Findings Of Fact Question 13 on Petitioner's application for an unarmed guard license reads as follows: "Have you ever been arrested". In response thereto, Petitioner answered in the affirmative and, in accordance with the instructions to list all arrests, stated that he had been arrested for breaking and entering in 1965, at which time he served one year in prison; and that he had been arrested for armed robbery in 1969, at which time he was sentenced to five to ten years in prison. No other arrests were listed. Petitioner's application was signed under oath and recited that all information contained in the application was true and correct. Petitioner is presently on probation from his armed robbery conviction, and his probationary period will not expire until March 4, 1981. His civil rights have not been restored from that conviction, although he intends to apply for restoration upon completion of his parole period. At the time that the Petitioner's employer was assisting him in completing his application, Petitioner indicated to Mr. Martin that Petitioner had been arrested and convicted of offenses in addition to those revealed on his application. Those omitted arrests and/or convictions include fighting and unlawful assembly in 1962; assault with a knife in 1964; buying, receiving and concealing stolen property in 1966; assault and battery in 1968; and prison breach in 1974. Although Petitioner's parole officer believes he is being rehabilitated, Ms. Barrett, in the two and one-half years she has known Petitioner, only speaks to him on the telephone once a month and sees him every two months. More importantly, Ms. Barrett is unable to state that she would hire Petitioner as a security guard at her home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a Class "F" Unarmed Guard License. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John C. Henderson 1771 North East 176th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of security guards in Florida. On September 19, 1990, Petitioner, Rick Stephen Seaver, submitted an application for an unarmed security guard license and statewide gun permit to the Division. In Part V of the application, dealing with criminal history, Petitioner indicated he had not ever been convicted of a crime, and further stated he had not been convicted of any felonies. In reality, however, Respondent had been convicted of possession of marijuana in Johnson City, Tennessee, on February 19, 1981, and on October 23, 1986, was convicted of one charge of simple assault and one charge of carrying a firearm. This latter series of offenses also took place in Johnson City. When this information was made available to the Department, by a letter dated January 24, 1991, an Amended Letter of Denial, the Division denied the Petitioner's application for an unarmed security guard license, alleging that he had been guilty of fraud or willful misrepresentation in applying for or obtaining a license, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(a), Florida Statutes; had been convicted of crimes which directly relate to the business for which the license was sought, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)((c), Florida Statutes; and failed to have the requisite good moral character called for under the provisions of Section 493.6118(3), Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Respondent withdrew as a basis for denial the allegation of fraud or willful misrepresentation and further stipulated that none of the offenses of which the Petitioner had been found guilty were felonies. It is so found. Petitioner has been married to his wife for five years. Though he did not adopt her son by a previous marriage, he has provided the sole support and guidance to the boy since the marriage, and in Mrs. Seaver's opinion, has been a good father and good husband. For the five months prior to his dismissal from employment with Jewell Security Agency, as a result of the Division's action denying him a license, Mr. Seaver worked as an unarmed security guard in Bradenton. He worked as an outdoor guard at night, unarmed, at various establishments throughout the City of Bradenton, and during his term of employment, only one business where he was on guard, was ever robbed. That one occasion took place before he came on duty the day in question and the police were able to identify the perpetrators. According to James E. Jewell, owner of the agency and Petitioner's employer, Petitioner was an outstanding employee who was always on time, never called in sick, and performed his duties in a manner felt to be a credit to the company. Jewell found Petitioner to be completely honest and trustworthy. Before working with Jewell, Petitioner worked as a baker in Sarasota for 2 1/2 years after his move from Tennessee. He left that job only because of a dispute he had with the manager over some vacation time which previously had been approved, but which was later denied him. He quit and was not discharged. Before coming to Florida he also worked as a baker in Tennessee for about 13 to 14 years without difficulty and without any criminal record other than the offenses forming the basis for the denial here. The assault charge occurred just before he and his wife were married when he used a firecracker to blow out the window of the house of an individual, then under charges for rape, who was harassing and annoying his intended wife. The charge of carrying a weapon arose out of an unloaded gun which was found under the passenger seat of a vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger when he was stopped for the assault. The assault did not involve the use of the weapon, but as a result of his plea, he was convicted and sentenced to 11 months and 29 days in jail, all of which was suspended. Prior to the trial on those offenses, from the time of his arrest, he was free on bond. The possession of marijuana charge took place in 1981 at which time Petitioner was approximately 24 years old. At that time, he was found guilty of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250.00. Mr. Seaver has not had any other infractions and according to his wife, has not been cited with so much as a traffic ticket in the five years they have been married. No evidence to the contrary was presented.
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 granting Petitioner, Rick Stephen Seaver, a Class "D" Unarmed Security Officer License. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 23rd day of April, 1991. Copies furnished: Henri C. Cauthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Rick Stephen Seaver 4411 21st Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34209 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issues are whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a felony, whether Tunstall has ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and whether Tunstall falsified his application.
Findings Of Fact Leonard P. Tunstall made application for licensure as an unarmed and armed security guard to the Department of State. His application was received by the Department in February of 1981. The application indicates it was signed by Tunstall on October 29, 1980. Question #13 on the application was answered "no," as indicated by a check mark. When he originally received the application, Tunstall filled it out up to Question #13. He had not completed that question because he lacked all the data. Subsequently, Albert Simmons, his supervisor, stopped by Tunstall's residence and picked up the application, which Simmons completed with assistance from Tunstall's girlfriend. Neither Simmons nor Tunstall's girl friend had knowledge of Tunstall's record. Subsequently, Tunstall advised Simmons about his arrests, and Simmons told him that his arrests would not disqualify him. Tunstall signed the application with the understanding that his arrests would be disclosed. However, Simmons was subsequently fired, and Tunstall's application was found by Simmons' successor who submitted it with the arrests undisclosed. Tunstall's application, Respondent's Exhibit 1, indicates that answers to Questions #1 through #12 were hand-written, Question #13 was answered by placing a check mark in the "no" block, and answers to Questions #14 through #17 were type-written. Simmons was the notary who authenticated Tunstall's signature. Tunstall further testified that he began work for Florida Merchant Police in June of 1979, as a uniformed rail crossing guard. In approximately January of 1980, he was assigned to work at an unarmed security guard post. It was after this that he was given an application for licensure by the company. Tunstall's FBI records reveal the following arrests and convictions: 1939 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1940 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1947 - Burglary and attempted larceny, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 1 to 2 years - served 8 months) 1958 - Assault and battery, NJ (Fined) 1958 - Disorderly conduct, NJ (Fined) 1960 - Burglary, NJ (Felony conviction, sentenced to 2 to 3 years) 1975 - Keeping a house of ill fame, FL (Dismissed) Tunstall testified that his civil rights had been restored in New Jersey, but he could not introduce any documentation to support his testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the factors in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that Leonard Tunstall's application for licensure as an armed guard be denied, and recommends that Tunstall's application for licensure as an unarmed guard be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leonard P. Tunstall Suite 996 12555 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami, Florida 33181 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be granted.
Findings Of Fact l. Petitioner became a certified law enforcement officer and was employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department in 1981. He worked for that agency through 1994, and his employment was terminated in 1996. During his employment with the Metro-Dade Police Department, he was trained as an investigator and was specifically trained in traffic accident investigation and reconstruction. He subsequently became an instructor for the Department and trained other police officers. During his employment with that agency, he received 12 commendations for good deeds and heroism. Initially, he received above-satisfactory evaluations. During his last seven years, he was rated as an outstanding employee. Although no longer employed by the Police Department, he continues to be used by the Metro-Dade Police Department, by the County Attorney's Office, and by the State Attorney's Office as a consultant on a regular basis and testifies on behalf of those agencies as an expert in traffic accident reconstruction. In 1994 he was charged with several felonies in Broward County. The jury found him not guilty of those charges, but he was convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior on June 10, 1995. The convictions were for five misdemeanors. Petitioner has engaged in no criminal activity either before or after his conviction and continues to maintain his innocence regarding the activity for which he was convicted. Petitioner was given six months' probation and has completed all conditions of that probation. None of the conditions of probation involved contact with people or restrictions on the employment in which he can engage. For the past three years, Petitioner has been employed in an administrative capacity by an investigative and security agency licensed by the Department. For a while he worked there under temporary licensing by the Department without incident. The agency which employs Petitioner performs a substantial amount of investigation and traffic accident reconstruction for insurance carriers. If licensed, Petitioner would perform that work in the field. Petitioner's ability to perform the duties of that employment is enhanced by his extensive educational background and experience. Petitioner even has a degree in photography, which further enhances his ability to perform surveillance, investigations, and traffic accident reconstruction. Petitioner's employers, who are both certified law enforcement officers, rely on Petitioner's "outstanding" investigative abilities and guidance. He is considered very knowledgeable in the requirements of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, the framework for investigative and security services administered by the Department. His skills are considered superior, and he is respectful to all with whom he comes in contact. He conducts himself with the utmost professionalism. Petitioner respects the law and asserts that he has never knowingly broken it. He further respects the rights of others as evidenced by his testimony, the testimony of other law enforcement officers, and the many awards, letters of praise from citizens, and commendations from his superiors admitted in evidence. There is no relationship between the misdemeanors for which Petitioner was convicted and the licenses for which he has made application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application and issuing to him a Class "C" Private Investigator license, a Class "D" Security Officer license, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Michael Cornely, Esquire Hartman and Cornely, P.A. 10680 Northwest 25 Street, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33172 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent holds a Class "D", unarmed security guard license, No. GD-0106713, which was most recently renewed on July 3, 1983. The Respondent also holds a Class "G", statewide gun permit (armed security guard license) , No. GG-0025231, which was issued on July 3, 1983. The Division of Licensing of the Department of State did not approve or deny the Respondent's application for a Class "G" license within a 90-day period from the date of receipt of the application and, accordingly, by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division was required to, and in fact did, issue a Class "G" license to the Respondent. Except for the operation of the 90-day provision in Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division of Licensing would not have issued the Respondent a statewide gun permit because of the Respondent's criminal record. For the same reason, it was a mistake for the Division of Licensing to renew the Respondent's Class "D" license in 1983. On February 28, 1977, the Respondent was arrested on the roof of a department-store and charged with burglary, to which he entered a plea of nolo contendre. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for 5 years. During the summer of 1980, the Respondent and two of his friends apprehended two thieves who had stolen some personal property from a vehicle. Later, the Respondent appeared in court to testify against the two thieves. On April 15, 1981, the Respondent was arrested for grand larceny. On November 9, 1981, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to a larceny charge of failing to redeliver a hired motor vehicle. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the De- partment of State issue a Final Order which (a) Would revoke Respondent's Class "D" and Class "G" licenses and (b) would order Respondent to forthwith return such licenses to the Department of State. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1984 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Stuart Phillip Coon 12824 Southwest 114 Terrace Miami, Florida 33183
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1996, Petitioner revoked Respondent's Class "D" security officer license number D95-12548 and ordered Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in security services and to return to Petitioner Respondent's license. That Final Order certifies that a copy was mailed to Respondent that day. Respondent did not return his license to Petitioner. On November 1, 1996, Fred Speaker, the investigator supervisor in Petitioner's West Palm Beach office, went to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent asserted that he did not know where his license was. Respondent did not produce his license. On November 12 Speaker returned to Respondent's home to retrieve Respondent's license. Respondent was not there, and Respondent's wife did not produce Respondent's license. On April 17, 1997, while Speaker and investigator Jack D'Ambrosio were checking security posts and licenses, they encountered Respondent who was on duty at the gate house of a private community. They asked Respondent for his company identification and his guard license. Respondent produced both documents for their inspection. Petitioner's employees did not take Respondent's license that evening since they wished first to verify if the license were still revoked before taking Respondent's license from him. Sometime subsequent to that date, D'Ambrosio saw Respondent in Petitioner's office and again asked Respondent for his license. Respondent refused to give his license to D'Ambrosio.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Giordano, pro se 3655 Coelebs Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and/or Class "G" Statewide Firearm License should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence introduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about June 7, 1989, Respondent filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License with the Department. The application form asked the applicant whether he had ever been arrested and to list any and all arrests. The application specifically provided that "falsification of this question may be grounds for denial of your license." Respondent answered affirmatively that he had been arrested. The only specific incident listed on the application was an arrest in 1979 for a charge of "asault [sic] with a deadly weapon intemp [sic] to kill Fay N.C. [sic]." The Application also required the applicant to set forth the outcome of all arrests. Respondent replied that the "charges was [sic] drop [sic]." On or about July 17, 1990, Respondent submitted an application with the Department for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. The application form for this license included an identical request regarding prior arrests. In response, Respondent checked the box indicating he had never been arrested and wrote "N/A" where he was supposed to indicate the date, charge and outcome of the arrests. Respondent has not provided any explanation for why his Class "D" Application disclosed an arrest in 1979, but his Class "G" Application did not reference this arrest. This discrepancy is not alleged in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner has submitted a certificate from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court which indicates that a criminal summons was issued for "Angelo Louis Lugo" on or about May 5, 1987, for a charge of "M Assault By Pointing A Gun." It is not clear whether this summons is directed at Respondent nor is it clear whether the Summons was ever served and/or the subject was arrested. The ultimate disposition of this criminal case is not clear. Respondent denies ever being served with the summons referenced in this court record. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent was ever arrested in connection with this matter. Petitioner has submitted a second certified record from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court, which indicates that Respondent was issued a "Citation" on March 10, 1986, for the charge of "M Shoplifting Concealment Goods." No other evidence or explanation of this record has been provided. Respondent admits that he was issued a Notice to Appear in court after he was caught by store security personnel taking aspirin from a bottle. He testified that he did not list this matter on his applications because he was not "arrested." Instead, he claims that he was merely issued a citation to appear in court. The evidence presented in this case did not refute Respondent's version of the events surrounding this court record. In sum, the evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent was ever formally "arrested" for this incident. The ultimate disposition of this criminal charge is not clear from the record in this proceeding. Counts III and IV of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint are based upon an incident that occurred on February 9, 1993 between Respondent and Jorge Ruiz. There is a good deal of conflicting evidence regarding this incident. Both Respondent and Ruiz have testified and/or given statements on several occasions about the incident including statements to the police, testimony in a related criminal proceeding against Respondent and depositions taken in connection with a civil lawsuit filed by Ruiz against Respondent, Respondent's employer and the Bank where Respondent worked. It is impossible and unnecessary to resolve all of the conflicts in the differing accounts of the incident as described by Respondent and Ruiz at various times. After considering all of the evidence presented, including the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, the findings in this Recommended Order are based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented. On February 9, 1993, Respondent was working as an armed security guard at a Barnett Bank in Plantation, Florida. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Respondent was working outside the bank in the vicinity of the drive-thru lanes. He was there to direct traffic and monitor the area. Around this time, Jorge Ruiz pulled into the paved area in front of the drive-thru booths. Ruiz had been to the Bank on numerous occasions in the past and he had often used the drive-thru windows. Ruiz has a very powerful radio in his pick-up truck and he admits that he tends to play music at a loud volume. On at least one prior occasion, Ruiz had proceeded to the drive-thru station with his radio blasting. The tellers had complained about the noise coming through the intercom system. During the week or so prior to February 9, 1993, Ruiz and Respondent had at least one minor confrontation. During this prior instance, Respondent advised Ruiz that he had to turn his radio down before he reached the drive-thru booth because the intercom system picked up the background noise and it interfered with the tellers' ability to communicate with the customers. Ruiz replied that he would turn down the radio when he got to the window. When Ruiz entered the Bank's parking lot on February 9, 1993, his radio was playing loudly. Respondent approached the driver's side window of Ruiz' vehicle and asked Ruiz to turn his radio down. Ruiz responded with a number of obscenities. Respondent told Ruiz that unless he turned his radio down, he could not use the drive-thru facility. Ruiz refused to comply. Respondent stood in front of Ruiz' vehicle and directed him away from the drive-thru lane. Ruiz' vehicle moved forward and bumped into Respondent. Respondent drew his gun and shouted at Ruiz to stop the car and get out. Respondent claims that he intended to hold Ruiz while he called the police. The parties exchanged words and Ruiz' truck again moved forward striking Respondent. Respondent was not knocked down or otherwise injured, however, his gun discharged. The bullet penetrated the windshield of Ruiz' truck and hit the steering wheel. A fragment from the steering wheel struck Ruiz in the neck or chest area, causing a minor wound. Respondent contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon and/or using deadly force "to prevent the escape from custody of a person who committed a felony in his presence." This contention is rejected because there is no evidence that Ruiz was attempting to escape. Furthermore, it is not clear that Ruiz in fact committed a felony, nor does it appear that the use of force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances of this case. Respondent also contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon in self-defense because he was being threatened by a deadly weapon, i.e. Ruiz' truck, and he had no reasonable means of escape. Respondent claims that he was boxed in by a vehicle in front of the truck and had no reasonable way to retreat from the "deadly force" that confronted him. Respondent's contention that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected as not credible. Contrary to Respondent's claim, the evidence was clear that Respondent had reasonable means of escape. Moreover, there were alternate ways to handle the situation which would have diffused rather than exacerbated the tension and danger. Respondent claims that the gun discharged accidently when the truck hit him. No persuasive evidence was presented to refute this contention. Indeed, in some of his statements, Ruiz admitted that the gun may have gone off by accident when his truck struck Respondent. In sum, it is clear that Ruiz was belligerent and abusive and that his car bumped into Respondent twice. Nonetheless, Respondent's contention that he was justified in drawing his weapon and that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected. While it can not be concluded from the evidence presented that Respondent deliberately shot at Ruiz, the evidence did establish that Respondent was guilty of negligence, misconduct and/or incompetency when he drew and pointed his loaded weapon at Ruiz. The circumstances did not justify Respondent pointing a loaded weapon at Ruiz. Without question, Respondent failed to demonstrate that level of discretion and caution that is expected of a person licensed to carry a firearm in the course of his employment. After the gun went off, Respondent immediately jumped into the truck and took Ruiz to a nearby hospital where Ruiz' minor injury was treated and he was released.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent and finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Count IV of that Third Amended Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, Respondent should be fined $1,500.00, his Class "G" Firearms License should be revoked and his Class "D" Security Guard License should be placed on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 28th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2566 Petitioner has not submitted any proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's proposed recommended order included a section entitled Findings of Fact. However, that section does not include any individually numbered proposed findings of fact and the paragraphs contained in this section of Respondent's proposal include a mixture factual assertions, argument and legal conclusions. The proposal has been fully reviewed and considered. However, because proposed findings of fact have not been separately identified, no rulings are made with respect to Respondent's proposal. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 James S. Benjamin, Esquire Benjamin & Aaronson, P.A. 100 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 850 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a Class "D" security guard license (license number D94-13786). He has been licensed since November 16, 1994. From April 3, 1996, through and including November 24, 1996, Respondent was employed as security guard by Delta Force Security (Delta), a business which provides security services. Ermelindo Onativia is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the owner and manager of Delta. Among Delta's clients during the period of Respondent's employment was Motor World, an automobile dealership in Plantation, Florida. On the weekend of November 23 and 24, 1996, Respondent's assignment was to provide security services at Motor World. His shift was to begin at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 23, 1996, and end at 5:00 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1996. Onativia met Respondent at Motor World at the beginning of Respondent's shift on November 23, 1996, and reminded Respondent to "punch the time clock" when he made his rounds at the dealership. After conversing with Respondent, Onativia left the dealership. Onativia returned to Motor World at 2:00 a.m. on November 24, 1996, to check on Respondent. Respondent, however, was not there. He had left his assigned post without obtaining Onativia's permission to do so. Onativia remained at the dealership until 5:00 a.m. At no time during the period that he was at the dealership did he see or hear from Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by fining him in the amount of $1,000.00 and placing him on probation for a period of one year, subject to such conditions as the Department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 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 18th day of February, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Christopher Hargraves, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his Class "B" Security Agency License, Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit, and Class "MB" Manager of Security Agency License.
Findings Of Fact At all timed pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher W. Hargraves (Respondent/Mr.Hargraves), was the holder of Class "B" Security Agency License No. B87-00007, Class "MB" Security Agency Manager License No. MB 90-000019, and Class "G" Statewide Firearms License No. G91-00245. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Hargraves was president of Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention Associated, Inc. (Protection Unlimited), a company which provided security services in the Tampa Bay area. The address of record for Protection Unlimited is 1511 Clement Road, Lutz, Florida 33549. Mack Cummings began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in early 1996 and worked there until late 1996. At the time Mr. Cummings was employed to work as a security guard for Protection Unlimited, he was also employed by Providence Security. As a security officer for Providence Security, Mr. Cummings' assigned posts were three Checkers Restaurants located in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Cummings' shift at Checkers began at 8:00 p.m. and ended between 1:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. The variation in the time Mr. Cummings' shift ended was due to and coincided with the time the particular Checkers' manager completed the restaurant's closing. When Mr. Cummings was employed by Protection Unlimited, he was assigned to work at Channel 13, a television facility located in Tampa, Florida. When he was being considered for the position of security officer, Mr. Cummings told Respondent about his assignment with Providence Security and advised Respondent that he would be unable to report to Channel 13 until after midnight. Nonetheless, Mr. Cummings was scheduled to begin his shift at Channel 13 at midnight. As a result of his employment at Providence Security, Mr. Cummings usually did not report for duty at Channel 13 until after midnight. Respondent was aware that on many nights Mr. Cummings was not reporting to Channel 13 until much later than midnight. Steven Cox worked for Protection Unlimited as a security officer during most of 1995. As a security guard for Protection Unlimited, Mr. Cox' assigned posts were Channel 13 and a yacht, the Claire T. While working at Channel 13, Mr. Cox performed security duties in plain clothes. At the time Mr. Cox was employed by Protection Unlimited, no uniforms were issued to him. Mr. Hargraves issued uniforms to Mr. Cox approximately two months after Mr. Cox began working for Protection Unlimited. David Gilbert was hired as a security officer with Protection Unlimited on or about July 10, 1995. Mr. Gilbert often worked with Steven Cox while both were employed with Protection Unlimited. During this time, Mr. Cox often observed Gilbert performing security duties in civilian clothes, rather than in a uniform. Michael Munger began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in late 1994 and worked for that agency for approximately nine months. As an employee of Protection Unlimited, Mr. Munger was assigned to Channel 13. Although Mr. Munger performed security duties at Channel 13, he was never provided with a uniform and thus, performed these duties in plain clothes. Willie Lee began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in June 1995 and worked for the agency until January 1996. Mr. Lee's assigned post was Channel 13. When Mr. Lee was initially employed by Protection Unlimited, he was not issued an agency identification card. A month or two after Mr. Lee was employed by Protection Unlimited, Respondent gave him a card which Respondent referred to as an agency identification card. The only information contained on the card was "Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc.," the typewritten name "Willie Lee," and Mr. Lee's signature. Also, the "agency card" had spaces designated "photo" and "agency representative," although the card contained neither a photo of Mr. Lee nor the signature or name of the agency representative. Barbara Norman was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited for several weeks in 1995. Respondent never provided Ms. Norman with uniforms to wear while she was performing security duties. Moreover, Ms. Norman had only a Class "D" license and therefore was not authorized to work as an "armed guard." Consistent with this Class "D" license, Protection Unlimited did not provide Ms. Norman with a firearm while she worked at Channel 13. However, she was told to wear an empty holster. Glen Davis was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in 1996. Mr. Davis was assigned to the Claire T yacht. Mr. Davis was not issued uniforms to wear while conducting security duties for Protection Unlimited. On April 8, 1996, Gary Floyd and Gene Blicth, investigator for the Department, performed a proactive inspection of the Claire T while Mr. Davis was on duty and observed that Mr. Davis was not wearing a uniform. William Scott was employed with Protection Unlimited in February 1996 and continued working for the agency until July 1996. While employed with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott worked as a both a security guard and as acting supervisor for the agency. During the time that Mr. Scott worked for Protection Unlimited, he usually relieved by Mack Cummings or Steve Pritchard, also employees of Protection Unlimited. One night Mr. Pritchard did not report to work and no guard was or came on duty when Mr. Scott's assigned shift ended. Several times during his employment with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott needed to leave Channel 13 before the end of his shift. In these instances, and before leaving his post early, Mr. Scott gave prior notice to Respondent. Upon being so informed, Respondent told Mr. Scott that he should not indicate on the log that he had left his post early. As acting supervisor with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott was aware that Respondent routinely generated scheduling documents, time sheets, and payment schedules related to the operations of Protection Unlimited. Mr. Scott observed Respondent throw away many of these documents. The documents that Respondent discarded were less than two years old. On or about March 8, 1996, Investigator Floyd performed a proactive inspection of the yacht, the Claire T. At the site, he spoke with a man who identified himself as Rocky Cocozza. Mr. Cocozza was working as a security guard on the vessel and produced an agency identification card from Protection Unlimited. During this inspection, Mr. Cocozza was wearing black trousers and a black jacket. Under the jacket, Mr. Cocozza was wearing a blue short-sleeve shirt which contained an emblem identifying the employing agency; the emblem was on the left side of the shirt, just above the pocket. However, the emblem on the shirt could not necessarily be seen when Mr. Cocozza was wearing the black jacket. On March 18, 1996, Investigator Floyd was on the premises of Channel 13. As he was leaving that facility, Investigator Floyd observed Respondent performing security duties in the reception area. Investigator Floyd then approached Respondent and asked to see his agency identification card. Respondent did not produce a current agency identification card. On or about May 3, 1996, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's address of record to inquire about matters related to Protection Unlimited. After determining that no one was on the premises, Investigator Floyd left one of his business cards on the door of Respondent's address of record. On the card, Investigator Floyd wrote, "Chris, please call." The note on the card was directed to Respondent, whose first name is Christopher. Later that same day, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's residence. After Respondent's wife told Investigator Floyd that Respondent was not at home, Investigator Floyd gave one of his business cards to Respondent's wife and requested that she give it to Respondent. On the card given to Respondent's wife, Investigator Floyd also wrote a note requesting that Respondent call him. After waiting two months and receiving no response from Respondent, Investigator Floyd left several telephone messages for Respondent between July 10 and July 29, 1996. The telephone messages were left with Respondent's answering service and requested that Respondent return Investigator Floyd's calls. Although Respondent's answering service confirmed to Investigator Floyd that all of his messages had been conveyed to Respondent, Respondent never returned Investigator Floyd's telephone calls. On August 20, 1996, Investigator Floyd reached Respondent by telephone and scheduled a meeting with Respondent for August 22, 1996. On the day of the scheduled meeting, Respondent called Investigator Floyd and canceled the meeting. The following day, August 23, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent at the Channel 13 security desk and, again, attempted to schedule a meeting with Respondent. Respondent indicated that he would call Investigator Floyd the following Monday, August 26, 1996, to schedule a meeting. After he had not heard from Respondent by 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent to schedule a meeting. During the August 26, 1996 telephone conversation, Respondent refused to set a date to meet with Investigator Floyd, indicating that he was too busy. However, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he would call him the next week to schedule a meeting. Because he previously had been unsuccessful in scheduling a meeting with Respondent, after speaking with Respondent by telephone on August 26, 1998, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 and served Respondent with a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena required Respondent to produce and provide the Department with various records maintained and related to the business operations of Protection Unlimited. The documents requested by the subpoena included the following: weekly assignment schedules; daily guard logs; time sheets; payroll records; personnel records of specified employees; and Employee Action Reports from January 1995 through March 1995, December 1995 through February 1996, and January 1996 through August 1996. Respondent failed to provide all of the documents requested in the subpoena. Respondent provided several of the requested documents but many of them appeared to have some of the information on them obliterated with "white out." With regard to several of the requested documents, Mr. Hargraves noted on the subpoena that the records could not be located. On or about September 3, 1996, after receiving some of the documents Respondent had provided pursuant to the subpoena, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 to speak with Respondent about the documents that had been requested. Upon arrival at Channel 13, Investigator Floyd told Respondent that he had a tape recorder and was recording the conversation. Respondent then refused to speak with Investigator Floyd and ejected him from the Channel 13 premises. Once Respondent ejected Investigator Floyd, Respondent went inside the Channel 13 building and locked the door. Investigator Floyd met with Respondent and his attorney on September 6, 1996, at the address of record for Protection Unlimited. During the meeting, Investigator Floyd discussed several areas of concern with Protection Unlimited, including the following: (1) general record keeping and record retention procedures; (2) filing of hiring and termination notices with Petitioner; (3) occupational license; (4) branch offices; and (5) general liability insurance. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, with regard to record keeping, Respondent acknowledged that he was a poor record keeper and that he routinely threw away records that he believed were no longer of use to him. Moreover, during this meeting, Respondent stated that he did not always file hiring and termination notices with Petitioner. During the course of his investigation, Investigator Floyd determined that Channel 13 permitted Respondent to bill for security guard services two weeks in advance. Based on a review of invoices from mid-December 1995 to August 1996, to Channel 13 from Respondent, Investigator Floyd found that Respondent had billed Channel 13 for his agency's services two weeks in advance. However, Respondent failed to make adjustments on subsequent invoices, to reflect a reduction in the actual number of hours worked by some security officers. For example, in July 1996, Respondent's invoices do not reflect the approximately nineteen hours that Mark Cummings was not actually at Channel 13. An investigation by Petitioner substantiated Respondent's admission that he did not always file hiring and termination notices. Among employees hired by Protection Unlimited, but for whom notices of hiring were not filed, were Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, William Scott, and Willie Lee. Furthermore, the Department's investigation found that Respondent failed to file termination notices for several of his employees, including William Scott, Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, and Willie Lee. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Respondent showed Investigator Floyd a Hillsborough County occupational license for Protection Unlimited. The license was dated September 5, 1996, and indicated that it was an initial issue, although Protection Unlimited had been in business since at least 1994. During the course of that meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his agency did not have an occupational license prior to the one dated September 5, 1996. Investigator Floyd discussed the issue of branch offices with Respondent during the September 6, 1996 meeting. At that time, Respondent acknowledged that he had no branch office license. This admission by Respondent is confirmed by Petitioner's records which revealed that Respondent had no branch office license for any location, including 3213 West Kennedy, Tampa, Florida, the location of Channel 13. Despite not having a branch office license which authorized him to carry on business activities such as interviewing potential employees at a location other than his address of record, Respondent routinely conducted such activities at Channel 13, located 3213 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Newspaper advertisements by Protection Unlimited, included a Channel 13 telephone number. When individuals called that number to inquire about available security officer positions, prospective job applicants were directed to come to Channel 13 for their job interview. During the time relevant to this proceeding, numerous job interviews to fill security officer positions for Protection Unlimited were routinely conducted at Channel 13. During the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees when they were hired. Respondent answered affirmatively and indicated that he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees before "they ever set foot" on their assigned post. The statement by Respondent that he always provided agency identification cards to employees upon hiring them is false in light of the credible testimony of Willie Lee that he performed his security duties for Protection Unlimited for at least a month before receiving his agency identification card. During the September 6, 1996, meeting between Investigator Floyd and Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he either permitted or had knowledge of his employees working in plain clothes while performing security duties. In response to this inquiry, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he neither permitted nor had knowledge that employees wore plain clothes while performing security duties for his company. The statement made by Respondent to Investigator Floyd was a false statement. The credible testimony of Barbara Norman and Glenn Davis, both employees of Protection Unlimited, was that Respondent never issued them uniforms in which to perform their security duties and, as a result thereof, they performed their duties in plain clothes. Furthermore, the credible testimony of Michael Munger and Steve Cox was that as employees of Protection Unlimited, they performed security duties in plain clothes. Despite his testimony to the contrary, Respondent was at the Channel 13 and observed that many times these employees were performing security duties while not in uniforms. Another issue addressed by Investigator Floyd during the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent concerned the required reporting of individuals who had been employed by Protection Unlimited. When asked by Investigator Floyd whether he had ever employed Barbara Norman and Michael Munger as security guards for Protection Unlimited, Respondent answered in the negative. This statement by Respondent is false in light of the credible testimony of Barabara Norman and Michael Munger. Ms. Norman and Mr. Munger were employed by and worked for Protection Unlimited in 1995. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent to provide proof of the required general liability insurance for Respondent's agency. Respondent implied that he had the required insurance coverage, but at that time had no proof of such coverage. However, Mr. Hargraves told Investigator Floyd that he would have his insurance company fax documentary evidence that Protection Unlimited had the required insurance. Although Mr. Hargraves indicated that he would request that the insurance company fax the information to Investigator Floyd that same day, no such proof of insurance was ever provided to Investigator Floyd. Respondent routinely performed duties as a security officer at Channel 13 during the period between March 1996 and August 1996, inclusive, although he did not have a Class "D" Security Officer License. Respondent routinely carried a concealed firearm while on duty as a security officer during the time period April 1995 to July 1996. Respondent told Glenn Davis that if investigators from the Department came to the Claire T, Mr. Davis was not to allow them on the post. Respondent indicated to Mr. Davis that he would be fired if he cooperated with the Department. Respondent also told Mr. Scott that he was not to speak with Department investigators and that if the investigators came to his assigned post, Mr. Scott was to have the police remove the investigators from the premises. Respondent told Mr. Pritchard not to speak with any investigators from the Department and to call the police if they came to Channel 13. Mr. Pritchard was told that he would be terminated if he spoke to any Department investigators. On July 13, 1996, at about 8:30 p.m. and while on duty at Channel 13, Mr. Scott locked his master key to the facility in an office he had just checked. Immediately thereafter Mr. Scott attempted to call Respondent. When Mr. Scott could not reach Respondent directly, he left several messages with Respondent's answering service. Respondent never turned the calls. When Mr. Scott left at midnight, he still had not heard from Respondent. The next day when Mr. Scott spoke with Respondent, about the "key" incident that has occurred on July 13, 1996. Respondent then directed Mr. Scott to indicate on the log that Respondent had returned Mr. Scott's call on July 13, 1998, shortly after 8:30 p.m., the time Mr. Scott had initially placed the call to Respondent. Mr. Scott told Respondent that he would not falsify the log. Later Mr. Scott observed that Mr. Hargraves had added an addendum to the daily log that falsely indicated that Respondent had responded to Mr. Scott's call the previous night.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts IV through XXIV and Counts XXVI through XXVIII; (2) dismissing Counts I, II, III, and XXV; and (3) revoking Respondent's Class "B" license, Class "G" license, and Class "MB" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele L. Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Four Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher Hargraves 12515 Mondragon Tampa, Florida 33625 Laura Vaughn, Esquire 401 East Jackson Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
