Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Dismissing Case and Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this ay day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services Filed August 29, 2013 2:07 PM Division of Administrative Hearings this “ve of —_ 2013 Yea _ f fekses- ee ‘ficens NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Jimmie Murphy, Manager Jimmie Shane Murphy, LLC 4601 Saufley Field Road Pensacola, Florida 32523 Damaris E. Reynolds Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Diane Cleavinger Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 i)
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by James H. Peterson, III, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Said Order Closing File was predicated upon correspondence filed by Respondent, withdrawing its petition. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner, Swanders, Inc. d/b/a Swanders Auto Mart be granted a license for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Qianjiang Motorcycles Group Corporation (QINJ) at 5546 North Lecanto Highway, Beverly Hills (Citrus County), Florida 34465 upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed February 26, 2010 8:00 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this 2'/'iofFebruary, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. or Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this 11.5-1- day of February, 2010. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF:vlg Copies furnished: Derick David Affordable ATV's, Inc. d/b/a Axis Powersports 3131 East Gulf to Lake Highway Inverness, Florida 34453 Bobbette Lynott Classic Motorcycles and Sidecars, Inc. Post Office Box 969 Preston, Washington 98050 Carl Swanders Swanders, Inc. d/b/a Swanders Auto Mart 5546 North Lecanto Highway Beverly Hills, Florida 34465 James H. Peterson, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Thomas K. Morgan was a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol and was certified as a law enforcement officer by Respondent. On April 28, 1984, Brenda Liles, a 22-year-old woman, was returning to her home in Ruskin when she ran out of gas and pulled off on the shoulder of U.S. 41 in a rural area. Before leaving from her departure point, she realized her gas gauge was on empty and she called her father to ask him to come look for her if she was not home in 15 minutes. Trooper Morgan saw the AMC Concord parked along U.S. 41 and pulled up behind the car. Miss Liles was in the car with the doors locked and the windows rolled up. When Respondent approached her car he shined his flashlight inside the car to look for weapons or anything suspicious. Seeing the trooper, Miss Liles lowered the window to tell him she had run out of gas but her father would be along momentarily. Respondent stayed alongside Miss Liles' car and they held a general conversation for several minutes before Mr. Liles arrived. Miss Liles was dressed in shorts and tee shirt. When her father arrived he found his daughter calm and he suggested she get into his pickup truck and he would return for the AMC the following day. Respondent told Liles that he (Morgan) had a gas can he could borrow to get gas and the car could then be driven away rather than be left alongside the highway all night. Liles took the gas can and departed. He planned to stop by his home for a funnel but, even so, the round-trip for gas was expected to take no more than ten minutes. When Liles left, Respondent continued talking to Miss Liles and suddenly started shining his flashlight over her body and said, "Pussy, pussy, let me see that pussy," or "I want that pussy; open it up," or words of similar import. Miss Liles initially did not understand him and asked him what he had said. He repeated the words while shining his flashlight over her body. She immediately rolled up the window through which they had been talking (the doors had remained locked) and became very frightened and started crying. Respondent returned to his patrol car and started filling out reports. Approximately five minutes later Mr. Liles returned with the gas, saw his daughter was crying, and that she was visibly upset. After putting gas in the car, he returned the gas can to Respondent and asked his name and badge number. When the AMC was started Liles told his daughter to follow him and he drove to the sheriff's substation in Ruskin. Although Liles did not ask his daughter what had happened, he sensed it had something to do with Respondent. Upon arrival at the Sheriff's Office they encountered Trooper Donna L. Middleton who was told by Liles that they wanted to make a complaint. At this time Miss Liles was either still crying or showed visible evidence of having been crying and was quite upset. Trooper Middleton took father and daughter into an office to inquire as to the nature of the complaint. Miss Liles was having some difficulty getting the words out so Mr. Liles excused himself and went outside. Trooper Middleton gave Miss Liles complaint forms and asked her to write down what had happened. She assisted Miss Liles in the correct spelling of some of the words. As soon as she realized the nature of the complaint, Middleton called her supervisor to come to the Ruskin office. The Lileses remained at the substation until the then-Corporal Shriver arrived approximately one hour after the Lileses had arrived. At this time Miss Liles still gave the appearance of being upset and of earlier crying. Shriver took custody of the statement and the Lileses returned home. The complaint was duly processed by the Florida Highway Patrol, referred to the investigation branch, and investigated by Lieutenant Brown. Brown interviewed all the parties above named including Respondent. Following this investigation Respondent was dismissed from his employment with the Florida Highway Patrol. Respondent presented his wife and a female friend of his wife to testify that they had never heard Respondent make comments about the anatomical parts of the female body, and that such comments would be inconsistent with their impression of Respondent's character. In his testimony Respondent confirmed all of the testimony of the Lileses except Respondent's use of the language complained of, which he denied. Although all witnesses had testified that the weather was mild on the evening in question, Respondent testified Miss Liles rolled up her window because she was cold and he then returned to the patrol car. Respondent also testified that he had always been interested in work as a law enforcement officer and was very proud of his position as a trooper in the Florida Highway Patrol.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File by William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Said Order Closing File was predicated upon Respondent's notice of withdrawal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner, Jealse Scooters, Inc., be granted a license for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) at 572 East Osceola Parkway, Kissimmee, (Osceola County), Florida 34744, upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed January 7, 2010 10:39 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this ;(/day of January, 2010 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. or Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divis)On of Motor Vehicles this Jtf!1._ day of January, 2010. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF:vlg Copies furnished: Fabio Jealse Jealse Scooters, Inc. 572 East Osceola Parkway Kissimmee, Florida 34774 Beverly Fox Red Streak Scooters, LLC 427 Doughty Boulevard Inwood, New York 11096 Jeff Lampe Kissimmee Motorsports, Inc. 2881 North John Young Parkway Kissimmee, Florida 34741 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section
The Issue Whether Respondent's, Jamie Gonzalez, conduct evidenced lack of "good moral character" as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent was certified by Petitioner on April 26, 1983, and devoted approximately 20 years to his career in law enforcement. He is 58 years old. He holds Law Enforcement Certificate No. 117162. On the evening of December 13, 2002, Respondent left a social function at approximately 11:00 p.m. and was operating his motor vehicle, a pick-up truck, while his ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcoholic beverages. Respondent acknowledged this at the onset of the final hearing. As he drove in an erratic manner on a rural Seminole County, Florida, roadway, he was observed by seven teenagers traveling together in two motor vehicles. One of these individuals contacted a law enforcement agency using a cellular telephone. The law enforcement agency directed these young people to follow Respondent and to continue reporting his route. Because of Respondent's proximity to the City of Oviedo, Florida, the Oviedo Police Department was alerted that a drunk driver was headed toward their city. Respondent was driving to the location of his business in an industrial park located in Seminole County, Florida, in close proximity to, but not within, the Oviedo city limits. When Respondent arrived at his business, he departed his motor vehicle and entered his business premises. The drivers of the two vehicles which were following Respondent placed their vehicles in position to block Respondent's exit from the industrial park which had only one exit road. After spending approximately ten minutes in his office, Respondent re-entered his vehicle and began to leave the industrial park. As Respondent drove his pick-up out the exit road, he was confronted by two vehicles blocking the exit road and seven individuals standing in close proximity of the blocking vehicles. There is no evidence that, until his exit was blocked, Respondent was aware that he was being followed. At approximately the same time as this confrontation was taking place, Officer Heather Capetillo, Oviedo Police Department, having been alerted and on watch for a drunken driver, approached the scene on the main road and observed all three vehicles. Because the industrial park was not within the City of Oviedo, she turned her vehicle around and parked within the City of Oviedo city limits several hundred feet from the road leading from the main road to the industrial park. It is not apparent that Respondent or the seven young persons were immediately aware of Officer Capetillo's presence. Although testimony regarding the ability of the various participants to observe what was happening varied, the closest street lights were approximately one mile from the industrial park. At least one vehicle had its headlights on; the remainder of the lighting was natural, moonlight. Lighting conditions were not good. Upon observing the blocking vehicles and the dismounted passengers, Respondent stopped his vehicle approximately 50 feet from them, leaving the vehicle's headlights on. Earlier in the evening Respondent had $4,400 in his possession, which he had deposited in a safe in his office. Believing himself to be the potential victim of a robbery, Respondent exited his vehicle carrying his automatic pistol and his cellular telephone. Because he did not want to confront these seven individuals, he retreated up the road toward his office in the industrial park. Observing Respondent with a handgun, the seven young people were understandably alarmed and began shouting and taking cover. Two young women, observing what they believed to be a Florida Highway Patrol vehicle, ran to Officer Capetillo's vehicle, screaming that "the man had a gun" or words to that effect. Acting immediately, Officer Capetillo activated her emergency lights and drove to the scene. When Respondent realized that a law enforcement officer had arrived on the scene, he turned and began walking toward the vehicles, which now included the police cruiser. Upon exiting her vehicle, Officer Capetillo could not initially see Respondent. He was immediately pointed out to her by one of the young people. She observed him near the road behind and to the side of his truck. She was approximately 50 feet from Respondent's vehicle in the immediate proximity of her cruiser and the two blocking vehicles. Officer Capetillo advises that "her adrenaline was flowing." She immediately announced, "Oviedo Police. Where's the gun?" Respondent answered, "Right here." She observed that Respondent had something in both hands. Respondent's right hand then moved up, and Officer Capetillo was able to observe the "barrel of a gun." Respondent was holding the weapon in his right hand at the barrel housing between his thumb and forefinger. She then said, "Put your hands up." Respondent "immediately" (Officer Capetillo's quote) put his hands up. She then said, "Drop it," and "I could hear it clunk." "There was no hesitation"; again, Officer Capetillo's quote. Respondent actually dropped the weapon into the cargo bed of the pick-up. She then said, "Drop the other thing," and she immediately heard a second "clunk." Respondent's hands were now free. Officer Capetillo then instructed Respondent to kneel down, which he did, and he was handcuffed. When Officer Capetillo observed the weapon in Respondent's right hand with the barrel directed at her, she believed herself to be in imminent danger. Fortunately, she used excellent judgment and did not use her firearm.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found not guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2002), and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 9th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jamie Gonzalez 1041 Sugarberry Trail Oviedo, Florida 32765 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File by William F. Quattlebaum, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered October 7, 2011. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Said Order Closing File was predicated upon Petitioner’s notice of dismissal without prejudice of the Amended Complaint contesting the intended denial of Respondent’s application for licensure. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s application for licensure as a DUI Program in the 13" Judicial Circuit is denied. — DONE AND ORDERED this | [ a day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sou _-“ SANDRA C, LAMBERT, Direct Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this { pte day of October, 2011. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal! for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Lilja Dandelake, Esquire Judson M. Chapman, Esquire Assistant General Counsels Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Donna Blanton, Esquire Bert Combs, Esquire Attorneys for Intervenor Radey Thomas Yon & Clark, P.A. 301 S. Bronough Street, Suite 200 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Scott Boardman, Esquire David Scott Boardman, P.A. Attorney for Petitioner 1710 E. Seventh Ave. Tampa, Florida 33605 Tallahassee, FL 32301 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 26, 1986, and was issued certificate number 19- 86-002-03. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer working for the City of Miami Police Department. On June 18, 1989, the Respondent was assigned as a police officer on the day shift in the Patrol Division of the City of Miami Police Department and was assigned to Sector 20. Sector 20 encompasses a section of the city known as "Little Haiti." On that day the Respondent was working in uniform and was driving a marked City of Miami Police Department vehicle. While stopped at the corner of Miami Avenue and North 58th Street attending to paperwork, the Respondent observed an automobile and driver, both of which were similar to the description in a BOLO that he had issued earlier during his shift. The automobile observed by the Respondent was being driven by a person who appeared to be a Haitian male and who was later identified as Mr. Jerome Jean-Pierre. The Respondent observed the car driven by Mr. Jean-Pierre as it approached the intersection at a high rate of speed and as it slammed on brakes and ran a stop sign. The Respondent also observed the same car as it began to leave the scene in reverse at a high rate of speed. The Respondent activated his emergency lights and siren and gave chase. Mr. Jean-Pierre jumped out of his car and started running towards a dwelling. The Respondent jumped out of his police car and drew his handgun because he was concerned that Mr. Jean-Pierre might be armed. This concern came from the fact that Mr. Jean- Pierre appeared to be trying to conceal something in his waistband and also because the Respondent thought that Mr. Jean-Pierre might have been one of the participants in the armed robbery that resulted in the earlier BOLO. The Respondent followed Mr. Jean-Pierre into the dwelling. Inside the dwelling Mr. Jean-Pierre attempted to elude the Respondent. At one point the Respondent got close enough to Mr. Jean-Pierre to confirm that the latter did not have a weapon in his waistband. At that point the Respondent reholstered his own firearm, and called on the radio for back up. The Respondent then told Mr. Jean-Pierre that he was under arrest and ordered him to get down. Mr. Jean- Pierre refused to cooperate. Instead, Mr. Jean-Pierre punched the Respondent in the chest, whereupon a physical struggle began. Mr. Jean-Pierre attempted to flee by running into the bathroom and the Respondent made another radio call for assistance. Other officers arrived soon thereafter, and with the help of Police Officer Munoz, the Respondent attempted to handcuff Mr. Jean-Pierre. During this process, Mr. Jean-Pierre hit the Respondent repeatedly in the face. Police Officers Marshall and Wright also joined in the fight, during the course of which the Respondent was pushed through a glass shower door. During the course of the struggle, Mr. Jean-Pierre also struck the Respondent several times with a pair of handcuffs that were fastened to one of Mr. Jean-Pierre's hands and with a piece of non-metallic plumbing pipe. The struggle with Mr. Jean-Pierre was eventually moved out of the bathroom and into the kitchen. During the struggle in the kitchen area, while the Respondent was holding Mr. Jean-Pierre in a carotid restraint, Mr. Jean- Pierre lunged forward causing the Respondent to hit his shoulder on the door. At about the same time Mr. Jean-Pierre struck his head on the stove and while he appeared to be dazed, the police officers were successful in getting him down to the floor. Once on the floor, Mr. Jean-Pierre continued to struggle and resist. The officers eventually succeeded in getting handcuffs on both of Mr. Jean-Pierre's hands. Even after he was handcuffed, Mr. Jean-Pierre continued to struggle and thrash about and in the course of doing so he kicked the Respondent in the shin. Immediately thereafter the Respondent kicked Mr. Jean-Pierre once in the midsection in an effort to further control the arrestee and in an effort to dissuade the arrestee from further resistance. Mr. Jean-Pierre curled up for an instant following the kick and the Respondent took advantage of that reaction and picked him up and started leading him out of the house. Throughout the efforts to take Mr. Jean-Pierre into custody, the situation was dangerous and chaotic as a result of the conduct of Mr. Jean-Pierre. The Respondent and Mr. Jean-Pierre exited the building and walked to the Respondent's police car. During the walk to the car Mr. Jean-Pierre was still being generally uncooperative. At that time Mr. Jean-Pierre already had a visible cut on his head as a result of the struggles inside the house. When they got to the Respondent's police car, the Respondent laid Mr. Jean-Pierre down over the trunk of the car for the purpose of searching him before putting him inside the police car. While the Respondent was attempting to search Mr. Jean-Pierre, the arrestee suddenly raised himself up from the car trunk and stiffened his body. The Respondent's response to the arrestee's sudden action was to push the arrestee back down over the trunk of the car until he finished his search of the arrestee's pockets. The Respondent did not slam the arrestee's head onto the car when he pushed him back down onto the car. The arrestee's face may have come into contact with the car trunk or with the car rear window area, but the arrestee's head did not strike any portion of the car with any significant force. The force the Respondent used to push the arrestee back down against the car was reasonable under the circumstances and was necessary to maintain control over the arrestee. The act of leaning an arrestee over the trunk of a car for the purpose of searching the arrestee was a police procedure approved by the City of Miami Police Department. When arrestees use physical violence in the course of efforts by police officers to arrest them, arrestees are sometimes injured even in the absence of misconduct by the arresting police officers. During the course of the struggle with Mr. Jean-Pierre, the Respondent received numerous scratches and bruises, his uniform became torn, his watch and glasses were broken, and he was, in general, substantially beaten up. The severity of the injuries he received was such that the Respondent missed three weeks of work immediately following the struggle with Mr. Jean-Pierre. The only evidence of injury to Mr. Jean-Pierre was a small cut on his forehead, as shown on Respondent's Exhibit 5, which cut resulted from the activities inside the house before Mr. Jean-Pierre was taken to the Respondent's car.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1993 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3102 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17: There is a great deal of conflict in the evidence in this case with regard to what happened at several points along the way in the handling of the arrestee, Mr. Jean-Pierre. To the extent that the version of the facts set forth in these paragraphs conflicts with the version of the facts offered by the Petitioner, the Hearing Officer has, for the most part, accepted the version of the facts set forth by the Respondent. Accordingly, to the extent of such conflict, the assertions in these paragraphs are rejected. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21: There is a great deal of conflict in the evidence in this case with regard to what happened at several points along the way in the handling of the arrestee, Mr. Jean-Pierre. To the extent that the version of the facts set forth in these paragraphs conflicts with the version of the facts offered by the Petitioner, the Hearing Officer has, for the most part, accepted the version of the facts set forth by the Respondent. Accordingly, to the extent of such conflict, the assertions in these paragraphs are rejected. Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, and 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 31 and 32: Rejected as irrelevant in view of the finding that the Respondent did not slam anyone's head on the trunk of the car. Paragraph 33: Rejected both as constituting a summary of testimony and as constituting opinions that are not warranted by the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 34 and 35: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of how the conflicts in the evidence have been resolved. Paragraphs 36, and 37: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and also rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or as suggesting inferences not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 38: Accepted that the Respondent kicked the arrestee inside the house, but the quoted portion of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 39 and 40: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 41: Rejected as comprised primarily of argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 42: Rejected as comprised primarily of argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Also rejected as being contrary to the Hearing Officer's resolution of the credibility conflicts. Paragraph 43: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 44 and 45: Rejected as comprised primarily of argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Also rejected as being contrary to the Hearing Officer's resolution of the credibility conflicts. Paragraph 46: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17: Accepted in substance, but with a number of subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24: Rejected as constituting summaries of conflicting testimony and argument about which version is most believable. No useful purpose is served by summarizing all of the conflicting evidence. Paragraph 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 26, 27, and 28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance with the exception of the reference to kicking. Paragraphs 30, 31, 32, and 33: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47: Rejected as constituting summaries of conflicting testimony and argument about which version is most believable. No useful purpose is served by summarizing all of the conflicting evidence. Paragraphs 48, 49, and 50: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 51: Rejected as constituting summaries of conflicting testimony and argument about which version is most believable. No useful purpose is served by summarizing all of the conflicting evidence. Paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 57: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 72: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica A. White, Esquire Robert D. Klausner, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Klausner & Cohen, P.A. Post Office Box 1489 6565 Taft Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Hollywood, Florida 33024 James T. Moore, Commissioner Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Florida Department of Law Enforcement Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
