The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Brown has been employed by the School Board since September 5, 2000, working in various maintenance positions. In 2004, he took the position of "night lead" at Fairmont Park Elementary School, in which he was responsible for supervising the night cleaning and maintenance crew at the school. On February 8, 2010, Mr. Brown was arrested by an officer with the St. Petersburg Police Department and charged with two felony counts, one for sale of cocaine and one for possession of cocaine. The same charges were set forth in a Felony Information filed by the state attorney for Pinellas County on March 17, 2010. Mr. Brown self-reported the arrest and charges to the OPS. Based on that information, he was transferred from his position at an elementary school setting to a similar position at a non-student site that was a warehouse, while the charges worked their way through the criminal justice system. However, after Respondent was called to a meeting at OPS and he refused to answer any questions regarding the investigation, the decision was made to proceed with disciplinary action, even though the criminal case was still pending. The superintendent issued a letter on October 19, 2010, notifying Respondent of the decision to recommend termination of his employment at the November 9, 2010, School Board meeting, unless Respondent requested an administrative hearing, in which case the recommendation would be to suspend Respondent without pay pending the conclusion of the administrative hearing process. As stated in the agenda item attached to the letter, which served as the administrative complaint, the basis for the recommended action was that Mr. Brown had been arrested and charged with sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine, both felonies. The OPS obtained copies of the police reports describing the circumstances of the arrest and made the determination that Mr. Brown violated the following provisions of School Board Policy 4140 (Policy 4140): A.2.a. (illegal possession or use of drugs, or being under the influence of illegal drugs, while on or off duty); A.2.b. (illegal sale of drugs whether on or off duty); A.2.c. (possession, use, or being under the influence of illegal drugs while off duty); A.3. (committing or conviction of a criminal act--felony); A.21 (conduct unbecoming a board employee that brings the district into disrepute or that disrupts the orderly process of the district); and A.22. (misconduct or misconduct in office). On November 9, 2010, the School Board adopted the superintendent's recommendation. Because of Mr. Brown's request for an administrative hearing, he was suspended without pay pending the outcome of this hearing process. The circumstances leading to Mr. Brown's arrest, as described in police reports considered by OPS in its investigation, were described, in large part, at the final hearing by Officer Doug Dilla. Officer Dilla is currently employed in the uniform service division of the St. Petersburg Police Department. However, from early 2008 until recently in 2011, he was in the narcotics and vice division. At some point in 2008, he began working as an undercover agent. He obtained information from a confidential informant, whom he believed to be reliable, that the confidential informant had purchased narcotics from Respondent. The confidential informant gave Officer Dilla Respondent's name and address. Officer Dilla conducted surveillance at Respondent's address, where he recorded the license tag numbers from cars parked there. His trace of those tag numbers identified members of Respondent's family, including a silver Nissan Altima registered in Respondent's mother's name. Officer Dilla also was able to retrieve a photograph of Respondent through drivers' license records and had the confidential informant positively identify Respondent as the person from whom he had purchased narcotics, whom he knew as "Quan." On August 4, 2008, Officer Dilla arranged for the confidential informant to join him and, while they were together, to contact Respondent and try to arrange a purchase of powder cocaine from Mr. Brown. Officer Dilla picked up the confidential informant and they parked at a gas station, where the confidential informant called Mr. Brown on his cell phone number. The cell phone number called by the confidential informant is admittedly Mr. Brown's; the number, in the police report prepared by Officer Dilla, is the same as Mr. Brown's phone number on file with the School Board. In the phone conversation, the confidential informant told the person on the line that he wanted two "sacks" or two "50s," to indicate two small bags of powder cocaine and to meet him and the person with him, who wanted to make the purchase, at a Hess station located a few blocks from where Mr. Brown lived. Within 20 minutes of that phone call, the silver Nissan Altima registered to Respondent's mother pulled into the station and parked over by the car vacuum machine. Officer Dilla and the confidential informant got out of the car and approached Respondent in the Nissan Altima. Respondent got out of his car and walked around to the passenger door, and Officer Dilla met Respondent by the passenger door. Respondent gestured to the front passenger seat and said, "go ahead and take it." There were two small zip-lock baggies of white powder which Officer Dilla believed to be powder cocaine. He reached in and got the two baggies and gave Respondent $100. Respondent got back in his car and drove away. Officer Dilla put the baggies in his pocket, then drove away with the confidential informant, dropped him off, and then proceeded back to the police department. Back at the police department, Officer Dilla performed a field test on the powder in the baggies. He identified the field test as the Scott Reagent Modified System Test Kit "G," and he described how the test was performed. The results were "presumptively positive" for powder cocaine. After conducting the field test, Officer Dilla weighed the baggies, deposited them in a heat-sealed evidence bag, and secured them in a locked evidence locker. According to Officer Dilla, the material was then sent off to a lab for further confirmatory testing. However, Officer Dilla did not testify that he personally removed the material from the evidence locker and delivered it to the lab. According to Officer Dilla's police report, after he deposited the evidence in an evidence locker, he took no further action. While a better predicate could have been laid for the extent of Officer Dilla's experience or training in administering field tests generally and the specific field test he used, there was no objection to Officer Dilla's testimony regarding the field test results, which he described with confidence and without hesitancy. Respondent denied many of the details to which Officer Dilla testified, but there were some details he could not deny. Respondent acknowledged that it was his cell phone number that was written in the police report, which was prepared by Officer Dilla two days after the purchase. Respondent testified that many people know his phone number and perhaps someone who had been "busted" by Officer Dilla gave the officer his phone number for some reason. Respondent then testified that it must have come from the confidential informant, but Respondent could not explain why the confidential informant would have given the officer Respondent's phone number. Respondent also admitted that he drove his mother's silver Nissan Altima. He claimed that the officer must have gotten the tag number and the car description because he goes to that Hess station "every day" and that he was probably there on the day in question to buy gas. Respondent, therefore, admitted two key components of Officer Dilla's testimony and police report: that the telephone number that Officer Dilla said was called by the confidential informant to arrange a drug purchase was Respondent's phone number; and that Respondent did drive the silver Nissan Altima to the Hess station on the day in question. Having admitted that much, Respondent failed to explain the rest of Officer Dilla's testimony. Respondent said that Officer Dilla made up the story, that it was a case of mistaken identity. Yet neither the phone number, nor the vehicle's presence was a case of mistaken identity. It would be necessary to conclude that Officer Dilla intentionally fabricated every detail, except for the phone number and the vehicle in order to falsely accuse Respondent of selling him cocaine. Respondent offered no reason, much less a credible reason, why Officer Dilla would fabricate the details of his report. The greater weight of the credible evidence does not support a finding of any fabrication. The undersigned accepts Officer Dilla's more credible version of the events of August 4, 2008. Respondent came quickly to the Hess station after receiving a telephone call from someone saying that he had someone who wanted to buy two "50s"--two baggies of powder cocaine. Respondent complied by selling two baggies of white powder for $50 each, for a total of $100. Based on the totality of the evidence, including Officer Dilla's clear, credible testimony regarding the details of the arrangements made for him to purchase cocaine from Respondent, his actual purchase of white powder from Respondent for $100 and the results of the field test that were presumptively positive for powder cocaine, the undersigned finds that it is more likely than not that the white powder that Respondent sold to Officer Dilla was, in fact, powder cocaine. The School Board sought to buttress its evidence regarding the substance that was sold to Officer Dilla by attempting to establish that the same two baggies of powder were later tested by the Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory and that the results confirmed that the substance was, in fact, cocaine. However, no chain of custody evidence was offered to establish that the substance tested by the lab was, in fact, the two baggies of white powder purchased from Respondent and secured by Officer Dilla in a locker after he completed his field test. The lab analysis evidence was even more attenuated from Officer Dilla's purchase because what purported to be the substance purchased from Respondent was tested once in 2008 at the lab, and then retested in 2010; however, only the 2010 reanalysis and results were sufficiently supported by testimony of the lab director who conducted reanalysis and prepared the lab report and back-up work papers admitted in evidence. The original 2008 test was done by a lab technician who moved out of state, and there was no witness who could testify from personal knowledge of what tests were done or how the report was prepared in 2008. Accordingly, as explained in Endnote 2, the 2008 lab report was not admitted in evidence. No chain of custody evidence was offered to trace the apparent movement of the two baggies of powder purchased by Officer Dilla from the evidence locker to the lab in 2008, from the lab in 2008 to one or more unidentified holding places for a two-year period, then back to lab in 2010 for reanalysis. The evidence established that the substance in two baggies delivered to the lab in 2010 for testing did, in fact, test conclusively positive for cocaine. The credentials and expertise of the lab director and the reliability of her methodologies used to test the substance three different ways, each test corroborating the other tests and increasing the reliability of the outcome, were established and accepted. However, the School Board failed to prove that the two baggies of powder tested in 2010 were, in fact, the same two baggies of powder that Officer Dilla purchased from Respondent two years earlier and locked in a locker after conducting the field test. Therefore, the undersigned cannot make a finding that the white powder purchased from Respondent was conclusively cocaine, beyond any reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of any other substance. However, the totality of the credible evidence meets a lower threshold of proof, establishing as explained above, that the white powder obtained from Respondent was more likely than not cocaine. Officer Dilla credibly explained the lapse in time between his purchase of cocaine from Respondent and Respondent's arrest. After making the purchase, Officer Dilla's intent was to try to make additional purchases to increase the total weight of the drugs purchased so as to reach a quantity that would constitute the more serious offense of trafficking. However, he was called off of that matter to work on a larger-scale investigation. Therefore, he prepared a probable cause packet on the case so that the results of his investigation could be utilized, alone or in conjunction with additional information, to bring charges against Respondent, because Officer Dilla believed that there was sufficient evidence to arrest Respondent and charge him. Respondent's criminal case was set for trial several different times with witnesses subpoenaed by the state, but Respondent's attorney successfully moved for continuances four times. In May 2011, the matter was finally resolved without a trial, by a plea agreement whereby Respondent pled guilty to two counts of possessing drugs without a prescription, second-degree misdemeanors, in exchange for the prosecution amending the information to drop the original charges of possession and sale of cocaine, both felonies, and change the charges to two misdemeanor counts of possessing drugs without a prescription. Respondent's employment record was summarized in the evidence. Apparently, up until 2008, his record with the School Board was unblemished. On March 5, 2008, Respondent received a "needs improvement" evaluation based on attendance. Respondent received another "needs improvement" evaluation the next year, this time based on quality of work. Also during this same timeframe, on November 14, 2008, Respondent received a reprimand from the principal of the elementary school for "misconduct in office." No details of this disciplinary incident were provided, but Respondent did not dispute that he had received the reprimand for misconduct in office that is noted in evidence in the summary of his employment record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent, Quan R. Brown. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2011.
