The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Pursuant to section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints and taking disciplinary action against persons holding certificates as law enforcement officers. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer, having been issued certificate number 248318 on April 28, 2005. Upon receiving his certification, Respondent accepted a position as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol. Events of April 18, 2008 At approximately 9:30 p.m. on April 18, 2008, Ms. Diana Agudelo was driving alone on Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. Respondent, who was on solo patrol in his marked Florida Highway Patrol cruiser, initiated a traffic stop of Ms. Agudelo for exceeding the speed limit. Respondent exited his cruiser, approached the driver's window of Ms. Agudelo's vehicle, and began to engage her in conversation. While he did so, Respondent stared——with, in Ms. Agudelo's words, a "perverted" expression on his face——at her breasts and directed the beam of his flashlight at the same part of her anatomy. Eventually, Respondent requested, and received, Ms. Agudelo's driver's license, at which point he returned to his patrol cruiser while Ms. Agudelo waited in her vehicle. A short time later, Respondent walked back to Ms. Agudelo's vehicle and requested that she accompany him to his patrol cruiser. Ms. Agudelo complied with the request and followed Respondent to his vehicle. At that point, Respondent sat down in the driver's seat of his patrol car and asked Ms. Agudelo to get inside the vehicle with him. Ms. Agudelo declined the invitation. While Ms. Agudelo stood near the window of the patrol vehicle, Respondent continued to engage her in conversation. As he did, Respondent continued to stare at (and direct the beam of his flashlight on) Ms. Agudelo's breasts. A short time thereafter, Respondent decided to escort Ms. Agudelo back to her vehicle. While walking behind Ms. Agudelo, Respondent intentionally, and without justification, touched Ms. Agudelo's buttocks without her consent. Understandably intimidated, Ms. Agudelo made no comment in response to the unwanted contact. Once she reached her vehicle, Ms. Agudelo sat down in the driver's seat and closed the door. As Respondent leaned through the driver's window and continued to converse with Ms. Agudelo, he intentionally touched her breasts with his hand. Ms. Agudelo did not consent to the contact. Eventually, Respondent moved away from the window and advised Ms. Agudelo that she was free to leave. Respondent did not issue Ms. Agudelo a speeding ticket or a written warning. Correctly believing that Respondent's behavior constituted sexual harassment, Ms. Agudelo contacted law enforcement shortly after the incident. An investigation ensued, during which Ms. Agudelo identified Respondent from a photographic lineup.1 Events of July 28, 2006 During the evening of July 28, 2006, Erin Weigel, a 21-year-old female, was driving alone in her vehicle on Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. After she missed her intended turn, Ms. Weigel decided to exit the interstate and ask for directions. While stopped at a red light near the interstate, Ms. Weigel noticed a marked Florida Highway Patrol vehicle——occupied solely by Respondent——at rest in an adjacent lane. After Ms. Weigel gained Respondent's attention, she advised him that she was lost and in need of assistance. Respondent instructed Ms. Weigel to follow his vehicle, at which point he led her to a poorly lit, deserted parking lot. Inconveniently, Respondent parked in such a manner that Ms. Weigel would have been unable to re-enter the roadway unless Respondent moved his patrol vehicle. Respondent exited his patrol car, approached the driver's side window of Ms. Weigel's vehicle, and began to engage her in conversation. Almost immediately, Respondent made an unsolicited inquiry regarding Ms. Weigel's relationship status. Specifically, Respondent asked, "Do you have a boyfriend," to which Ms. Weigel replied that she did. Upon being informed that she had a boyfriend, Respondent asked Ms. Weigel to produce her driver's license. Although Ms. Weigel was confused by the request, she decided to comply and reached for her purse, which was located on the passenger's seat. As she did so, Respondent aimed the beam of his flashlight down Ms. Weigel's shirt (she was wearing a v-neck tank top) and remarked, "You know what I want to see." Ms. Weigel responded by stating, "Excuse me," at which point Respondent announced, "I want to see your breasts." In response to the inappropriate and unwelcome demand, Ms. Weigel informed Respondent that she wanted to leave. At that point or shortly thereafter, Respondent informed Ms. Weigel that he thought she was pretty, he wanted to take her on a date, and that he would let her leave once she gave him her cell phone number. Although Ms. Weigel did not want to give Respondent her phone number and had no wish to date him, she relented in the hope that Respondent would keep his word and allow her to drive away. After he received Ms. Weigel's phone number, Respondent did not immediately allow her to leave. Instead, Respondent told Ms. Weigel that she seemed "a little intoxicated," notwithstanding the fact that she was not impaired and had consumed no alcoholic beverages that evening. Although Respondent asked Ms. Weigel to exit her vehicle, she held her ground and refused to comply. Eventually, Respondent ended the encounter and allowed Ms. Weigel to drive away. Ms. Weigel subsequently reported the incident to the Florida Highway Patrol. During the investigation that ensued,2 Ms. Weigel identified Respondent in a photographic lineup as the trooper involved in the July 28, 2006, incident.3 Other Allegations As a licensed law enforcement officer with the Florida Highway Patrol, Respondent was granted access to Driver and Vehicle Information Database ("DAVID"), which is maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DAVID is a secure database that contains confidential information regarding motorists, which includes addresses, photographs, driving records, and vehicle descriptions. Each time an authorized person accesses DAVID, the user is required to acknowledge that the system is being utilized for legitimate law enforcement or criminal justice purposes. Pursuant to the Prehearing Stipulation in this matter, it is undisputed that Respondent accessed DAVID on multiple occasions for "personal reasons" and without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.4 However, neither the Prehearing Stipulation nor the evidence presented during the final hearing established what particular benefit Respondent derived——if any—— from his unauthorized use of DAVID. Ultimate Findings The undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed a battery upon Ms. Agudelo by touching her breasts and buttocks, and therefore failed to maintain good moral character. The undersigned also finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent's behavior toward Ms. Argudelo and Ms. Weigel constitutes misuse of his position as a law enforcement officer, and thus Respondent failed to maintain good moral character. The undersigned further determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish that Respondent's accessing of the DAVID system for personal reasons constituted misuse of his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, in violation of section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Janadra L. Bolling was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 3, 2004, and was issued correctional certificate number 237692. At all times material hereto, she was employed as a correctional officer at the Century Correctional Institution. On June 16, 2007, Respondent's father was the owner of a 2005 Nissan Maxima. Respondent, who was listed as a driver, was driving that vehicle that day. On that date, Respondent asked Captain John Chance, her immediate supervisor, for permission to leave work due to having a sick child and was granted permission to leave. Later that day, Respondent called Sergeant Patricia Archie and stated that she had been in a car accident at the intersection of Highway 29 and Molino Road, totaling her vehicle. She stated that her car had rolled over twice and that she was waiting for an ambulance. Still later that day, Respondent called Captain John Chance. She advised him that she had gone to the hospital, had been examined there, and had been told not to return to work until she went to her personal physician on Monday, June 18. When Captain Chance returned to work on June 19, he was advised that no one had heard anything further from Respondent. He attempted to contact her that day but was unsuccessful. On Wednesday, June 20, Respondent called and advised Captain Chance that she had gone to her doctor on Monday, the 18th, and that he had told her not to return to work until Monday, June 25. Respondent said she would bring a doctor's note with her at that time. On June 20, 2007, Respondent's father's car was photographed in the Wal-Mart parking lot. The car did not show any collision damage, and particularly did not show the damage one would expect to see on a vehicle that had rolled over twice and been "totaled" four days earlier. On June 25, Captain Chance ordered Respondent to write a report concerning the car accident she had in June and the reason why she had failed to provide a note from her doctor as she had been required to do. Respondent advised him that she would not write a report, that she intended to speak to the Colonel instead. Also on June 25 Respondent spoke with Colonel William Watson, advising him about her accident and complaining that she was being harassed by staff (1) requiring a note from her doctor regarding her absence from work and (2) photographing a car in the Wal-Mart parking lot. The Colonel asked her if she had supplied the doctor's note, and Respondent admitted that she had not done so but that she would. A short time later she spoke to the Colonel again and said that her doctor had told her not to lift over ten pounds. The Colonel advised her that she would need to bring in a doctor's note with that limitation written on it and that she could not return to work until she was capable of performing all of her duties. On June 27, 2007, Inspector Ron Castle, who had taken the photographs of the car at Wal-Mart, contacted Respondent's father's auto insurance company, Respondent's father's auto finance company, and the Florida Highway Patrol. None of those entities had any record of an accident report or claim filed as to any accident occurring on June 16, 2007. On July 9, 2007, Respondent presented a note from a chiropractor dated July 5. The note indicated that Respondent had presented herself for treatment on June 25 with complaints of neck and lower back pain and headaches. At that time, the doctor recommended that she not return to work for two weeks. By the time the note was written on July 5, however, the doctor had released Respondent to return to her normal work activities. On July 13, 2007, Sacred Heart Hospital faxed to the Colonel a work release stating that Respondent could return to work without restrictions on July 15. The work release made no reference to any auto accident. Inspector Ron Castle, who was also employed at Century Correctional Institution, was assigned two investigations regarding Respondent. The first involved an allegation of falsifying records and documents and related to Respondent's medical excuse(s). On August 21, 2007, Respondent was placed under oath and interviewed by Inspector Castle regarding her June 16 auto accident. Respondent was uncooperative and refused to discuss her auto accident in any detail, saying it was none of Castle's business. She did, however, maintain that she had had an accident. On September 10, 2007, Respondent turned in a medical slip from a Dr. Russo dated September 4, 2007, which read "Home rest due to illness at least until 9/09/07." The original of the doctor's note retained in the doctor's file read "until 9/07/07" and not "until 9/09/07." The second investigation involved allegations of improper conduct, conduct unbecoming, refusing to answer questions during an investigation, insubordination for refusing to submit an incident report, falsifying documents, knowingly submitting inaccurate or untruthful information, and providing untruthful testimony. Respondent's earlier assertions and subsequent testimony that she was in an auto accident on June 16, 2007, which resulted in substantial damage to her car and required her to take time off from work are false. There is no evidence to support her claim: no accident report, no insurance claim, no notice to the lien holder, no damage to the vehicle, and no documentation for medical treatment related to an auto accident. Respondent submitted to her employer a medical note on which she had altered the date on which she could return to work, giving herself extra time off to which she was not entitled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking her certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon S. Traxler, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Janadra Bolling Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue Whether Appellant on February 6 and 7, 1977, violated Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles Personnel Rules and Regulations 2.1C and Florida Highway Patrol General Order 19, paragraph 11, as specifically alleged in the disciplinary letter of March 14, 1977. Whether the Appellee's suspension of Appellant should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Appellant Jerry Shores is employed by the Appellee Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Florida Highway Patrol, in Troop B, Orange County, Florida, with the rank of Trooper. He was so employed on December 26, 1976, and on February 6 and 7, 1977. A letter dated March 14, 1977, sent by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested was mailed to Appellant Shores notifying him that he was being suspended for sixteen (16) hours without pay based on the violation which is the subject of this hearing. The letter was signed by J.E. Beach, Colonel, Director, Florida Highway Patrol and was approved by Ralph Davis, Executive Director of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The Appellant Shores appealed this suspension. 3 Documentary evidence and testimony of the witnesses for the Appellee established that on February 6, 1977, during his regular patrol duty hours, Trooper Shores stopped at a "Seven-Eleven" store at 8:30 a.m. without checking in and out of his station by radio then proceeded to his home at 8:40 a.m. where he stopped and went inside without checking out, then left his home at 9:00 a.m. without checking back in by radio, and at 9:30 a.m. stopped at a plant nursery without checking out by radio. At 9:50 a.m. Trooper Shores, while at the nursery, received a call to investigate and assist a disabled vehicle. Trooper Shores did not leave the nursery to attend to the disabled vehicle and while still at the nursery the Patrol Station called him at 10:15 a.m. advising him to work an accident. Trooper Shores then radioed that the reason that he did not get to the disabled vehicle was that he was busy with another disabled vehicle. On Tuesday, February 8, 1977, the Patrol Station called Trooper Shores on the radio during his regular patrol duty hours at 3:50 p.m. The station did not make radio contact although several attempts were made until 4:20 p.m. when Trooper Shores advised he was out of the patrol car. On December 26, 1976, Trooper Shores received a written reprimand from Sergeant J. C. Rique because he was out of his patrol car at the Hilton Inn on West State Road 50 without either checking out by radio or by telephone. Trooper Shores had depended upon another person to check him out.
Recommendation Sustain the penalty of sixteen (16) hours without pay. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1977. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Enoch J. Whitney, Esq. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jerry Shores Route 2, Box 526-C Apopka, Florida 32702
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be assessed the cost of a clean-up of contaminant which resulted from a motor vehicle accident in which he was involved on June 16, 1997, on State Road 64.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ray W. Crawley, is a professional truck driver. On June 16, 1997, he owned a 1990 Mack tractor and an open dump trailer. At approximately 12:15 a.m., on June 16, 1997, Respondent was driving his rig east toward Lake Wales on State Road 64. He chose that road because, having driven it frequently, he knew it to experience normally low traffic and to be a high quality highway. On numerous occasions he had seen both cattle and deer on the highway, and it is a generally accepted fact that the wildlife have the right-of-way. Mr. Crawley had just passed through Zolfo Springs when, in his lights, he saw a cow on the roadside off in the distance. Before he could take any action to slow down, another cow ran onto the road from the south and into his truck. Later examination of the vehicle revealed that this caused the axle pin to shear. As a result, Mr. Crawley, who was driving between 55 and 60 miles per hour in a 60 mile per hour speed zone, lost control of his vehicle. It veered off the road to the right, struck a power pole, demolished a mailbox, went through a fence, and ended up on its side on the south side of the highway in a pasture owned by Ms. Carrie Graham. Mr. Crawley was pinned inside the cab of the truck for a while, but suffered only a cut on his head and pulled muscles. He either was able to extricate himself from the wreck or was freed by emergency medical technicians who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident, and who insisted he be taken to the hospital for observation. Mr. Crawley was not cited for speeding or for any other violation as a result of this accident. As a result of the overturning, Respondent’s truck leaked diesel fuel and hydraulic oil from the tractor onto the ground, and this material had to be removed from the site. Approximately 80 gallons of diesel fuel and 40 gallons of hydraulic oil were spilled. The Department contacted Ms. Graham’s brother, Mr. Ken Willis, and Mr. Crawley to inform them that the spill had to be cleaned up. Mr. Willis declined to do so because the cow which caused the accident did not belong to him or Ms. Graham, and he did not think liability for the cleanup was their responsibility. Mr. Crawley also declined responsibility for the cleanup. He claimed the accident was not his fault, and that because of the injuries he sustained, he was incapable of overseeing a contractor hired to effect the cleanup. Mr. Crawley’s tractor and the trailer were both totally destroyed as a result of this accident. His insurance paid him $20,000 for the tractor and $16,000 for the trailer. However, his insurance company declined to cover the cost of the cleanup, asserting a lack of fault on his part. Because Respondent did not agree to clean up the spill, the Department hired a contractor to remove the diesel fuel and hydraulic oil on June 20, 1997. The cost of the cleanup was $3,333.95, which was paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund. Respondent does not deny that a cleanup was required; that the Department paid to have the cleanup done by a contractor; that the cost of the cleanup was as stated; or that the cost was reasonable and proper. The cow which ran into the side of Mr. Crawley’s truck and prompted the accident was not owned by him. Though it is impossible to tell at this time, it would appear that this cow was with several (approximately 15) cows which were owned by Mr. John Eason, a citrus grower and rancher who runs cattle both on his home property and on pasture which he leases from someone else. The pasture he leases runs along State Road 64, and is totally fenced. There are two gates on the side which abuts the highway, and another gate which permits access to the pasture from the barn. There is also a small gate which permits access from the outside to the yard behind the owner’s property, from which access to the pasture may be gained through the barn. Mr. Eason relates he was called to the accident scene the evening in question and was told his cattle had escaped from the pasture. By the time he arrived, most of the cattle had been rounded up and were being put back into the pasture. He was also advised that it appeared the cattle had escaped through the second gate further down the road from the accident site. Since the cows could not have opened the gate, it is clear that the gate was left open by someone who used it earlier. After helping with the round-up of the remaining escapees, Mr. Eason got them back into the pasture and the gates were all closed. Once that was done, Mr. Eason made an examination of the dead animal and determined that it was a heifer. Mr. Eason claims not to have owned any heifers. If his claim is accepted as true, the dead animal was not his. He did not claim the carcass at the time, and the animal was hauled away by the driver of the wrecker which came to the scene. None of the animals owned by Mr. Eason bear his brand. Most are not branded at all, and those which are branded bear the brand of a prior owner from whom Eason purchased the animal. Taken together, the evidence presented at the hearing fails to show any negligence in this accident on the part of Mr. Crawley. The ownership of the cow in question cannot be determined with any degree of certainty, but it is likely the animal was owned by Mr. Eason. No evidence was presented to indicate who was responsible for leaving open the pasture gate through which the cow was given access to the highway. It does not appear that any identifiable party was negligent in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order holding Respondent responsible for clean-up costs in the amount of $3,333.95 arising out of the spill in which he was involved on June 16, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kisha R. Pruitt, Esquire Thomas M. Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paul S. Reed, Esquire Leonard A. McCue and Associates, P.A. 524 Ninth Street West Bradenton, Florida 34205-7737 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), was and is the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement officers in this state. The Respondent, Douglas E. Szczepanik, was and is certified in Florida as a law enforcement officer. Late on the evening of August 22, 1988, Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Delray Beach, Florida, Police Department, (Department). While at the hospital with Officer Eberhart collecting a blood specimen from a third person for use in another police matter, he heard a police radio call relating to the hot pursuit of a felony suspect. He and Eberhart went to the scene of the expected apprehension and found that the suspect had been apprehended after a high speed chase by several police cars including one driven by Officer Thomas A. Whatley. It was subsequently determined that the suspect had lost control of his vehicle, a stolen car, and had ended up abandoning it on the city's municipal golf course adjacent to West Atlantic Avenue. He then ran off on foot across the course with Officer Whatley in pursuit in his police cruiser. The suspect ran up a hill and down the other side. Whatley, surmising that the hill was no more than that, and that the other side of the hill was a down slope, drove up the hill after the suspect at a speed of approximately 45 to 50 mph. As he reached the crest, he found that he was on the lip of a sand trap and since he could not stop, his car became airborne, coming to rest some 25 - 30 feet further along, in the sand trap. Though it did not bear significant outward signs of damage, the vehicle was, in fact rendered inoperable as a result of the impact. Fortunately, the suspect was apprehended by other officers on the scene. As a result of the serious nature of the suspect's alleged crimes, suspected murder of an officer and car theft, many Delray Beach officers were involved in the chase and were, therefore, on the scene at the time of the apprehension and Whatley's vehicular mishap, including his Lieutenant, Woods, and his patrol sergeant, then Sergeant Musco. Lt. Woods directed Sgt. Musco to block traffic on Atlantic Avenue and another officer to get the damaged vehicles towed away. He directed Respondent, then at the scene, to write the traffic accident report relating to Whatley's car. There is some indication that initially Woods did not think a report was necessary, but he ultimately became convinced it was and gave the job to Respondent. Since both Respondent and Eberhart were traffic investigators, Eberhart indicated he would do it and Respondent acquiesced. Respondent and Eberhart both discussed the accident and both developed their own theory as to how it happened. Neither, however, bothered to question Whatley who remained at the scene for some time before being directed to resume patrol, using Respondent's cruiser. Even when that was being set up, Respondent did not question Whatley as to what had happened, speaking to him only to caution him not to lose his keys when he turned them over to him. Based on their examination of the scene on Atlantic Avenue, and without even looking at Whatley's vehicle and where it ended up, Eberhart concluded that the accident occurred when the suspect lost control of his vehicle and ran into Whatley's forcing him to lose control and run up the side of and into the sand trap. Had Eberhart bothered to look at the vehicle, he would have seen no body damage consistent with collision. Eberhart was subsequently convinced by Respondent, who did look at Whatley's vehicle, that an alternative theory, indicating that the suspect lost control of his vehicle and prompted Whatley to lose control of his in an effort to avoid a collision, was what happened. In any event, Respondent claims that later that evening, back at Police Headquarters, he saw Whatley attempting to write out his report. Whatley allegedly asked Respondent for help in writing it since he was relatively new to the force and this was his first accident. Respondent also claims that he merely told Whatley the format for the report and the type of information to put in it. He admits that, as an example of what to say, he told Whatley his theory of the accident. When Whatley indicated that was not how it happened, Respondent allegedly told him, then, to write in what did happen as he, Whatley, recalled it, and he denies suggesting that Whatley use his scenario if it was not correct. Whatley, on the other hand, claims that while they were still at the scene of the accident he talked with Respondent and told him what had happened. Respondent supposedly walked around the wreck and then told Whatley to put in his supplement to the accident report that he had been taking evasive action. When Whatley told him that was not the way it happened, Respondent is alleged to have said that the people "upstairs" wanted police accident reports to reflect no fault on the part of the officers. Whatley claims that Sgt. Musco was present at the time but Musco does not profess to have heard that and Respondent categorically denies that Whatley told him at the scene how the accident occurred or that he went to the sand trap to look at the vehicle. In a statement made to Captain Schrader in November, 1988 as a part of the Internal Affairs investigation, Respondent again denied he spoke with Whatley at the accident scene. No evidence was presented by the Petitioner as to what benefit Respondent would gain or what detriment he would avoid by telling Whatley to falsify his supplement. Musco claims that when he first saw Whatley, he appeared depressed about the incident and Musco told him to write it up as it had happened and not to worry about it because he, Musco, was not worried about the car. When Respondent, who Musco had assigned to write up the report, said he was going to show it had happened when Whatley attempted to avoid an accident, Musco told him to write the report honestly as he had been trained to do, and as Whatley had reported it. Musco did not follow up to see if the report or Whatley's supplement thereto was prepared properly. Since he had assigned the duty to a trained traffic/homicide investigator, (Respondent), he presumed it was done correctly. He knows of no policy to falsify reports of police accidents and in fact has had an accident himself, in which he was at fault, and which was written up accurately. Respondent claims that after he spoke with Whatley at Police headquarters and told him to write the report honestly, he left and met Lt. Woods outside. He told Woods that Eberhart was going to write the accident report and that Whatley was going to write his supplement honestly. Woods reportedly responded that was no good because he had already told everyone it had happened because of Whatley's attempt to evade the suspect's car. Because of that, even though Woods did not give him any instructions to do so, Respondent claims he went back inside and told Whatley to write his supplement the way he remembered it. Respondent claims that at no time did he ever tell Whatley to write a false report. He also claims that he never made the statement attributed to him regarding the people "upstairs." He would have nothing to gain or to lose by convincing Whatley to falsify his supplement. After getting advice from Respondent and from Sgt. Musco, Officer Whatley, for some reason, wrote his supplement indicating he had the accident in an attempt to evade the suspect's out of control vehicle. Whatley cites two meetings with Respondent that evening, as does Respondent, but their stories of what transpired differs radically. Whatley claims that Respondent told him to make sure his supplement conformed to what was in Eberhart's report. He did, and when he gave it to Lt. Woods to read, Woods rejected it because it was false and Woods knew it to be false. Woods then told him to hold off on the supplement and about a week later, Whatley was told by Captain Cole to write another supplement which was accurate. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he had little contact with Whatley at the scene of the mishap and denies any direct conversation with him about the accident. All he said, he claims, was, "it doesn't look too bad." Respondent asserts that at no time did Whatley tell him how the accident occurred. Later that evening, when, at the station he saw Whatley writing his report, Whatley asked him for advice as to how to construct and what to put into his supplemental report. Respondent claims he told Whatley to go back and tell the story as it happened. He admits to telling Whatley how he felt the accident occurred but when Whatley said that was not how it was, Respondent again told him to write it as it happened. This whole conversation took no more than a minute or a minute and a half. The only direction he gave Whatley was as to the format of the supplement, not the substance, other than that it be the truth. When, a few minutes later, Respondent saw Woods and told him that Whatley was having trouble, Woods told Respondent how he felt the accident had occurred. At that time, Woods gave Respondent no directions, but Respondent went back into the station and again told Whatley to write up his supplement the way he, Whatley, recalled the accident happening. The following day, according to Respondent, Woods pulled him aside and told him he had just spoken to Major Lincoln who said the report was to be written as Respondent had originally said the accident had occurred, incorrectly. At no time did Respondent speak directly with Lincoln about the accident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case by the Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 17th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, regarding the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this proceeding. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 14. Not phrased as Findings of Fact but more as restatements of testimony. However, the substance of the restatements is correctly stated and has been accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein as an accurate recitation of Whatley's story. 24. & 25. Again, not phrased as Findings of Fact. Here, however, the substance of Whatley's statement is rejected as not proven. 26. & 27. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Whatley and Respondent did meet at the station that evening, but the allegation that Respondent told Whatley to falsify his report is not supported by credible evidence. & 34. These are restatements of testimony but are accepted. 35. - 37. An accurate restatement of the testimony, but the testimony is rejected as unsupported. Even Lincoln denied making the statement. 38. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. & 45. Accepted as accurate recitations of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Gaddy, Esquire Michael R. Ramage, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles Salerno, Esquire 242 Plaza Office P.O. Box 1349 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long Director CJSTC Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. him. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since December 7, 1990, certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer. He holds law enforcement certificate number 86138. At the time of the incidents alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), a position he held from 1990 until his dismissal on January 31, 1997. In September of 1994, Respondent's law enforcement career was temporarily interrupted when he was shot in the face and seriously injured while responding to another law enforcement officer's call for assistance. Respondent was off-duty at the time of the incident. After a lengthy hospital stay and recovery period, Respondent returned to duty, rather than seek disability compensation. For the duration of his employment as a trooper with the FHP, Respondent was assigned to Troop L and headquartered in Pahokee, Florida. From November of 1993 until his termination in 1997, Respondent was a member of Sergeant Steven Veltry's squad and under Sergeant Veltry's immediate supervision. Respondent and Sergeant Veltry's relationship was a contentious one. Respondent frequently complained to Sergeant Veltry's superiors that Sergeant Veltry was treating him unfairly. Respondent's complaints, however, were not resolved to his satisfaction. In fact, it seemed to him that his complaints made his situation even worse. As a trooper, Respondent was authorized, pursuant to the written policies and procedures of the FHP, to issue citations, as well as written warnings and faulty equipment notices. He also gave verbal warnings to motorists. (The FHP's written policies and procedures do not specifically address the issuance of verbal warnings.) The issuance of a citation has the potential of adversely impacting the cited motorist. A motorist suffers no adverse consequences, however, as a result of receiving a verbal or written warning or a faulty equipment notice. Unlike traffic citations, written warnings and faulty equipment notices are not required to be signed by the motorists to whom they are issued. Like traffic citations, written warnings and faulty equipment notices are issued in triplicate. One copy (the white copy) is given to the motorist, another (the yellow copy) is retained by the trooper, and the remaining copy (the pink copy) is turned in to the trooper's supervisor along with the trooper's Weekly Report. The Weekly Report prepared and submitted by the trooper is a report of the trooper's enforcement activities for the week. Included in the report is the number of written warnings and faulty equipment notices issued by the trooper. After they are received by the trooper's supervisor, the trooper's Weekly Report and attachments (including the pink copies of the written warnings and faulty equipment notices the trooper issued during the week) are transmitted to the district office, where the report is reviewed for accuracy by, among other things, comparing the number of written warnings and faulty equipment notices reported by the trooper in the report against the number of pink written warnings and faulty equipment notices accompanying the report. Following the completion of such a review, the trooper's Weekly Report (without the pink written warnings and faulty equipment notices, which are kept by the district office for approximately six months and then destroyed) is sent to headquarters in Tallahassee, where it is used for statistical purposes. The FHP makes decisions regarding the utilization of its resources based, at least in part, upon the information contained in the Weekly Reports submitted by its troopers. There is no minimum number of written warnings and faulty equipment notices a trooper must issue each month. Furthermore, the compensation a trooper receives is not based upon the number of such warnings and notices he or she issues. That is not to say, however, that a trooper, particularly one who is constantly at odds with his immediate supervisor concerning his work performance, would have no reason or motive under any circumstances to overstate, in the trooper's Weekly Report, the number of these warnings and notices that were issued during the reporting period and to thereby lead those in the chain of command to believe that he was more productive, in terms of his enforcement activities, than he actually was during the reporting period. With the intent to deceive his supervisors regarding the extent of his enforcement activities and to obtain the benefit of having his supervisors believe that he had engaged in such activities to a greater extent than he actually had, Respondent submitted to Sergeant Veltry four written warnings and faulty equipment notices that he prepared, but which he never gave to the motorists named in these warnings and notices: Robert Cummings, Paul Decker, Sharon Ciriago, and Armando Valverde. All four of these motorists were stopped by Respondent and issued traffic citations, but, contrary to what the paperwork Respondent submitted to Sergeant Veltry reflected, they never received any written warning or faulty equipment notice from Respondent in addition to the citations that they were given. Robert Cummings was stopped by Respondent on April 24, 1996, and issued a traffic citation for speeding. In addition to a copy of the citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "violation of right of way") and faulty equipment notice (for "no stop lights") he purportedly gave Cummings during this April 24, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Cummings such a written warning and faulty equipment notice and, at no time during the stop, even discussed with Cummings the subjects referenced in the warning and notice. Paul Decker was stopped by Respondent on June 8, 1996, at 6:23 p.m. Decker had been exceeding the posted speed limit. Respondent verbally warned Decker to slow down, but did not issue him a citation for speeding. He did issue Decker a citation for a safety belt violation. In addition to a copy of this citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "exceed[ing] speed") and faulty equipment notice (for "headlights") he purportedly gave Decker during this June 8, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Decker such a written warning; nor did he, at any time during the stop, give Decker a faulty equipment notice or even mention that there was anything wrong with the headlights on the vehicle Decker was driving. Sharon Ciriago was stopped by Respondent on June 16, 1996, and issued a traffic citation for speeding. In addition to a copy of the citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "following too closely") and faulty equipment notice (concerning Ciriago's driver's license) he purportedly gave Ciriago during this June 16, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Ciriago such a written warning and faulty equipment notice and, at no time during the stop, even discussed with Ciriago the subjects referenced in the warning and notice. Armando Valverde was stopped by Respondent on July 5, 1996, and issued a traffic citation for speeding. In addition to a copy of the citation, Respondent, along with his Weekly Report, submitted to Sergeant Veltry a copy of a written warning (for "violation of right of way") and faulty equipment notice (concerning Valverde's driver's license) he purportedly gave Valverde during this July 5, 1996, stop. In fact, Respondent never gave Valverde such a written warning and faulty equipment notice and, at no time during the stop, even discussed with Valverde the subjects referenced in the warning and notice. Following an internal investigation that had been initiated at the request of Lieutenant Roy Rogers, one of Sergeant's Veltry's superiors, the FHP's Bureau of Investigations concluded that Respondent, "between April 1996 and July 1996, falsified Warning notices and Faulty Equipment notices." Respondent was dismissed from his position as a trooper based upon the findings of the internal investigation. Since March of 1997, Respondent has been employed as a patrolman by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. According to person who hired him, Deputy Sheriff Arthur Owens, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's Assistant Director of Law Enforcement, Respondent has been "an exemplary employee."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to prove that Respondent is guilty, as charged, of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, and (2) revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer as punishment therefor. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of July, 1998.
