The Issue Whether or not Respondent unlawfully and knowingly warned the subject of an ongoing narcotics investigation with the intent to obstruct the investigation and assist the subject of the investigation, and thereby failed to maintain the qualifications and good moral character required of a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark R. Schlechty, was certified as a law enforcement officer by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, on October 5, 1984, having been issued certificate number 35-84-002-03. Respondent was employed by the TPD for approximately four years. Respondent is presently employed as a reservations agent with Eastern Airlines, having resigned from the TPD following the culmination of an internal investigation by the TPD. During the first half of 1987, Respondent was assigned to patrol the downtown Tampa area (Kilo Squad) working the 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. It was customary for Respondent and his squad to eat their evening meal at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Tampa, since it was one of the few downtown area restaurants open to eat after 9:00 p.m. As a result of dining at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Respondent became friendly with several members of the hotel's restaurant staff, including waiters Mark Gotheer and Jeff Stuart. Respondent did not fraternize with Gotheer and Stuart away from the restaurant, although they spoke about meeting to socialize on a number of occasions including going surfing together and staying a weekend at the Hyatt in Orlando to visit Disney's Theme Park. Respondent, as were all members of the TPD, was required to be selective of their acquaintances. Respondent was familiar with TPD's rules and regulations that restrict an officer from associating with individuals known or suspected of engaging in illegal activities. During the spring of 1987, Respondent was unaware of any criminal activity occurring at the Hyatt or that the TPD's vice unit was conducting an active/ongoing drug investigation at the hotel. During the spring of 1987, Respondent's squad leader, Corporal Richard Olewinski, advised Respondent and the members of his squad that some of Hyatt's employees were suspected of dealing in illegal narcotics. Olewinski advised Respondent to be careful with whom he associated because employees Stuart and Gotheer were rumored to be involved in illicit activity at the hotel. Olewinski did not advise Respondent that the information was confidential or that TPD's vice unit was conducting an active/ongoing investigation of such employees. Likewise, Respondent did not consider the information received from Corporal Olewinski to be confidential, instead understanding Olewinski's advice to be a warning that other officers should be careful with whom they associate. As a result of Respondent's association with Gotheer and Stuart, while dining at the Hyatt, Respondent decided to confront them about the rumor based on his concern of being associated with them if they were, in fact, involved in illegal activity. To that end, Respondent approached Stuart on the next occasion that he frequented the Hyatt and inquired of Stuart if he and Gotheer were "dealing in cocaine or doing anything illegal." Gotheer was not at work, however, Stuart denied that either was engaged in any illegal conduct. Respondent also cautioned Stuart that they (TPD) were "looking at this place." Respondent told Stuart that if they were dealing drugs they would get caught and he cautioned Stuart to pass the word on to Gotheer, that if they were involved in any illegal activity, he could not deal with them as they were "bad news". Respondent's concern was to protect himself and admitted that "he did not care how they -- what they did with their personal lives if they use illegal narcotics. But, ... if they were to bring it out in front of me or do it around me, I would take action upon them." Detective Orrill was assigned to conduct an undercover investigation concerning allegations against Gotheer. Orrill met with a cashier at the Hyatt and obtained her assistance in conducting his investigation. During the interim, detective Orrill conducted a background investigation on Gotheer and planned to utilize the cashier to introduce him to Gotheer as her new boyfriend at an upcoming party at Gotheer's home. Within several weeks time, Orrill arranged for the cashier and himself to go to Gotheer's home for a party. On the day of the party, the cashier advised Orrill that she was unwilling to further assist in the investigation as Gotheer advised her of his awareness that he was being investigated by the TPD. Approximately one year later, detective Orrill again had an opportunity to investigate Gotheer. This came about when a detective-trainee under detective Orrill's supervision arrested a subject on narcotics charges. The subject named Gotheer as his narcotics supplier. With the subject's assistance, Gotheer was arrested for possession, in excess of 400 grams, of suspected cocaine. Gotheer agreed to provide information about Respondent's involvement in the 1987 investigation at the Hyatt. Gotheer advised Orrill that in 1987, he received a message from Respondent warning him of the original investigations. As a result of that arrest, Gotheer agreed to assist in the Department's investigation of Respondent by wearing a concealed microphone during an arranged meeting with the Respondent. During that arranged meeting with Respondent on June 6, 1988, Respondent restated his words of caution to Stuart to tell Gotheer to "lay low" because they were looking at the hotel employees and that they were going to get caught if they "f around." Respondent's intent, by sending the word to Gotheer and by advising Stuart to "lay low," was not based on any intent on his part to obstruct an investigation, but was rather to disassociate himself from them if they were engaged in illegal acts. On June 14, 1988, Respondent gave a sworn statement to Sergeant Stephen Hogue and A. Stertzer of the TPD Internal Affairs Bureau. During that statement, Respondent initially denied informing Gotheer either directly or indirectly about an ongoing police investigation directed at Gotheer. Respondent's concern was job retention and to protect himself from scrutiny by either internal affairs or his fellow officers. Respondent subsequently corrected his misstatements in his initial conversation and statement with officers Hogue and Stertzer, of the Internal Affairs Bureau. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4.) Respondent's explanation for his conduct is consistent with his reputation as a police officer with the TPD. In his four years of service with the Department, Respondent has received several commendations and has a reputation of being a good and reliable officer who does not tolerate or condone the use or sale of illegal drugs. In this regard, Respondent was handpicked to serve on the Kilo Squad based on his tough stance on putting drug traffickers off the street. Nothing was introduced to indicate that Respondent was, in any manner, tolerant of drug users. Being a police officer or to be employed in law enforcement is a longtime career goal of Respondent, as his father served as a police officer and he admired his father for the work that he did as a law enforcement officer. In retrospect, Respondent admits that his conduct, in confronting employees Stuart and Gotheer about their drug involvement, may have been "immature and perhaps he did not look at the whole picture." Respondent has now learned a valuable lesson and is desirous of remaining eligible for employment as a law enforcement officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of July, 1990. Copies furnished: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Post Office Box 11239 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James E. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Keith T. Loggins, on August 13, 1982, under oath, signed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman of the Florida Real Estate Commission. This application was filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on September 1, 1982. Question 6 on that form states: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? to which he answered, "No." This answer was false. Petitioner was arrested by the Orange County Sheriff's Office on November 14, 1972, on a charge of grand larceny in connection with a burglary and breaking and entering. Pursuant to a plea of guilty, he was placed on probation for five years. On May 23, 1974, Petitioner was arrested by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office on a charge of embezzlement, but was not tried, and the case was dropped. Petitioner denies any knowledge of possible grounds for this arrest. In May, 1975, Petitioner was convicted of a probation violation, and his probation was modified to include four months' confinement in county jail, and five months later, he was arrested for grand theft by fraud on insufficient fund check, convicted of grand larceny, and sentenced to serve five years in Florida State Prison. Thereafter, on August 6, 1975, Petitioner was convicted upon his pleas of guilty in Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, on two separate cases involving obtaining property by worthless check written in March, 1975, one a felony count and one a misdemeanor count. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the felony and one year on the misdemeanor, the terms to run concurrently. On September 29, 1975, he was placed on probation for seven years to start upon his release from prison, which took place on August 1, 1978. His probation, which should have run to the end of July, 1985, was, however, terminated, and Petitioner was discharged on October 20, 1982, almost three years early because of the recommendations of his probation officer, Connie Reed, with the approval of her supervisor, Mr. Charles L. Steen. Since his release from prison in August, 1978, Petitioner has held numerous jobs ranging from that of a laborer to that of assistant manager of a motel. In each instance, he left the position of his own volition to improve his income or working hours. He has never been fired nor have there ever been any complaints about his work. He has held positions of trust and of responsibility and in several cases has had the requirement to handle, unsupervised, substantial sums of money. No shortages were discovered. In his last two positions, Petitioner has been a salesperson of time- sharing resort condominiums, as a salaried employee of the developer. He is very cautious in his approach and delivery to prospects because of the close scrutiny given this type of operation. Both his current and a prior supervisor indicate he has performed his duties satisfactorily, and they have not received any complaints about the Petitioner. Petitioner was quite frank about his past when interviewing for the positions and in no sense tried to hide his criminal record. In both jobs, Petitioner has handled funds of the company, and there has not been any indication of trouble or shortage. Petitioner wants the license to sell real estate because it would open the door for him to a much greater earning potential. In his current job, for example, he has earned $600 in the month he has been there. Had he had a salesman's license and been on a commission basis, his earnings would have been much higher. Additionally, receiving the license would give him a certain amount of status and an ego boost, especially after the way he started his adult life. Both Ms. Reed and Mr. Steen, his former probation officials, feel Petitioner has been fully rehabilitated entirely through his own motivation and effort. His early offenses were when he was a young man and influenced by the use of drugs which he no longer uses. Since his release from probation he has had only two traffic citations, one for failing to stop at a stop sign, and one for failing to yield the right-of-way, resulting in an accident. When Petitioner's application for a license was first denied, he requested an informal hearing before the Commission, at which time he told the members he knew when he filled out the application form if he answered accurately, there was no way he would get his license. He now admits that answering falsely was the wrong thing to do. He understood the question, and his answer was what he intended to say and not an error. He answered falsely because the most recent arrest was seven years old, and his current life-style is completely different than his life-style then. His prior arrests and convictions in a moral sense, he feels, have no bearing on his present life, and he felt he had paid his debts to society. He now realizes that his answer to Question 6 should have been accurate and to falsify was a mistake.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be denied licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard H. Hyatt, Esquire 918 North Main Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton should be granted re-registration of terminated license No. 34741-1 as indicated in the Administrative Complaint dated 7-18-78, pursuant to Section 464.21(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton appeared at the hearing without counsel or other representative. The Hearing Officer explained her rights in an administrative hearing and she acknowledged that she understood the same. The Respondent also stated that she is now married and that her married name is Farris. Petitioner moved to amend paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint to reflect that Respondent was arrested in January, 1976 rather than 1975 as alleged therein. There being no objection, the request was granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a Licensed Practical Nurse with the Florida State Board of Nursing in 1974 and such license was automatically terminated on April 1, 1977, for non-payment of license renewal fee. On August 11, 1977, Respondent filed an application for re-registration of her terminated license with Petitioner. Petitioner reviewed the application and denied the same by a letter to Respondent dated October 28, 1977, under the authority of Section 464.21(d), Florida Statutes. The specific basis for denial was that Respondent had a prior arrest for possession of marijuana. (Testimony of Johnson, Exhibit 1-2) On February 4, 1975, Hillsborough County Deputy Sheriff Gene L. Stokes and Detective William Strickland, who were operating as undercover narcotic detectives, entered Respondent's residence at 3213 Delray Drive, Tampa, Florida. They had made prearrangements with Joseph H. Farris, who also resided at that residence, to purchase approximately two pounds of marijuana for $175.00 per pound. Farris met the officers at the door and escorted them into the kitchen where Respondent, Albert Yourn, and Thomas Spear, were seated around the kitchen table. A neighbor, Nancy Anderson, entered the residence at the same time as did Stokes and Strickland. Farris proceeded to cut a quantity of material from a compressed block of a substance that appeared to he marijuana. He placed the severed portion in a ziplock "haggle" and weighed it on a scale located on the kitchen table. At that point, the officers arrested all persons on the premises for possession and delivery of marijuana. A search of the residence pursuant to a search warrant revealed the presence of other quantities of marijuana and implements for its use in a kitchen desk drawer and in a cabinet above the kitchen stove. Two bags of marijuana were also found in Spear's possession as a result of a search of his person. The amount of marijuana remaining on the kitchen table was approximately 920 grams and a "haggle" containing approximately 16 pre-wrapped ounces of marijuana was also on the kitchen table. The substance which had been sold to Stokes was delivered to the Florida State Crime Laboratory in Tampa and, after analysis by Richard H. Estes, a forensic chemist employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, was determined to be cannabis sativa, also known as marijuana. Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled drug under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Stokes, Estes) On February 13, 1975, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida against Respondent for possession of more than five grams of marijuana on February 4, 1975, in violation of subsection 893.13(1)(e) Florida Statutes. On May 25, 1976, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge and Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt was entered by the Court with probation for a period of two years. (Exhibits 3-4) Respondent testified at the hearing that she had no knowledge that marijuana was being sold at her residence on February 5, 1975, and that she had not entered the house until subsequent to the entrance by the detectives. She admitted that her residence had been a gathering place for individuals in the neighborhood, including some of whom she did not approve and also persons unknown to her. She testified that although she pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of marijuana, she was under the impression that she was simply acknowledging that marijuana had been present at her residence. She also testified that when she had discovered what was taking place at her home, she "started a little hassle " with Farris. Her present husband, Joseph Farris, testified and corroborated her version of the incident, including her claim that she was unaware of the presence of marijuana on the premises. In addition, her cousin, Albert Yourn, who was present at the time of the arrest, testified that Respondent was not in the house at the time the drug transaction was taking place, but that she arrived prior to the arrest. (Testimony of Respondent, J. Farris, Yourn) Petitioner's records reflect that Respondent meets all other qualifications for licensure. They do not show the presence of any other derogatory information prior to or subsequent to Respondent's arrest. (Testimony of Johnson)
Recommendation That the application of Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton Farris for re-registration as a Licensed Practical Nurse be denied under the authority of Section 464.21(1)(d) Florida Statutes. That favorable consideration he given to any subsequent application by Respondent for re-registration, provided that such application is accompanied by proof of present good character. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Della Elaine Lamberton Farris 3202 Clifford Sample Drive Tampa, Florida 33619
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1976, the Real Estate Commission received respondent's application for registration as a real estate salesman. In answering the sixth question on the application form, respondent indicated that he had never been arrested for any offense. In fact, respondent was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Ft. Lauderdale and was convicted of this offense in municipal court on September 22, 1960. On April 3, 1962, he was convicted in municipal court of assault and battery on the person of Jill Boyd an offense for which he was arrested in Ft. Lauderdale on March 27, 1962. He was arrested a second time for driving while intoxicated in Ft. Lauderdale and was convicted of this offense in municipal court on February 28, 1967. On still other occasions, respondent was arrested for public intoxication and for traffic offenses. Before submitting his application for registration as a real estate salesman, respondent enrolled at the Florida Real Estate Academy for a five day crash course. An instructor told his class that the Real Estate Commission checked only five years back for arrests.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's real estate salesman's license with leave to respondent to file a proper application. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmannp, III, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Michael Diamond Post Office Box 9206 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33310
Findings Of Fact On or about January 13, 1986, the Petitioner submitted an application to take the real estate salesman's test offered by the Florida Real Estate Commission. This application was received in the offices of the Division of Real Estate on January 15, 1986. Paragraph six on the application form asks: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld?" Respondent answered "yes" to this question and included the details as follows: "October 3, 1979, West Palm Beach, possession of cocaine, 10 years probation." Court documents reveal that on May 22, 1980, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, was found guilty by the court, and was placed on 10 years probation with imposition of sentence withheld. Though there is a slight conflict in dates between that stated by Petitioner and that on the court record, this is accounted for by the former being date of arrest and the latter being date of conviction. The inconsistency is immaterial. Paragraph 11 of the application form asks in pari materia, "(a) Have you, in this state, filed any application for licensure which was denied? If so, state when denied." In response to this question, Petitioner indicated in the affirmative to the issue of whether his licensure was denied and explained that his application for a mortgage solicitor's license was denied by the Department of Finance in 1980 when he failed to disclose arrests in Connecticut when he was 15 and 16 years old. Records maintained by the FBI reveal that on October 8, 1974, he was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, was convicted, and was sentenced to 15 days suspended (confinement) and a fine of $75.00. On November 13, 1974, he was arrested on a charge of burglary, larceny, and criminal mischief for which court disposition was unknown because he was a youthful offender. On March 20, 1975, he was arrested on a charge of criminal mischief but the charge was dismissed. On April 4, 1975, he was arrested on a charge of possession of marijuana and a charge of possession of a controlled drug. In each case, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 days suspended (confinement) and 9 months probation. On January 23, 1977, he was arrested for possession of marijuana and possession of a controlled drug, was convicted on the marijuana charge, and was fined $75.00. Charges were dismissed on the other charge. On February 8, 1978, he was arrested on a charge of criminal mischief but the charge was dismissed and not prosecuted. All of "the above arrests and dispositions took place in Newington, Connecticut. On October 3, 1979, Petitioner was arrested in West Palm Beach, Florida, on a charge of trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana. He was placed on 10 years probation and this is the offense referred to in Petitioner's answer to question 6. On July 27, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Lake Worth, Florida, on a charge of sexual assault on a child but charges were dismissed when the complainant failed to show up at the hearing and could not thereafter be found. Notwithstanding the dismissal, a description of the charge was referred to the Florida Real estate Commission by the county. Respondent was born on August 28, 1958, and is at the present time 28 years old. At the time of the arrests in Connecticut, he was 16 to 20 years old. At the time of the cocaine arrest in 1979, he was 21. He has not been convicted of anything since that time and his ten year probation for cocaine conviction was terminated by the Circuit Court three years early on the basis that he had been successfully rehabilitated and further probation was no longer necessary. When Petitioner initially applied for licensure as a mortgage solicitor, he failed to list the juvenile arrests and convictions on the application for that license and when the background investigation was conducted and these arrests and convictions were made known, his license was denied by the Department of Insurance. When he contacted officials of the department, he was told that his failure to list these juvenile arrests and convictions as the basis for denial. After discussion of the situation with them, in which he was advised of the need to fully disclose all relevant factors, he submitted a new complete application and the license was granted. Petitioner claims he has been guilt-free since his conviction in 1980 for the cocaine offense. The subsequent arrests for shoplifting and lewd assault did not result in a conviction in either case. The armed robbery arrest in 1980 was based on the confession of another individual in Connecticut who implicated him in his own confession. The arrest of the confessor took place in Connecticut which attempted to extradite Petitioner from Florida. He was arrested and confined pending extradition for four months, but after hearing, at which it appeared Petitioner had a complete alibi, the extradition action was dismissed. The Commission's denial of licensure to this Petitioner was based on his conviction for possession of cocaine and for his failure to disclose his juvenile convictions in his application for the mortgage solicitor's license. Petitioner does not deny his cocaine conviction but relies on the fact that it took place when he was 21 years old. He has pleaded guilty and has paid a substantial price for his misconduct since that time. Petitioner readily admits the failure to disclose the juvenile convictions on the earlier application, but points out that they were juvenile offenses that took place many years previously; that most had resulted in no charge or suspended sentences; and that he did not realize it was necessary to list juvenile conviction about which he believed the court records were sealed. He admits he was in error and realizes now the need to make full disclosure especially in those areas where the question of integrity is paramount. Petitioner asserts he is not a thief, a child abuser, or a homosexual. He readily admits that he has made several mistakes in his lifetime, but contends that over the past seven years he has maintained a good work record with no disciplinary involvements. He has, over these years, been in the mortgage brokerage business and has even managed several offices. He has never been dishonest and has never stolen. The offenses of which he is guilty in no case related to either larceny or theft and he urges that the fact that he has been terminated from probation three years early, demonstrates his rehabilitation and trustworthiness. Petitioner failed to call any independent witnesses to support his contentions of good character instead relying on his own testimony and his resume, nor were there any submissions of written testimonials. On the other hand, Respondent failed to show any indication of continued bad character or adjudged instances of improper behavior and lack of rehabilitation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Joseph L. Edgerton, be permitted to sit for the Florida Real Estate Salesman Examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 10th day of November, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Edgerton 3868 Victoria Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Joyous D. Parrish, Esquire Assistant Attorney General, Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Richard E. Ebner was registered as a real estate salesman on March 8, 1974 and has been so registered since that date having been issued license No. 0126254, that said license was applied for by Ebner, who prepared the application, which was jointly stipulated to be received into evidence as Exhibit 1. The parties further stipulated to the fact that Exhibit 1 contains question 9, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 2, and question 19, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 6, and that Ebner had answered question 9, "Yes. . . Midsdemeanor - Marijuana possession 1971," and question 19, "No." The parties further stipulated to the admission into evidence of Exhibit 2, Court Records of Arrest dated September 25, 1970; Exhibit 3, Court Records of Information dated September 29, 1970; and Exhibit 6, Court Records, Order of Incompetency. It was stipulated that an Order of Nolle Prosequi had been entered regarding the charges upon which the arrest, Exhibit 3, were based. The Commission offered Exhibit 4, a letter of Sheriff Collier dated January 12, 1974; and Exhibit 5, a judgment in Case No. 676 dated August 17, 1971, which were received into evidence. Thereafter on the basis of the stipulation and admission of Exhibits 5 and 6, the Commission rested its case. The Respondent then moved for dismissal of the charges because the charges were insufficient because the Commission failed to show if these matters had been disclosed the license would have been denied. The Hearing Officer denied the motion. The Respondent called his father and mother to testify. Richard Ebner had had in 1970 a drug problem and had been addicted to heroin. His parents searched the state for a hospital to treat their son. Having found a hospital, they went to the County Judge and explained their fears that their son might not stay in the hospital. Without a hearing, the Judge entered the Order of Incompetency, Exhibit 6. Thereafter, their son had gone to the hospital and remained there voluntarily. They both testified that their son, Richard Ebner, had no knowledge of the Judge's Order, and that they themselves were unaware of the nature of the order beyond the fact that they had been told it was sufficient to require their son to remain in the hospital if he tried to leave. The Board subsequently presented rebuttal testimony on the issue of incompetency that Richard Ebner's counsel had interposed an insanity plea to the 1971 arrest based upon the Order of Incompetency, see Exhibit 9. The Court refused this defense. Richard Ebner testified that he had known about the insanity defense his attorney had presented to his 1971 arrest, but that he had had no knowledge in 1971 that he had been declared incompetent by any Court or when he filled out the application. The Commission's investigator indicated that the Court's record indicated only the Order of Incompetency and no further pleadings. The Hearing Officer finds that Richard Ebner had no knowledge of the Order, Exhibit 6, adjudging him incompetent. Regarding question 9, the Commission's Exhibits 2 and 3 revealed that Ebner had been arrested in 1970 for obtaining or attempting to obtain a barbiturate or central nervous system stimulant by fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or subterfuge, or by forgery or alteration of a prescription, and uttering any false or forged prescription. As stated above, it was stipulated that these charges were dropped. The Commission's Exhibits 4 and 5 reveal that Ebner was arrested on March 30, 1971 for (1) possession if marijuana and (2) possession of marijuana paraphernalia. The charge relating to possession of paraphernalia was dropped, and Ebner was tried on possession of marijuana on June 28, 1971, found guilty and sentenced to six (6) months in the county jail. He served his sentence and was released January 12, 1972. Regarding the offense, the Respondent, Ebner, had stated on his application in response to question 9, "Misdemeanor - Marijuana possession in 1971." Richard Ebner is currently working for his father and brother in their family business and actively engaged in underwater salvage and repair as a hard hat (deep sea) diver. He works as long as 3 - 10 hours under water, and has performed such responsible work as maintenance of underwater cameras at a nuclear power plant. He testified that he no longer uses narcotic drugs and that to do so would jeopardize his life in his occupation as a diver. The Respondent appeared relaxed and confident on the witness stand and answered questions put to him by the attorneys and Hearing Officer forthrightly and without hesitation. He admitted his addiction to drugs, stated that he had overcome this, that he had not tried to conceal his 1970 arrest but thought that because the charges had been dropped by this state that there was no need to report it. He similarly stated that he had responded to question 9 regarding the 1971 arrest, conviction and sentencing.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission hereafter) by its representative, Charles F. Borer (Plaintiff hereafter) filed an Administrative Complaint on December 17, 1976, alleging that the Defendant, on or about April 29, 1975, was found guilty in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court of this state of engaging in lewd and lascivious acts or assault upon or in the presence of a child and that by reason thereof, the Defendant is guilty of a crime of moral turpitude fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, the Commission seeks to revoke or suspend the licensee and his right to practice thereunder. The Commission introduced into evidence an Information filed January 20, 1975, against the Defendant for engaging in Involuntary Sexual Battery, Lewd and Lascivious Act or Assault upon or in the Presence of a Child in violation of Chapter 794.021(e) and Chapter 800.04 Florida Statutes. On April 29, 1975 a jury found the Defendant guilty as charged. See Commission's Exhibit #1. Chapter 475.25 Florida Statutes set forth grounds for which the Commission may revoke or suspend a registrant's license. Subsection (e) thereof provides in pertinent part that the Commission may suspend a registrant's registration based upon a finding that the registrant has "been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States, involving moral turpitude The documentary evidence introduced and received in this case provides ample basis for a finding that the registrant has been guilty of a crime within the meaning of Chapter 475.25(1)(e). Based thereon, I make the following:
Recommendation 1. That the Defendant's registration as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Frank L. Pepperel c/o ITT Community Development Corp. 5225 Northwest 87th Avenue Miami, Florida 33166
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary ace ion against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact On and after June 19, 1985, respondent Mack T. Short has been certified as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate No. 14-85-502-05. Two years ago, when, like respondent, he worked at the Florida State Prison as a correctional officer, Guy William Carstens "usually had some" (T. 84) marijuana with him. Messers. Carstens and Short "carpooled" (T. 83) to and from work in the spring of 1987. On "a couple of occasions after work," (T. 84) in April or May of that year, Mr. Short accepted Mr. Carstens's offer to share a pipe or cigarette filled with marijuana. All told, in the course of a year or so, the two men smoked marijuana together five or ten times. T. 88,92. Dale D. Farrow, another correctional officer at the Florida State Prison who bought marijuana from Mr. Carstens periodically over a year's time and regularly smoked it, grew apprehensive of finding himself "up for criminal charges possibly" (T. 80) when he learned from Mr. Carstens that an inmate had threatened to turn Mr. Carstens in, after a $10,000 marijuana transaction went sour. In fact, the inmate did report the drug deal he had with Mr. Carstens to prison authorities, but they did nothing about it. After speaking to the inmate, Mr. Farrow, who has worked at Florida State Prison as a correctional officer for more than seven years, contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), informing personnel there that Mr. Carstens "was dealing in narcotics and that several other correctional officers were buying narcotics from him and using narcotics." T. 16. FDLE passed this information on to the Inspector General's Office within the Department of Corrections. When Mr. Carstens was eventually apprehended, arresting officers found more than a pound of marijuana in the trunk of his car. At one time Mr. Carstens Stored marijuana in a shed behind the house respondent shared with his wife and small child. Mr. Short, who had made the shed available to him as storage for two bucket seats and some motorcycle parts, was apparently unaware of any marijuana in the shed. He was not home when Mr. Farrow saw Mr. Carstens unlock the shed door, enter and remove a sizable quantity of marijuana After his arrest, Mr. Carstens, who was Promised more lenient treatment if he implicated others, named respondent (among Several other correctional officers) as a drug offender. Convicted of Possession (but not distribution despite, e.g. testimony under oath in the present case that he did distribute), Mr. Carstens was placed on five years' probation. Mr. Farrow, who, like respondent, was never Prosecuted criminally, continues to work as a guard at Florida State Prison. There was no indication that Petitioner intends to take any action affecting Mr. Farrow's certification as a law enforcement officer.
Recommendation Particularly in light of the treatment Petitioner has accorded Mr. Farrow, whose moral character the evidence called at least as clearly into question as respondent's, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner reprimand the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 9th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5249 Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 8, 9, and 12 were not convincingly established by credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 88-5249 CJSTC CASE NO. C-1390 MACK T. SHORT, Certificate Number 14-85-502-05. Respondent. /
