The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Aubrey Minor was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 24, 1986, the day the Commission issued respondent a certificate, No. 23-86-002-01. In the late summer of 1988, Aubrey Minor worked as a correctional officer in the Escambia County Jail. On September 1, 1988, McArthur Young, an inmate, was so slow leaving the visiting area that respondent locked him in and left, in order to avoid further delaying escorting other inmates to their cells. When he returned to retrieve the recalcitrant inmate, and while he was escorting him down the corridor that runs by the control room, he repeatedly asked him his name. Exasperated at the inmate's failure to tell him, respondent Minor grabbed McArthur Young's arm in order to read the name written on the wrist band he wore. When Mr. Young pulled his arm away, Mr. Minor grew still angrier, and swung with full force, hitting McArthur Young in the jaw with the jail keys. Although only two six-inch brass keys were on the stainless steel ring when respondent hit the inmate, each weighed a pound, according to uncontroverted testimony. Shouting by both men had attracted the attention of other Escambia County Jail personnel. Correctional officer Michael D. Miles saw respondent swing while the inmate's arms hung at his sides. Reacting threateningly to the blow, McArthur Young stepped toward respondent Minor. By this time, Corporal Frank Mayo, who had reached the spot where the men stood, stepped between them. While another officer took respondent in hand, Corporal Mayo led the inmate to the infirmary, where the nurse gave him an ice pack. His jaw was red and slightly swollen but the tooth he claimed was loose did not seem loose to the nurse. In the ensuing internal investigation, respondent lied to his superiors, although he conceded that "he got a little bit out of control." T.37. After the investigators concluded that his use of force had not been justified, Escambia County terminated respondent's employment. Jail policy forbids the use of force, even in response to a verbal threat.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Abrey Minor 901 West Massachussetts Lot #17 Pensacola, FL 32505 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of June, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 6, 1995, the Petitioner filed an application seeking to be licensed as a real estate sales person. In response to question number 9 on the application form (which inquires about the applicants's criminal history), the Petitioner answered in the affirmative and included the following explanatory details: I entered a plea of guilty to 1 count of distribution of a controlled substance on March 25, 1993, in Federal Court, before Judge Adkins. I was sentenced to 2 years in a Federal Camp. On January 23, 1992, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with two felony charges related to possession of cocaine and conspiracy to possess cocaine. On March 26, 1993, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment. Count 2 charged the Petitioner with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, which is a Class B felony in violation of 21 USC Section 846. On March 26, 1993, a judgment was entered in which the Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the crime described above, was sentenced to a prison term of 24 months, and was fined $15,000.00. The judgment also imposed 4 years of supervised release following release from prison. The Petitioner served 15 months in federal prison and was then transferred to a halfway house for a period of four months. The Petitioner then served the last two months of his sentence on home confinement. He was released from confinement on May 25, 1995, at which time he began a four-year period of probation. The Petitioner is presently on probation. His probation period is presently scheduled to end in May of 1999. With good behavior he may be able to obtain an earlier release from probation. Since his release from confinement the Petitioner has been making regular payments towards his $15,000.00 fine. He presently owes about $10,500.00 on the fine. Following his arrest, the Petitioner cooperated with law enforcement authorities and his cooperation led to the arrest of a number of other people on charges related to possession or distribution of cocaine. Since his release from confinement the Petitioner's primary employment has been in the carpet business. The Petitioner appears to have an earnest desire to be rehabilitated. He did not, however, present any persuasive evidence that he had achieved that goal. Notably absent from the record is any testimony from friends, relatives, neighbors, employers, or business associates regarding such matters as the Petitioner's present character and whether he is honest, truthful, and trustworthy.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application. It is further recommended that such denial be without prejudice to the Petitioner's opportunity to file a future application as such time as he may have persuasive evidence of his rehabilitation. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 23rd day of February 1996. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: (None submitted.) Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 10: Accepted in substance with a few additional details in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 11: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than being a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 12 and 13: Rejected as a combination of subordinate and unnecessary details and argument. COPIES FURNISHED: William N. Halpern Assistant Attorney General Suite 107, South Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Raul Bado 8490 Southwest 96th Street Miami, Florida 33156 Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 11, 1983, and issued certificate number 19-82-502-08, which he still holds. For approximately the past eight years, Respondent has been employed by the Metro-Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department). During the first six years of his employment with the Department, he held the position of Correctional Officer I. His duties as a Correctional Officer I included supervising crews of inmates performing lawn maintenance work on public grounds outside the correctional facility in which they were housed. One of Respondent's supervisors was Jerry Meese, the Director of the Department's Operations Division. On September 26, 1986, while returning to his office from a lunchtime excursion, Meese observed a Department truck used to transport inmate work crews parked outside a private residence. The truck's presence in the residential area aroused Meese's suspicion. He therefore stopped to investigate. He soon discovered that Respondent and some inmates were in the area. One of the inmates was found to have some chewing gum in his possession. The inmate told Meese that Respondent had given him money to purchase the gum at a nearby store. A short walking distance from where Meese had encountered the inmate was a bag containing seven containers of beer. The containers were cold to the touch. Meese went to the store to which the inmate had referred and spoke to the store clerk. The store clerk advised Meese that the inmate, a short time before, had bought the beer that Meese had found in the bag. Meese discussed the matter with Respondent. It appeared to Meese that Respondent's speech was slurred and that his eyes were red. Upon his return to the office, Meese was provided with statements from inmates supervised by Respondent in which the inmates indicated that they had drank beer and smoked marijuana with Respondent. Shortly thereafter Meese learned that the inmates had tested positive for drugs. The Department had a policy which required a correctional officer to submit to drug testing if there existed a reasonable suspicion that the officer was involved in the illicit use of drugs. Based upon what had occurred that afternoon, Meese justifiably believed that he had grounds to invoke this policy and he therefore directed Respondent to submit to a drug test. He gave Respondent until Monday, September 29, 1986, to take the test. On September 29, 1986, prior to submitting to the test, Respondent was interviewed by Robert Sobel, an investigator with the Department's Internal Affairs Unit. Respondent freely admitted to Sobel that he "smok[ed] marijuana on a regular basis" and that he "would like to enroll in a program to overcome this problem." Later that day, at 3:10 p.m., in compliance with Meese's directive, Respondent went to the Consulab facility at the Cedars Medical Center in Miami and gave a urine specimen. The sample was screened by the use of an enzyme immunoassay testing procedure. The screening test was performed twice. On both occasions, the sample tested presumptively positive for cocaine and marijuana. The sample was then subjected to confirmatory testing. The thin layer chromatography (TLC) method was used. When performed by a competent technologist, TLC testing is accurate 95 to 99 percent of the time. The two technologists who tested Respondent's urine sample using the TLC method were highly competent. Their tests, which were completed at about 4:50 p.m., revealed the presence of cocaine metabolites 1/ and cannabinoids (marijuana). 15. The tests were accurate. Respondent had knowingly used cocaine and marijuana on or about the date of the testing. Notwithstanding the results of the testing, Respondent was not terminated by the Department. Instead, he was suspended. As a condition of continued employment, he was required to participate in a drug rehabilitation program and to remain drug-free. Respondent has met these requirements to the satisfaction of the Department. Not only has Respondent remained in the employ of the Department, he how occupies the position of corporal, a supervisory position to which he was promoted approximately two years ago. His post-September, 1986, employment record reveals that he has taken full advantage of the opportunity given him by the Department to rehabilitate himself.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character" in violation of Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, by virtue of his unlawful use of cocaine and marijuana on or about September 26, 1986; and (2) based upon such a finding, (a) suspend Respondent's certification for 30 days, (b) place Respondent on probation for a period of two years to commence upon the expiration of this 30-day suspension, and (c) include among the terms and conditions of his probation the requirements that Respondent submit to scheduled and monthly drug testing and that he agree to release the results of such testing to the Commission or its designee. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of May 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1990.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the formal hearing in this proceeding, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. Union Correctional Institution Policy Memorandum No. 65, issued June 7, 1976 and revised and effective since October 23, 1980, provides in pertinent part that: Inmates are prohibited from using typewriters for personal correspondence or for matters other than "official state business." Violation of that Policy Memorandum may constitute a basis for disciplinary action. Petitioners have had mail returned to them because it was typewritten. (Petitioners' Exhibits 3, 4, and 5) Based on the returned mail to Petitioners, all of them have been substantially affected by the operation of the subject Policy Memorandum. As example, Petitioner Adams had several cards returned as being prohibited and was advised that if he questioned the return of those cards, he would be confined as a disciplinary action for questioning the operation of the rule as it relates to the returned cards. Additionally, Petitioner Adams lost a Clerk's job in the Law Library because he typed letters. Adams' dismissal resulted in lost "gain time" since he was dismissed for typing letters violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. Petitioner Holland filed an application for a grant to a community college which was returned because it was typed in violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. Finally, Petitioner Cribbs was unable to attend a favorite aunt's funeral because his request was typewritten and it was returned as being in violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. The employees at Union Correctional Institution adhere to Policy Memorandum No. 65 strictly and employees who are derelict in their responsibilities covered in implementing that policy are subject to disciplinary action. UCIPM 65.5. (Petitioners' Exhibit 1) UCIPM 65 is a department policy, never promulgated as a rule, uniformly applied throughout Union Correctional Institution. It is, by its own terms, virtually self-executing and intended to require compliance. It therefore has the consistent effect of law.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Brenda Barnett, was employed as a detention deputy by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, and deemed to be a classified employee. Respondent was initially hired in 1991, and worked as a steward in the jail kitchen facilities before becoming a detention deputy. Respondent is a state-certified sworn correctional officer and, in her capacity as a deputy detention officer, is charged with exercising direction, dominion, and control over incarcerated inmates. Prior to her employment as a detention deputy and as a condition thereto, Respondent received extensive training. Such training includes nearly 500 hours of academy training sanctioned by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Also, once employed, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office provides detention deputies with in-service training and forty hours of formal training annually. Respondent received such additional training through in- service while employed as a detention deputy. In March 1995, Respondent Barnett began a casual relationship with an inmate, Nelson Alas. Inmate Alas was incarcerated at the same facility where Respondent Barnett worked. At first, Respondent exchanged pleasantries such as "hello" or "good bye" with Inmate Alas. Inmate Alas would compliment Respondent. Within days, Inmate Alas attempted to pass a note to Respondent Barnett. Initially, Respondent refused to accept the notes. However, within ten days, Respondent accepted a note from Inmate Alas and soon began writing letters to Inmate Alas. Between the period, March 1995 and April 1995, Respondent wrote at least twenty-one letters to Inmate Alas. During this time Inmate Alas also wrote letters to Respondent. At one point Inmate Alas gave Respondent a photograph of himself. The letters written by Respondent to Inmate Alas were romantic in nature, and many of them spoke of her feelings for and attraction to Inmate Alas. Respondent has never denied and has, in fact, admitted writing these letters to Inmate Alas. Respondent further admitted that on one occasion during her involvement with Inmate Alas, she kissed him. Respondent's actions came to the attention of Detention Deputy David Howsare when an inmate told him that there was communication between Respondent and Inmate Alas, including the exchange of notes and allegations of physical contact. Detention Deputy Howsare reported this through his chain of command, and a search of Inmate Alas' cell was conducted. The search uncovered letters that had been written to Inmate Alas. At about the same time the complaint was made to Detention Deputy Howsare, a complaint regarding Respondent was called in to the PCSO Inspection Bureau. The complaint was made by Cynthia Hadley, who identified herself as the girlfriend of Inmate Alas. Ms. Hadley indicated that her boyfriend, Inmate Alas, was having an affair with a detention deputy and had written several letters to the detention deputy. The matter was referred to the Administrative Investigation Unit and Sgt. Daniel Buckingham and Sgt. Robert Kidd were assigned to investigate the complaint. During the investigation, Sgt. Buckingham sought to ascertain the identity of the person who wrote the letters that were found in Inmate Alas' cell. In this regard, Sgt. Buckingham had the letters sent out for processing for latent fingerprints. After this analysis revealed only the fingerprints of Inmate Alas, Respondent was required to provide a handwriting exemplar. The handwriting exemplar was sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for analysis. The result confirmed that Respondent was the author of at least fifteen of the letters. Also, as part of the investigation, interviews were conducted with Inmate Alas, Ms. Hadley, and Respondent. The interview with Inmate Alas' was unsuccessful in that he was evasive, refused to answer many questions, and was generally uncooperative. During her interview with Sgt. Kidd and Sgt. Buckingham, Respondent admitted improper contact with Inmate Alas, including writing letters to him and receiving a photograph of him. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigatory file was given to Respondent's Chain-of-Command Board for review. Based on its review, the Chain-of-Command Board unanimously found that Respondent had violated rules and regulations of the PCSO relating to loyalty, association with prisoners, and knowledge of and obedience to rules and regulations. As a detention deputy, Respondent's actions of fraternizing with an inmate compromised her position and may have lead to the erosion of security. Also, such undue familiarity has the potential for jeopardizing the security of the institution and the safety of the public as well as that of Respondent's own family. Under the PCSO General Orders B-15 and C-1, as amended in February 1994, the disciplinary point calculation for Respondent Barnett was seventy-five points. The range of discipline for seventy-five (75) points is from a 10- day suspension to termination. The Chain-of-Command voted unanimously to recommend termination. Sheriff Rice concurred with the recommendation and terminated Respondent on June 20, 1995. Throughout the investigation and hearing, Respondent has admitted that she engaged in the conduct which is the subject of the termination notice. Respondent explained that her involvement with Inmate Alas occurred during a time that she was experiencing marital problems. In Respondent's opinion, these problems were exacerbated when she found a diary belonging to her husband in which he stated that he no longer loved her. According to Respondent, due to these problems, she was extremely vulnerable at that time. However, Respondent indicated that after the incidents which are the subject of this proceeding, she and her husband went to counseling and, presently, their marriage is strong. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been investigated or disciplined by the PCSO.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Brenda Barnett, guilty of conduct unbecoming a public servant; violating PCSO Rules C-1, V, A, (002) and (011) and Rule C-1, V, C, (063); and upholding Respondent's termination from employment as a deputy detention officer with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 31st day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0019 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-4. Accepted. 5-22. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated. 7-8. Accepted but subordinate to result reached. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate to result reached. 14-20. Rejected as conclusions of law and/or legal arguments. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence A. Jacobs, Esquire Feathersound Place 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 2 Clearwater, Florida 34622 James M. Craig, Esquire ALLEY AND ALLEY/FORD AND HARRISON 205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Copies furnished continued: Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 34649-2500 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 34617
Findings Of Fact Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact. 3-4. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 2-4. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 9-10. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 5-6. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as argument and not a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley Blanding, #036207 Liz Cloud, Chief Mark Dingle, #073356 Bureau of Administrative Code William Roberts, #908378 1802 The Capitol Virgil Page, #073743 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Union Correctional Institution P. O. Box 221 Raiford, Florida 32803 William Joel Keel, #060263 Carroll Webb, Exec. Director Union Correctional Institution Administrative Procedures P. O. Box 221 Committee Raiford, Florida 32083 120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julia Forrester, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie Wainwright Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was incarcerated at Union Correctional Institition within the custody and control of the Department of Corrections. On or about March 1, 1983, Petitioner submitted a request to be admitted to the Mutual Participation Program, also known as ''Contract Parole." Thereafter, Petitioner was considered for eligibility for that program by a classification specialist employed by the Department of Corrections and a parole examiner employed by the Parole and Probation Commission. On April 22, 1983, these two officials recommended against Petitioner's request based on Petitioner's "extensive criminal history," "history of drug abuse in the past," his escape from minimum custody while a patient at the Veteran's Administration hospital in Gainesville in December of 1979, and his involvement in a prison disturbance at Marion Correctional Institute in 1978. Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative code, entitled Mutual participation Program was first adopted by Respondent on September 10, 1981. Respondent conducted rulemaking proceedings in 1982 which resulted in amendments to various portions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code. These amendments became effective October 1, 1982. During the course of the rulemaking proceeding, Respondent published notice of the proposed changes in the Florida Administrative Weekly and, in addition, forwarded copies of the proposed changes to all Department of Corrections offices, including each correctional institution. The record in this cause is unclear as to whether these proposed changes were ever posted in the law library or other office at Union Correctional Institution. Petitioner contends that he was never afforded notice of the proposed amendments to Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, and library officials at Union Correctional Institution do not specifically recall ever having seen such proposed amendments. There are no facts of record in this proceeding from which it could be concluded with any certainty whether any of the provisions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, either as it was initially adopted or as it was amended effective October 1, 1982, were applied to Petitioner's request for participation in that program.
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners and Respondent have stipulated to the following facts: The three petitioners are inmates at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida, in the custody of the Department of Corrections. All three of the petitioners have had their PPRD's established by the respondent-commission as follows: In June of 1982, Mr. Piccirillo's PPRD was established by the commission to be September 30, 1986. In January of 1982, Mr. Adams' PPRD was established by the commission to be November 11, 1991. In December of 1982, petitioner Hemming's PPRD was established by the commission to be September 29, 1993. Subsequent to the commission having established their PPRD's, all three of the petitioners have been transferred from one Florida penal institution to another state institution as follows: Mr. Piccirillo was transferred from Polk Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on August 18, 1982. Mr. Adams was transferred from Polk Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on August 18, 1932. Mr. Hemming was transferred from Avon Park Correctional Institution to Union Correctional Institution on February 16, 1983. The petitioners were not transferred to Union Correctional Institution because of any unsatisfactory institutional conduct at their former institutions. Petitioners are currently scheduled by the commission for biennial interviews to review their established PPRD's as follows: Mr. Piccirillo is scheduled for a biennial interview in March of 1984. Mr. Adams is scheduled for a biennial interview in October of 1983. Mr. Hemming is scheduled for a biennial interview in September of 1984. The following additional findings are made from evidence presented at the hearing: The respondent-commission has not made a finding that any of the petitioner's institutional conduct has been unsatisfactory under the challenged rule nor has respondent extended their PPRD's or refused to authorize their EPRD's. In applying the challenged rule, the fact that an inmate has been transferred to a higher custody or higher level institution is only considered to be unsatisfactory institutional conduct where the commission receives documentation evidencing institutional misconduct as the basis for the transfer. Petitioners transfers from other institutions to Union Correctional Institution would not be considered unsatisfactory institutional conduct under the challenged rule because there is no documentation of institutional misconduct which led to these institutional transfers.
