The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of trust or responsibility in a direct care position pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a single mother of five children, including two sets of twins. She is twenty-nine years old and has a tenth-grade high school education. On July 26, 1995, Petitioner drove a car into a Walmart parking lot in Leon County, Florida, and parked illegally directly in front of the store. Petitioner was operating the car while her driving privileges were suspended. After parking the car, Petitioner left her five children unsupervised in the car while she went into Walmart to exchange a shirt. At that time, the older twins were six years old, one child was four years old, and the younger twins were three years old. When Petitioner went into the store, she removed the key from the ignition and left the windows down. The temperature was 93 degrees. Petitioner was in the store for approximately ten minutes. Upon Petitioner's return to the car, a policeman arrested her for the second-degree misdemeanor offense of "negligent treatment of children" under Section 827.05, Florida Statutes (1993). 1/ The children were not harmed as a result of being left unattended in the car. They were never removed from Petitioner's custody. After her arrest, Petitioner and her children were picked up and taken home by a relative. In September 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge of "negligent treatment of children." The County Judge of Leon County accepted Petitioner's plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Petitioner be placed on probation for six months. One of the conditions of Petitioner's probation was that she attend parenting class. On February 28, 1996, Petitioner was charged with violating her probation related to the charge of "negligent treatment of children." Specifically, she had not provided proof that she had attended the parenting class. Additionally, she had not paid a $100 probation supervision fee or a $150 court fine. Petitioner violated her probation because she did not have funds to pay for the parenting class or the required fee and fine. At the violation of probation hearing on May 10, 1996, Petitioner presented proof that she had attended the parenting class. The County Judge of Leon County terminated Petitioner's probation in open court. On March 5, 1998, Petitioner was charged in Leon County, Florida, with the traffic offense of driving with suspended driving privileges. The County Judge of Leon County convicted and adjudicated Petitioner guilty of this offense on March 25, 1998. On September 7, 1998, Petitioner was charged in Leon County, Florida, with the traffic offense of driving with suspended driving privileges. The County Judge of Leon County withheld adjudication of guilt for this offense on October 7, 1998. Petitioner has worked as a dietary aide at Tallahassee Convalescent Home (TCH) for four years. In 1998, she applied for a position with TCH as a certified nurse assistant, a direct care position. The application included Petitioner's request for a Florida Abuse Hotline Information System Background Check. A member of Respondent's staff completed the background check on September 23, 1998, finding no confirmed report of abuse or neglect. On April 16, 1999, Petitioner signed a sworn Affidavit of Good Moral Character as part of the application process to secure a direct care position with Tallahassee Developmental Center. By signing the affidavit, Petitioner swore that she had not been found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, regardless of the adjudication, to a number of offenses, including "negligent treatment of children." This affirmation was false. Petitioner's testimony that she forgot her plea of nolo contendere and subsequent conviction for "negligent treatment of children" or that she never knew the exact nature of her crime is not persuasive. In April 1999, Petitioner was charged with violating her probation related to one of her offenses for "driving while privileges suspended" in Leon County, Florida. Petitioner violated her probation because she did not have funds to pay her traffic fines. Petitioner subsequently entered the Florida Traffic Assistance Program. She completed a corrective driving class on August 14, 1999. The Department of Motor Vehicles issued Petitioner her first driver's license on August 31, 1999. Since October 1999, Petitioner has paid $50 per month on her outstanding traffic fines. She now owes $453 in traffic fines.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Whether the Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 2, 1987, in Pinellas County, Florida, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to a charge of exposure of sexual organs, a violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes. On or about August 17, 1987, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In response to a question involving prior criminal violations, the Petitioner informed the Respondent of the past violation and his nolo contendere plea. On January 5, 1988, through its legal advisor, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that his application for a real estate license was denied because of the nolo contendere plea to the indecent exposure charge. The Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. During the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that on the date of the alleged criminal violation, he stopped on his way to shopping mall to relieve himself in a public restroom located in Freedom Lake Park. While in the restroom, he was approached by a man who strongly implied he wanted to see the Petitioner's sexual organs. At first, the Petitioner did not respond to the request. He then told the man "no" and went to use the urinal. The other man identified himself as a police officer and placed the Petitioner under arrest for exposure of sexual organs. Once charged with the offense, the Petitioner had to decide whether to contest the charge by requesting a trial or to enter into a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner was a high school guidance counselor at the time of the arrest. Because of his employment, he was concerned about the notoriety a trial involving sexual misconduct would bring and its damage to his career. He was also concerned about the effects of a trial upon him and his family. The terms of the plea agreement were that if he were to enter a nolo contendere plea, adjudication of guilt would be withheld by the court. He would be fined $150.00, required to seek counseling, and be placed on six months of supervised probation. Upon advice of counsel, the Petitioner chose to enter the plea, and accept the plea bargain agreement.
Findings Of Fact On Tuesday, April 24, 1979, respondent went to the home of Alberta Cross in Melbourne, Florida, to see Ms. Cross' daughter, Sandra Young, mother of his two children. At the time, respondent was having an argument with Sandra Young. Frank Bell, a friend of Ms. Cross for several years, was at her house when respondent called on Ms. Young. Mr. Bell pointed a gun at respondent and ordered him off the property. Ms. Young threw herself between respondent and Mr. Bell and then left with respondent in the van in which he had arrived. After talking things over with a friend, respondent decided to swear out a warrant for Mr. Bell's arrest. As a result, Mr. Bell was arrested the following day. He was released from jail on bond, on April 26, 1979, a Thursday. Some seven years earlier, Mr. Bell and respondent had confronted one another at Ms. Cross' house. On that occasion, too, Mr. Bell pointed a gun at respondent. Between 5:00 and 5:30 on the afternoon of April 26, 1979, Mr. Bell arrived at the home of Linda Marie Harden. Ms. Harden lived within sight of respondent's father's house. A little before 7:00 o'clock on the evening of April 26, 1979, Mr. Bell left the Harden residence in a 1964 Chevrolet sedan. Both windows on the left hand side of the vehicle were rolled up. The left front door window was held together with tape and could not be rolled down. The left front door could not be opened from the inside of the car. As Mr. Bell turned a corner in front of respondent's father's house, respondent took up position with a shotgun, threw a cinder block at the car, and, when Mr. Bell turned around to see what had caused the noise, fired a single shot which blew out both windows on the left hand side of the car, hit Mr. Bell in the left shoulder, forehead, back of his head, and left eye, knocked him over in his seat, and resulted in his hospitalization for nine days. After the shooting, respondent fled. Respondent could have avoided a confrontation with Mr. Bell by taking cover. Respondent's father and respondent's son were sitting in the front yard with respondent, beside one of two vans parked in the front yard, when respondent first spotted Mr. Bell's car. Respondent's father grabbed his grandson and ran for the house before the shooting. Instead of making a run for the house or taking shelter behind a van, respondent threw the cinder block and fired the shotgun. When the police arrived, they found a pistol on the right hand side of the floor in the back of Mr. Bell's car. Mr. Bell did not point this gun at respondent on April 26, 1979; Mr. Bell did not even see respondent before the shot was fired. As a result of these events, respondent was tried on charges of aggravated battery. In those proceedings, as in these, he raised the defense of self defense. The criminal trial eventuated in an acquittal. Three young people, including two of respondent's former students, witnessed the shooting. News of the incident spread rapidly. The next day, respondent's principal received eight to ten telephone calls from parents with remarks like "Surely you won't let a murderer stay in the classroom." Other parents complained in person and two students mentioned the incident to the principal. Respondent was suspended on April 27, 1979, and subsequently fired, by the Brevard County School Board. After respondent's acquittal, 120 students signed a petition for his reinstatement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Education suspend respondent's teaching certificate for three years. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On or about January 13, 1986, the Petitioner submitted an application to take the real estate salesman's test offered by the Florida Real Estate Commission. This application was received in the offices of the Division of Real Estate on January 15, 1986. Paragraph six on the application form asks: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld?" Respondent answered "yes" to this question and included the details as follows: "October 3, 1979, West Palm Beach, possession of cocaine, 10 years probation." Court documents reveal that on May 22, 1980, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, was found guilty by the court, and was placed on 10 years probation with imposition of sentence withheld. Though there is a slight conflict in dates between that stated by Petitioner and that on the court record, this is accounted for by the former being date of arrest and the latter being date of conviction. The inconsistency is immaterial. Paragraph 11 of the application form asks in pari materia, "(a) Have you, in this state, filed any application for licensure which was denied? If so, state when denied." In response to this question, Petitioner indicated in the affirmative to the issue of whether his licensure was denied and explained that his application for a mortgage solicitor's license was denied by the Department of Finance in 1980 when he failed to disclose arrests in Connecticut when he was 15 and 16 years old. Records maintained by the FBI reveal that on October 8, 1974, he was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, was convicted, and was sentenced to 15 days suspended (confinement) and a fine of $75.00. On November 13, 1974, he was arrested on a charge of burglary, larceny, and criminal mischief for which court disposition was unknown because he was a youthful offender. On March 20, 1975, he was arrested on a charge of criminal mischief but the charge was dismissed. On April 4, 1975, he was arrested on a charge of possession of marijuana and a charge of possession of a controlled drug. In each case, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 days suspended (confinement) and 9 months probation. On January 23, 1977, he was arrested for possession of marijuana and possession of a controlled drug, was convicted on the marijuana charge, and was fined $75.00. Charges were dismissed on the other charge. On February 8, 1978, he was arrested on a charge of criminal mischief but the charge was dismissed and not prosecuted. All of "the above arrests and dispositions took place in Newington, Connecticut. On October 3, 1979, Petitioner was arrested in West Palm Beach, Florida, on a charge of trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana. He was placed on 10 years probation and this is the offense referred to in Petitioner's answer to question 6. On July 27, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Lake Worth, Florida, on a charge of sexual assault on a child but charges were dismissed when the complainant failed to show up at the hearing and could not thereafter be found. Notwithstanding the dismissal, a description of the charge was referred to the Florida Real estate Commission by the county. Respondent was born on August 28, 1958, and is at the present time 28 years old. At the time of the arrests in Connecticut, he was 16 to 20 years old. At the time of the cocaine arrest in 1979, he was 21. He has not been convicted of anything since that time and his ten year probation for cocaine conviction was terminated by the Circuit Court three years early on the basis that he had been successfully rehabilitated and further probation was no longer necessary. When Petitioner initially applied for licensure as a mortgage solicitor, he failed to list the juvenile arrests and convictions on the application for that license and when the background investigation was conducted and these arrests and convictions were made known, his license was denied by the Department of Insurance. When he contacted officials of the department, he was told that his failure to list these juvenile arrests and convictions as the basis for denial. After discussion of the situation with them, in which he was advised of the need to fully disclose all relevant factors, he submitted a new complete application and the license was granted. Petitioner claims he has been guilt-free since his conviction in 1980 for the cocaine offense. The subsequent arrests for shoplifting and lewd assault did not result in a conviction in either case. The armed robbery arrest in 1980 was based on the confession of another individual in Connecticut who implicated him in his own confession. The arrest of the confessor took place in Connecticut which attempted to extradite Petitioner from Florida. He was arrested and confined pending extradition for four months, but after hearing, at which it appeared Petitioner had a complete alibi, the extradition action was dismissed. The Commission's denial of licensure to this Petitioner was based on his conviction for possession of cocaine and for his failure to disclose his juvenile convictions in his application for the mortgage solicitor's license. Petitioner does not deny his cocaine conviction but relies on the fact that it took place when he was 21 years old. He has pleaded guilty and has paid a substantial price for his misconduct since that time. Petitioner readily admits the failure to disclose the juvenile convictions on the earlier application, but points out that they were juvenile offenses that took place many years previously; that most had resulted in no charge or suspended sentences; and that he did not realize it was necessary to list juvenile conviction about which he believed the court records were sealed. He admits he was in error and realizes now the need to make full disclosure especially in those areas where the question of integrity is paramount. Petitioner asserts he is not a thief, a child abuser, or a homosexual. He readily admits that he has made several mistakes in his lifetime, but contends that over the past seven years he has maintained a good work record with no disciplinary involvements. He has, over these years, been in the mortgage brokerage business and has even managed several offices. He has never been dishonest and has never stolen. The offenses of which he is guilty in no case related to either larceny or theft and he urges that the fact that he has been terminated from probation three years early, demonstrates his rehabilitation and trustworthiness. Petitioner failed to call any independent witnesses to support his contentions of good character instead relying on his own testimony and his resume, nor were there any submissions of written testimonials. On the other hand, Respondent failed to show any indication of continued bad character or adjudged instances of improper behavior and lack of rehabilitation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Joseph L. Edgerton, be permitted to sit for the Florida Real Estate Salesman Examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 10th day of November, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Edgerton 3868 Victoria Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Joyous D. Parrish, Esquire Assistant Attorney General, Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's Florida Real Estate license should be disciplined because Respondent is guilty of and was found guilty of crimes which involve moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing for which he was confined in a state prison in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued license No. 0463021 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On October 5, 1989, in Hillsborough County Court, Criminal Division, State of Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the misdemeanors of prostitution and taking a minor in a vehicle with a malevolent intent, a local ordinance punishable as a misdemeanor. The Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to thirty days imprisonment and six months probation. On March 11, 1991 in the Hillsborough County Court, Criminal Division, State of Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of petty theft. Respondent was found guilty of both counts and was placed on probation for six months to run consecutively on each count. Steven Pearce, Petitioner's investigator, spoke to Respondent about the nature of the charges alleged in the administrative complaint. Investigator Pearce made a series of calls to Respondent and during one of these calls, a discussion ensued relating to the complaint allegations filed against Respondent. During the second call which Investigator Pearce had with Respondent on June 25, 1991, a discussion was had regarding the petit theft charges and a series of other criminal charges which were filed against him. At the time of Respondent's written response to Investigator Pearce on June 12, 1991, he was incarcerated in Hillsborough County Jail for charges which he then contended that he was innocent. Specifically, he maintained in that letter as well as during the hearing that he was pulled into matters for which his son was involved and that he was in no manner responsible for the actions of his son. Respondent spent approximately forty-five days in the Hillsborough County Jail during 1989 at which time he made a no contest plea on October 5, 1989 because it would have taken approximately 21 more days for him to go to trial and he had, at that time, spent the maximum amount of time allowable for the charge for which he was being held. Prior thereto, Respondent had been incarcerated in the Sumter County Jail on a first degree murder charge where he remained for approximately 14 months and was thereafter released to Hillsborough County Jail. During his incarceration, Respondent's trial had been postponed approximately nine times and he repeatedly maintains that all of the allegations which he was being charged for dealt with activity engaged in by his son and "unbeknownst to" Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of having engaged in proscribed conduct within the purview of Subsections 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes as alleged in the administrative complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson in Florida, license No. 0463021 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1992.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of conduct alleged in an Administrative Complaint. The Respondent is charged with failure to maintain good moral character by trespassing on the premises of another and by being naked on such premises.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified as a sworn law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 13, 1983, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 4384. The Respondent held such certification at all times material to this proceeding. The Respondent began employment with the Metro-Dade Police Department in early 1983, and was so employed at all times material to this case. At all times material to this case, the Respondent resided at 1421 Cottonwood Circle, Weston, Florida 33326. The Respondent's residence was one of several units in a townhouse building. In December of 1991, Ms. Kimberly McDonald3 resided at 1419 Cottonwood Circle, Weston, Florida 33326. Her 11-year-old daughter resided with her at that address. Ms. McDonald's residence was next door to the Respondent's residence. Ms. McDonald's residence in December of 1991 had a yard and patio area at the rear of the residence. There were sliding glass doors and windows that faced the yard and patio area at the rear of the residence. That yard and patio area was enclosed by a wooden fence. The fence was slightly more than six feet high. As of December 1991, Ms. McDonald had lived next door to the Respondent for approximately six months. As of December 1991, Ms. McDonald and the Respondent were casual acquaintances; neighbors who occasionally spoke to each other. On the morning of December 4, 1991, Ms. McDonald left her residence and started driving towards her place of employment. Earlier that morning, Ms. McDonald's daughter had gone to school. The Respondent saw Ms. McDonald leave her residence that morning. The Respondent also knew that Ms. McDonald's daughter had gone to school and that their residence was unoccupied. For reasons that are not made clear by the record in this case,4 shortly after the Ms. McDonald drove away on the morning of December 4, 1991, the Respondent walked to the back of Ms. McDonald's residence, removed all of his clothes, and jumped or climbed over the wooden fence around the back yard and patio area of Ms. McDonald's residence. The Respondent then walked naked across Ms. McDonald's back yard and attempted to open one of the sliding glass doors of Ms. McDonald's residence. In the meantime, before she got to her office, Ms. McDonald remembered that she had forgotten something she would need later in the day. Accordingly, she turned around and drove back home. Ms. McDonald entered her residence through the front door and had taken only a few steps into the residence when she saw the Respondent standing in her back yard, completely naked, with one of his hands on the handle of one of the sliding glass doors. Ms. McDonald was frightened and upset by the unexpected and uninvited presence of a naked neighbor. Ms. McDonald had never invited the Respondent into her house or into her enclosed back yard, nor had she ever given the Respondent permission to climb the fence and enter her back yard and patio area. The Respondent saw Ms. McDonald at about the same time she saw him. The Respondent panicked, immediately turned away from Ms. McDonald, and ran naked towards the wooden fence. When the Respondent got to the fence, he stepped on a chair and jumped over the fence. Once over the fence, the Respondent retrieved his clothes, dressed, and returned home. Ms. McDonald was very upset about finding a neighbor in her yard who appeared to be trying to enter her residence. A few minutes later, after talking to a relative, Ms. McDonald called the Broward County Sheriff's Office and reported the incident. The Sheriff's office conducted an investigation and filed criminal charges against the Respondent. Following a jury trial, the Respondent was found guilty of the offenses described in Sections 800.03 and 810.08, Florida Statutes (1991). As a result of the Respondent's conduct on December 4, 1991, Ms. McDonald was concerned about the possibility that the Respondent might engage in future bizarre conduct. She also feared for the safety of herself and her daughter, because she did not know what purpose the Respondent had in mind when he came to her house naked. Because of these concerns and fears, Ms. McDonald and her daughter immediately moved to another residence.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case finding that the Respondent committed the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of the revocation of the Respondent's law enforcement certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of May, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent has held Certificate Number 502-3664 issued by Petitioner, and has been employed as a correctional officer at the Dade County jail since October, 1982. In May, 1984, Respondent was working as a correctional officer assigned to the Dade County Stockade on the 3:00 p.m. to midnight shift. He had been assigned to the Stockade approximately one year earlier. Rene Cruz was an inmate at the Dade County Stockade in May, 1984, who had attained trustee status. A trustee is given more freedom in the Stockade than other inmates and can remain outside of his cell for periods each day after other inmates are locked up. Dion Chian was also an inmate at the Stockade in May, 1984. In late April or early May, 1984, inmate Chian was placed in "the hole" at the Stockade for possessing marijuana after his return from a work detail. At the same time Respondent started locking up Cruz when he came on duty at 3:00 p.m. because he had smelled marijuana in "the hole" in an area close to Cruz. Although he never saw Cruz smoke marijuana, he considered him a trouble maker. By locking up Cruz every day, Respondent took an important privilege away from trustee Cruz. Cruz testified that in late May, 1984, Respondent had oral sexual contact with an inmate in "the hole" at the Dade County Stockade. Chian confirms the incident, claiming he was the inmate involved. However, the testimony of these inmates is not credible. Cruz stated that the inmate involved in the incident was a black male with light skin, but Chian is a dark skinned black male. Cruz was unclear about the details of the alleged incident, including where and when it took place, the identity of the inmate involved, and the relative positions of Respondent and the other inmate during the incident. He testified that he only observed the incident in progress for "a second." Chian's testimony conflicted with that of Cruz concerning the location of the incident and also his role in the incident. Cruz testified that the inmate was having oral sex with Respondent, while Chian testified that Respondent was the active participant in the incident with him. Chian alleged that a second incident took place, but this testimony is not supported and is not credible. Anthony Campos, a Police Benevolent Association (PBA) representative, testified that Respondent admitted the incident to him. However, Lou Altobelli, an elected director of the PBA, and Nelson H. Perry, President of the Dade County PBA, testified that Campos has a reputation as a "story-teller" and for not telling the truth. Perry discussed the incident involving Respondent with Campos on three occasions and Campos never told him that Respondent had admitted the allegations. In Perry's conversations with Respondent, the charges were vehemently denied by Respondent. Based upon all of the testimony presented, a finding cannot be made that Respondent admitted his participation in this incident. On or about June 10, 1984, Respondent was confronted with the allegation by his superiors at the Dade County Stockade. He testified that he was initially very concerned about the negative impact and publicity that would occur if he contested the charges, especially because his father is a law enforcement officer in Dade County, and so he submitted his resignation. However the next day he withdrew his resignation, was suspended, and the matter was then turned over to the State Attorney's Office for investigation. No criminal charges were ever filed, and that investigation has been closed. Following a local hearing, Respondent has been reinstated as a correctional officer at the Dade County jail and has been assigned to the information booth.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 17th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 85-1142) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted and included in introductory material. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 5-7 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 8-12 Rejected based on Findings of Fact 4 and 5, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 15-22 Rejected based on Findings of Fact 4 and 5, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 23,24 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 25 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 26-29 Rejected based on Finding of Fact 6 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1.2 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 4, 5 but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 3-5 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6 but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 6 Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 4 but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Douglas C. Hartman, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Daryl G. McLaughlin Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Is Petitioner qualified for practice as a real estate sales associate, when considering his criminal history record in its substance and point in time?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on September 18, 1975. Petitioner applied to the Commission to become an associate. The application was received August 5, 2005. Petitioner made application to become an associate on the form provided by DBPR. In response to a question about his background, Petitioner revealed information concerning crimes he was accused of committing. On May 27, 1994, Petitioner was arrested by the Panama City Beach, Florida, Police Department and charged with marijuana possession over 20 grams, marijuana possession with intent to deliver, and marijuana sale or purchase, all under authority set forth in Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. The original marijuana case involved arresting charges for felonies. This case was assigned upon charges in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 9401076CFA. On September 18, 1995, the case was disposed of when it was dropped/abandoned. On October 28, 1996, Petitioner was arrested by the Seminole County Sheriff's Office in Seminole County, Florida, on three counts of fraud related to checks written upon insufficient funds. One check from May 30, 1996, was for $40.00 to Bayou George Rainbow, two additional checks in the amount of $75.50 each from the date June 7, 1996, were written to Publix. When Petitioner was charged there were three counts, a single count for each check. This case originated in Bay County, Florida. On November 8, 1996, the Petitioner pled guilty to Count I within the charges. He pled nolo contendere to Counts II, III, and IV within the charges. He was assessed $149.00 in relation to Count I. The fourth count within the charges is of unknown origins, when considering the proof at hearing. Adjudication was withheld in relation to all counts. This disposition was made in Case No. 96004585MMMW. On May 14, 1997, Petitioner was arrested by the Pensacola Police Department for possession of marijuana, in an amount under 20 grams, pursuant to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. This case was brought before the Escambia County Court, Case No. 9720966MMA. On June 4, 1997, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a first degree misdemeanor pertaining to the marijuana possession. The adjudication was withheld. Petitioner was placed on probation for six months and required to pay $160.00 in court costs. On April 24, 1998, Petitioner was arrested by the Panama City Police Department for marijuana possession with intent to distribute, a felony under Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. He was also arrested for narcotic equipment possession under Section 893.147, Florida Statutes, a misdemeanor. He was charged before the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, in Case No. 9800991CFA. On December 15, 1998, Petition pled nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance and adjudication was withheld. He pled to what has been described in the proof as controlled substance possession, sell etc., a felony. He received four years' probation. Petitioner also pled nolo contendere to the narcotic equipment possession or the possession of paraphernalia on the same date, for which he was found guilty/convicted, with terms of probation for one year to run concurrent with the probation associated with the other offense. In relation to the present case, where Petitioner pled to offenses involving marijuana, information provided indicated that he was called upon to abide by any court restrictions placed on him. On November 26, 2002, Petitioner was arrested by the Walton County Sheriff's Office under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, for battery, cause(d) by bodily harm associated with domestic violence, a first degree misdemeanor. He was charged in the County Court of the First Judicial Circuit, in and for Walton County, Florida, in Case No. 021299MM. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner pled no contest to simple battery. Adjudication was withheld and he was required to pay $301.00 in costs and to attend and complete an anger management course and have no violent contact with the victim. On January 17, 2006, the Commission entered a Notice of Intent to Deny Petitioner a license to become an associate based upon the criminal violations that have been described. The Notice of Intent established specific reasons for the denial that will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law. To place the criminal offenses in context Petitioner, his mother, step-father and a family friend testified about Petitioner's life. Petitioner began to have problems with his conduct when his parents had their marriage dissolved. Around that time Petitioner was in the transition between late adolescence and his teenage years. Eventually his mother remarried and the two families combined. That arrangement was difficult because of conflict between Petitioner and a step-brother. Petitioner concedes the problems that he had with marijuana. When Petitioner was charged with 20 grams of marijuana on one occasion, he admits to having seven grams on his person. In addressing the problem he participated in separate court-ordered drug programs which he completed. His drug abuse entered into the decision to write checks for insufficient funds. Concerning the incident involving the charge of domestic battery, which was resolved by a no contest plea to simple battery, Petitioner without contradiction, testified that this situation came about on the basis of an argument with his girlfriend, a verbal exchange not involving physical contact. The situation that led to his arrest for domestic misconduct took place when Petitioner and his girlfriend had an argument at the beach. He was arrested the next day. Petitioner attended the anger management course that he was ordered to attend. Petitioner indicated that there were no further confrontations with the girlfriend. Petitioner satisfactorily complied with the terms of his probation in each criminal case. Petitioner reports that he has been drug-free since 1998. Jimmy Ruthven, Petitioner's stepfather, described the family issues and conflict in the beginning of the relationship between the witness, Petitioner and their respective families. Mr. Ruthven has been the step-father for 15 years. He describes Petitioner in more recent times, as doing better, as being stable without problems. Brenda Ruthven, Petitioner's mother, identified the divorce from her former husband as the beginning point for Petitioner's problems. In this period Petitioner was rebellious, used drugs, had undergone counseling and so forth. During the last four or five years she has seen a turnaround in Petitioner's conduct. Over the last four years Petitioner has been more responsible. Renee R. Willoughby, a family friend who has been familiar with Petitioner over time, has noticed in the last six or seven years that Petitioner has improved in his conduct and has shown himself to be a person of intelligence and integrity. Petitioner attends Florida State University. He is a Dean's list student in Business Administration and Marketing. He served on the Student Council and the Campus Improvement Board at the Panama City, Florida, campus of the university. He expects to graduate in December 2006. Petitioner has worked at Criolla's Restaurant at Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, since February 2002, as a server and bar tender.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner a license as an associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Veal 209 South Cove Lane Panama City, Florida 32401 Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Nancy B. Hogan, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not Respondent is guilty of violating Sections 943.1395(5) and (6) and Section 943.13(7) F.S. and Rule 11B-27.0011(4) (a) F.A.C. so as to subject his certification to discipline by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on March 26, 1976 and holds Certificate No. 02-16273. At all times material hereto, he has been a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. At the request of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted an independent investigation into suspicions and allegations that Respondent, a Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, had knowingly and unlawfully as a public servant requested, solicited, accepted, or agreed to accept pecuniary or other benefits not authorized by law, for performance or non- performance or an act or omission of an act within Respondent's discretion as a law enforcement officer or in violation of his public duty. Specifically, the Sheriff had a tip or a rumor to the effect that the Respondent had failed to enforce Chapter 893, "The Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act," for pecuniary compensation or other benefit and that the Respondent did unlawfully agree, conspire, combine or confederate with Franklin Kaymore and others to commit the crime of "unlawful sale or delivery of, or unlawful possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine" at some unspecified time or times between May 1, 1985 and December 20, 1985. The FDLE investigation was spearheaded by Special Agent Jimmie Collins and focused on Franklin Kaymore, a dealer in narcotics in Palatka, Putnam County. When approached by Collins' confidential informer (CI), Kaymore told the CI to get away from him. Investigator Collins made two cognitive leaps of faith based on this reaction of Kaymore's: First, that Kaymore knew the CI was associated with law enforcement, and second, that Respondent or another "leak" in the Putnam County Sheriff's Department had tipped off Kaymore to the drug investigation and to the CI's true identity as a "narc." However, there is no direct evidence to support either of Collins' inferences. The initial tipster concerning both Kaymore and Respondent as conspiring to sell or deliver drugs and concerning Kaymore paying Respondent not to enforce Florida drug laws was one Waddell Johnson, and Collins conceded that Waddell Johnson had admitted at their initial interview that it had been Respondent who had arrested him and Kaymore had given evidence to convict him or at least had not been prosecuted for Johnson's and Kaymore's joint offense. (See Finding of Fact 9, infra.) Collins further conceded that Waddell Johnson, two members of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, and Collins' Palatka Police Department contact could have "leaked" information on his investigation as easily or more easily than Respondent. Collins' investigation revealed nothing to involve Respondent with Kaymore's drug dealing money, and Collins never recovered any unlawful contraband or money or specific benefits that could be shown to have flowed from Kaymore to Respondent. Kaymore testified that he actually got his information concerning drug enforcement from some of his own street salesmen of drugs who were doubling as police "snitches." Franklin Kaymore, the admitted drug dealer, now incarcerated on fraud and forgery charges, had been a neighborhood acquaintance of Respondent in Palatka, Florida, for approximately 20 years. Throughout this period of time, Kaymore was one of those community characters without visible steady employment but who always had money to spend or to loan to others. Many people borrowed money from him over the years, including Respondent. For years, Kaymore's employments were transient and unsteady but existed sporadically, and he was known in the community to be a proficient and extraordinarily successful dog track gambler, pool hustler and crap shooter. Presumably, he also collected interest on his various loans. Occasional legitimate jobs in demolition, electronics installation, and migrant labor and in the foregoing borderline activities camouflaged Kaymore's true income sources, but he was also widely rumored to be dealing in illicit drugs. At some point in 1984 or 1985, Kaymore "took up" with Celestine Cross a/k/a Lisa Cross, the Respondent's goddaughter. This brought Kaymore and Respondent into a much closer relationship than before. On one occasion, the Respondent and his wife visited Kaymore because their goddaughter had moved in with him, and in Respondent's presence, Kaymore denied a point-blank question from Respondent's wife as to whether or not he was dealing drugs. By the time in 1985 that the whole of Kaymore's income was derived from drug dealing, he and Respondent's goddaughter were openly living together in a new house, rented from Respondent's cousin. Respondent and his wife helped them move and settle in, and Respondent then often visited in their home. Kaymore testified that he warned his drug customers and street salesmen not to come to his house when they saw the Sheriff's car which Respondent drove or Respondent's wife's car in his driveway; that he "always have had respect for [Respondent about] doing my business" and did his drug sales out of Respondent's sight; and that he often sent potential drug customers to his street operatives just to keep them away from his house. On the other hand, Kaymore assumed that although Respondent never saw money or "boosted," i.e., stolen, goods exchanged to Kaymore for drugs, Respondent "must have known" Kaymore was selling and trading for drugs. Therefore, after he was "busted" in 1986, in his quest for a "deal," Kaymore expressed this latter opinion to law enforcement officers in the course of negotiating his and "Lisa's" plea bargain. In 1985, Respondent had borrowed approximately $300-$400 from Kaymore, and Respondent's wife accepted some dresses as a gift from Kaymore. The details of the loan or its repayment, if any, are not in evidence, but there is also no evidence that Respondent did anything or refrained from doing anything either personally or in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer in order to get the loan from Kaymore. Kaymore had also previously loaned Respondent money before Respondent entered law enforcement and before Kaymore began to deal drugs for a living. Kaymore categorically denied that Respondent ever offered him protection or threatened prosecution in exchange for the loan in 1985. The only inference possible from all the evidence is that the dresses were "boosted" by one of Kaymore's drug customers, were accepted by Kaymore in exchange for drugs, and were then passed off by Kaymore to Respondent's wife because the dresses were not "Lisa's" size. However, there is insufficient credible evidence to show that either Respondent or his wife could be certain of the origin of these dresses. On one occasion, Kaymore bought a stolen cassette player from Waddell Johnson. Kaymore assumed the cassette player was stolen because Johnson delivered it to Kaymore in the original Sears box with all its original paperwork. When Respondent came to Kaymore's house and viewed the cassette player, he told Kaymore that it was stolen and later returned with a detective. After questioning Kaymore, Respondent and the detective impounded the stolen cassette player and told Kaymore he would have to be a witness against Johnson. Apparently, Kaymore admitted he knew the cassette player was stolen, and the detective, not Respondent, made a deal for his testimony against Waddell Johnson. Kaymore was not charged or prosecuted, and he did not have to testify, but there is no evidence Respondent had anything to do with that result. Willie Johnson, a former runner and drug customer of Kaymore's during the period of time material to these proceedings, also was once arrested by Respondent. In Willie Johnson's view, the arrest was "for something I didn't do," and he was in fact released after seven days. Nonetheless, Willie Johnson presented no evidence to clearly show Respondent had knowledge of any drug dealing. According to Johnson, he had bought drugs in Kaymore's house while the Respondent was there, but he did not fear arrest by Respondent since the drug transaction occurred out of Respondent's sight in another part of the house. Elbert Grant knew Kaymore sold "reefer and cocaine" from his house but Respondent was never present when Grant was buying drugs at Kaymore's house, and Grant had no knowledge of whether Respondent ever saw any outside drug transactions. The testimony of Princess Robinson, a convicted felon with a long history of retail theft convictions, was not directed to the charges within the four corners of the Administrative Complaint. It was also not credible. The testimony of Connie Hodges was internally unreasonable and not credible upon the application of simple logic and further was not credible because of Ms. Hodges' clear bias against Respondent due to prior arrests he had participated in either directly or peripherally. The external credibility of Hodges' testimony was utterly destroyed by her observable lack of candor and demeanor on the stand, which demeanor clearly demonstrated Hodges' current substance abuse. Moreover, Hodges, who maintained she is currently "clean", acknowledged that her former drug ingestion had affected her reason and judgment and that her memory as of the date of formal hearing was unclear. The criminal charges filed against Respondent in connection with all events material hereto have been heard before the Circuit Court in Putnam County and have been either dismissed or tried by jury trial with a verdict of "not guilty".
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Rosner Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 628 Alachua, Florida 32615 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent David R. Kelly was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on August 8, 1976, and was issued a certificate, No. 0214196. On March 1O, 1986, in Pensacola, respondent Kelly entered a plea of nolo contendere to three counts charging simple misdemeanor battery in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes; and the Honorable Lacey A. Collier accepted the plea as Judge of the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. On April 9, 1986, Judge Collier entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing respondent on probation. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. At no time has respondent ever been convicted of a crime. (T.19) Having consistently maintained his innocence, Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, respondent Kelly nevertheless pleaded nolo contendere, on the advice of counsel, for fear he could "lose through the news media," (T. 16) even if acquitted. At the time the battery allegations arose, respondent Kelly worked for the Florida Highway Patrol which dismissed him on account of the allegations. In subsequent proceedings before the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), the alleged victim testified, as she had earlier testified on deposition in the criminal proceedings, that the respondent had fondled her breasts. Petitioner's Exhibits No. 1 and 2. The PERC proceedings eventuated in orders explicitly rejecting respondent's accuser's testimony and recommending his reinstatement. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. The evidence adduced in the present case does not show whether or not respondent perpetrated one or more batteries on his accuser. She did not testify.
