The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 11, 1990, and issued certificate number 4-90-502-02. On May 31, 1990, Dawn Rees was working in concert with the Police Department of Williston, Florida, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a confidential informant regarding illegal drug activity in the Williston area. In the course of her work, Rees would meet with various individuals and attempt to buy illegal drugs. As a prelude to each of these meetings, Rees would be searched by law enforcement officials to determine that she had no illegal drugs on her person. Then, she would be "wired" or fitted with sonic monitoring equipment and sent to negotiate the illegal drug purchase. Upon her return from the drug rendezvous, Rees would turn over any contraband purchased by her and submit again to a personal search. Rees' conversations with the persons from whom she sought to buy drugs was monitored and recorded by authorities via the broadcast of those communications to them through the "wire" worn by Rees. On the evening of May 31, 1994, Rees went to the residence where Respondent lived and spoke with William Lynch, a friend of Respondent who also resided in the house, concerning the purchase of an ounce of marijuana. The conversation between Lynch and Rees took place on the front porch of the residence. Lynch told Rees that he could get the marijuana for her. Later that evening, Rees, equipped with the hidden listening device described above, returned and entered the residence to get the promised marijuana. Sometime later, Rees left the residence and met with law enforcement authorities. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, a field test of the substance obtained from Lynch in the residence by Rees, and provided to authorities that night, identified the drug as marijuana. As established by Rees' testimony at the final hearing, she was involved in several other investigations as a confidential informant during the same general time span that she was also involved in the drug purchase at Respondent's residence. Rees testified from the basis of her recollection of events that had occurred several years prior to final hearing. Respondent was present and operating a "Nintendo" game when Rees entered the house. Respondent engaged in conversation with Rees, but did not observe the later exchange of money for marijuana between her and Lynch. The exchange, as established by Lynch's candid and credible testimony, took place in a back bedroom of the house, out of the presence of Respondent. Respondent testified that he had no knowledge of the transaction or the presence of illegal drugs in the house. Accordingly, Rees' testimony, absent further corroboration by other direct admissible evidence, that Respondent knew illicit drugs were on the premises and observed the drug transaction, cannot be credited. A transcript, presented at the final hearing and purportedly derived from the tape of conversations had between Rees and persons in the residence garnered via the "wire" worn by Rees, offers no proof in support of a contention that Respondent was aware of the presence or sale of illegal drugs on the premises. As established by the credible testimony of Respondent, and corroborated by Lynch, Respondent was unaware of the presence of illicit drugs in the residence or the sale of such drugs in the residence at any time, contrary to allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Later, Lynch moved out of the residence. Respondent was arrested several months later in connection with the incident. By stipulation of the parties, it is established that those charges were subsequently nolle prossed by the Office of the State Attorney, 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The evidence presented by Petitioner of Respondent's knowledge and possible participation in the possession and sale of an illicit drug, marijuana, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, is met by Respondent's credible denial of any knowledge as to the alleged events. Further, Respondent's assertion of innocence is corroborated by the testimony of William Lynch. It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent knew that drugs were in the house on the night in question or that Respondent knew of the drug sale to Dawn Rees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of June, 1994. DON W. DAVIS 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 10th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2 Accepted. 3-4 Rejected, the transcript reference shows that Respondent was arrested on February 5, 1991, following the May, 1990 incident. 5-6 Accepted. 7-8 Subordinate to HO's findings on these points. Specifically, Ms. Rees is found to have been mistaken about the content of her conversations with Respondent and without a basis to draw the conclusion that Respondent was a willing and knowledgeable participant in illegal activity. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent had the transcript admitted to show its lack of probative value. At no time does Respondent adopt the transcript in order to prove the case against himself. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Pauline Ingreham-Drayton Attorney at Law Florida Department of Law Enforcement 711 B Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Bova, Jr. 624 S.W. 70th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608 Leon Lowry, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marion Sanders, is a registered nurse who holds license no. RN21383-4. Marion Sanders has been registered with the Board since approximately 1959 or 1960. Other than the two incidents set forth in the subject administrative complaint, the licensee had not been subjected to any disciplinary action. On January 22, she was employed with the Jacksonville Drug Abuse Program where her principal duties consisted of making "jail runs" to administer methadone medications to jail clients that had been incarcerated and treated by the Jacksonville Drug Abuse Program. On January 22, while making a "jail run" she saw a client who had been picked up by the police on January 21, and at that time had in his possession a bottle of methadone. While accompanied by a guard and correctional officers, she visited the client who was being held in the "court chute" where she medicated the patients that were being held in the presence of correctional officers, a nurse and an officer that works in the clinic. The Respondent licensee medicated client Jerald Cole with the bottle that she received from the nurse that had been picked up earlier. According to her testimony, that dosage was lower than the bottle that she had brought there from the clinic inasmuch as it contained 45 mg whereas the bottle that she brought from the clinic contained 50 mg. In the next cell she approached Emmett Brown and she asked him if he had called the clinic. Sanders testified that she recalled Emmett Brown since her earlier days of employment with the Drug Abuse Program sometime in September of 1975. When Messenger Brown replied that he had called the clinic, she administered to him the dose that she had picked up from the jail. She testified that this was done because she was aware that he was on a 70 mg dosage in September and that she felt that it was a "humanitarian thing to do at the time". As revealed by the factual stipulation, licensee Sanders did not chart the administration of the methadone dosage to Emmett Brown on the narcotics disposition sheet. Victor A. Pena, M.D., was called and testified that he was presently employed by the City of Jacksonville Drug Abuse Program since January of 1976. According to Dr. Pena, there are two kinds of 21 day detoxifications i.e., administrative and voluntary. He expressed the opinion that the voluntary detoxification is the better method since a client can go the regular procedure of 21 days and restart in the program again whereas with the administrative detoxification method, the patient has to wait a fixed number of days after he finishes the 21 day program before he can re-enter the program. He testified that the detoxification program can only be stopped by doctor's orders which, as his testimony reveals, was based on his common judgement and the patient's medical record. Dr. Pena was shown a carbon copy of an exhibit captioned City of Jacksonville Drug Abuse Program client I.D. no. 2481 bearing the name Mark Znidorka. He indicated that the document reflected the voluntary detoxification of client Znidorka which was a voluntary detoxification procedure starting at 5:00 p.m. with a decrease of the present methadone dosage. He testified further that Mark Znidorka was a client who had been placed on voluntary detoxification and he had not been discontinued on January 29, 1976. According to the incident report submitted by Respondent Sanders, she discontinued the voluntary detox program which according to Dr. Pena was contrary to his orders. On cross examination, Dr. Pena testified that nurses are advised as to whether a client was on administrative or voluntary detox during medical staff meetings held approximately biweekly whereas standing orders and instructions were outstanding to the nurses to discontinue the detox program only pursuant to doctors' orders. Dr. Pena could not recall that Mrs. Sanders was instructed whether patient Znidorka was on administrative or voluntary detox. He again re- emphasized his opinion that the voluntary method was better inasmuch as a patient could be continued in excess of the 21 days if withdrawal signs persisted or the client showed signs of becoming ill, a flexibility not available in the administrative detoxification program. When questioned on whether he had issued written orders to Respondent Sanders for client Znidorka, Dr. Pena could only reply that he delivered the orders to the nurses' station or the nurse in charge. He testified however that it is the nurses' responsibility to check the dosage for all clients which is available to them on a cardex file. He testified that the instructions are transmitted to a cardex by whoever takes the doctors' orders and that generally would be the head nurse or any RN. When shown the transmittal order for patient Znidorka, Dr. Pena failed to recognize the signature of the staff person who received the order and transferred it to the cardex. Joan Knox, a registered nurse since approximately 1946, testified that during January 1976 she was employed by the City of Jacksonville Drug Abuse Clinic. Mrs. Knox worked with Respondent Sanders in the drug abuse program for approximately 9 months. She testified that as doctors' orders were transmitted from the doctors offices, they were placed on the nurses desk and any available staff nurse would transpose that order onto the cardex file sheet. She transferred the doctor's order information regarding Mark Znidorka stating that he was a voluntary detox client and that such information was present on the cardex system on January 26. She testified that nurses were explained the difference between voluntary and administrative detoxification, a procedure explained, according to her, at a staff meeting. Wally Campbell who is presently employed as the program psychologist at the Jacksonville Drug Abuse Program, testified that he has been employed with the program since December, 1974. He testified that the topic of voluntary detoxification and withdrawal was a topic frequently discussed at staff meetings but he could not specifically recall whether Respondent Sanders was present when this difference was discussed. In fact, he testified that there was a time when voluntary detoxification meant something different from the procedure presently utilized. He testified that this difference existed under a program called the Life Drug Program which was an adjunct of the Northeast Florida Comprehensive Drug Control Program. Patricia J. Monsour, a registered nurse who worked with the City of Jacksonville Drug Abuse Program from April, 1975 through February 13, 1976, testified that she recalled staff meetings being held from time to time prior to January 29, 1976, wherein the difference between voluntary detoxification and voluntary withdrawal was discussed. She testified that she recalled the difference being discussed twice because she was instrumental in drafting the procedural manual for the nursing staff before it was handed in and during staff meeting she went over the various procedures with the nursing staff. She considered it important that all staff nurses understood the procedures that she had written in the procedures manual and that if there were any differences or other questions, she wanted to correct them before they were turned in and made part of the manual given to nurses to control procedures. During this period of time, she was the head nurse and drafted the manual information concerning voluntary detoxification and voluntary withdrawal. She testified that she completed her portion of the manual dealing with voluntary detoxification and voluntary withdrawal during late November or early December, 1975, but that to her knowledge the manual was never completed. She testified that when she learned of the discontinuation of the treatment to client Znidorka, she approached Respondent Sanders, who admitted to terminating the voluntary detox program and that when she ordered Sanders to submit an incident report, Sanders admitted to having terminated the program based on the client's request and suggestions from Znidorka's counselor. She testified that to the best of her knowledge, counselors or medication nurses did not possess the authority to terminate the detox program without a doctor's orders. On cross examination, she testified that she did not recall Dr. Campbell ever explaining in December, 1975, or any other time the difference between administrative and voluntary detox. When questioned whether Respondent Sanders was present during the various staff meetings, she could not specifically recall whether she was present or not. She further testified that after the January 26 incident, Dr. Pena called a staff meeting three days later, on January 29, to explain the difference between voluntary detoxification and withdrawal and administrative detox. The special meeting was called to explain the difference because there was obviously a misunderstanding that had to be clarified to prevent it from recurring. She testified further that after the incident and subsequent to the January 29 staff meeting, a written communique was issued to all staff personnel explaining to them the difference between the various detoxification processes. She could not recall whether or not such a written directive or instructions were present in the nurses' station. It thus appears that the person in charge of drafting the procedures manual was not certain that the difference between the two detoxification methods were ever explained to Respondent Sanders and she further expressed her opinion that the detoxification was discontinued based on a general lack of understanding among the nursing staff personnel. This becomes more evident when reflection is given to the fact that a special staff meeting was called a few days after the January 29 incident and a special staff meeting was called to explain the differences in the two methods. Thereafter written directives were given to the nurses at the various medication stations. As an aside, there is further evidence that there is some basis in fact for a misunderstanding by nurses of the two methods in view of differences that had existed under the prior drug abuse program. Based on these facts and conclusions, it is therefore concluded that the licensee's conduct involved herein is not of the type in which she can be charged with having erroneously stopped the detoxification of patient Znidorka here without an order contrary to outstanding regulations.
Recommendation Based on the above facts and conclusions including the stipulations based on the allegations contained in count one of the administrative complaint filed herein, it is hereby recommended that the licensee's earlier suspension for a 30 day period without pay by her employer as set forth in paragraph three of the administrative complaint is just and sufficient penalty for her action as found herein and that no additional penalty be subjected to her based on such conduct. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Hilda T. Clark, Respondent, is a registered nurse who holds license no. 21750-2. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing reveals that during 1961, while Respondent was employed as a private duty nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in Miami, she withdrew a narcotic drug, to wit: Dilaudid, for her patient, Mrs. Fanny Goldblum on approximately thirty occasions, which she administered to herself instead of the patient. Based on an Information for violation of the Florida Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (Chapter 398.19, F.S.) which was filed on March 15, 1961, the Respondent pled guilty and was placed on probation for a term of seven years on March 31, 1961. Thereafter, on January 12, 1977, the Respondent, while employed as a private duty registered nurse at the University of Miami Hospital and Clinic, converted to her own use a narcotic drug, to wit: Demerol. When confronted with this fact, the Respondent admitted to the Head Nurse, M. Francis, R.N., that she had injected herself with the Demerol and that she was addicted to narcotics for many years. The Respondent does not contest the above allegations and in fact admits that she engaged in the conduct that is alleged in the administrative complaint filed herein. However, she urges that the suspension of her license is unwarranted in these circumstances inasmuch as she was undergoing tremendous pressure based on her mother and spouse's poor health. Additionally, she related an incident wherein she was undergoing tremendous pain and was placed on the medication, Demerol for the relief of pain due to severe herpes zoster infection. Evidence and testimony introduced during the course of the hearing reveal that herpes zoster infection causes severe pain and that to control such pain, her physician, Edward E. Goldman, M.D., prescribed oral Tolwen, Demerol and Dilaudid suppositories. There also was evidence introduced during the course of the hearing which indicated that the Respondent is not now suffering from any drug related problems or addiction and that her professional abilities are beyond question. Respecting the most recent incident which occurred on January 12, 1977, evidence reveals that the Respondent was indeed laboring under a great deal of stress and mental pressures which, in her words, forced her to resort to the unlawful withdrawal and injection of the narcotic drug, Demerol. There was no evidence introduced that the Respondent engaged in any unlawful act during the period between the incident which occurred in 1961 and the January, 1977 incident. Nor was there any further evidence of any drug addiction problem by Respondent subsequent to the January, 1977 incident. The unlawful use of and procurement of drugs by nursing professionals is a serious act which should not be condoned without sanction by the Board of Nursing. It goes without saying that such acts and/or conduct constitutes a departure from the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice and in fact constitutes unprofessional conduct. See Chapter 464.21(b), Florida Statutes. Based on evidence received during the course of the hearing, there is substantial and competent evidence from which a finding can be made that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of the above chapter i.e., Subsection 464.21(b), Florida Statutes. However, there was no evidence introduced on which a finding can be made that the Respondent is guilty of conduct violative of Chapter 464.21(c) and (d), as alleged. Although two instances of unlawful useage of narcotic drugs was alleged which the Respondent admits, in view of the length of time between the two occurrences, the undersigned concludes that the record fails to establish that the Respondent is habitually addicted to the use of controlled substances as provided in Chapter 464.21(c), Florida Statutes. I shall therefore recommend that the remaining two allegations be dismissed. Respecting the finding that the Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Chapter 464.21(b), Florida Statutes, I shall bear in mind and give consideration to the lengthy and creditable service that she has given to the nursing profession, a profession in which she desires to continue to practice. Based thereon and the favorable testimonials received into evidence, I shall recommend that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the Respondent be placed on probation for a term of two years. In all other respects, I hereby recommend that the complaint allegations be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1005 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 George A. Kokus, Esquire Cohen and Kokus 500 Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 =================================================================
The Issue Should the Petitioner impose discipline against Respondent, holder of an alcoholic beverage license, for violations of laws pertaining to that license?
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 47-00190, series 4COP, issued by Petitioner. This license allowed Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises known as Kent's Northside Lounge and Restaurant, located at 1133 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent was the sole holder of that license. Respondent continues to hold the license. Beginning January 1997, and ending April 25, 1997, Petitioner, together with other law enforcement agencies, conducted an investigation of the licensed premises to determine if violations of law involving illegal narcotics were occurring. While involved in this investigation, Petitioner also investigated alleged violations involving tobacco. On January 7, 1997, Gordon Chesney entered the licensed premises. He was acting in the capacity of a paid law enforcement undercover operative. He was not a sworn law enforcement officer. Once in the bar he made the acquaintance of a person identified as "Wild Bill." Wild Bill refers to Bill Ferris, Respondent's bartender. Chip Kirby, another bartender, was also in the licensed premises. When Chesney introduced himself to Ferris, Chesney wanted to know "where the action is" in town. In conversation Chesney asked Ferris "Does it ever snow down here?" This reference was a slang term for cocaine. Ferris responded that "it would snow in a few days." This comment referred to the availability of cocaine. Chesney told Ferris he would like to get some "snow." After their initial meeting, Chesney telephoned Ferris at the bar. Ferris told Chesney to come to the bar. Chesney returned to the bar at around 6:30 p.m. on January 9, 1997. Once in the bar Chesney made contact with Ferris. Ferris took Chesney over to a booth in the premises. At this time there were customers in the bar, approximately ten to fifteen people. The other bartender, Kirby, was also in the premises. Respondent was not in the premises. Ferris referred to "she is not here yet," meaning the person who was supposed to deliver cocaine to Ferris. Ferris then invited Chesney to the bathroom in the premises. Chesney showed Ferris money he had brought to purchase cocaine. Ferris indicated that there wasn't enough money. Chesney promised to bring more money later. Chesney went away from the premises to obtain more money and returned to the bar at around 8:30 p.m. When Chesney first arrived at the bar on January 9, 1997, Ferris had not been on duty as a bartender. When Chesney returned to the bar, Ferris was on duty. When Chesney returned, he told Ferris that he was ready. Ferris replied that "she" would be here any minute. A girl then came into the bar. Ferris talked to her. Ferris then came to a booth and invited Chesney to go outside with Ferris. While at the booth, Ferris asked Chesney if he had the rest of the money. They went outside. Chesney gave money to Ferris. The money given to Ferris was in addition to the money which Chesney had given Ferris in the bathroom. Ferris gave Chesney a small baggie containing what was taken to be cocaine. The exchange of additional money and the baggie was made right outside the door of the premises. Chesney turned over the item that he had purchased from Ferris to Officer Kevin Taylor of the Tallahassee Police Department. In turn Detective Louis Donaldson of that department took custody of the item. On January 15, 1997, Chesney returned to the bar. His purpose was to obtain additional cocaine. Once in the bar Chesney contacted Ferris. Ferris was working behind the bar at the time. Chesney told Ferris he wanted to "get a quarter." This refers to a quantity of cocaine. Ferris told Chesney that "she will be here any minute." Chesney waited about half an hour. Then a girl came in the back door and talked to Ferris. Then Ferris went back to an area of the bar which is a restaurant. In about five minutes Ferris came out with a Styrofoam soup cup. He said "here is your soup." Chesney said "okay." Chesney gave Ferris $300 and walked out of the bar. On this occasion Respondent was in the premises seated at a table behind Chesney. That location was about eight feet from Chesney's location. Other people were seated with the Respondent. On this occasion music was playing. Sometimes the music was loud. Sometimes the music was not loud. Chesney cannot recall whether the music was loud during conversations held with Ferris concerning the purchase of the cocaine. But the conversation between Chesney and Ferris was in a normal tone. Once outside of the premises, Chesney turned his purchase over to an officer. Again Detective Donaldson took custody of the item. Detective Donaldson prepared a property receipt for those items seized on January 9 and 15, 1997, that were purchased by Chesney. The items were temporarily held in custody by the Tallahassee Police Department. Those items were then forwarded to and tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who having analyzed the items, discovered the presence of cocaine. On January 22, 1997, Chesney reentered the licensed premises with Officer Alan Wayne Davis, Jr., who worked for the Petitioner in an undercover capacity. Chesney introduced Davis to Ferris. Ferris was working as a bartender at that time. Specifically Ferris was serving beer and mixed drinks, and taking money. Because Davis was acting in an undercover capacity, he did not tell Ferris that he, Davis, was a law enforcement officer. Davis never revealed his position as a law enforcement officer to any persons who were the subject of the investigation. In pursuit of his undercover role, Davis told Ferris that he was a member of a motorcycle club. On this date a conversation held in a normal tone involved the subject of cocaine. This refers to a conversation between Davis and Ferris. Davis returned to the bar alone on January 23, 1997. He contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. They discussed a prior cocaine deal between Ferris and Chesney in a normal tone. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Samuel H. Lewis at the bar. Davis was introduced by Ferris. Lewis was taking bets on the upcoming Superbowl football game. The bets were premised upon placing projected scores on a paper square for a cost of one dollar. The winner was to be determined by the individual who placed the bet and guessed the total score. The game was a game of chance, not skill. Davis gave Lewis five dollars to participate in the betting pool. An envelope of bets containing fifty-seven dollars was available when Lewis began to collect bets. Lewis received about twenty additional signatures (twenty dollars) in the bar representing individual bets. The overall pool had one hundred squares. Respondent was not at the bar on January 23, 1997, when the football pool was held. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Robert Strauss, Respondent's son. Robert Strauss was an employee at the bar. In conversation Davis was asked what kind of business he was in. Davis responded that he was in the business of making money. Before Davis met Robert Strauss, Ferris had asked Davis if Davis sold cigarettes, in that, as Ferris described the matter, Robert Strauss was always looking for a good price on cigarettes. Davis had answered Ferris in the affirmative. This led to the introduction to Robert Strauss. Conversations about cigarettes were open, in normal tones. In discussion Robert Strauss asked Davis if the cigarettes that Davis had for sale had stamps on them. Davis replied in the affirmative. On the other hand, Davis commented to Robert Strauss that the cigarettes were "so hot that you could feel it." Davis intended by his remarks to indicate that the cigarettes that he had were stolen. That intent would create the most likely inference to be gained from Davis' remarks. Davis did not indicate that he was a licensed wholesale cigarette distributor on that occasion or any other occasion. Through conversation Davis and Robert Strauss arrived at a price of eight dollars a carton for cigarettes, a price below the expected value of that merchandise. Robert Strauss asked Davis to bring him a case of cigarettes next Wednesday. Davis agreed to that request. When Robert Strauss made the overture to Davis concerning the purchase of cigarettes, Davis was not in control of cigarettes. To further the investigation, Petitioner purchased cigarettes from a wholesaler, SuperValue Warehouse. Petitioner caused stamps to be attached to those cigarettes. Those stamps were out of circulation and not involved in normal commerce. By this attachment, the impression that was created was that the cigarettes were properly stamped. The cigarettes were then turned over to Davis to be used in furtherance of the investigation. In a later conversation between Ferris and Davis on January 23, 1997, the subject of cocaine was discussed. This conversation took place in the bar. Davis told Ferris that he might want cocaine at a later time. Ferris invited Kirby into the conversation. Kirby tried to tell Davis what a good deal Kirby and Ferris could get Davis on some "coke." This refers to cocaine. At that point in time, Kirby was working at the bar. The price discussed was $750 for a half ounce of cocaine. Kirby indicated that the cocaine would be available Friday and that Davis could come back and purchase the cocaine from Kirby and Ferris. The conversation about cocaine was openly stated. Davis returned to the bar on January 29, 1997. Davis made contact with Ferris who was tending bar, and had a conversation about Davis' failure to purchase cocaine, causing Ferris and Kirby to be "stuck with the coke," trying to sell it to someone else. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice. Robert Strauss was not at the bar on that occasion. Nonetheless, Ferris told Davis that, Robert, referring to Robert Strauss, wanted to purchase cigarettes. Ferris indicated he would contact Robert Strauss and return to purchase cigarettes from Davis. Ferris then made a telephone call. Ferris then purchased cigarettes from Davis for $100 in return for twelve cartons of Winstons. Those cigarettes sold by Davis on this occasion, and on other occasions, were the cigarettes that Petitioner had placed the out-of-date stamps on, after obtaining the cigarettes from the wholesaler SuperValue Warehouse. Davis returned to the licensed premises on February 5, 1997. While at the bar, Robert Strauss walked out of another part of the bar and yelled to Davis, "Hey, cigarette man, I will be right out." Robert Strauss was approximately twenty feet away from Davis when he made those remarks. Respondent was sitting in one of the booths of the bar at the time. On this visit to the bar, Davis engaged in a conversation with Ferris. Ferris was not on duty at that time. Then Davis spoke with Robert Strauss. Robert Strauss asked Davis what type of cigarettes Davis had brought. Davis replied that he had brought thirty cartons of Marlboro Lights and a Phillieblunt box full of cigars. Robert Strauss asked if the price of the cigarettes was still eight dollars a carton. Davis said yes. The cigarettes were delivered from Davis to Robert Strauss across the counter after Davis obtained the cigarettes from his vehicle. At that time patrons were at the bar. Robert Strauss paid Davis $240 for the cigarettes from the cash register at the bar, by openly handing Davis the money. Robert Strauss then took the cigarettes to a back portion of the premises. Davis purchased one pack of Marlboro Lights back from Robert Strauss for a price of three dollars out of the cigarettes that had just been sold from Davis to Robert Strauss. On this date, Davis also told Robert Strauss that the cigarettes "were so hot that they wouldn't even have to be lit," in conversation concerning the purchase of additional cigarettes beyond that point in time. At the bar, Davis then engaged in a conversation with Ferris about cocaine in a normal tone. Davis returned to the bar on February 12, 1997. At that time Ferris was working behind the bar, Robert Strauss was also on the premises in the kitchen area. Davis told Robert Strauss that he had thirty cartons of Winstons. Robert Strauss told Davis he would give Davis five dollars per carton for all thirty. They agreed. Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons for five dollars each. Davis brought the cigarettes in from his car in a large box and placed them on the edge of the bar in making the exchange. Twelve to fifteen patrons were in the licensed premises. Robert Strauss took the money to pay for the cigarettes from a bank bag near the cash register. The transaction was openly conducted. On that same date Davis discussed with Ferris the purchase of cocaine while Ferris was working behind the bar. The amount discussed was an ounce. To facilitate the purchase, Ferris gave Davis his work and home telephone numbers; these included the number for the bar. Davis returned to the bar on February 19, 1997. Davis contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. Patrons were in the bar at that time. Ferris asked Davis if Davis had brought the cigarettes for Robert Strauss. Kirby came over to Davis and asked if Davis was still looking to get an ounce, referring to the purchase of cocaine. Davis said yes. Davis gave Kirby $1,400 in cash in furtherance of a purchase. Kirby counted the money while at the bar without attempting to disguise his activities. Kirby put the money in his pocket and went to the business phone in the premises and made a call. Kirby then returned and told Davis he couldn't contact his main supplier, but that he had another source he could get it from who was in the bar. This discussion was held in a regular tone of voice. Kirby left the bar and then returned. Davis was instructed to follow Kirby and Ferris to a back room. Davis followed them to a storage room. Kirby then pulled a bag out of his shirt represented to be cocaine. Davis weighed the substance on scales. While this transaction took place, the parties were concealed by a door. The substance weighed approximately an ounce. When Davis left the licensed premises, he turned the substance over to a case agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). On the same day, Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons of cigarettes delivered to Ferris after Robert Strauss handed Ferris $100 to give to Davis. Davis delivered the cigarettes in a box from the trunk of his vehicle and placed them on the top of the bar during the exchange. Robert Strauss had obtained the money from a bank bag. On February 25, 1997, Ferris paged Davis. Davis called Ferris and Ferris told Davis he would give Davis an ounce of cocaine for $1,320. Davis said he wanted three ounces. An arrangement was made to meet on February 27, 1997, at the bar to carry out the transaction. On February 27, 1997, Davis returned to the bar in the company of a law enforcement officer, Agent Scirpan of the DEA. Davis met with Ferris after walking in the bar. Ferris told Davis to follow him outside. Ferris questioned Davis concerning the possibility that Davis was a cop or affiliated with law enforcement. Davis did not acknowledge his status as a law enforcement officer. They then went to Ferris' truck to count the money that would be used in purchasing cocaine. Respondent was seated at a table in the premises when Davis and Ferris left the premises to go to Ferris' truck. The truck was located by the side of the bar. Davis gave Ferris $4,000. They then went inside the bar. Ferris made a telephone call from the business phone in the premises. Ferris then exited the bar. While in the bar, Davis observed a girl sitting at the bar rolling what appeared to be a cannabis cigarette, known by its appearance to Davis to be cannabis, based upon his experience as a law enforcement officer. Robert Strauss was there at that time two to three feet away. Robert Strauss made no attempt to confront the patron concerning this practice. Davis ordered a pack of Marlboro Lights from the bartender and paid for them. To get the cigarettes, Respondent had to produce the keys to the storage room to obtain the cigarettes purchased. The cigarettes that Davis purchased bore the out-of-date stamp involved with the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Robert Strauss. On that same date an unidentified white male came in offering to sell cartons of cigarettes. The unidentified male was trying to sell cigarettes for ten dollars a carton. At that time Respondent had left the bar. Later Ferris returned to the bar and asked Davis to go outside with him. They got in Davis' car and rode around the block. Ferris gave Davis approximately three ounces of a substance as part of the arrangement to purchase cocaine. This item was turned over to a DEA agent. On March 6, 1997, Davis called Kirby at the bar and ordered an ounce of cocaine. The tone of the conversation was normal. On March 7, 1997, Davis went to the bar and contacted Kirby. Kirby was working. Kirby said the deal was off because of a death in the family. Kirby told Davis that they could talk later about doing one or two "keys" of coke. A "key" refers to a kilo of cocaine. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice across the bar. On March 17, 1997, Davis called Ferris at the business phone number Ferris had given Davis. The call was about purchasing more cocaine. The phone number used was the number for the licensed premises. An arrangement was made to purchase cocaine of an undisclosed amount on the following Wednesday. On the following Wednesday, which was March 19, 1997, Davis returned to the bar and met with Ferris. Ferris was concerned about the rumor that there was an undercover officer working inside the bar. Davis did not acknowledge his undercover capacity in this conversation. It was decided to wait awhile before the parties did any more business. However, there was a conversation between Davis and Kirby in which Kirby said they could go to Miami and pick up cocaine. This conversation was in a normal tone of voice. As Davis was starting to leave, Robert Strauss approached Davis and asked Davis to bring back some cigarettes when Davis returned. On April 7, 1997, Davis called Ferris and discussed the purchase of one ounce of cocaine on the following Wednesday. This call was made to the telephone within the licensed premises. An agreement was made to purchase an ounce of cocaine, the cost of which was not determined. On April 16, 1997, Davis called the licensed premises and spoke with Kirby about the purchase of an ounce of cocaine. Then Davis went to the licensed premises and contacted Kirby who was working behind the bar. Kirby told Davis that the purchase of cocaine would cost $1,400 an ounce. This conversation was conducted in an open manner. Then Robert Strauss walked out from the back of the bar and asked Davis if Davis "had any hot cigarettes to sell." Davis said "they were all in the trunk." Robert Strauss followed Davis out to Davis' vehicle. In the trunk there were ten cartons of Camels and ten cartons of Marlboro Lights. Robert Strauss carried the cigarettes back into the bar in a box. Robert Strauss put the cigarettes up, went over to the cash register and obtained $100 which was given to Davis. The reference to putting the cigarettes up means that Robert Strauss took them to the storage room. Robert Strauss told Davis that he would buy more cigarettes if Davis would bring them to Robert Strauss. The transaction concerning the purchase of the cigarettes was made with no attempt to conceal the activity. Then Ferris came in and took over Kirby's assignment at the bar. Kirby then sat down next to Davis at the bar. They discussed the purchase of a key of coke, meaning a kilo of cocaine. They discussed that if that amount was broken down, the cost for an ounce would be $700. The purchase was to be made in Miami. This conversation was conducted openly. Davis and Kirby went outside and Davis gave Kirby $1,400 to purchase a smaller amount of cocaine. Kirby returned to the bar. Davis and Kirby then went to Davis' vehicle. Davis took the substance that had been offered as cocaine. This transaction took place after they drove away from the bar. Again, that substance was turned over to an agent with the DEA. On April 22, 1997, Davis called the bar and spoke to Kirby. They discussed the purchase of another ounce of cocaine for the next day. On April 23, 1997, Davis returned to the bar after arranging with Kirby, through a telephone call, to come to the bar. Kirby was tending the bar. Kirby and Davis discussed a cocaine deal. Kirby told Davis that basically all suppliers were sold out of cocaine. Kirby told Davis that some people were offering to sell for as much as $1,600 an ounce. This conversation took place at a little table next to the bar. Patrons were in the premises at that time. The conversation was held in a normal tone. Eventually Kirby told Davis that he had found someone that lives at the Gulf who could get an ounce of cocaine for $1,450. That price was agreed upon. After a person drove up, Kirby commented, "There's my man." At that moment Davis gave Kirby the money. Kirby counted the money. Kirby left the bar and returned. Kirby told Davis to go with Kirby to Kirby's van. They got in the van and drove around the block. Kirby gave Davis an ounce of a substance which was tendered as cocaine. That substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. Davis returned to the bar on April 24, 1997. He met with Kirby who was tending bar. They discussed the purchase of cocaine. Kirby said he had an ounce of cocaine to sell and asked Davis if he wanted to purchase the cocaine. Davis agreed to purchase the cocaine for $1,400. Davis gave $1,400 to Kirby across the counter. Kirby told Davis to follow him to a bathroom. In the bathroom Kirby handed a substance in aluminum foil to Davis, represented to be cocaine. The substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. On the same date, Kirby and Davis discussed making a trip to Miami to purchase cocaine, and what it would cost Davis if Kirby delivered the cocaine from Miami, as opposed to Davis and Kirby going to Miami to obtain the cocaine. A price of $32,000 for a kilo of cocaine was discussed. This conversation was held in an open manner. On April 25, 1997, the Tallahassee Police Department served a search warrant on the licensed premises looking for illegal drugs. Petitioner's agency was also involved in the search. During the search, underneath the bar on the right-hand side, an item was discovered, which through a field test revealed the presence of cocaine. The item was wrapped in tin foil. The tin foil was readily visible when standing behind the bar. In addition cigarettes were seized. The item that tested as cocaine in the field test was turned over to the resident agent in charge for the DEA. At the time the search was made on April 25, 1997, Petitioner was investigating the purchase of cigarettes from a non-wholesaler, as well as its interest in the sale of illegal narcotics. On that date, the Petitioner seized the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Respondent's employees. The cigarettes Davis sold had never had taxes remitted to the state of Florida based upon a wholesale transaction. Respondent identified that Kirby and Ferris were part- time bartenders who worked at night. Ferris also worked a Saturday day shift. Ordinarily a shift change to the night shift occurred at 6:00 p.m. Ferris had been a customer of the bar before being hired. Before being hired, Kirby was referred to Respondent by Respondent's friends. Respondent identified that Robert Strauss was more or less the supervisor in charge at the premises when the Respondent was not there. Robert Strauss cooked at the bar a couple of days a week. Robert Strauss was involved with purchasing supplies for the bar. Respondent indicated that Robert Strauss' duties in purchasing during the time in question involved the purchase of cigarettes. Beyond the time of the investigation described, within the last six months prior to the hearing, two employees had been dismissed for suspected drug use. This did not include Messrs. Ferris and Kirby. The dismissal of the other employees was made by Respondent. Respondent's day at the bar runs usually from 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Prior to the events described in the facts, Respondent did not have a policy for his establishment concerning activity involving narcotics. Subsequent to the investigation, there is a written policy prohibiting employee activities involving narcotics. Respondent has no written policies advising his employees what the employees should do if they observe persons engaging in illegal narcotic activities. Respondent says that he explains to his employees verbally that if anyone discusses narcotics at the bar "they are out." Respondent has video cameras to monitor activities in the bar. The manner in which Robert Strauss solicited Davis for the purchase of cigarettes, Davis sold the cigarettes, and Respondent's employees sold the cigarettes obtained from the SuperValue Warehouse, creates the inference of impropriety by Robert Strauss and other employees affiliated with Respondent's licensed premises. The inference of impropriety is to the exclusion of any other inference to be gained from the conduct. The inference is that the cigarettes were not part of ordinary commerce and had questionable origins. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for an ordinary law-abiding person to suspect that the cigarettes which Davis presented to Robert Strauss and others in the premises, as solicited by Robert Strauss, were stolen. Davis billed the cigarettes as outside the bounds of ordinary commerce when describing the cigarettes as "hot." Davis also identified that the cigarettes were being purchased at a price that was more than a good bargain. The price helped in creating the appearance that the cigarettes were not part of legitimate commerce. As stated, the substances purchased by Chesney on January 9 and 15, 1997, were cocaine. The substance found during the search of the premises on April 25, 1997, was cocaine.1
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of counts 1, 2, and 9 through 28, and finding that Respondent did not violate counts 2 through 8, and that imposes a penalty of revocation of license number 47-00190, series 4COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for exemption for disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Upon completion of high school, J.D. was employed at Walt Disney World in the theme park. It was during her employment at Disney World that J.D. was arrested on April 13, 1990 and charged with possession of a baggie containing 1.5 grams of crack cocaine with intent to sell. J.D. pled nolo contendere to the charges and was placed on two-years probation during which she had to attend a drug treatment program. Having already completed high school, J.D. started going to school while on probation and while she was employed with Red Lobster as a cook and coordinator at night. J.D. held the job with Red Lobster from 1990 to 1993, when she relocated to Jacksonville, Florida. J.D. attended classes at the Orlando Vocational-Technical Center and was awarded a certificate for 56 hours of home health aide in March 1991 and an AIDS four-hour seminar. On March 13, 1992, J.D. was awarded a certificate for completion of care of the Alzheimers client; and on March 17, 1992, J.D. was awarded a certificate of completion of care for the stroke patient. J.D. also successfully completed the basic rescue course in CPR from the American Heart Association issued on March 21, 1992 and March 24, 1992; First Aid, Level 1 from the National Safety Council Orlando Vocational Tech on March 12, 1992; and satisfactorily completed on March 27, 1991 a 72-hour course for the home health aide with competency performance testing. By letter of February 1, 1992, J.D. was informed that she had successfully completed her substance abuse counseling with a discharge diagnosis of cocaine abuse in remission, prognosis fair, provided she follows recommendations; and the recommendations were (1) abstain from all mood-altering substances and (2) attend AA/NA meetings. On May 16, 1994, J.D. was arrested by the Orlando Police Department for possession of cannabis. On June 6, 1994, J.D. appeared before the court, waived her right to counsel, pled nolo contendere to the charge of possession, and was adjudged guilty. As stated above, J.D. relocated to Jacksonville, and a year later was hired on June 1, 1995, as a home health care aide by Living Centers Devcon Point West Cluster, a developmental services facility. J.D. worked with clients who were in need of assistance in their daily living activities, ranging in age from minors to adults. J.D.'s cared for eight clients who were physically disabled and unable to care for themselves. J.D. worked a shift from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.; and her specific job duties included bathing, feeding, lifting clients from their beds and chairs, and assisting with toiletries, such as combing hair. J.D. received letters of support from her supervisors and co-workers. Mercedes Joyner, Program Supervisor, found J.D. to be a superb worker who demonstrated herself to be a loving, caring, sincere, and motivated individual, who has carried out all of her duties as a responsible person and conducted herself in a professional and respectful manner toward her co-workers and superiors. Sue Fleischmann, Facility Coordinator, found J.D. to be punctual, responsible, considerate and caring with the Developmentally Disabled Clients, and who worked well with her co-workers. Patricia Welch, a co-worker, found J.D. to be a reliable and compassionate person with whom it was outstanding to work. On October 17, 1995, the Petitioner completed a substance abuse course sponsored by Northeast Florida Safety Council, Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be granted the exemption. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 29th day of February, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: J.D. (address of record) Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Sandy Coulter, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner an exemption from disqualification from working in a position of special trust with developmentally disabled persons.
Findings Of Fact On April 13, 1987, Petitioner was convicted of a second degree felony in the Circuit Court of Gadsden County, Florida, for selling cocaine, a controlled substance as defined by Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, contrary to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was sentenced to serve 21 days in jail, with credit for 21 days served. She was placed on two years' probation. Petitioner failed to comply with the terms of her probation. Specifically, she failed to report to her probation officer, she changed her residence to Leon County without the consent of her probation officer, and she failed to pay any of the costs assessed as a result of her April 13, 1987, conviction. The Circuit Judge of Gadsden County issued a warrant for Petitioner's arrest on September 24, 1987. On April 13, 1988, Petitioner was convicted of the following in the Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida: (a) selling cocaine, a second degree felony, contrary to Section 893.13, Florida Statues; (b) possession of cocaine, a third degree felony, contrary to Section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987)1; and (c) possession of drug paraphernalia, a first degree misdemeanor, contrary to Section 893.147, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was sentenced to 93 days of time served in the Leon County jail and placed on community control for one year to be followed by four years of probation. Petitioner's sentence to community control included commitment to an inpatient drug treatment program. Conditions of her probation required drug counseling and random urinalysis for drug screening. On May 24, 1988, the Circuit Court Judge in Gadsden County revoked Petitioner's probation pursuant to an amended affidavit for violation of probation. The amended affidavit charged Petitioner with failing to remain at liberty without violating any law. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced on her April 13, 1887, conviction to a term of 30 months with a recommendation that she receive drug counseling and treatment. Petitioner received treatment for substance abuse in 1988 while serving her sentences for the above-referenced convictions. She admits that she occasionally continued to use drugs during her subsequent probation. She had a positive urinalysis as late as 1992. Petitioner's probation was terminated in 1993. She has had no urinalysis to test for substance abuse since that time. Petitioner is 35 years old. She has three children, aged 19, 18, and 6. The middle child is developmentally disabled due to spinal meningitis. Petitioner married the father of the youngest child in 1996. She currently lives with her husband, her disabled 18 year-old child, and her six year- old child in Leon County, Florida. Petitioner became interested in working with developmentally disabled persons because of her middle child's disability. She received her general education diploma in 1995. She is currently working on an Associate of Arts degree at Kaiser College in two areas: Health Service Administration and Medical Assistance. Petitioner worked at Tallahassee Developmental Center as a training instructor from February 1999 through April 1999. Her work included providing personal assistance with bathing and feeding of developmentally disabled clients. Petitioner left this job so that she would be free for her church ministry on Sundays. From April 1999 through September 1999, Petitioner worked in a day care program for developmentally disabled clients at Pyramid, Inc. Her work included collecting data, feeding and changing clients, walking clients, and assisting clients with skill modules. Petitioner was placed on administrative leave from this job because she did not pass the background screening required for direct care providers by Section 393.0655, Florida Statutes. However, Petitioner is eligible to return to her position at Pyramid, Inc., pending receipt of exemption from disqualification pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. After leaving her job with Pyramid, Inc., Petitioner worked on-call for one month providing in-home personal care for Human Resources Development. She is currently unemployed. Petitioner's career goal is to start her own business working with developmentally disabled persons. She wants to be qualified to manage a professional office like the one at Pyramid, Inc., and to provide direct care to clients on an as- needed basis. Petitioner has been a member of the Holy Community Church for six years. She is now a minister/evangelist for her church having spent one year in the field as a missionary to other churches. Petitioner's work within her church includes founding a program known as Second Chance Outreach Ministry. The purpose of the program is to assist alcoholics and drug addicts. The program currently has about twelve active participants. The program sponsors a food bank and clothes closet for addicts. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was working on raising money to help participants in the Second Chance Outreach Ministry pay rent. She was also working on a project to feed the homeless on February 19, 2000, at the shelter in Leon County, Florida. She hoped to raise enough money through donations to provide the homeless with clothes and blankets.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to an exemption from disqualification, to have direct contact with unmarried minor clients or clients who are developmentally disabled, having been disqualified from direct contact with those persons by virtue of an offense related to drug abuse prevention and control, Chapter 893, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact In State of Florida v. Victor Days, in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida, Case No. 93-33378, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of cocaine possession. This case was in relation to a criminal law offense prohibited by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Adjudication was withheld. Petitioner received a one year probation based upon the order of the court entered October 22, 1993. Following the entry of his plea to the offense of possession of cocaine, Petitioner went through a drug screening to be evaluated concerning response to his use of drugs. The result of that screening was a recommendation that Petitioner receive out-patient treatment for his use of cocaine. Petitioner did not participate in an out-patient program. Eventually he enrolled in an in-patient program to address his drug abuse. Although Petitioner offered his plea to the offense of possession of cocaine and accepted the disposition, at the hearing in the present case Petitioner contended that he had not committed the offense for which he stood accused and entered his plea. But the plea entered contemplates a lack of agreement with the truth of the charges. Petitioner also complained in the administrative hearing that he had not received adequate advice from his attorney in the criminal law case. Petitioner does concede that he had a problem with the abuse of crack cocaine that existed before and beyond his arrest for the charge of possession of cocaine. Additionally, Petitioner admits that during this time he abused alcohol. Petitioner describes that he did not "drop" the cocaine that he was arrested for, and that charging him for that offense was an "injustice." Petitioner describes the circumstances of his arrest as a "wake-up call," concerning the fact that he was involved with crack cocaine, if not on the occasion of his arrest, at other times. Petitioner describes his use of crack cocaine as being associated with binges in which he would have $100 and spend it on the crack cocaine. He can recall at least eight occasions in which he would "binge" on crack cocaine. In his testimony at the administrative hearing, Petitioner describes his use of crack cocaine in that period of time as constituting an addiction. Petitioner acknowledges that in the period 1993 through 1994, he suffered from addiction, to the extent that he had a co- dependency for crack cocaine and alcohol. In the years 1992 through 1994, Petitioner had worked for Jackson Memorial Hospital in Dade County, Florida, in the Environmental Services Department. This employment did not include direct contact with patients. Following the disposition of Circuit Court Case No. 93- 33378, roughly a year later, on November 15, 1994, Petitioner entered a residential program for drug abusers, referred to as Faith Farm Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Specifically, it was a program to benefit adults with drug abuse problems. The program was administered by Fort Lauderdale Rescue Tabernacle, Inc., Alpha Ministry. The program was designed to help the participants deal with their drug dependency and to reorder their lives for the better. Petitioner successfully completed the program as evidenced by a certificate issued to the Petitioner on May 1, 1995. For approximately eight months beyond his graduation from the drug abuse program, Petitioner served as a peer counselor for other adults enrolled in the program. During his probation, Petitioner's probation officer referred Petitioner to the court for having violated probation. Petitioner was not found in violation of his probation. When Petitioner was not found in violation of his probation, Petitioner had already attended the residential drug treatment program. 1l. Following the completion of his drug abuse program, Petitioner worked at a K-Mart in Miramar, Florida, for approximately six months in 1995, as a salesperson. Later Petitioner took a position with Chemical Addictions Recovery Effort, Inc. (Chemical Additions Recovery), in Panama City, Florida, as a Human Service worker, with direct contact with minors who are 13 to 17 years old. More specifically, those youngsters are part of a program referred to as Starting Over Straight (S.O.S.), within the umbrella of Chemical Addictions Recovery. In this position, Petitioner assisted the juveniles who had drug-related problems. This position was held for approximately three months. Petitioner then took a position with a program within the Chemical Addictions Recovery, referred to as Detox. That program, in which he had direct contact with the clients, was in association with adults and children suffering with problems related to alcohol and drugs. Petitioner held that position for approximately three months. During Petitioner's affiliation with Chemical Addictions Recovery, Petitioner was required to undergo a background check, based upon his holding a position of trust and responsibility, as an employee with direct contact with minor clients. When the screening was completed, it revealed Petitioner's criminal law case associated with the possession of cocaine. This disqualified the Petitioner from continuing to have direct contact with unmarried minor clients or clients who are developmentally disabled. Petitioner has an interest in continuing employment involving direct contact with unmarried minors, such as the children who were participants in the S.O.S. For this reason Petitioner has pursued his request for exemption from disqualification. At the time of the hearing Petitioner was employed as a floor-care worker with Bay Genesis Eldercare in Panama City, Florida. He had held that position for approximately three months. On the date of hearing Petitioner was 36 years old. Petitioner believes that his life has changed following participation in the residential drug treatment program. Petitioner in his day-to day life works to tell people that drugs and alcohol are a waste of time. That was the motivation Petitioner had for working as a Human Service worker at Chemical Addictions Recovery. Petitioner does not sense any difficulty in dealing with children. He believes that children look up to him. At present Petitioner does not use alcohol or drugs. Petitioner attends church. Mary Cruel, Petitioner's great-aunt, is a supervisor at S.O.S. She describes that program as a residential program for children who have a problem with substance abuse. Ms. Cruel is familiar with the Detox program associated with Chemical Addictions Recovery. That program, as Ms. Cruel describes it, is a crisis intervention program for adult women and some children. Ms. Cruel recalls that Petitioner had a problem with drugs and alcohol, as part of overall life problems. In response, Ms. Cruel helped to place the Petitioner in the Faith Farm Ministries program. As Ms. Cruel describes it, Petitioner's participation in the Faith Farm Ministries program was voluntary. Participation in that program was felt to be the better choice, in that it had a spiritual emphasis. Ms. Cruel communicated with the Petitioner while he was participating in the drug rehabilitation program. She observed that the Petitioner was passionate about getting well, and that he quit blaming others for his difficulties. Now Ms. Cruel sees the Petitioner about three times a week. Ms. Cruel observes that her husband is close to the Petitioner. Ms. Cruel's husband does not abuse drugs. Ms. Cruel has observed the Petitioner trying to encourage other persons, who have problems with drugs to get into treatment and in conversation with others, Petitioner refers to his life experience. Ms. Cruel notes that Petitioner wants to work in a substance abuse program. Ms. Cruel is aware that Petitioner earns more money at his present employment than he did in the position that he was dismissed from with Chemical Addictions Recovery. Finally, Ms. Cruel observes that Petitioner lives a more regular life than he did before dealing with his addictions, and that Petitioner stays clean and sober one day at a time without being seen to have regressed. Rosemary G. Balkcom, R.N., C.D., a nursing services supervisor at Chemical Addictions Recovery, in correspondence, notes that Petitioner in working in the Detox program related well with clientele and that his overall attitude toward the persons participating in the program was one of genuine concern and empathy. Further, Ms. Balkcom notes in her remarks that Petitioner enjoys being able to assist and provide guidance for the clientele in the program. Finally, Ms. Balkcom notes that if Petitioner were allowed to continue to work in the program, and gained required education and training, Petitioner would present a positive role model for others. Amy Shackleford, Petitioner's co-worker, notes in correspondence that Petitioner has a genuine care for juvenile residents, and that Petitioner is active, motivated, honest, and dependable. Ms. Shackleford notes that young residents with low self-esteem have become actively involved with Petitioner. Ms. Shackleford notes that Petitioner is a perfect role model, and a positive influence in helping young people grow into productive citizens.
Recommendation Upon consideration the of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered exempting Petitioner from disqualification to work in a position of special trust or responsibility that would allow direct contact with unmarried minor clients or clients who are developmentally disabled. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Suite 100A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Victor Renaldo Days 1003 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether or not on or about May 17, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did sell marijuana (cannibas) to an employee, agent or servant of the Clearwater Police Department, in violation of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, to-wit: Subsection 893.13(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about May 17, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did possess marijuana (cannibas) in excess of five (5) grams with the intent to sell same, in violation of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, to-wit: Subsection 893.13(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about June 6, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did unlawfully possess over five (5) grams of marijuana (cannibas), in violation of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, to-wit: Subsection 893.13(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about June 6, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did unlawfully possess gambling paraphenalia, in violation of the gambling laws, to-wit: Subsections 849.09(1)(k) and (2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Marvin and Flossie Jones, husband and wife, are the holders of license No. 62-383, Series 2-COP, as held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license entitles the Joneses to sell beer and wine for consumption on or off their licensed premises which is located at 1104 North Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, where the Respondents trade as Marvin's Beer and Nine. The Respondents are here charged by the Petitioner through a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint with' violations whose particulars are set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. In consideration of this dispute, a formal hearing was held on February 27, 1980. The facts reveal that on May 17, 1979, one Henry Irving entered the licensed premises and purchased 5.2 grams of marijuana (cannibas) by weight, from the Respondent, Marvin Jones. At that time Irving was acting as an operative for the Clearwater Police Department, Clearwater, Florida, and while in the licensed premises, Irving paid Marvin Jones $20.00 for this purchase of marijuana (cannibas). The money that was paid was money provided by the Clearwater Police Department. On June 6, 1979, acting under the authority of an arrest warrant, officers of the Clearwater Police Department arrested the Respondent, Marvin Jones, based on the sale of marijuana (cannibas) which he had made to Henry Irving. In making a search of Marvin Jones incidental to the arrest, two manila envelopes were found in Marvin Jones's sock and these envelopes contained marijuana (cannibas), the weight of that marijuana (cannibas) in the aggregate was 4.2 grams. The Respondent Jones was given his statement of rights in accordance with Miranda and after receiving those warnings, Jones stated that it was his practice to buy marijuana (cannibas) in amounts of a pound or two pounds and he in turn sold it in small amounts to adults. He further stated that he had purchased marijuana (cannibas) on mere than one occasion. In searching Marvin Jones, the officers also discovered $400.00 in cash and a number of slips of paper with numbers on them. Those slips of paper were explained by Jones to be numbers or combinations of numbers for dogs running at pari-mutuel races in Sarasota, Florida, and they were numbers which persons wished to have bet for them. Of the $400.00 found on the Respondent, Jones indicated that $50.00 of that money was for placing bets at the race track in particular for daily doubles races in the pari-mutuel events. He further stated that he would place the bets himself or have someone place them for him.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts herein and these matters in aggravation and mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the license No. 62-383, Series 2-COP, held by the Respondents, Marvin and Flossie Jones, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas Prior, Esquire CAMPBELL AND PRIOR, P.A. 205 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516
The Issue The issues presented for resolution in the two consolidated cases are whether Rule 10E-16.004 (27), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and whether Petitioner violated that rule on a specified occasion and is subject to fine or other penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Associated Counselling and Education, Inc., doing business as Substance Abuse Family Education (SAFE), is a Florida corporation doing business in Orange County, Florida. SAFE provides substance abuse treatment to adolescents, mostly within the ages of twelve (12) to eighteen (18) years, with a few young adults who have turned nineteen while in treatment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency with statutory authority to license and regulate certain treatment programs, including SAFE. At all times material to this proceeding HRS has licensed SAFE to provide substance abuse treatment services in a category titled "non-residential day and night treatment with a host home component." SAFE is not licensed as a secure facility or an addictions receiving facility. SAFE uses a program similar to the Alcoholic Anonymous twelve-step program as a tool for rehabilitating drug abusing juveniles. The program includes five phases through which the clients progress at varying rates. The "first phase" describes clients who are new to the program. As clients progress they enter into stages of increasing responsibility and freedom, until they are able to graduate and return to the everyday world. The program requires that the youths' parents or legal guardians admit them into treatment, even when children are referred by a court, by HRS or another source. The program requires rigorous participation by the parents and any siblings of the client. SAFE's contract for treatment includes a voluntary withdrawal provision which requires that the client request withdrawal through a "chain of command." The purpose of the deliberate, several-step process is to avoid withdrawal on an impulsive or transitory whim of the client. SAFE's rules, including the withdrawal provision, are explained to the client at the beginning of treatment and are reviewed daily with the clients. Clients who are just starting in the program, "first phasers," spend their days at the program and are placed at night with host parents, generally parents with experience in the program through their own children's participation. Staff and host parents are trained in crisis intervention and aggression control techniques through an HRS sanctioned training program. The techniques are progressive; they range from verbal intervention, to putting an arm around a client's shoulder, to physically forcing a client to the floor when the client has threatened to injure himself or others. SAFE contends that when a client attempts to leave treatment without going through the withdrawal process and without involving the parents or guardians in the process, the client is in serious danger of injuring himself or others immediately following departure from the program. SAFE uses physical intervention as a last resort to prevent clients from leaving the program without going through the "chain of command." At night, however, such intervention is used by host parents only to restrain dangerously aggressive behavior. SAFE instructs its host parents to not physically stop a child from leaving the host home. S. B. was a "first phaser" in SAFE's program in August 1993. During dinner one evening he had been staring or glaring at other clients and acting in a provoking and disruptive manner. After dinner, during an organized "rap" session, several clients were called on to confront S. B.'s behavior. He reacted by throwing a chair, across several rows of clients, at the client who was confronting him. Then he bolted, or attempted to bolt, from the room through the exit door. He was restrained by staff, was calmed, and he returned to his seat. Very shortly after he returned to his seat S. B. began staring or glaring at a client by the exit door. He jumped up and ran for the door. Again, he was physically restrained as he kicked, fought and yelled with anger. Staff person Pamela Mardis was one of the persons who participated in the restraint of S. B. on August 27, 1993. She considered the client to be in harm's way if he were permitted to leave the program without the assurance of proper safeguard for his well-being and safety. The January 12, 1994 amended notice of violation provided by HRS to Loretta Parrish, SAFE's owner and executive director, states, in pertinent part: As an amended complaint, the following incidents have been found to be in violation of 10E-16, F.A.C., requirements and are therefore subject to administrative fines: * * * August 27, 1993, 5:20 p.m., (report written August 27, 1993, 6:45 p.m.) in which a client was restrained in an effort to keep the client from leaving treatment, your agency will be fined $100 for non-compliance with 10E-16.004 (27)(a), F.A.C., requirements. (Petitioner's exhibit no. 6) HRS interprets its rule to prohibit restraint when the perceived danger to the client is in leaving and getting back on drugs. SAFE contends that to let one client leave voluntarily without going through the withdrawal procedures would mean that all of the clients, adolescents with poor decision-making skills, would walk out. There is a program in Palm Beach County, Florida, purportedly similar to SAFE, called Growing Together, Inc. On January 22, 1994, HRS and Growing Together, Inc., entered into a stipulated Final Declaratory Judgement in case no. CL93-9599-AO, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, which provided, in pertinent part: In the absence of a Court Order restricting the rights of a parent or legal guardian to control decisions affecting the health and welfare of a minor, Growing Together, Inc., may act upon the request of a parent or legal guardian in accepting a minor client for substance abuse treatment regardless of the minor's objections. In the absence of a Court Order limiting the authority of a parent or legal guardian to control decisions affecting the health and welfare of a minor, Growing Together, Inc., may reasonably restrict minor clients from terminating their participation in treatment contrary to the express direction of a parent or legal guardian. So long as the minor's rights to challenge the reasonableness of restrictions imposed at the express direction of a parent or legal guardian are protected -- that is, so long as the minor is informed of his or her rights and is provided a practical means by which to exercise those rights -- Growing Together, Inc., may continue to act in loco parent) in declining to release a minor from treatment where such release is against the will of a parent or legal guardian and no court order has been issued to direct otherwise. The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is hereby prohibited from taking any action contrary to the legal principles enunciated herein and is expressly prohibited from enforcing any interpretation of F.S. Section 397.601 which interpretation is contrary to the findings of this Judgement. (Petitioner's exhibit no. 7)
