was unaware of the illegal items which others had allegedly left behind. Respondent claimed his cousins had smoked the marijuana in his car while he was in the bar and that he had gone to the vehicle later to sleep off his intoxication. On March 19, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis and was adjudicated guilty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certification. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3589 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Chavers 113 Scott Drive Sanford, Florida 32771 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Background In June 198, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Hattie Moore (Moore), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 18, 1987, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Moore. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Moore had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Moore and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Moore filed a timely request for a formal bearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Moore denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Moore on October 15,1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, with the last time being in 1977, and that she had been arrested in 1977 for possession of cocaine. Regarding her use of marijuana and cocaine, the proof demonstrates that any such use ceased in 1977, and that, while Moore cannot remember with exactitude the number of times she used either substance, she most probably used such substances no more than 3-5 times each. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that on February 3, 1977, when she was arrested, Moore had in her possession less than one gram of cocaine. The state chose not to file a criminal information, and her arrest record was expunged on February 3, 1986. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Moore's background, that Moore possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her use or possession of marijuana and cocaine over 12 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Moore, born September 3, 1958, used or possessed marijuana and cocaine infrequently, the last time being over 12 years ago when she was 18 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Moore has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over two years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Currently, Moore is married and the mother of two children, ages 11 and 9. She is a homeowner, and also attends Miami Dade Community College where she has amassed 73 credit hours to date. Overall, Moore has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Hattie Moore, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Ralph W. Conte and his wife agreed to buy the Cactus Room in Orlando from the present owner for $108,000 which consisted of cash above, and the assumption of, an existing mortgage of approximately $57,000. Exhibit 1, Fingerprint Transmittal Sheet, shows District Supervisor's recommendation of approval and final disposition by Division of Beverage of disapproval. Under comments appears "Statutory Limitations expired" and thereunder appears "561.15(1)" an apparent reference to s. 561.15(1) F.S. Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 are Application Transmittal Form; Financial Statement of Conte; Personal Data Sheet signed by Conte; and Application for Transfer of License, respectively. Exhibit 6 is an agent's report of investigation which shows FBI Rap Sheet and ABC letter from Cleveland attached; and that information, not included on Exhibit 6, was forwarded to Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ball. The agent recommended disapproval of the application. The objection to the admission of this exhibit on grounds that it was hearsay, and that request therefor before the hearing had been refused, was sustained. The investigating officer was present and testified. Exhibit 7, which was offered into evidence, is a copy of an unsigned form letter which purports to have been transmitted to the Ohio Alcoholic Beverage Commission for information respecting applicant's interest in two licensed premises in Cleveland. The form requested information "relative to the above named holding an alcoholic beverage license in your state, d/b/a Melody Bar & Conte's Lounge Bar and any history of conduct, criminal violation and/or administrative violations that your records may reflect". In the blank provided thereunder was written in longhand "no record of the above mentioned". The objection to the admission of this exhibit into evidence was sustained on the grounds that there was no authentication of document, it was not signed by anyone purporting to have authority to do so, and it was hearsay. Upon more careful perusal of the exhibit it further appears that the handwritten response contained thereon of "no record" could well relate to the second part of the requested information, viz. "any history of conduct, criminal violation and/or administrative violations that your records may reflect." The objection to Exhibit 8, which purports to be an FBI Rap Sheet, was sustained on the grounds that it was not authenticated. Even if admitted this document shows one arrest in 1936 which was dismissed, and two offenses in 1940 some 36 years ago. Exhibit 9, which consisted of a series of newspaper articles relating to Conte's operation of a sanitary landfill in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1970, was also objected to on the grounds that it constituted rank hearsay. This objection was also sustained. On the Personnel Data Sheet (Exhibit 4) Conte showed thereon that he had been arrested in 1973 on a charge of DWI and that adjudication of guilt was withheld. No evidence to the contrary was presented. Conte was also arrested in 1975 for violation of Orlando's City Ordinance 43.56-1, carrying concealed weapon through airport security. This case was nolle prossed due to absence of any evidence of criminal intent on the part of Conte (Exhibit 10). Respondent testified to his landfill operations in Cleveland and no evidence of impropriety was presented. Five witnesses who had known Conte in Florida for the past 3 to 5 years attested to his good moral character, and an attorney from Cleveland, who has known Conte for some 25 years, attested to his honesty, integrity, and good moral character. In addition, Exhibit 10 containing letters attesting to the good moral character of Conte from the mayor of the City of Garfield Heights, Ohio; the president of Suburban Builders Supply Company, Maple Heights, Ohio; and the president of United States Saving Association of Cleveland, Ohio, was admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Leon Lewis (Lewis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since September 1985 without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lewis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lewis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified Lewis and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You actually and intentionally struck Edward Thornton against the will of the said Edward Thornton. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lewis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Lewis denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to an assessment of Lewis' moral character, the proof demonstrates that the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Lewis on April 20, 1984, at which time he admitted to having "tried marijuana one time, four years ago." At the time of use, Lewis was 17 years of age and a high school student; he has not otherwise experimented with controlled substances. The proof also demonstrates that in October 1982, Lewis struck one Edward Thornton on the head with an umbrella. The circumstances surrounding such blow being struck demonstrate that, following a high school football game, Thornton was harassing Lewis' girlfriend when she, crying, sought Lewis out. At that time, Thornton and a number of his friends confronted Lewis and his girlfriend. Reasonably fearing an attack, Lewis grabbed an umbrella and exclaimed "Before you hit me, I'm going to have to get one of you," and struck Thornton on the head. Other than a cut to the head, there is no proof that Thornton suffered any significant injury. While Lewis was arrested as a consequence of the incident, the matter was subsequently dismissed and the record expunged. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lewis' background, that Lewis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the two isolated incidents, heretofore discussed, in Lewis' life. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Lewis, born February 25, 1963, used marijuana one time, nine years ago, when he was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Likewise, the isolated incident of striking Thornton over the head with an umbrella when Lewis was 19 years of age was hardly proximate to his employment, or this consideration of his application for certification, and does not, under the circumstances presented, evidence bad moral character. 4/ To date, Lewis has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over three and one-half years. There is no suggestion that he has committed any act or offense that would reflect adversely on his moral character during the term of such employment. Overall, Lewis has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Leon Lewis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a building inspector on August 6, 2003. The application was reviewed by Respondent and subsequently denied on the basis that it contained “materials which questions [sic] the good moral character of Petitioner,” and that Petitioner’s application "failed to provide complete supporting documentation relating to all previous disciplinary actions which could also impact a determination concerning [Petitioner's] moral character." No notification that Petitioner’s application lacked supporting documentation was sent by the Department to Petitioner. Petitioner’s application lists prior convictions for traffic-related offenses, such as careless driving, driving with a suspended license, and DUI. Petitioner has never been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, false statement, fraud, or theft. Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony. Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time that all of the traffic-related offenses were committed. Petitioner is now a recovering alcoholic who has been actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) for over three years on a voluntary basis. His sobriety date is May 25, 2001. The sobriety date is important because it marks the date when an alcoholic makes and implements a commitment to a new way of life. AA operates on the principle generally accepted by the medical community that alcoholism is a disease, and not a moral issue. AA operates on the principle that although there is no cure for alcoholism, there is a daily reprieve. AA is a 12-step program providing guidelines to living. AA works only if the alcoholic follows the twelve steps to the best of his or her ability. A person who is not willing to change his or her life cannot be helped by AA. AA is an ongoing lifetime process of personal improvement, the pinnacle of which is service to others. Petitioner is a totally different person now as compared to the way he used to be. Petitioner admits that his alcohol-related impairment was the primary cause of the episodes of misconduct prior to his commitments to a life of sobriety and to the principles of the AA program. Petitioner’s last criminal conviction was in 1998. Since becoming sober, Petitioner purchased his own home and recently married. Petitioner is an officer in his AA home group, with responsibilities that include overseeing the group’s activities, setting up meetings, chairing meetings, providing coffee, and paying rent for the meeting site with monies that the group has entrusted to him. Petitioner regularly chairs his home group meetings, and has spoken on alcohol-related issues to several other community groups, including the Salvation Army and the Comprehensive Alcohol Rehabilitation Program. Petitioner has become a person of integrity who cares about others, reaching out to new AA attendees as a mentor. Petitioner has been regularly employed since he stopped drinking. Joe Iagrossi has known Petitioner for a little more than two years. Petitioner is employed by Iagrossi’s company, Construction Inspections of the Palm Beaches. Iagrossi considers Petitioner to be a reliable, honest, and truthful employee, trusts Petitioner’s judgment, and has confidence in his work. Iagrossi believes that Petitioner has the ability to distinguish right from wrong, as well as the character to observe the difference. There have never been any conduct issues with Petitioner, and he possesses a good reputation within the company. Iagrossi is of the opinion that Petitioner can practice building inspection with reasonable skill and safety to the general public. Richard Sussan is Petitioner’s AA sponsor and has known Petitioner for two years. Sussan considers Petitioner a person of integrity, who cares about others, is reliable and honest, and is very committed to AA. Petitioner is a member of, and is actively involved with the activities of, Christ Fellowship Church. Petitioner is a regular volunteer in the church’s Special Needs Ministry. The Special Needs Ministry is a program which allows families of children with special needs to attend regular church services by providing volunteers to watch the special needs children during that time. For the past two years Petitioner has volunteered every other Sunday to watch a special needs child so that the child's parents can attend church services. Petitioner is highly regarded by church officials and church members who know him, and in that group he enjoys a reputation of being very reliable, honest, and a person of integrity and good morals. Petitioner worked for the architectural firm of Ames Bennett & Associates, P.A. for fifteen years. Petitioner’s duties included field inspections for residential and commercial projects, for code and contract compliance, from geotechnical and foundation through trim work, ADA, and fire safety oversight. Petitioner also managed the office, paid bills, interviewed job applicants, and showed new employees inspection techniques. Petitioner passed the Southern Building Code Congress International certification examination for Building Inspector on November 20, 2001. Petitioner passed the International Code Council certification examination for Building Inspector on September 18, 2003. Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code governs enforcement of the Florida Americans with Disabilities and Accessibility Implementation Act. The Act defines “disability” as “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and includes alcoholism."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 9th day of August, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been repeatedly convicted of offenses against the criminal law, from vagrancy on December 31, 1958, to gambling on May 3, 1976. He has been convicted in the courts of three states on various charges, including assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, carrying a concealed weapon, destroying city property, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer, non-support, possession of dangerous drugs and possession of marijuana. In addition, he was arrested for and charged with assignation and vagrancy; and posted bonds which were forfeited. According to a personal questionnaire petitioner filled out on March 16, 1978, petitioner is single; he has been employed at the same place since 1976; and he has lived at the same address since 1974.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, 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 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Steven Albert (Albert), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 19, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Albert. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Albert had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Albert and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Albert filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Albert denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Albert on July 23, 1987, at which time he admitted that during the course of his military service he had been involved with controlled substances. Here, the proof demonstrates that Albert joined the United States Air Force on March 31, 1975, at the age of 19, following his graduation from high school. During the course of such service, he experimented with cocaine, qualudes and "speed" a few times, the last time being in 1980 or 1981; used marijuana occasionally, the last time being in 1981; and sold or attempted to sell one ounce of marijuana on three separate occasions, the last being in 1981. On January 2, 1981, following his receipt of an Article 15, an administrative form of discipline, for possession of marijuana, Albert received a general discharge, under honorable conditions, from the military. Since that time, Albert has not used, bought or sold any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Albert's background, that Albert possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Albert used controlled substances, and sold or attempted to sell marijuana on 3 occasions, the last time being over 8 years ago when he was 26 years of age. Since that time he has had no contact with controlled substances. Under such circumstances, his prior contact with controlled substances is not proximate within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Albert has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. His performance has ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, he has received two commendations, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Albert was employed as a security guard for a private company, and was duly licensed by the State of Florida as an unarmed officer. Overall, Albert, now 34 years of age, has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Steven Albert, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 28th day of June, 1989.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Humberto Jimenez (Jimenez), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two and one-half years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Jimenez. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Jimenez had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Jimenez and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Jimenez filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Jimenez denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.OO11 Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Jimenez on July 24, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana in the past. His use of cocaine occurred in 1983, when he was 19 years of age, and consisted of using the drug twice on the same day. His use of marijuana occurred in 1981 or 1982, while he was a high school student, and occurred on no more than four occasions. But for these isolated occasions, Jimenez has not used cocaine or marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Jimenez's background, that Jimenez possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of cocaine and marijuana. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Jimenez, born January 1, 1964, used marijuana infrequently, the last time being about 7 years ago when he was 17 years of age and a high school student. His use of cocaine occurred on but one day in his life, and at the time he was 19 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Jimenez is married and the father of a fourteen-month-old daughter. He has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two and one-half years. His annual evaluations demonstrated that his performance has been above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Jimenez has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Humberto Jimenez, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 8, 1995, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Question 9 of the application asked about the applicant's criminal history. In response to this question, Petitioner answered in the affirmative and stated the following: On May 24, 1995 I pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense, possession of a forged instrument in the third degree... . Question 13 of the application inquired as to whether the applicant had ever resigned from a regulated profession. Petitioner answered this question in the affirmative and stated: On October 6, 1995, as a condition of my sentence in the criminal matter...I executed an Affidavit of Resignation from the Bar of the State of New York. Petitioner testified at hearing that the incident giving rise to misdemeanor offense to which he pleaded guilty involved a divorce matter he was handling for a client. While practicing law in the State of New York, Petitioner was retained to handle what he initially believed was an uncontested divorce. When it became apparent that the divorce was being contested, Petitioner attempted to withdraw from the case, but at the client's insistence never did so. During the ensuing months, the divorce matter was not resolved by Petitioner. Nevertheless, after being repeatedly contacted by the client regarding the status of the case, Petitioner gave the client what purported to be a copy of his divorce decree. According to Petitioner, he conformed the document and knew no decree had been signed. The conformed document was never filed with the court. Petitioner's actions led his client to believe that the client was divorced when, in fact, he was not divorced. Petitioner was forthright in revealing his conviction and resignation from the New York Bar and acknowledged that his action was "a terrible mistake in judgment." While he admitted "there's no excuse for what I did," Petitioner attributed the incident to the stress in his life at the time caused by a myriad of circumstances. Among these circumstances was the illness and subsequent death of Petitioner's only law partner in his two-attorney law practice. Because of this, Petitioner's caseload increased significantly causing him to feel "overwhelmed." During this time period, Petitioner was also dealing with family problems related to the serious health problems of his parents. Petitioner pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense, possession of a forged instrument, and was convicted of the same. As a result thereof, on October 6, 1995, Petitioner was sentenced to three years probation. At the time of this hearing, Petitioner had served less than one year of his probationary period. Petitioner's probation will expire on October 5, 1998. At hearing, Petitioner presented numerous letters from family, friends, and business associates attesting to his good character. However, all the letters are based on these individuals' experiences and relationships with Petitioner prior to his October 1995 conviction. Petitioner appears remorseful about his prior conduct and has a sincere desire to be rehabilitated. However, Petitioner presented no evidence regarding his present character as reflected by his good conduct and reputation. Absent from the record is testimony from friends, relatives, business associates, employers, or church members regarding Petitioner's honesty, truthfulness, or trustworthiness subsequent to the date he pled guilty to possession of a forged instrument.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CARLOYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-647 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Alan Burton 10098 Dunkirk Road Spring Hill, Florida 34608 William N. Halpern Assistant Attorney General South Tower, Suite 107 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
