Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 13-84-002-01 on July 14, 1984. On September 1, 1988, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit working in the misdemeanor division. While on duty and driving his employment car on the evening of September 1, 1988, Respondent was in the area of Lee Street and 20th Street in Orlando, Florida. He was in the area attempting to locate a witness as part of a criminal investigation he was conducting. He had previously made the acquaintance of a person named Ruby Burk. He would on occasion drive past her house and stop and they would talk and once previously had engaged in a sex act. On the night of September 1, 1988, he went to Burk's house, talked with her and then left on a futile attempt to locate a witness. He then returned to Burk's residence, picked her up and proceeded to a dark secluded area on an unpaved street which borders an elementary school. Shortly thereafter, while on routine patrol, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff observed Respondent sitting behind the wheel of the state vehicle in a complete state of undress. When she shined her bright lights into the vehicle, the Deputy observed the head of a black female pop up from the direction of the Petitioner's lap. The Deputy recognized Burk and observed that she was fully clothed. The Deputy permitted Respondent to put his pants on before he exited his vehicle. Respondent and Burk were engaging in fellatio in the front seat of the state vehicle. At the time of the incident, Respondent was having marital problems which caused him to be despondent. In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated that he had been a certified law enforcement officer for over four years at the time of this incident and has had no prior disciplinary problems. He has performed his job in private security and as an investigator in an exemplarily capacity. In September 1988, Respondent was discharged by the State Attorney, but was given a favorable recommendation He is presently employed as a Child Protective Investigator with HRS. He is respected by his peers and in his community. The violation of the law and rules by the Respondent was an isolated incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19 (in part), 21. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant: Paragraphs 7 (that Burk had been convicted of engaging in prostitution on Westmoreland Street), 11, 16 (in part), 19 (in part), 20, 22. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in part), 6, 7. Rejected as irrelevant or as argument: Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa L. Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Leon B. Cheek, Esquire 101 Sunnytown Road Suite 306 Casselberry, FL 32707 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's temporary directive, which requires probation officers to request and obtain supervisor approval on a case-by-case basis before incurring travel expenses for certain field visits, meets the definition of a "rule" in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ which should have been promulgated as such.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency with "supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of the inmates, buildings, grounds, and property, and all other matters pertaining to [specified correctional facilities and programs] for the imprisonment, correction, and rehabilitation of adult offenders[.]" § 945.025(1), Fla. Stat. (setting forth Respondent's jurisdiction). By far, Respondent's resources, including personnel, are primarily devoted to Respondent's responsibilities over correctional facilities and programs. There are approximately 17,000 certified officers on the correctional institution side. Respondent also is the state agency responsible for supervising offenders who are granted conditional release from incarceration or who are granted parole by the Parole Commission (chapter 947, Florida Statutes), as well as the state agency responsible for supervising probationers placed on probation (or in community control, known commonly as house arrest) by a court (chapter 948, Florida Statutes). Collectively, persons who have been conditionally released, parolees, and probationers will be referred to as "offenders." A relatively small percentage of Respondent's resources, including personnel, are devoted to the supervision of offenders. There are approximately 2,100 certified parole and probation officers providing community supervision. Organizationally, Respondent's supervisory functions fall under the umbrella of Community Corrections. The supervision of offenders statewide is divided into a northern and southern region, each covering ten of the state's 20 judicial circuits. Each region is headed by a regional director, who oversees the supervision of offenders within the region's ten judicial circuits. Each of the 20 judicial circuits has a circuit administrator. Each circuit also used to have a deputy circuit administrator, but that position was eliminated in 2009. Reporting to the circuit administrators are probation supervisors, who supervise and coordinate the activities of individual probation officers and probation officer specialists. Offenders are assigned to certified probation officers and probation officer specialists, who directly carry out the supervisory functions. See § 948.01(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (an offender on probation or community control is to be supervised by an officer meeting the qualifications in section 943.13, Fla. Stat.). A probation officer specialist is a probation officer with a certain level of experience to whom the offenders with the most serious criminal records are assigned. Unless otherwise specified, the term probation officer will be used, in the broad sense, to include both probation officers and the more experienced probation officer specialists. In carrying out its community supervisory functions, Respondent's goals are all of the following: to ensure compliance with the conditions of supervision imposed by the court or by the Parole Commission; to ensure public safety; to foster rehabilitation of the offender; and to reduce or eliminate future victimization. Probationers may be placed on probation, in lieu of incarceration, or as part of a split sentence that includes incarceration followed by probation. §§ 948.011 and 948.012. The starting place for supervision of a probationer is the court's order of supervision, which specifies the terms and conditions of probation. Respondent is charged with preparing a form order of supervision for the courts to use. § 948.01(1)(b). The form order prepared by Respondent and used by the courts reflects the standard conditions of probation which may be imposed by the courts, enumerated in section 948.03. The form order also provides options for the court to exercise its authority and discretion to impose special terms and conditions. See, e.g., §§ 948.031 through 948.039. The standard conditions of probation that may be imposed by a court in its order of supervision are broadly worded and general in nature and include the following: Report to the probation and parole supervisors as directed. Permit such supervisors to visit him in his or her home or elsewhere. Work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as possible. Remain within a specified place. Live without violating the law. The statutes and standard terms of probation do not dictate or specify how, precisely, Respondent is to carry out its supervisory function in monitoring offenders to serve the goal of ensuring compliance with these terms. The concept of "supervision" is not quantified, such as by specifying how often an offender must report to his or her probation officer or whether and how often probation officers may or will visit an offender in his or her home or elsewhere. A court's order of supervision could theoretically provide a condition specifying that a probationer must go to his or her probation officer's office twice a month or five times a month. However, the one sample order of supervision entered in evidence in this case did not impose any such terms quantifying the number of office visits or other visits that the unidentified probationer had to make with his or her probation officer. With respect to "supervision," section 948.12 provides a distinction for violent offenders who are on probation following incarceration by providing that these offenders "shall be provided intensive supervision by experienced probation officers." However, just as the statutes do not purport to specify or quantify what is meant by "supervision," there is no statutory specification for what is meant by "intensive supervision." Respondent has had, apparently as far back as 2002, internal procedures in place to provide detailed processes for probation officers to follow in carrying out their duty to supervise offenders assigned to them. These procedures are published in a 41-page document called Procedure 302.303, which Respondent considers a "restricted access" document for internal use only. One subject addressed in Procedure 302.303 is an offender classification system. The current classification system was designed in-house and then validated by the Florida State University School of Criminology. The system considers a number of variables and is used by Respondent as a way to group offenders in an effort to ensure that supervision is provided at a level commensurate with the danger or risk the offender represents to the community. This offender classification system, which is not promulgated as a rule, is not the subject of Petitioner's challenge. Procedure 302.303 also addresses the subject of contacts expected to be made by a probation officer with individual offenders assigned to the officer. In general terms, Procedure 302.303 specifies minimum contacts, by type and frequency, that probation officers are expected to make, or try to make, for each of their assigned offenders. The types of contacts include office visits, meaning the offender comes into the probation officer's office for a meeting; other kinds of visits, scheduled or unscheduled, when the probation officer travels outside the office to visit or attempt to visit the offender in his home, in his place of employment, or another place; and field visits with third parties, when the probation officer travels outside the office to visit or attempt to visit the offender's employer, treatment providers, family, neighbors, or other third persons who might have information about the offender. Different minimum contact requirements, by type and frequency, are provided for each of the different offender risk classification categories in Procedure 302.303. The minimum contact standards are performance standards that apply to probation officers; without the minimum contact requirements, some probation officers might do less than the minimum. These minimum contact standards, which have not been promulgated as a rule, are also not the subject of Petitioner's challenge. Instead, Petitioner's challenge is directed to a recent temporary directive by Respondent that suspended some aspects of the (unpromulgated) minimum contact standards in Procedure 302.303. In lieu of these minimum contact standards, Respondent's directive provides that probation officers need to request and receive permission of their supervisors on a case-by- case basis to incur travel expenses for certain field visits. As a related part of the directive, supervisors are given discretion to approve travel expenses for any field visit if there is reason to believe there may be a violation of a condition of supervision or if there is reason to believe that there is a threat to public safety. The challenged directives were first communicated verbally on February 29, 2012, in a telephone conference call between Jenny Nimer, assistant secretary of Community Corrections, and the Community Corrections regional directors, and then reduced to writing in the following memorandum dated March 2, 2012, on the subject of "Reduced Travel" (Reduced Travel Memo) from Assistant Secretary Nimer to Community Corrections regional directors and circuit administrators: On 2/29/12 directives were provided for adjustments to be made on some non-critical supervision activities. As these directives are temporary and related to "restricted" policy areas they were given verbally; existing written policy will not be changed. Our goal is to reduce the travel budget by focusing on mission critical activities without compromising public safety. Travel related to core operational duties will continue; however all travel will be reviewed for efficiency. NO adjustments have been made to travel that involves investigation of known or suspected violations, violation proceedings/subpoenas, investigations or instruction of offenders in correctional facilities. Adjustments are focused on reduction of department established minimum contact standards and administrative duties. There is an urgent need to reduce travel costs for the remainder of the fiscal year; however public safety is the utmost priority and supervisors maintain the discretion to approve any travel that is needed to accomplish officer safety and protection of the community. For the months that adjustments are in place (March, April, May and June) officers will annotate electronic field notes for offenders requiring field contacts during the month, as follows: CN--"Contact Standards Adjusted". Alternative methods to verify (and re-verify) residence and employment during this period, including making telephone calls to the landlord and employer or instructing the offender to provide bills and paychecks to show proof of residence and employment will be utilized. Contact codes for purposes of electronic case notes for residence and employment verification will be HV, EN, or EV and text should indicate the alternative method utilized for verification. Planned Compliance Initiatives will continue; partnerships established with local law enforcement remain essential to enhance surveillance and contacts made in the community. These contacts should always be documented in case notes. Circuit Administrators are directed to reach out to judiciary, state attorney and law enforcement to ensure that they are aware of the limited scope of this reduction and that contacts required to ensure offender supervision and/or threats to public safety will not be compromised. Thank you for your cooperation during this difficult time. The Reduced Travel Memo was distributed to probation officers as the means by which Respondent communicated to its probation officers that they would not be expected to comply with all of the minimum contact requirements set forth in Procedure 302.303 between March 1, 2012, through the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2012. The expectation was, at the time of the challenged statement, that this cost-saving measure was temporary and that the (unpromulgated) minimum contact requirements in Procedure 302.303 would resume as of the new fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. As of the final hearing on June 6, 2012, Respondent's expectation was unchanged. The announced temporary replacement of minimum contact requirements based on risk category with a procedure for supervisor review and approval of field contacts remained just that--temporary--and the expectation was that the minimum contact standards set forth in Procedure 302.303 would resume for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. Petitioner hinted at, but offered no evidence to prove the notion that Respondent did not really intend to resume the minimum contact standards in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012.4/ The Reduced Travel Memo and a March 2, 2012, letter from Secretary Kenneth S. Tucker (Tucker Letter), represent the challenged agency statements in that these two documents memorialize the temporary directive.5/ As explained in the Tucker Letter: Due to a 79 million dollar deficit, the Department has had to make temporary modifications to field contact requirements in order to reduce travel expenditures by probation officers. . . . Our probation officers will continue to make field contacts with sex offenders and community control offenders in order to closely monitor sex offender conditions and/or house arrest requirements. Probation officers will continue to monitor other supervised offenders' compliance with conditions of supervision and probationers will still be required to meet monthly with their probation officer at the office. In addition, probation officers will make field contacts in the community as necessary to investigate non-compliance or possible violations. Probation officers will also continue to participate with law enforcement in Planned Compliance Initiative (PCI's) in the community. Probation officers will use this opportunity to spend more time with offenders in the office or on the telephone, assisting with job referrals or other resources and services needed. Community Corrections undertook an analysis of its budget in an effort to identify expenditures where cost savings might be realized to help reduce the budget deficit. The three significant budget categories of expenditures were salaries, leases, and expenses. There had been a hiring freeze in place for some time already, and so an effort was made to not cut personnel to save salary costs. There also had been a concerted effort to reduce lease costs by consolidating offices to eliminate some leases. The viable short-term option to cut costs for the remainder of the fiscal year was in the expense category, which was predominately travel reimbursement. It was determined that, over the year, Community Corrections was averaging between $250,000 and $300,000 per month in travel reimbursement. Some travel reimbursement had already been reduced before the temporary directive challenged here. For example, Community Corrections personnel, including probation officers, might travel to participate in training programs. However, training had already been greatly limited. Some travel reimbursement could not be reduced, such as reimbursing probation officers for necessary travel for court appearances. In these instances, efforts were made to use state cars and to encourage carpooling, if possible. Community Corrections assessed the number of field contacts and attempted contacts that were being made by probation officers to comply with Respondent's minimum contact standards and the travel reimbursement associated with them (i.e., the contacts). Respondent estimated that its temporary directive, challenged here, would reduce travel costs by $150,000 per month for each of the four months in which the directives would be in place. In total, Respondent expected to save $600,000. Respondent's actual experience following issuance of the Reduced Travel Memo and Tucker Letter shows that Respondent's estimates were on target. In February 2012--the last month before the temporary suspension of some of the minimum contact standards--travel reimbursement totaled $277,000. After switching to a procedure of case-by-case probation officer request and supervisor review to approve field visits, travel reimbursement was down to $99,000 in March 2012, a savings of $187,000, compared to February. In April 2012, travel reimbursement dropped to $80,000. The evidence established that the discretion afforded probation supervisors in the Reduced Travel Memo is true discretion vested in supervisors to review requests and act on a case-by-case basis to approve field visits. That discretion has been exercised on numerous occasions to authorize a field contact. There was no evidence of any probation officer having submitted a request to make a field visit to investigate a possible violation of a probation condition or where there was a public safety issue that was not approved by his or her supervisor. To the contrary, the evidence established that requests are being made and leeway is being provided to probation officers to travel, if they can articulate a reason for doing so. However, for one or two probation officers who do not accept that they must request approval and justify their travel expense on a case-by-case basis and who simply ask for block reinstatement of the minimum contact standards, without articulating any reason why field visits are needed for particular offenders, those requests have been denied. As the Reduced Travel Memo and Tucker Letter suggest, there are other tools available to probation officers besides incurring the expense of field visits, which are often equally effective to accomplish the goal. For example, a field visit to an offender's employer is certainly one way to verify employment and to verify the offender's attendance, but telephone calls may well suffice to obtain the same information at much lower costs. There are also other ways to attempt to verify residence besides a personal home visit. An offender can be required to present documentation, such as a utility bill, rental agreement, or pay stub showing the offender's address. An offender can be made to come in for office visits more frequently than once a month. A probation officer can telephone the offender frequently, and the voice mail message or background noise may give some reason to believe there is a need for a field visit. A probation officer can call family members and neighbors to check on an offender and to verify information. A probation officer can enlist the help of a local law enforcement officer to check on an offender. In short, for the period of Respondent's urgent need to reduce costs, probation officers have been asked to work a little harder and more creatively from their desks, while reserving travel expenses for field visits to the cases where they have some reason to think a field visit is needed. Petitioner presented the testimony of one probation officer specialist, Kimberly Schultz. As a specialist, this officer handles a case load disproportionately made up of sex offender probationers (for whom the temporary directives did not suspend minimum contact standards) and the next category down on the risk scale--maximum offenders. Officer Schultz testified that she believes that public safety is best served by the old minimum contact standards in (unpromulgated) Policy 302.303. Officer Schultz suggested, but failed to prove, that public safety is compromised by the temporary directive. Under the temporary directive, Officer Schultz has only requested approval once from her supervisor to make a field contact based on a suspicion she developed that the offender may be in violation of his probation requirements. That single request was approved. Officer Schultz did not identify any instance in which public safety was jeopardized because a field contact was not allowed. Instead, Officer Schultz spoke to the increased possibility that allowing more travel to make surprise visits to offenders' homes or places of employment would reveal suspicious behavior or incorrect information. Certainly, Officer Schultz has the experience to draw on to offer the view that, in a general sense, increased field visits would serve to increase the possibility of discovering probation violations or other issues with offenders. In an ideal situation with unlimited resources, a probation officer following every move an offender makes could well come to find that the offender is not "liv[ing} without violating the law," as required in a standard probation condition. However, such an ideal situation obviously does not exist. Instead, Respondent has taken action to manage its limited resources. The evidence did not show that Respondent's temporary directive has threatened public safety. Officer Schultz attempted to suggest that, in the single instance when she requested a field contact, she would have discovered sooner that the offender was not living where he said he was, if she had made the minimum field contacts under Procedure 302.303. Her testimony did not bear that out. Officer Schultz testified that an offender assigned to her in March 2012, came in for the required office visits in March and in April, and he filled out the required monthly reports giving his address, telephone number, and other contact information. When the offender came in for his May office visit, the offender was supposed to stay for a drug test, but he left. Officer Schultz tried to call the offender at the number he had provided to check to see if he had misunderstood. That is when she learned that the phone number the offender had given her "wasn't a good number." Officer Schultz requested and was given approval to incur travel to investigate and learned, then, that the offender was not living where he said he was. While Officer Schultz contends that, in the above example, a field visit to verify the offender's address would have identified the problem sooner, Officer Schultz admitted that she had not previously tried to call the offender. Indeed, she said that she never calls her offenders on their cell phones. Thus, instead of incurring travel expense for a field visit, Officer Schultz could have attempted to verify the offender's office report immediately in March through other ways, such as calling the phone number provided and learning much sooner that the offender had provided a phone number that was not good. Officer Schultz might have checked for a home phone number associated with the address the offender gave; she learned when she went there that the offender's cousin lived there, and the cousin volunteered that the offender did not live there. Officer Schultz could have required this offender, and could require all of her offenders, to come into the office multiple times per month. She could have required this offender to bring in a utility bill for his residence, whether in his name or someone else's name. Had Officer Schultz tried alternative verification means, she may have been able to contact the cousin sooner. It was evident from Officer Schultz' testimony that she has become accustomed to operating under the guidance provided in unpromulgated Procedure 302.303 and does not like being asked temporarily to work harder and more creatively from her office to find other ways to conduct surveillance and monitor offenders that do not cost Respondent as much in travel expenses as her travel in the field used to. It seemed that rather than trying to replace the field visit time with alternative investigation techniques, Officer Schultz has done little to fill the gap with constructive methods to monitor her offenders using alternative means. Indeed, when Officer Schultz was asked how she was making use of her new-found office time since she is spending less time in the field, her first response was, "I'm organizing my closed files." Officer Schultz expressed concern that a probation officer could be subject to discipline if he or she were to not follow the temporary directive. However, there was no evidence that any probation officer had refused to request supervisor review and approval for a field visit, much less that discipline resulted. Officer Shultz did not represent that she had refused to follow the temporary directive or that she intended to in the few weeks remaining in the fiscal year. Petitioner's representative testified that the temporary directive harms its 2,100 certified probation officer members, although the directive does not apply to the other approximately 17,000 certified members who serve on the correctional institution side of Respondent. Thus, the temporary directive applies to only about 12 percent of Petitioner's members. Nonetheless, Petitioner's representative asserted that its members are affected by the temporary directive because they are all members of communities with a concern for public safety.
The Issue Whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter 943, Florida Statutes for alleged conduct as set forth in Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 16, 1982. This proceeding was initiated by an administrative complaint issued by the Police Standards and Training Commission on May 26, 1981, alleging certain grounds under Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, for the suspension or revocation of Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer, and the case was thereafter set for hearing on September 15, 1981. Pursuant to a request for a continuance by the Petitioner, the hearing was continued and rescheduled for March 16, 1982. The case was again continued upon motion of Petitioner due to injuries sustained by its counsel. A prehearing conference was held on March 9, 1982 at which time the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission was substituted as the Petitioner in this proceeding, pursuant to Section 943.255, Florida Statutes. The final hearing was rescheduled for April 13, 1982. Thereafter, on March 31, 1982, L. Sanford Selvey, II, Esquire filed a Motion for Continuance based on the incapacity of Respondent's counsel, M. Howard Williams, Esquire as a result of an apparent heart attack. The motion requested that final hearing be continued until such time as Mr. Williams had recovered from his illness. The motion was granted and final hearing was cancelled by Order, dated April 7, 1982, wherein counsel for Respondent was directed to advise the Hearing Officer within thirty days as to when he anticipated medical recovery. On April 20, 1982, Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint seeking disciplinary action pursuant to subsection 943.145(3)(a), F.S. for failure to maintain qualifications for certification under subsection 943.13(4) and (7), F.S. On May 19, 1982, Petitioner filed a Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted and Amended Complaint Filed. No opposition was filed against this motion and it was granted by Order dated June 7, 1982. That Order provided that the final hearing was rescheduled for July 21, 1982, in view of the failure of counsel for Respondent to advise the Hearing Officer as to his anticipated date of medical recovery. A copy of the Order was furnished to M. Howard Williams, Esquire and L. Sanford Selvey, II, Esquire. Neither Respondent nor his counsel appeared at the final hearing on July 21, 1982. Upon inquiry by the Hearing Officer, counsel for Petitioner stated that he had previously been advised by Mr. Selvey's office that the case files of Mr. Williams had been referred by the Circuit Court to Dexter Douglas, Esquire as an inventory attorney, and that upon inquiring of Mr. Douglas' office, he was informed that two letters had been sent to Respondent informing him of the hearing date in this proceeding. Upon direction of the Hearing Officer, counsel for Petitioner again contacted Mr. Douglas' office to ascertain if any response to the letters had been made by Respondent. Counsel was advised that letters, dated June 29 and June 30, 1982, had been sent to Respondent, advising him of the date of hearing and of the need to obtain representation, but no response was received. Based upon these representations, and under all the circumstances, it was determined that adequate notice of the hearing had been provided Respondent, and Petitioner was permitted to proceed with presentation of its case as an uncontested proceeding. Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and submitted four exhibits in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Earl Junior Beagles, was first employed with the Tallahassee Police Department in January, 1967. He received certification as a "grandfathered" law enforcement officer in June of 1967. In 1979, he was a sergeant in charge of the Vice and Narcotics unit of the Police Department. (Testimony of Tucker, Westfall) In November or December of 1979, Respondent obtained $200 from the Police Department informant fund upon authorization of Police Chief Melvin Tucker. At the time, Respondent told Chief Tucker that he wanted the funds to compromise a prostitute in order to obtain access to a local drug dealer. In March, 1980, one Patricia Dalton made allegations to police officials that on December 19, 1979, Respondent had coerced her into having sexual relations with him. Specifically, she told police investigators that she was a prostitute and had previously received a telephone call from someone identifying himself as "Bill", and that they arranged to meet at a local motel. At that meeting in the motel room, they arrived at an understanding that she would furnish her services for $150. She produced a small portion of cocaine, at which point Respondent placed her under arrest for drug possession and prostitution whereupon she commenced to cry, but Respondent told her that he was sure they could work things out and make a deal. Respondent turned the cocaine over to his partner, Officer Lewis Donaldson, and told him that he would take Miss Dalton home. She alleged that she departed with Respondent and that later, at his request, she registered at another hotel under a fictitious name where he coerced her into having sexual intercourse and fellatio with him. (Testimony of Tucker, Coe) Police investigators verified the fact that Miss Dalton had been transported in a taxicab to the motel where she had allegedly met Respondent on December 19, 1979, and also that she had registered under a fictitious name at the second motel on that date. As part of the investigation, Miss Dalton was equipped with a "body wire" to enable the investigators to monitor a conversation that she had with Respondent at the Greyhound Bus Station in Tallahassee. Although the investigators observed Miss Dalton enter the bus station, they did not personally see Respondent from their monitoring location nearby. However, they were able to recognize his voice from the tape recording made of the conversation. Respondent made admissions during the conversation which gave credence to Dalton's contentions that he had had prior sexual relations with her and had not pursued criminal charges against her. A transcript of the conversation shows that he made the following statements to her: "No, you're unarrested, no charges, forget it, it's over. Call it washed clean." and "For God's sake, don't mention my deal about dropping those God-damn charges". Police records reflect that Respondent never initiated charges against Patricia Dalton and that he returned the entire amount of $200 which he had obtained from the informant fund. (Testimony of Coe, Runo, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) As a result of the investigation, Respondent was indicted for sexual battery, extortion, and bribery in the Leon County Circuit Court on April 23, 1980. On that date, Chief Tucker advised Respondent of the Dalton complaint, but Respondent denied all of her allegations of misconduct. Respondent was then suspended from his employment with the Police force pending disposition of the criminal charges. (Testimony of Tucker, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4) On October 17, 1980, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of unlawful compensation (Section 838.016, F.S.) which is a third degree felony, and one count of simple assault which is a misdemeanor. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld and he was placed on probation for a period of two years. In the opinion of Chief Tucker and Lieutenant Thomas R. Coe, Jr. of the Tallahassee Police Department, Respondent's actions in connection with the Dalton incident did not meet the required standards of moral character required for certification as a law enforcement officer. After the indictment, Respondent was discharged from his employment with the Department. (Testimony of Tucker, Coe, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Although hearsay testimony was received from a police investigator concerning another incident of sexual misconduct involving another alleged prostitute in 1977, insufficient competent evidence was received upon which to base findings of fact. (Testimony of Runo)
Recommendation That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order revoking the certification of Respondent as a law enforcement officer. DONE and ENTERED this 30 day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Earl Junior Beagles Star Route, Box 506B Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Sheriff Don R. Moreland Chairman Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Marion County Sheriff's Department P. O. Box 1987 Ocala, Florida 32670 M. Howard Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 382 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William S. Westfall, Jr., Bureau Chief Bureau of Standards Division of Criminal Justice Standards & Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This case is presented for consideration based upon a claim by the Petitioner, E. R. Brannon, Sr. against the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, contending that the Respondent, by its employment practices, has unlawfully discriminated against the petitioner Brannon related to an alleged handicap, in violation of Subsection 23.167(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In view of this purported violation, Petitioner Brannon requests money damages in the way of back salary payments and benefits, together with attorney's fees, in keeping with Subsection 23.167(13), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner Brannon declines the opportunity for any reinstatement in his former employment with the Brevard Sheriff's Office. In defending against these accusations, the Respondent has plead certain affirmative defenses and contends that its action dismissing the Petitioner Brannon was lawful in view of the provision, Subsection 23.167(8)(a), Florida Statutes, specifically related to the portion of that provision dealing with taking action based upon the need for an absence of a particular handicap as related to a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the performance of the particular employment to which such action or inaction is related."
Findings Of Fact Case History On April 2, 1979, the Petitioner, F. R. Brannon, Sr., executed a form complaint of discrimination with the Petitioner, Florida Commission on Human elations, which challenged his dismissal by the Brevard County Sheriff's Department, which occurred on January 5, 1979. After reviewing the complaint, the Petitioner Commission, by action of September 11, 1980, as filed on September 16, 1980, made its determination of case, i.e., reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice had occurred reference the Brevard County Sheriff's Department's dismissal of the Petitioner Brannon. A separate notice of the determination of cause was forwarded to the complainant Brannon and the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, on September 16, 1980. Efforts were then made to reach conciliation between the contesting parties and these efforts were unsuccessful and notification of this failure of conciliation was forwarded by the Commission on October 21, 1980. On November 21, 1980, counsel for the Petitioner Brannon made known his appearance before the Commission through written Notice of Appearance and filed a Petition for Relief on the subject of the aforementioned claim brought by the Petitioner Brannon. By document dated November 25, 1990, and placed on file November 26, 1980, the Commissioners of the Florida Commission on Human Relations were notified of the filing of Brannon's Petition for Relief from alleged unlawful employment practice. Subsequent to that notification, Brannon's Petition was transmitted to the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration of the claim. This transmittal was made on November 26, 1980, and received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 1, 1980. On December 1, 1980, counsel for the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, filed its answer to the Petition and statement of affirmative defenses. The Respondent also, by motion of that date, moved to dismiss the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on December 12, 1980. On December 31 1980, the Respondent, in the person of its former counsel, Charles F. Broome, Esquire, wrote to the Hearing Officer to advise that there had been a change in administration in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office and that the newly elected sheriff wished to have a substitution of counsel. There ensued a series of contacts on the part of this Hearing Officer to establish a hearing date which would accommodate the change in administration and substitution of counsel. After consultation with the parties, the month of March, 1981, was tentatively selected as a time for hearing. This determination was made upon consultation with counsel for the parties, to include Catherine Riley, Esquire, the substituted counsel for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. The case was subsequently scheduled for hearing on March 9, 1981. Prior to the time for hearing, a letter was written by counsel for the Respondent on January 16, 1981, to advise that one of her witnesses was unable to attend the hearing until after March 30, 1981. By correspondence dated January 22, 1981, in response to the letter of January 16, 1981, which had been addressed to counsel for the Petitioner, counsel for the Petitioner acquiesced in the continuance of the hearing and asked that the matter be set at the first available date beyond March 29, 1981. The correspondence was treated as a motion to continue the case on behalf of the Brevard County Sheriff's office, and the matter was reset for hearing on April 9, 1981. The Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, had also moved to file an additional affirmative defense, and this motion was granted on February 2, 1981. The initial session of the hearing was held on April 9, 1981, and continued until May 29, 1981, allow the hearing to be concluded. The hearing was concluded on May 29, 1981, and this Recommended Order is being entered after such hearing. In the way of argument, the parties have submitted written memoranda through counsel and have suggested proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended disposition in this matter. To the extent that those proposals, conclusions and recommendations are consistent with the Recommended Order, they have been utilized. To the extent that the proposals, conclusions and recommendations are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they are hereby rejected. Material Facts The Petitioner, E. R. Brannon, Sr., is an individual who was forty- three (43) years of age at the time of the formal hearing. In the course of his adult life he has worked primarily in law enforcement for a period of sixteen (16) to seventeen (17) years, to include service to the Lake City, Florida, police Department; Eau Gallie, Florida, Police Department: Melbourne, Florida, Police Department; two periods of service with the Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff's Office; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff's Office and the Marion County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. On July 4, 1974, while working for the Marion County Sheriff's Office as a line deputy, the Petitioner Brannon was shot in his left side and left hand in an attempt to apprehend a felon. He was given a period of convalescence by his employer and then returned as an investigator for the Marion County Sheriff's Office. In September, 1976, after being returned to duty, the condition in his left hand was exacerbated by another job related injury, leading to the eventual amputation of his left hand on November 9, 1980, after the hand had become gangrenous. This final treatment intervention followed a series of approximately twenty (20) operations over the period of time following the initial gunshot wound. The Petitioner Brannon left his employment with Marion County and in January of 1977, took employment with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office where he was hired as a Lieutenant in charge of the division dealing with communications and vehicle maintenance. At all pertinent times to this inquiry, his employer, the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, was an employer with fifteen (15) or more persons working for that entity, for a period of twenty (20) weeks or more during the year. While Brannon was working for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, he was placed in the position of Captain, awaiting pay adjustment to that grade. At the time of his dismissal from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office on January 5, 1979, he was receiving a salary of approximately $1,260.00 per month, with an additional $175.77 per month contributed for the benefit of his retirement. While serving as the Division Commander of the Communications and Maintenance Unit of the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, Brannon had as many as thirty (30) persons under his supervision. Brannon bad been hired by Sheriff Ronald W. Zimmerman and worked for that individual until September, 1978, when Zimmerman was suspended. Following Zimmerman's suspension from September, 1978, until January 5, 1979, the date of his discharge, Brannon worked for Sheriff David U. Strawn. During the course of Brannon's service under the command of Sheriff Strawn, the problem with Brannon's hand caused him mild to severe pain and led to frequent usage of Demerol and Vistaril to accommodate this problem. Although the visits were not made during working hours per se, Brannon made numerous visits to a local hospital during the September, 1978, to January 5, 1979, time frame, for purposes of treatment. The degree of his discomfort and the effect on Brannon was such that by January 30, 1979, his treating physician, Dr. Maurice Hodge, was of the opinion that Brannon was "totally disabled because he is unable [sic] to use his hand for any gainful purpose. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence and attachment identified as Respondent's No. 1. Notwithstanding the physical discomfort, Brannon attempted to perform his role as Deputy Sheriff and supervisor; however, there were numerous absences from duty during the time of the Strawn administration, to include a period December 18, 1978, through December 30, 1978. All of these absences were accounted for as authorized holidays, annual leave or sick leave. James H. Garvin, presently a Captain in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, in the position of Jail Supervisor, was emoloyed with that Sheriff's Office during Sheriff Strawn's tenure. At that time, his office in the Sheriff's complex building was located adjacent to that of Brannon and to the extent that the two officers had contact, Garvin did not have difficulty with work coordination involving Brannon. Other officers who had association with Brannon during the time of Strawn's service as Sheriff, included Johnny L. Manis, who was a Captain in 1978, in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. The communication section was included in his area of responsibility and upon Brannon's dismissal, Manis took over the responsibilities which Brannon had fulfilled in the communications section. Upon taking over, Captain, now Lieutenant, Manis, found the morale in that section to be less than acceptable and the turnover rate to be, in his estimation, excessive. Captain Charles Tenvooren who served as a Major in the Strawn administration, had supervisory responsibility for Brannon in that time period and recalls that Brannon was in the hospital at times. Tenvooren knew that Brannon was being treated for the condition related to his arm and hand and observed impairment in Brannon's job function. As supervisor, he spoke with Sheriff Strawn about the medication that Brannon was taking. Tenvooren also spoke with Brannon about the problem of impairment related to the injury to the arm, as described by the witness Tenvooren. Brannon, in talking with Tenvooren, mentioned the pain which he was experiencing. Lieutenant Harmon B. Wisby testified in the course of the hearing. When Strawn was Sheriff, Lieutenant Wisby was the coordinator of the reserve auxiliary group of the Sheriff's Department. During that time sequence, Wisby was aware of the fact that Brannon was under medication, information he gained from conversations he had with Brannon. Brannon indicated ythat he was having pain and that he was to go back to the hospital. Brannon also indicated to Wisby that he had been given medication to assist him in coping with the pain. Wisby recalls several times when Brannon did not seem aware of his surroundings while he was in the office building, in that Brannon would not respond to him when spoken to in the form of a greeting. Alice Alderman who is a Communications Officer with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, who worked in the communications section while Brannon was supervisor during the Strawn administration, testified at the hearing. She admits that she had a personality conflict with Brannon. Nonetheless, she testified that during this time sequence he seemed to be "distant." Another employee within the communications section who testified at the hearing was Debbie Walden who was a Communications Dispatcher in the Brevard Sheriff's Office at the time that Strawn was Sheriff. Brannon was her shift supervisor and she recalls numerous absences by Brannon, who from her recollection worked on the same shift on which she was employed. She also indicated that morale was a problem at the time that Brannon was in charge of the section. On January 5, 1979, through correspondence, Sheriff Strawn dismissed Brannon. A copy of the dismissal may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. In the course of the hearing, Strawn indicated that his decision to dismiss no basis for the correspondence was premised on evidence gained from other personnel in the Sheriff's Office; the medical reports pertaining to the Petitioner's physical condition related to his hand; the prognosis on that condition; the uses of pain medication; a few personal observations of the Petitioner in which Strawn felt the Petitioner to be "spacey"; the belief that the Petitioner was not capable of line duty, i.e., responsibilities as an armed deputy; the problem which Brannon appeared to have approaching his job with a "clear head"; the high turnover in the communications section, indicating a problem with management by Brannon; a property control problem related to equipment which Brannon had in his charge and Brannon's lack of ability as an administrator and supervisor. All of Strawn's background reasons and observations were an accurate depiction of the circumstance with the exception that there was insufficient proof in the course of the hearing to demonstrate that Brannon had acted inappropriately on the subject of property control of equipment in the communications section. Likewise, reported observations by coworkers are correct. In particular, the use of pain medication for the handicap related to the injured arm and hand was such that Brannon was incapable of performing the duty of a line officer charged with the direct protection of the public and the possibility of use of force to effect that purpose. This medication also compounded Brannon's problems as an administrator. When the dismissal letter was drafted, the prime focus of that letter was to the effect that the Sheriff's Office was concerned about Brannon's return to employment duties because of the belief by the Department that there would be exposure for liability in terms of workmen's Compensation claims by Brannon, in that the Sheriff's office believed that they would be entirely liable for physical disability if Brannon suffered an "industrial accident" while acting in the scope and capacity of his position within the Department. In further explanation, it was stated that the Department believed the health circumstance of Brannon was intense in view of the pain and associated use of special medications. For these reasons, Strawn was concerned that any negligent act by Brannon could result in liability for the Department, apparently from claims by third parties. The letter of dismissal went on to say that his duties were not being performed as well as expected because of Brannon's physical condition and the necessity for taking drugs to cope with those problems and further concern for fellow officers and members of the public. This statement can be related to Brannon's potential abilities as a lane officer and his primary function as supervisor of the communications and maintenance section. (Notwithstanding the fact that Brannon was not serving on a day-to-day capacity as a line officer, as a Deputy Sheriff he could reasonably be expected to be pressed into service in the eventuality of some emergency which called upon all appointees within the Sheriff's Office who are deputies to serve in that capacity, and as Brannon himself stated at the hearing, Sheriff's deputies are technically on duty twenty-four (24) hours a day.) Finally, the impression was created in the hearing process that the Strawn administration had been concerned about Brannon's absenteeism and morale in his section. Although this is not expressly stated in the letter of dismissal, the facts presented in evidence bear out the contention that Brannon was absent an inordinate number of times, notwithstanding the fact that the absences were taken under legitimate leave principles, and there were problems related to morale in the communications section. In addressing Strawn's worries, there was no procedure undertaken for formal evaluation of Brannon's performance. Sheriff Strawn did discuss Brannon's physical condition with him and what the Sheriff perceived to be a problem with the communications equipment inventory control system. On January 8, 1979, Brannon began to look for alternative employment and gained such employment with the Brevard County Public Safety Division, within the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on march 26, 1979, and was employed by them until January 14, 1981. During the course of his employment, he received $16,812.40 in gross earnings, and was provided life insurance commensurate with his annual salary, as well as health insurance. In addition, this employer "paid-in" at the rate of 9.1 percent of annual salary, into a retirement system. This payment to the retirement system was not made during leave without pay between July 1, 1980, and August, 1980. Following his employment with the Brevard Counts' Public Safety Division, Brannon worked for the Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, eighteen (18) to twenty (20) days, a month maximum. Following Brannon's dismissal from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, he also requested social security disability benefits in the summer of 1980, and that claim is now pending.
