Findings Of Fact Douglas L. Adams is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. On August 26, 1985, he was awakened early in the morning and brought before a disciplinary hearing for an alleged violation of institutional rules and regulations. Prior to the hearing, he was advised by a correctional officer to pack up all his personal property and to bring it with him to the hearing. Mr. Adams took with him as much as he could which included his clothing and other personal effects, but he was unable to carry all he owned with him at one time. He did not ask for either help in carrying his property or a cart to carry it in prior to leaving his cell area to go to the hearing. When he arrived at the movement center where the hearing was to be held, he advised the authorities there that he did not have all his property with him. At that point, he asked for help or the use of a cart to go get the rest of his property but he was refused because no cart was there. As a result, he went to the hearing leaving some of his property in his cell area and while in the hearing, contends he was required to leave his property in the control center. This property was secured in a storage room behind the control center which, while not locked, was not available for access to other inmates unless they were accompanied by a corrections officer. When the hearing was over and Mr. Adams, who had been directed to administrative confinement requested to go back to his former cell area to get the rest of his property, his request was refused. His property was inventoried by UCI personnel at that time, but because in his opinion the inventory was not complete, Mr. Adams refused to sign the form. When he was released from administrative confinement he claims he did not get all his property back. He relates that he was told he had forfeited whatever property he had not brought to the hearing. As a result, he filed a complaint on September 16, 1985, which was subsequently denied. Petitioner has been incarcerated in 7 or 8 institutions within the Department of Corrections including Florida State Prison, River Junction Correctional Institution, Baker Correctional Institution, Polk Correctional Institution, Old Unit, the Reception and Medical Center, and DeSoto Correctional Institution. At each one of these institutions a rule similar to this one was in existence. At Baker Correctional Institution, the inmate was required to bring his mattress as well. Robert Craig has been in prison for a total of 27 years and has been incarcerated in almost every major penal institution in the State of Florida that was built prior to the last five years. At Avon Park Correctional Institution he underwent a disciplinary hearing and was told at the time to bring all his personal property with him to the hearing. While in the hearing, he was required to leave all his property outside in the hall. At Cross City Correctional Institution the guards took him to the hearing without his property, bringing his property along afterwards. In essence, at all the institutions where he was incarcerated, there was some variation of the same procedure regarding his personal property. He either had to bring it to the hearing or it was packed up prior to the hearing. At no institution was his property inventoried prior to the hearing. As a result, he has lost personal property including a calculator for which he was subsequently reimbursed by the institution. According to Mr. Craig, if the inmate does not bring his personal property with him he either is given a deficiency report or is precluded from going back to get it when the hearing is over. Sgt. Denmark has worked for approximately 8 1/2 years with the Department of Corrections, all at UCI, where he formerly worked at the movement center. One of the functions he performed there was to handle prisoners coming for a disciplinary hearing. The rule as explained to him regarding the inmates' personal property is that the inmate is required to bring all of it with him to the hearing. Once the property is brought with the inmate to the hearing, the inmate is free to either take it into the hearing with him or to leave it in the storage room in back of the movement center during the hearing. If the inmate is sentenced to disciplinary confinement as a result of the hearing, in that case, and at that point, the inmate's property is inventoried. If the inmate is not sentenced to disciplinary confinement, the property is returned to the prisoner who is returned to his area. In the instant case, Mr. Denmark heard the Petitioner tell Sgt. Howe, when he arrived at the movement center, that he had left some of his property in his cell. However, when Adams went into his hearing, he neither took his property with him nor requested that it be secured. According to Mr. Cunningham, the Chief Classification Supervisor, the Union Correctional Institution Policy, (85-52.9 B1) requires inmates to bring all their property to disciplinary hearings. It is an old policy, and the reason for it is to protect the property from theft. In a disciplinary hearing, there is a chance that an inmate might not get back to his old cell to retrieve his property after the hearing. For security reasons, institution officials prefer not to take a prisoner back to his old cell after a hearing because, at that point, he is often angry as a result of the hearing and disruptive. All Department of Corrections' institutions in the region incorporating UCI, except Florida State Prison, have a similar policy. Inquiry of corrections personnel at the agency headquarters in Tallahassee reveals that most major DOC facilities have a similar policy. There are a total of 33 other facilities which hold less than 100 inmates each. These smaller institutions do not, generally, have a similar policy and Florida State Prison has a different situation because of the different security problems. It is the needs of the institution, however, which determine the use of the policy. Mr. Cunnningham is aware of Mr. Adams' hearing and the complaint filed as a result thereof. Upon inquiry it was determined that Mr. Adams had failed to establish a loss and the complaint was denied. Mr. Cunningham does not know whether there was an investigation into the loss of the property left in the cell. It is Mr. Cunningham's understanding that if the witness cannot carry all his property at one time, normally, if the inmate asks for permission to do so, he will be allowed to go back and get the balance before the hearing. This is not in the procedure approved by DOC, however, nor in the IOP at UCI. Corrections Officer Howe is also aware of the fact that Mr. Adams had a hearing on August 26, 1985. He, in fact, was called to the movement center to escort several prisoners, including Adams, to the confinement barracks after the hearings. A part of this duty involves inventorying the prisoners property. Howe told Adams to get his property and bring it in for inventory. At this point, after the hearing Adams said he did not have all his property with him and asked to be taken back to his old cell to get the rest. Howe declined to do this and explained the security reasons for his decision to Adams. He did advise Adams, however, that he would call down to Adams' old cell area and have his property packed which, in fact, he did. It is standard practice at UCI, according to Howe, that if an inmate has a large amount of property, he can request the use of a cart or wheelbarrow which is assigned to each housing area for carrying this excess property. This cart will be returned by a runner who can also help carry the excess. To his knowledge, inmates are not denied the use of these carts. Howe declined to return Adams to his old cell area after the hearing because, at the time, Adams was belligerent and unstable and presented a security risk in his opinion and also, because Adams had previously been advised to bring all his property with him and had failed to do this even though there was a way for him to accomplish it.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. As of the date of final hearing in this cause, Petitioner Durham was classified as "close" custody pursuant to Rule 33-6.09, Florida Administrative Code. Although Petitioner Durham's reclassification questionnaire score was initially five points, which would have qualified him for classification as "medium" custody, Respondent used the override provision contained in Rule 33-6.09 to classify Petitioner Durham as "close" custody by virtue of his poor institutional adjustment. Petitioner Adams was likewise classified as "close" custody at the time of final hearing. Petitioner Adams' numerical score on the inmate reclassification questionnaire would have classified him as "medium" custody, but the override provisions of Rule 33-6.09 were utilized in Mr. Adams' case to reclassify him as "close" custody by virtue of the fact that his sentence expiration date is 1990, and at the time of his reclassification he had not served 20 percent of his sentence. Petitioner Piccirillo was classified as "medium" custody at the time of final hearing. His numerical score on his inmate reclassification questionnaire was three points, which would have qualified him for "minimum" custody had this score not been overridden by virtue of the fact that Petitioner Piccirillo escaped from Department of Corrections custody on November 17, 1979, while in a minimum custody setting. Petitioner Farrell was classified as "minimum" custody at the time of final hearing in this cause, and his presumptive parole release date is set for July 24, 1984. It was stipulated at final hearing in this cause that none of the policy and procedure directives challenged in this cause had been promulgated by Respondent as rules, pursuant to the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. It is also apparent from the face of the various challenged policy and procedure directives that they have statewide applicability at all institutions administered by the Department of Corrections. On or about May 6, 1977, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.22, which was subsequently revised on November 30, 1979. This directive is entitled "Reclassification and Progress Reports," and purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in various sections of Chapters 921, 944, 945, and 947, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge two sections of this directive as unpromulgated rules. The first of these is contained in Section X, entitled "Sources of Information," which provides as follows: It is essential that Progress Reviews Reports be accurate, concise and usable. Compiling up-to-date information to go into the report is as important as writ- ing the report. The following source of information should be utilized by the Classification Team in compiling information for the report. Various evaluation Reports (verbal or written) to include work super- visors, medical, dental, education, recreation, quarters, religious, per- sonal observations, etc Nowhere in either the cited chapters of the Florida Statutes or Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, are there any specific requirements for information to be considered by the Classification Team in compiling an inmate progress report. Department personnel utilized the above quoted section of the challenged directive in preparing reports on inmate progress. The second section of Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.22 challenged in this proceeding is XVI, entitled "Recommendations for Parole or Pre-Parole Work Release," which provides as follows: The Department may in selected cases recom- mend to the Florida Parole and Probation Commission that an inmate be placed on parole or pre-parole work release. How ever, note should be made of an inmate's Presumptive Parole Release Date(PPRD) when considering such possibilities. If it is felt that such significant progress has taken place since the setting of the PPRD that it should be moved forward to an earlier date, then such recommendations should be made to the Parole Commission in a full Progress Report setting forth the basis for recommending a change in the PPRD. If at the time of the Progress Review/Report the team does not see the justification in recommending the PPRD be changed then no comment will be required. All reports contaning [sic] parole or pre-parole work release recommendations will be reviewed and signed by the Classification Supervisor and forwarded to the Superintendent for his concurrence or disapproval. The Superintendent will indicate his decision by placing his signature on the appropriate line of the block to be added at the close of the Progress Report format. Upon approving a parole or pre-parole work release recommendation, the Superintendent will prepare a cover letter of endorsement which will be attached to the normal distribution of the Progress Report and for warded directly to the Parole Commission. The above-quoted language from Section XVI of Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.22 is virtually identical to the language contained in Rule 33-6.09(7)(m) , Florida Administrative Code. On or about September 30, 1977, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.31, entitled "Community Study and Volunteer Service." This directive purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge as rules the following provisions contained in Section III, entitled "Selection": C. The Classification Team should determine if the inmate meets criteria for eligi- bility described in the Program Directive Community Services Programs. When com- parable study programs are available at the institution, community study should not be considered. On-the-job training programs which are limited in scope are not considered comparable. The educational personnel of the Depart- ment should be Particularly involved in referring inmates for community study since they are in a position to evaluate the inmate's desire, ability, and past performance in the education program. The educational personnel will ensure the availability of the requested course of study or training prior to Classification Team action. Inmates considered for community study must have financial assistance from one or more of the following sources for tuition, books and clothing: Vocational Rehabilitation Veterans benefits Personal finances Committed support by the inmate's family Approval for a government grant Proof of financial support must accompany each application. Inmates are not to borrow money from any university, college or private organiza- tion for the purpose of financing their education. Nowhere in either Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code, are the above-cited requirements of Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.31 contained. On or about April 27, 1977, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.40, which was subsequently revised on March 10, 1982. This directive, entitled "Community Work Release general Policies and Procedures" purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge as an umpromulgated rule Section IXB of the directive which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department will permit consideration for work release 18 months prior to release. However, normally such consideration will be given within the last nine months prior to the presumptive parole release date or expiration or[sic] sentence. Should special cases arise which warrant attention prior to the nine months remaining, consideration will be given on an individual basis when there appears[sic] to be appropriate reasons for such. Special cases must be recommended by the Classification Team, approved by the Superintendent and Regional Director, and then forwarded to the Central Office where a Special Review Committee will make the final decision. . . . (Emphasis added) The underlined portion of Section IXB quoted above appears nowhere in either Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, or in Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 30, 1979, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07-90, entitled "Inmate Participation in Outside Activities." This directive purports to be issued pursuant to authority contained in Section 945.21, Florida Statutes. Petitioners in this cause challenge as an umpromulgated rule Section IV of the directive, entitled "Distance Limitations," which provides as follows: The following distance limitations are established as maximums but may be reduced by the Superintendent: Travel to attend civic or religious meeting except the annual statewide meetings will be limited to 100 miles one way. Travel for fund raising projects will be limited to 35 miles one way. Travel to all statewide meetings will be approved by the Regional Director with concurrence of Assistant Secretary of Operations. Nowhere in Section 945.21, Florida Statutes, nor in validly adopted rules of Respondent do the specific requirements contained in Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.90 appear. On or about January 25, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.42, which was subsequently revised on February 26, 1982. This directive, entitled "Furlough Procedures," purports to be issued pursuant to authority contained in Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33.9, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners in this cause challenge the entirety of this directive as an unpromulgated rule. The directive establishes a special review team to review furlough applications; makes Florida furlough procedures applicable to federal inmates in interstate compact cases placed with the department; establishes types of furloughs which may be granted; establishes eligibility criteria for selecting inmates for furloughs; sets time and distance limitations for furloughs; establishes the maximum number of furloughs for which inmates may be eligible; establishes verification requirements; establishes clothing requirements while inmates are on furlough; establishes types of transportation available for inmates on furlough; establishes release and check-in procedures; and, finally, establishes a procedure for termination of furloughs in the event of a violation of a furlough agreement. None of the specific requirements contained in Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.42 are contained in either Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, Chapter 33-9, Florida Administrative Code, or any other properly promulgated rule of the Department of Corrections.
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ Petitioner forfeited his Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) Investment Plan account by entering a nolo contendere plea to two counts of violating section 893.13(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes, a second-degree felony.
Findings Of Fact The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Mr. Combs began working for DOC on May 25, 2001, as a Correctional Officer Level 1 at the Union Correctional Institution (“Union Correctional”) in Raiford, Florida. Union Correctional is a maximum security facility housing approximately 2,000 inmates, and Mr. Combs assisted with their care and custody. In January of 2006, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Sergeant. While his responsibilities were very similar to those of his previous position, Mr. Combs was now supervising other correctional officers. In October of 2011, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Lieutenant, and was responsible for supervising 50 to 70 correctional officers at Union Correctional. In April of 2013, Mr. Combs earned a promotion to Correctional Officer, Captain, and transferred to Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida. A captain is the highest ranking correctional officer on a given shift, and Mr. Combs supervised approximately 50 correctional officers at a time, including sergeants and lieutenants. Like Union Correctional, Florida State Prison is a maximum security facility housing approximately 2,000 prisoners. A colonel manages Florida State Prison, and it has two separate units. One of those units is a work camp housing lower- custody inmates who may work outside the facility, and the main prison is the other unit. Each of the units is run by its own major. In February of 2015, Mr. Combs was promoted to Major and took charge of the work camp at Florida State Prison. At some point in 2014 and prior to his promotion to Major, Mr. Combs had begun taking Oxycodone recreationally. Mr. Combs typically purchased one Oxycodone pill three to four times a week, and Dylan Hilliard (a Correctional Officer 1 at Florida State Prison) was Mr. Combs’ primary source of Oxycodone. Mr. Hilliard usually worked at the main prison, but he occasionally worked at the work camp. Mr. Combs knew Mr. Hilliard because of their employment with DOC. Mr. Combs purchased Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard at the latter’s home in Lawtey, Florida. However, some transactions occurred in Mr. Combs’ state-issued housing on the grounds of Florida State Prison. Mr. Hilliard charged Mr. Combs $35 for an Oxycodone pill, and that was a discount from the $38 price Mr. Hilliard charged others. Mr. Combs allowed his subordinates (Sergeants Jesse Oleveros and Evan Williams) to leave Florida State Prison during their shifts in order to purchase illegal drugs from Mr. Hilliard. After returning from their transactions with Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams would give Mr. Combs an Oxycodone pill free of charge. Operation Checkered Flag was a joint task force led by the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office, and its purpose was to arrest individuals involved with the distribution and use of illegal drugs. The authorities arrested Mr. Hilliard after he engaged in an illegal drug transaction with an undercover agent from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. A subsequent search of Mr. Hilliard’s cell phone revealed text messages between Mr. Hilliard and several other DOC employees, including Mr. Combs. Mr. Hilliard referred to Mr. Combs as “Chicken-Hawk” or “Hawk” in those text messages, and the two of them used car part terminology as a code for different milligram sizes of Oxycodone. Operation Checkered Flag ultimately resulted in the arrest of 10 DOC employees. The authorities arrested Mr. Combs on July 1, 2015, based on allegations that he had committed six felonies relating to the alleged unlawful and illegal purchase and distribution of Oxycodone. DOC fired Mr. Combs on approximately July 1, 2015. Mr. Combs initially denied all of the allegations. However, after spending nearly 56 days in jail, Mr. Combs reached an agreement with the State Attorney’s Office in Bradford County that called for his criminal charges to be reduced in exchange for his cooperation with Operation Checkered Flag. During an interview on August 20, 2015, with members of Operation Checkered Flag, Mr. Combs admitted that he had purchased Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. In addition, Mr. Combs admitted that on six or seven occasions he allowed Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams to leave the prison grounds so that they could purchase Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. The State Attorney’s Office in Bradford County chose to dismiss most of the charges against Mr. Combs. The Information ultimately filed against Mr. Combs set forth two counts alleging that he violated section 893.13(2)(a)1., by illegally purchasing Oxycodone on March 23, 2015, and March 31, 2015. Those purchases occurred approximately 10 miles from Florida State Prison at Mr. Hilliard’s residence in Lawtey, Florida. Neither Mr. Combs nor Mr. Hilliard was on duty during those transactions. On August 25, 2015, Mr. Combs pled nolo contendere. The Bradford County Circuit Court entered judgment against Mr. Combs based on the two violations of section 893.13(2)(a)1., but withheld adjudication. All of the conduct underlying Mr. Combs’ nolo contendere plea occurred while he was employed by DOC. The SBA Determines that Mr. Combs Forfeited his FRS Benefits At all times relevant to the instant case, Mr. Combs was a member of the FRS. The FRS is the legislatively-created general retirement system established by chapter 121, Florida Statutes. See § 121.021(3), Fla. Stat. The SBA is the governmental entity that administers the FRS Investment Plan, a defined retirement benefits contribution plan. § 121.4501(1), Fla. Stat. Via a letter dated August 3, 2015, the SBA notified Mr. Combs that a hold had been placed on his FRS account due to the criminal charges. As a result, no distribution of employer contributions from Mr. Combs’ account would be permitted until the SBA had evaluated the final disposition of those criminal charges. Via a letter dated September 3, 2015, the SBA notified Mr. Combs that he had forfeited his FRS benefits as a result of his nolo contendere plea. In support thereof, the SBA cited section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, which provides for the forfeiture of a public employee’s FRS retirement benefits upon the entry of a nolo contendere plea to certain types of offenses. The SBA’s letter closed by notifying Mr. Combs of his right to challenge the SBA’s proposed action through an administrative hearing. Mr. Combs requested a formal administrative hearing and asserted that the crimes for which he was convicted did not fall within the scope of section 112.3173(2)(e). In other words, Mr. Combs argued that his convictions were not associated with his employment at DOC and thus did not amount to a violation of the public trust. Testimony Adduced at the Final Hearing Mr. Combs testified that he was responsible for the work camp and the supervision of the correctional officers assigned there. He also testified that he would occasionally supervise correctional officers who normally worked in the main prison. Mr. Combs testified that Mr. Hilliard was his primary source of Oxycodone and that Mr. Hilliard occasionally worked at the work camp. Mr. Combs was aware that two Florida State Prison employees who worked directly under him (Sergeant Jesse Oleveros and Sergeant Evan Williams) were purchasing Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs testified that he allowed Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams to leave Florida State Prison grounds six or seven times in order to purchase Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs testified that Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams would give him an Oxycodone pill after returning from their transactions with Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs acknowledged during his testimony that DOC policy prohibits correctional officers from leaving prison grounds during their shift. Mr. Combs acknowledged that it was a violation of DOC policy and Florida law to allow a correctional officer to leave prison grounds during a shift for the purpose of purchasing illegal narcotics. Mr. Combs also acknowledged that it was a violation of DOC policy and Florida law to allow a correctional officer to be on prison grounds with illegal narcotics. Finally, Mr. Combs acknowledged that as a sworn officer with the Department of Corrections, he had an obligation to report any criminal activity committed by a correctional officer working at Florida State Prison, regardless of whether that correctional officer reported to him. Findings of Ultimate Fact An examination of the circumstances associated with Mr. Combs’ Oxycodone purchases from Mr. Hilliard demonstrates that there is a nexus between Mr. Combs’ employment as a correctional officer with DOC and his commission of the crimes to which he pled nolo contendere. For instance, Mr. Combs came to know his primary source of Oxycodone (Mr. Hilliard) through their mutual employment with DOC. Indeed, Mr. Combs supervised Mr. Hilliard when the latter was assigned to the work camp at Florida State Prison. Also, Mr. Combs knew that these transactions were illegal. As noted above, he and Mr. Hilliard used a code based on car part references to disguise the actual subject of their communications. Contrary to DOC policy and Florida Law, Mr. Combs allowed two of his subordinates (Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams) to leave Florida State Prison during their duty shifts in order to purchase illegal drugs from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs would then receive a free pill from Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams. Mr. Hilliard sold Oxycodone to Mr. Combs at a reduced price. It is reasonable to infer that Mr. Combs received this discount due to his high-ranking position at Mr. Hilliard’s place of employment and because Mr. Combs facilitated Mr. Oleveros and Mr. Williams’ purchases of Oxycodone from Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs willfully violated DOC policy and Florida law by allowing correctional officers to leave prison grounds during a shift for the purpose of purchasing illegal narcotics. Mr. Combs knowingly violated his obligation as a sworn correctional officer by not reporting the criminal activity committed by Mr. Hilliard. Mr. Combs defrauded the public from receiving the faithful performance of his duties as a correctional officer. The public had a right to expect that one of its employees would not purchase drugs from someone he supervised. The public also had a right to expect that Mr. Combs would not use his authority at Florida State Prison to facilitate Mr. Hilliard’s illegal drug sales to other DOC employees. In addition, the public had a right to expect that Mr. Combs would not engage in illegal transactions on the grounds of Florida State Prison. Mr. Combs realized a profit, gain, or advantage through the power or duties associated with his position as a Major at DOC. Specifically, Mr. Combs satisfied his Oxycodone habit through purchases made from a DOC employee who he supervised. Also, Mr. Combs used his position to facilitate other sales by Mr. Hilliard, and Mr. Combs’ assistance led to him receiving free Oxycodone and a discounted price on his Oxycodone purchases. The findings set forth above in paragraphs 49 through 57 are the only ones needed to establish a nexus between Mr. Combs’ public employment and the two counts to which he pled nolo contendere. That nexus is evident from Mr. Combs’ testimony, Mr. Combs’ Responses to the SBA’s Requests for Admissions, and the Stipulated Facts. It was not necessary to consider the exhibits to which Mr. Combs raised objections, i.e., the arrest warrant, the warrant affidavit, and the audio recordings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner was a public employee convicted of specified offenses that were committed prior to retirement, and that pursuant to section 112.3173 he has forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account, except for the return of his accumulated contributions as of the date of his termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christopher Knowles, was employed at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, during the period of time prior to July 19, 1981, up until February 4, 1983. On July 19, 1981, the Respondent was injured during the course of his employment when he tripped over one of the center's detainees while on the athletic field attempting to break up a fight between detainees. The Respondent received medical treatment and was placed on disability leave until August 10, 1981, when he returned to work and was given a light-duty assignment. On August 17, 1981, the Respondent was returned to a full-duty status, but he was still being treated by a physician, and until November 22, 1982, he worked irregularly and took sick leave when not working. On November 22, 1982, the Respondent told his supervisor that he had been released by his doctor to return to work, but that he did not feel that he was yet able to return to work. The Respondent at this time was required to obtain a physician's authorization for continued sick leave, or else return to work. When the Respondent did not return to work, he was advised on December 3, 1982, that he must contact his supervisor by December 10 or report to work by this date, or a recommendation would be made for termination of his employment. When the Respondent did not respond, he was sent a letter on December 21, 1982, directed to the address which had been furnished by the Respondent to the personnel office, repeating the requirement that he contact his supervisor or report to work. As a result of this letter, the Respondent went to the detention center on December 30, 1982, and repeated his contention that he was not yet able to return to work. In January of 1983 the personnel office of the detention center secured a statement dated January 17, 1983, from the Respondent's physician advising that the Respondent was able to return to work on November 22, 1982. On January 18, 1983, the Respondent was again told by letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested, that he must return to work, and he was given until January 24, 1983, to do so or, he was informed, that he would be terminated. This letter also advised the Respondent that his physician's statement had been secured stating that he had been fit for duty since November 22, 1982. The Respondent did not respond to this letter. On February 2, 1983, the Respondent was advised by letter that his employment was terminated as of February 4, 1983, due to abandonment by the Respondent. On February 4, 1983, the Respondent went to the office of his supervisor at the detention center, complaining that he did not abandon his job, and asking that his termination be reversed. This request was declined. The detention center needed an employee in the Respondent's position and could not hire someone as long as the Respondent was employed in this position. The Respondent contends that he fears that he might become reinjured if he should return to work, although he admits that his physician released him from further treatment and advised him to return to work on November 22, 1982. The Respondent also admits that he is not now under the care of a physician, and has not been examined by a doctor since November of 1982.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter an Order finding that the Respondent, Christopher Knowles abandoned his position of employment at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center, and that he be discharged effective February 4, 1983. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14 day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 14 day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Christopher Knowles 3530 North West 18th Place Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, William Van Poyck, and the Intervenor, Robert David Roy, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are subject to the rules of the Respondent. The evidence failed to prove that the Petitioner and Intervenor are, or have been, placed in administrative confinement by the Respondent. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, the Florida Department of Corrections, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, a rule of the Respondent, governs the placement of an inmate in "administrative confinement". "Administrative confinement" is "the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for . . . " various specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated September 27, 1990, the Respondent advised the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), of proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Be letter dated November 5, 1990, M. Catherine Green, an attorney with the Committee, informed the Respondent that a review of the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, had been completed. Ms. Green also informed the Respondent of certain "technical errors" and "substantive errors" that she found with Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green indicated that a "substantive error" referred to "errors which will result in recommended objections to the committee unless they are eliminated prior to adoption." Among the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code: (3) Placement in administrative confinement shall be for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 9 was, in pertinent part, as follows: What does "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" mean? This has the effect of not notifying the inmate of the length of time in which he will be in administrative confinement and the criteria to be considered in releasing him or her. The rule discusses criteria for placing inmates in administrative confinement, but sets no criteria other than "desired results" as to when an inmate shall be released. If the two criteria are the same, please make that clear. Another of the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after an informal hearing when no reasonable alternative exists. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. Rule 33-3.0081(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for review of the senior correctional officer's "informal hearing" and Rule 33-3.0081(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a 48-hour delay in the "informal hearing" in case of certain emergencies. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 11 was, in pertinent part, as follows: Please provide a cross reference to the rules of procedure for an informal hearing. Does the review procedure conflict with provisions of Chapter 33-29, F.A.C.? Please clarify what the phrase "when no reasonable alternative exists" means in reference to an inmate's confinement after an informal hearing. . . . . In a letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent, through a Senior Attorney, responded to Ms. Green's comments. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, was made: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replace it with "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replacing it with the phrase "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the circumstances under which an inmate placed in administrative confinement will be returned to the general inmate population. Under Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, prior to the proposed amendment, "the shortest time possible" occurred when the factors which necessitated placing an inmate in administrative confinement no longer applied. The proposed amendment merely clarifies when "the shortest time possible" has occurred. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, was also made in the January 23, 1991, letter: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "an informal hearing" and insert "being advised of an incident or situation which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the terms "informal hearing" and replacing them with the following underlined language: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after being advised of a situation or incident which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution, if the situation cannot be resolved. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. . . . The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the manner in which an inmate is informed that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The "informal hearing" previously required in Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, required no more than the proposed amendment provides for. By eliminating the terms "informal hearing" the proposed rule amendment eliminates any confusion as to whether some more formal process is to be followed by the Respondent in informing an inmate that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which contained the proposed amendments at issue in this proceeding was subsequently filed by the Respondent with the Bureau of Administrative Code, for publication, and with the Committee. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included the following "purpose and effect" clause: The proposed amendments are needed in order to correct technical and substantive errors noted by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. The proposed amendments provide clarification of policies and procedures regarding administrative confinement and protective management. The purpose and effect clause is consistent with the substantive changes to Rule 33-3.0081(3) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding are arbitrary or capricious. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any of the suggestions concerning Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, made by Ms. Green were ever approved, adopted, or reviewed by the Committee. In fact, Ms. Green indicates in her letter that "substantive errors" she perceived would be recommended as objections to the Committee only if they were not eliminated prior to adoption. Since the "substantive errors" at issue in this proceeding were eliminated, they were apparently never recommended or considered by the Committee.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibit received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent, Mr. John S. Moncrief, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on June 12, 1980, and was issued Certificate Number C-9151 Mr. Moncrief worked in various law enforcement positions from 1979 through 1984. From December 1, 1981, until September 27, 1982, Mr. Moncrief worked as a Corrections Officer for the Okeechobee Sheriff's Office. During the entire time that Mr. Moncrief worked in law enforcement, the only charges or complaints made against him were those which form the basis for the charges in this case. During the months of March and April of 1982, Mr. Gerald Ray "Cowboy" Powell was an inmate of the Okeechobee County Jail. During a portion of that time Ms. Lynda Carroll was also an inmate of the Okeechobee County Jail. At all relevant times Mr. Powell was housed in a downstairs cell which was used for trustees and minimum security inmates and Ms. Carroll was housed in the women's cellblock which was on the second floor of the jail facility. It was not possible for an inmate housed on the second floor to come down to the first floor without the assistance of a jail employee. On two occasions during the months of March and April of 1982, Moncrief allowed Ms. Carroll to come downstairs at night and visit Mr. Powell in the latter's downstairs cell. In order to do so, it was necessary for Mr. Moncrief to enter the portion of the jail facility in which female inmates were housed and to open locked doors for Ms. Carroll. On both of the occasions mentioned immediately above, Mr. Powell and Ms. Carroll engaged in sexual intercourse in Mr. Powell's cell.2 On one occasion during the month of April of 1982,another Corrections Officer employed by the Okeechobee Sheriff's Office allowed Mr. Powell to go upstairs at night and visit with Ms. Carroll in her cell. On this occasion Mr. Powell and Ms. Carroll did not engage in sexual intercourse. Mr. Moncrief was not involved in any way with Mr. Powell's upstairs visit with Ms. Carroll. During March and April of 1982 the policies and procedures in effect at the Okeechobee County Jail prohibited male Corrections Officers from entering the area in which female inmates were housed unless the male Corrections Officer was accompanied by a matron or a female dispatcher. Policies and procedures in effect at that time also prohibited inmates of one sex from visiting with inmates of the opposite sex. Mr. Moncrief was aware of these policies. It was a violation of these policies for Mr. Monerief to allow Ms. Carroll to visit with Mr. Powell in the latter's cell.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. enter a Final Order dismissing all charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint on the grounds of insufficient evidence. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1985, Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH ISH, 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 23rd day of September, 1985.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in one or more of the following ways: by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race and/or gender; (b) by subjecting Petitioner to a hostile work environment; and (c) by retaliating against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner, a black female, as a correctional officer on or about February 25, 2002. Petitioner was initially assigned to the Hernando County Jail. After a series of transfers at Petitioner's request, Respondent assigned Petitioner to the Lake City Correctional Facility in July 2005. Petitioner continued to serve at that facility until she was terminated. On multiple occasions during her employment, Petitioner received copies of Respondent's Harassment/Sexual Harassment policy and Respondent's Code of Ethics policy. Petitioner received formal training relative to the substance of these policies when she was hired and annually thereafter. In October 2007, Petitioner filed two grievances against Captain Michael Register and Chief Daniel Devers. The grievance against Chief Devers alleged a "hostile" work environment. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Chief Devers created a divide-and-conquer environment by telling new staff that "several dirty officers work for Respondent and that the new staff are to tell on them and replace all the old staff members." The grievance against Captain Register alleged race and gender harassment. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that Captain Register did not relieve Petitioner on time "for three weeks straight." Petitioner believed that Captain Register's alleged conduct was due to his dislike for her and favoritism toward other staff members. Petitioner did not allege that Captain Register or Chief Devers ever said anything to Petitioner or anyone else regarding her race or gender. In response to Petitioner's grievances, Respondent performed an in-house investigation. Subsequently, Petitioner's grievances against Captain Register and Chief Devers were denied as unfounded. Petitioner alleges that she was sexually harassed by Officer/Correctional Counselor Roderick Polite. As a Correctional Counselor, Officer Polite did not have authority to change the terms and conditions of Petitioner's employment except that it was possible for Petitioner to receive work orders from a Correctional Counselor. Petitioner went on two consensual dates with Officer Polite prior to his alleged harassment. The first date was in late November 2007. The second date was in early December 2007. At the time that Petitioner went on these dates, she was temporarily broken up with Correctional Officer Darian Blue. In late November and early December 2007, Petitioner worked the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. Officer Polite was assigned to the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift. Petitioner refused to go to Respondent's December 14, 2007, Christmas party with Officer Polite. Thereafter, Officer Polite called Petitioner's house continuously for three days. In a telephone conversation on December 17, 2007, Officer Polite allegedly told Petitioner that he "just had sex with a girl." Officer Polite also allegedly stated that his fascination with her would be over if she would just give him oral sex. Petitioner told Officer Polite "no" and ended the conversation. Petitioner claims that Officer Polite began to harass her at work after the December 17, 2007, telephone conversation. According to Petitioner, the harassment continued until January 10, 2008. Specifically, Petitioner claims that Officer Polite was critical of her work performance and changed the procedures she was to follow regarding mail distribution and the cleaning of pods by inmates. Officer Polite allegedly also accused Petitioner of improperly counseling an inmate. Petitioner alleges that Officer Polite "wrote her up" on one occasion. However, Petitioner admits that she never saw the alleged write-up. Petitioner also admits that she never suffered any adverse action as a result of the alleged write-up. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Officer Polite never filed a disciplinary action against Petitioner. Petitioner did not complain about Officer Polite's conduct until January 9, 2008. On that date, Petitioner spoke with Captain Joseph Ruby about Officer Polite's alleged conduct. Respondent’s sexual harassment policy prohibits physical and verbal harassment, including inappropriate threats and requests. The policy also set forth the procedure by which employees should utilize to complain about harassment and states that complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, on January 10, 2008, Petitioner was interviewed by Respondent's in-house investigator. Petitioner told the investigator about Officer Polite's alleged harassment but stated that she did not want to file a formal grievance against him. Petitioner simply requested that she be allowed to return to work and that she not have to work with Officer Polite. Officer Polite subsequently resigned his position as a Correctional Counselor and stepped down to a Correctional Officer position. Additionally, Respondent changed Officer Polite to the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift. If there were occasions when Petitioner's and Officer Polite's shifts overlapped, Respondent granted Officer Polite's requests not to work around Petitioner. In March 2008, Petitioner applied for one of three open positions as a Correctional Counselor. Based on the interview panel's recommendation, Warden Jason Medlin selected a white female and two black females for the positions. Petitioner was not selected for one of the positions because of her personnel and disciplinary record, including a prior allegation of excessive force against inmates. Moreover, there is no evidence regarding the personnel and disciplinary records of the three females selected for the positions. On March 30, 2008, Petitioner was assigned to the control room in the South 2 Unit. Her primary duty was to maintain the log and to open doors for other officers. At some point during her shift, Petitioner removed an inmate from his cell, took him to master control, and left him there. A Lieutenant requested another Correctional Officer, Amanda Sanders, to escort the inmate back to his cell and assist Petitioner with a search of the inmate's cell. When Officer Sanders and Petitioner arrived at the cell, the inmate's cellmate, Jose Sandoval, was sitting on his bunk bed. Officer Sanders told Inmate Sandoval to leave the cell. When Inmate Sandoval did not comply, Petitioner ordered him to stand up to be handcuffed. Inmate Sandoval continued to sit on his bunk bed. Petitioner then told Officer Sanders to call a "code red," a request for assistance from other officers. Officer Sanders did not comply immediately with Petitioner's request because Officer Sanders did not believe there was a need for assistance or a reason to handcuff Inmate Sandoval. Next, Petitioner grabbed Inmate Sandoval by his arm, physically removed him from his bed, and placed him face first into the wall. Officer Sanders did not have any contact with Inmate Sandoval when Petitioner removed him from his bed. Inmate Sandoval somehow turned to face Petitioner who had her back to Officer Sanders. Officer Sanders heard a "smack" and concluded that Petitioner had struck Inmate Sandoval. Officer Sanders then saw Inmate Sandoval spit at Petitioner. Officer Sanders immediately called a "code red" and assisted Petitioner in placing Inmate Sandoval on the floor and handcuffing him. Other officers arrived and removed Inmate Sandoval from his cell and the unit. As recorded on the facility's video cameras, the officers carried Inmate Sandoval by his neck, two or three feet off the floor. The officers choked him and slammed him onto the floor. The cameras recorded Inmate Sandoval in the medical department, so incoherent that he had to be held up to prevent him from falling over. When force is used against an inmate, the incident report must be sent to the Florida Department of Corrections' Inspector General (IG). In this case, the IG performed an investigation, concluding that Inmate Sandoval was assaulted by the facility's officers and that blood was cleaned off the walls to hide the assault. Respondent subsequently received a copy of the IG's report. On April 11, 2008, Respondent terminated all officers involved, including Petitioner, for violation of Respondent's Code of Ethics. Specifically, Respondent terminated Petitioner for physically abusing the inmate, for failing to report the extent of abuse on the inmate in written reports and during the IG's investigation, and for failing to call into the facility as directed while on administrative leave after the incident. Other officers that were terminated included the following: (a) Correctional Officer Darian Blue (black male) for use of excessive force; (b) Lieutenant Phillip Mobley (white male) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (c) Captain/Shift Supervisor Joseph Ruby (white male) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (d) Correctional Officer Grace Davie (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (e) Correctional Officer Melissa Fontaine (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; and (f) Correctional Officer Eunice Cline (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse. Respondent did not terminate Officer Sanders. The IG's report did not show that she violated any of Respondent's policies during the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chelsie J. Roberts, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dafney Cook 2445 Dunn Avenue, Apt 610 Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway. Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Gulf County Jail.1/ In May of 2010, officials for the Gulf County Jail in conjunction with the Gulf County Sheriff's Office investigated allegations that contraband was being smuggled to inmates at the jail. As a result of the investigation, seven people were dismissed from employment and/or charged with crimes. Part of the investigation addressed Respondent's alleged behavior. As part of that investigation, Investigator Shane Lee of the Gulf County Sheriff's Office interviewed inmate Jason Strimel. Michael Hammond, Administrator for the jail, also attended the interview, which was videotaped. Based on information received from the interview, a baggie was retrieved from Mr. Strimel, which contained two pills and some residue. Pictures of the pills were entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. While Warden Hammond testified that the pills were tested and determined to be Ultram, no documentary evidence related to the testing was introduced. Based on the investigation by the Gulf County Sheriff's Office, Respondent was charged with introduction of contraband, in violation of section 951.22, Florida Statutes. Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement on January 27, 2012. His employment at the Gulf County Jail was terminated. No competent evidence was presented in this proceeding connecting Respondent to the introduction of contraband.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issues are presented based upon an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent accusing the Respondent of entering into a drug trafficking agreement with an inmate in a correctional facility where the Respondent worked. This is in violation of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes, per the Administrative Complaint, in that should the allegations be proven, Respondent is not felt to be qualified to hold a certificate as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, in that he has committed conduct unfitting for a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wayne A. Thomas, was a correctional officer employed at the Union Correctional Institution from August 4, 1981 through March 3, 1983. He served there under the authority of a certificate as correctional officer, which certificate had been issued by the State of Florida. At present, the Respondent's correctional officer certificate is in an inactive status. This case was presented for formal hearing based upon the Respondent's timely request for such treatment of the controversy. On March 2, 1983, Sergeant Sterling M. Esford, a correctional officer in the Union Correctional facility, was approached by an inmate, Ronald Thompson. Thompson was a person whom Esford had used as a confidential informant in the past and had found to be reliable. Thompson told Esford he had information to the effect that the Respondent was bringing quaaludes into the correctional facility to be sold. In exchange for assistance to be given an inmate Bell who was having difficulty with the prison authorities related to certain charges that they had brought against him, Thompson agreed to assist the internal security section of the institution in its efforts to investigate allegations against the Respondent. Lieutenant R. T. Lee, internal security officer, was made aware of the claims of Thompson related to Respondent's alleged drug activities and the offer by Thompson to help in the apprehension of the Respondent. Thompson told the authorities that he would need $50 to make a drug Purchase from Respondent. Lee gave Thompson $50 of money in which the serial numbers had been recorded prior to the transfer of the currency, money which had been dusted with a powder which could not be detected unless subject to ultraviolet light. Thompson then took the money on March 3, 1983 and later met with the Respondent. At the time of the meeting between Thompson and the Respondent, Thompson did not tell the Respondent that he wished to purchase drugs as he had indicated to the internal security officers that he would do. Thompson instead asked that the Respondent transmit the $50 in currency to a Marvin Jackson who was being held in a confinement section of the institution. Thompson made it known that this money was being transmitted for the benefit of one Doyle Heard, a friend of Jackson's. Thompson then gave money to the Respondent. The exact amount of the money given was not revealed, in that only $45 of the money was ever recovered and it is uncertain whether the remaining $5 was kept by Thompson, the Respondent or Marvin Jackson, who received the $45. Authorities searched the person of the Respondent and Jackson and did not find the $5. Thompson was not searched. (Respondent claims that the transmittal of the currency was in exchange for information which Thompson gave him on the subject of unauthorized weapons, which were hidden in the institution. He further claims that Thompson assisted him in searching for those weapons, although none were found. Given the testimony of other witnesses to the effect that those kinds of weapons were readily discoverable through routine searches by authorities and the fact that doing favors for inmates in exchange for information was a matter done under the guise of official sanction by authorities within the institution, which was not the case here, and the failure of the Respondent to disclose to authorities his alleged transmittal of the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of weapons in the institution, Respondent's explanation is not believed. In other words, Respondent is not found to have told the truth when he says that he transmitted the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of illegal weapons within the institution.) When the Respondent gave the money to Jackson, he told him that the money had been sent to him by Doyle Heard, his acquaintance. He further stated that the money was being given to him because Jackson was being transferred from that institution to another. In carrying this money from Thompson to Jackson, Respondent recognized that it was contrary to law and policy to do so, in that United States currency is considered contraband if found in the hands of an inmate and to assist in its transmittal, as opposed to turning in the contraband is a specific violation of the laws and rules of the institution. After the money transfer, Thompson indicated that he had conferred with the Respondent about the purchase of marijuana for $50 to be delivered at a later time. The authorities were led to believe from Thompson's remark that the purchase was quaaludes in exchange for $50. (Thompson denies ever having met Jackson at the time of the money being provided to Jackson in this incident.) He said he subsequently became aware of Jackson's existence. Considering his demeanor and his other testimony presented in the course of the hearing, Thompson is not believed when he says that a drug transaction took place between he and the Respondent on March 3, 1983, related to the exchange of $50 in return for drugs to be delivered at a future date. The facts demonstrate that Thompson misled the authorities about the reason for obtaining the $50 and did so to benefit Heard and Jackson. Thompson established a "scam" in order to obtain $50 for the benefit of those two inmates, and to facilitate those purposes lied about the Respondent's involvement in the subject drug deal which supposedly occurred on March 3, 1983. When the Respondent was leaving the institution on the evening of March 3, 1983, he was confronted by Lieutenant Lee and denied knowing Thompson and denied any involvement in a drug deal. The powder from the marked money was later discovered on his trousers and when confronted with that discovery, the Respondent acknowledged knowing Thompson and stated that he had delivered money to Marvin Jackson. In this interview, Respondent acknowledged that the transmittal of the currency was in violation of institutional policy. As identified by Sergeant Esford and confirmed by other correctional officers who gave testimony in the hearing, transmittal of the contraband, i.e., the U.S. currency, caused the Respondent to lose his effectiveness as a correctional officer. Respondent resigned his post following the incident. At the time of the departure, officials within the institution had found his overall performance to have been satisfactory.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Luis A. Pacheco, Joel Estremera, Felipe Pichardo and Owen D. Denson, are inmates in the custody and control of the Department. The Department is a state agency. On December 26, 1991, the Petitioners filed a Petition for Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule against the First Respondents. The Petition was filed against "John T. Shaw, Superintendent, Glades Correctional Institution, et. al." In the Petition, the Petitioners challenged the validity of "the revision of Glades Correctional Operating Procedure 91-07, sec. 7.09" pursuant to Sections 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petition failed to challenge a rule or an alleged rule of any "agency" as that term is defined in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. On January 10, 1992, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered granting a Motion to Dismiss filed by the First Respondents and giving the Petitioners an opportunity to file an amended petition on or before January 21, 1992. No amended petition was filed by the Petitioners on or before January 21, 1992. Therefore, on January 29, 1992, an Order Concerning Proposed Final Orders was entered informing the parties that they could file proposed final orders on or before February 24, 1992, and that this Final Order would be entered on or before March 16, 1992. On February 7, 1992, the Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Determination of Invalidity of An Existing Rule and requested that it be accepted. On February 25, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered accepting the Amended Petition and informing the parties that this case would be disposed of by a summary final order. In the Amended Petition the Department was named as the Respondent. Although the amended petition indicates that the Petitioners are challenging Rule 33-5.01, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Sections 120.52, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes, in fact the Petitioners are challenging a memorandum issued at Glades Correctional Institution changing Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.12 (hereinafter referred to as the "Policy and Procedure Directive"). In the Amended Petition the Petitioners allege, in part, the following: Respondent through his designee, John T. Shaw, has adopted exhibit " A " as a rule, which governs petitioners [sic] visitors to select from, " Saturday or Sunday as their regular visiting day. Petitioners are therefore substantially " affected " and this case includes an invalid exercise of delagated [sic] authority because the department of corrections failed to promulgate it's Policy and Procedure Directive number 3.04.12 as a rule, contrary to the requirements of section 944.09, Florida Statutes. The Amended Petition fails to challenge a rule or an alleged rule of any "agency" as that term is defined is Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes.
