Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, an employee of Vanguard Security and the holder of a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" statewide firearms license. Vanguard Security (hereinafter referred to as "Vanguard") is an agency which provides armed and unarmed security services to its clients. Vanguard has a written policy prohibiting the display and use of firearms by its security officers except where such conduct is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm. Vanguard also has a written policy forbidding its security officers from leaving their assigned posts while they are on duty. These written policies are set forth in an employee handbook that all employees of the agency are given. On the evening of October 25, 1993, Respondent was assigned to provide armed security services in a warehouse area in Dade County, Florida. At approximately 10:00 p.m. that evening Andrea Ramsey was walking her friend's unleashed dog, a Doberman pinscher named "Chewy," in the vicinity of the warehouse area Respondent was responsible for guarding (hereinafter referred to as Respondent's "post" or "posted area"). Chewy's owner, Eileen Escardo, was working late in her photography studio which was located across the street from Respondent's post. Respondent saw Ramsey from afar. His suspicions aroused, he walked toward her to investigate. Respondent left his posted area and started to cross the street that separated the posted area from the warehouse in which Escardo's photography studio was located. When he was approximately 20 feet from Ramsey, he asked her if Chewy, who was by a tree to her left, was her dog. Ramsey responded in the affirmative. Chewy then, in a leisurely manner, headed toward Ramsey and Respondent. Although Chewy was moving in Respondent's direction, he did so in a manner that did not reasonably suggest that he was going to attack Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent panicked. Contrary to his employer's written policies regarding the display and discharge of firearms, he drew his revolver and, when Chewy was approximately three or four feet away from him, fired the weapon, but without any intention of shooting the dog or Ramsey. The bullet hit and shattered the glass door of the business next to Escardo's photography studio. Fortunately, no one was hurt or injured. Ramsey screamed when Respondent fired his revolver. Escardo heard her friend's scream, as well as the shot that preceded it. She rushed out of her studio to see what had happened. Escardo saw Ramsey standing in the middle of the street, with Respondent nearby holding a revolver. After instructing Ramsey to call the police, Escardo walked toward Respondent. Pointing his revolver at Escardo, Respondent warned her to stay away from him. Despite the warning, Escardo, who was unarmed, continued to approach Respondent until she was close enough to push him and the revolver aside. She then turned around and walked toward her studio to wait for the police.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent committed the violations of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in alleged Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining him for having committed these violations by revoking his Class "G" statewide firearms license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of July, 1994. _ STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of July, 1994.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Class "CC" (private investigator intern) license should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Department of State, Division of Licensing's (Department's) May 4, 1992, denial letter to Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is 31 years of age and has resided in Palm Beach County his entire life. He is now, and has been for the last few years, self-employed as certified process server in Palm Beach County. After receiving his certification, he applied for and obtained a State of Florida license to carry a concealed firearm. Petitioner has been married to his present wife for approximately a year. He and his wife have an infant daughter and are expecting another child. This is Petitioner's second marriage. His first marriage ended in a bitter divorce. Petitioner has had several brushes with the law in the past, all of which occurred prior to the termination of his first marriage. In 1980, Petitioner was arrested for, and subsequently charged in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 80-5141CF with, carrying a concealed firearm, resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer. Pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain agreement, Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of resisting arrest with violence and the remaining charges against him were dropped. Adjudication of guilt on the resisting arrest charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on three years probation. In 1984, while still on probation, Petitioner was arrested for, and charged in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 84-4810MM with, possession of under 20 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor. He was adjudicated guilty of this offense after entering a guilty plea to the charge and sentenced to time served. Petitioner's commission of this misdemeanor marijuana possession offense also resulted in a finding that he had violated the conditions of his probation in Case No. 80-5141CF. Based upon this finding, Petitioner's probation was extended an additional two years. In accordance with the recommendation of his probation officer, Petitioner was discharged from his probation on January 9, 1986, more than five months prior to the date it was due to expire. In 1989, Petitioner was separated, but not yet divorced, from his first wife, Theresa. Theresa was living in the home she and Petitioner had shared prior to their separation. Petitioner was living in a trailer on his parent's property. Theresa had changed the locks on the doors in an effort to prevent Petitioner from entering the marital home. She had also obtained a court order enjoining Petitioner from harassing her. In late June or early July of 1989, Petitioner and Theresa reconciled. Theresa gave Petitioner a key to the marital home and invited him to move back in and live with her again. Petitioner accepted the invitation. The couple lived together peaceably and without incident for approximately a week. On the morning of July 8, 1992, however, Petitioner and Theresa had an altercation that abruptly put an end to their reconciliation. The altercation began when, using the key Theresa had given him the week before, Petitioner opened the front door to their home and went inside. Petitioner was tired inasmuch as he had spent a sleepless night in the hospital room of his ill grandmother. He intended to go directly to his bedroom to try to get some sleep. Theresa was home, but she was not alone. She was with another man. As Petitioner walked through the doorway and into the home, Theresa confronted him. She had a firearm in her hand. The gun was pointed in Petitioner's direction and was very close to his face. Petitioner pushed the firearm aside and headed upstairs to his bedroom. Theresa followed close behind Petitioner, threatening to shoot him. In the bedroom was a jewelry box that contained a wedding ring that Petitioner had given Theresa to wear. 1/ Petitioner took the box. He then exited the bedroom, walked downstairs and went out the front door with the jewelry box still in his possession. Theresa unsuccessfully attempted to prevent Petitioner from getting into his car by pulling his hair and trying to choke him. As Petitioner drove off, Theresa shot at his car. Based upon erroneous information provided by Theresa about this incident, Petitioner was arrested for strong armed robbery, breaking and entering by forced entry, battery on a spouse and violating the terms of the injunction that Theresa had obtained against him. 2/ No formal charges, however, were filed against Petitioner as a result of the incident. The aforementioned injunction was subsequently vacated retroactive to the day before the incident. It appears that, although he may have run afoul of the law when he was younger, Petitioner has since matured and transformed himself into a responsible, honest and law-abiding citizen.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner should not be denied licensure as a private investigator intern on the grounds cited in the Department's May 4, 1992, denial letter, as amended at hearing. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of October, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Ernest L. Howey ("Howey"), was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission ("Commission") on June 4, 1970 having been issued Certificate No. 763. At all times material to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent maintained that certification. Respondent was employed as police officer with the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department from January 9, 1984 to February 8, 1989. Respondent was terminated from the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department on February 8, 1989 for conduct prejudicial to the good order of the Department. The grounds for his termination were essentially the same as those alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint in this proceeding. Prior to beginning work with the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department, Respondent was employed by the Sunrise Police Department. While he was with the Sunrise Police Department, Respondent helped build that Department's shooting range and served as an assistant range officer. While serving in this capacity, Respondent held a NRA instructor's certificate and a Class "K" License from the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing. While he was employed with the Sunrise Police Department, Respondent started a private security company called Arm Security and Investigations, Inc. (the "Company"). The Company was and is licensed by the Department of State as a private security company. At all pertinent times, Respondent was the president of the Company and he and his wife were the sole shareholders. In order for the security guards employed by the Company to carry a gun while they were on duty, they were required to have a Class "G" statewide firearm license issued by the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing. To qualify for a Class "G" license, an applicant was required to meet the requirements of Section 493.306(7)(a), Florida Statutes which provides that an applicant must . . .satisfy minimum training criteria for firearms established by rule of the Department [of State], which training criteria may include, but are not limited to, sixteen hours of range and classroom training taught and administered by a firearms instructor who has been licensed by the Department. Prior to October 1, 1986, the statutory training criteria called for eight hours of classroom and range training. See, Chapter 86-193, Laws of Florida (increasing the training requirements to sixteen hours.) At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the administrative criteria implemented by the Department of State required at least six hours of classroom instruction and three hours of firing range instruction under a licensed instructor. To qualify as a firearms instructor for Class "G" license applicants, an instructor had to obtain a Class "K" license. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent possessed a Class "K" license. On or about March 17, 1987, after receiving a complaint from a former employee of Respondent's corporation, the Department of State, Division of Licensing began an investigation into charges of various violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, by Respondent and his corporation. The investigation revealed that during 1985, 1986, and 1987, Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed firearms instructor, certified on the Class "G" license applications for seven of his employees that the employees had received the requisite classroom and firing range training necessary for the license. Each of the certifications executed by Respondent contained the following statement: III certify that the above- named person has satisfactorily completed the prescribed training as set forth in Section 1C-3.27, Rules of the Department of State." In actuality, none of those employees received the training required under the applicable statutes and rules. All seven of the employees admitted that they had not received the full amount of classroom instruction shown on the license application and that they had not received firing range instruction under Respondent's supervision as reflected in the applications. Six of the employees indicated in affidavits that they had never received training on a firing range under Respondent's supervision. The seventh employee indicated that all of his training was conducted in the office of Arm Security. None of the seven employees certified by Respondent received a waiver or exemption from the prescribed training requirements. Respondent contends that he did not certify any applicant whom he did not believe was qualified. Respondent administered a written NRA test to all applicants and each of them passed. Respondent admits that many of the applicants were not trained on the firing range. However, he contends that he did train them in his office using "non-live" ammunition at reduced, close range targets. The ammunition used included a primer, a cartridge and a casing or head made out of wood with a hole in the back of it. There was no powder in the cartridge. Respondent contends that this training procedure enabled him to adequately assess the capabilities of the applicants. However, Respondent never inquired of the Department of State whether this indoor method could serve as a substitute for training on the firing range. In fact, it appears that Respondent was aware or at least strongly suspected that the applicable statute and rules required the shooting of live ammunition by the applicant on a firing range. Moreover, at least two of the applicants denied ever shooting a firearm in the presence of the Respondent. Thus, it is clear that some of the applicants did not even receive this indoor training. As a result of the Department of State's investigation, Respondent was fined $7,000 and his Class "K" Firearm Instructor License was revoked. At least part of the motivation for Respondent's certification of the seven applicants was to enable them to begin functioning immediately as armed security guards for Respondent's company. After the Department of State discovered the falsified applications, the Class "G" licenses issued to the employees were revoked. At least six of the employees filed new applications and were able to satisfactorily complete the prescribed training under a new instructor on the first attempt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of October, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX The Petitioner has submitted a Proposed Recommended Order. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or in the Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5-9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. The second sentence is rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Booth, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ernest L. Howey 5016 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact During the past two years the Petitioner has twice been convicted of the crimes Intoxication and Resisting Arrest. On each occasion he pled guilty and was fined. These two convictions are the only blemishes on the Petitioner's record, other than a Driving While Intoxicated arrest in the 1960's. The Petitioner's wife died approximately three years ago, and it appears that he had some difficulty adjusting to his loss. The Petitioner has been working now for several months as a guard for the Wackenhut Corporation, and has performed admirably. He has received excellent evaluations from his employer. The Petitioner is in all other respects qualified for licensure as an unarmed guard. The fact that the convictions for Intoxication and Resisting Arrest are fairly recent would weigh very strongly against issuance of a gun permit.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Jean M. Duterne (Respondent), committed the violations alleged, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and licensing security officers within the State of Florida. See §§ 493.6101(1) and 493.6118, Fla. Stat. (2010). At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent held Security Officer License D 2526539 (D-license) and Statewide Firearms License G 2800118 (G-license). Prior to being licensed, Petitioner went through security officer training. To that end, Petitioner has read and asserts he understands Chapter 493, Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent was on-duty working as an armed security guard at the JMS Hotel (the hotel), located at 21601 32nd Street, South, St. Petersburg, Florida, on August 20, 2008. Respondent was involved in an incident in the hotel’s parking lot that resulted in police responding to the property. Respondent provided information to police at or near the time of the incident on August 20, 2008. On August 20, 2008, Respondent responded to a call to investigate a possible credit card theft in Room 166 of the hotel. When he presented at the room, Respondent observed a woman sitting in a car parked adjacent to the room and another woman loading items into the car. When Respondent attempted to speak to the woman inside the car, she started the engine and began to exit the property. At that time, Respondent reached into the vehicle and attempted to remove the key from the ignition. It was Respondent’s intention to detain the woman to determine what she was doing. Contrary to Respondent’s effort, the vehicle began to pull away, and Respondent hurriedly pulled himself from harm’s way and stepped back away from the vehicle. In the excitement of the moment, Respondent drew his 9 mm semi-automatic pistol and discharged it, in an effort to hit the tire of the exiting vehicle. Respondent did not hit the tire. It is unknown what, if anything, was struck by the bullet discharged. Respondent’s G-license expired on June 2, 2010. Respondent’s D-license is still valid. The course Respondent took to obtain the G-license required a 28-hour course taught by a state-licensed instructor. The course training includes a manual that contains scenarios for licensees to consider as examples of when one should retreat from potentially dangerous situations. Generally, licensees should avoid using deadly force (equivalent to discharging a firearm) whenever possible. Only under limited situations should a licensee discharge a weapon. To further explain and provide guidance for the use of deadly force, the manual sets forth the following examples: Situation #1 You are guarding a liquor store and are advised by a customer that there is an armed robbery in progress. You look around the corner and see a man rushing out the front door with a firearm in his hand. Instructor Discussion: Instead of immediately looking around the corner, call the police first. The suspect could turn around and see you as you look around the corner, thus increasing the probability of armed conflict. The man is running away from you and there is no threat of death or great bodily injury. Don’t shoot. Situation #2 You have been advised that a burglary has occurred at a warehouse you are guarding. The suspects were observed leaving the scene in a blue, 1972 Dodge. Later that night, while patrolling the grounds in a well- marked security vehicle, you observe the suspects’ vehicle traveling through the parking lot at a high rate of speed with the headlights off. You see a flash come from the driver’s side of the suspects’ vehicle and almost simultaneously the front windshield of your patrol car cracks. The suspect vehicle continues through the parking lot at a high rate of speed. Instructor Discussion: Don’t shoot. Record license number and description of vehicle and suspects if it is possible to do so from a covered position. Pursuit could result in serious injury to you or to innocent bystanders who may get in the way. Call for police as soon as possible. Respondent created the incident in this case by reaching into the vehicle. Had he used the methods outlined in the manual, Respondent would have responded to the room, contacted police with the information concerning the description of the car and its occupants, and followed up by determining whether a theft had occurred. Instead, by injecting himself into the car and attempting to remove the ignition key, Respondent could have easily been injured. Even so, such an injury would not have supported the discharge of Respondent’s weapon in a location where others could have been injured. This is especially true in light of the fact that the vehicle was pulling away from Respondent and not toward him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying the renewal of Respondent’s G-license and placing Respondent’s D-license on probation with such additional terms as the Department might deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Thomas, Esquire 334 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Tracy Sumner, Esquire Division of Licensing Division of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2520 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Constance N. Crawford, Director Division of Licensing Division of Agriculture and Consumer Services Post Office Box 3168 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-3168
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are: Whether The Buxton Group, Incorporated, and Kavin P. Buxton (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Buxton") committed fraud, deceit, negligence, or misconduct, and, if so, whether the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department") may deny the issuance of or revoke various licenses held by Buxton--DOAH Case No. 10-2197; and Whether administrative denial of Buxton's existing Class "G" license is warranted--DOAH Case No. 10-2198.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the issuance and monitoring of various licenses related to the field of private security. It is the Department's responsibility to take disciplinary action against any licensee who violates statutes or rules relating to the licenses issued by the Department. Buxton has held, now holds, or has applied for the following licenses which are issued by the Department: D9414758: A security officer's license which has an expiration date of August 30, 2010; DI9900012: An instructor's license for which Buxton applied for, but was denied renewal; B9400126: A license to operate a security agency. Buxton's license has expired and there is an administrative action pending against it; G9402513: A statewide firearms license. Buxton's license has expired, and his request for renewal has been denied by the Department; A9700094: A private investigative agency license, effective May 19, 2008; and MB9500099: A license to manage a security agency. Buxton's license has expired, and there is an administrative action pending. The basis of the Department's disciplinary actions against Buxton's licenses (and the reason the Department has denied applications for renewals) is an incident occurring on March 27, 2008, in Pinellas Park, Florida. Buxton was on that date working as a security guard for Dew Cadillac, a new and used car dealership. At approximately 5:05 a.m., Buxton was returning to the dealership after taking a coffee break off-site. He was driving his personal automobile down an unpaved track of land on the east side of the dealership. He turned unto an unpaved area at the northern end of the lot at which time he noticed movement around an employee's pick-up truck which was parked in the car lot. It appeared a window of the truck had been broken, and there was glass lying around the outside of the vehicle. Buxton approached the vehicle and found a person (later identified as Mark Lobban) "rummaging around" in the cab of the truck. Buxton noted that two windows had been smashed, and there was a dent in the passenger side door. Buxton ordered Lobban to exit the vehicle. When Lobban came out of the truck, his eyes indicated a drugged or intoxicated state, and he reached his hand into his shirt along the front waistline of his pants. When Buxton saw that movement, he drew his weapon, a Springfield Armory XP 9mm semi-automatic handgun, for which he held a current permit to carry. Lobban took his hand out of his shirt and stated that he was looking for his cousin. Buxton ordered Lobban to the ground and began to dial 9-1-1 as he kept an eye on Lobban. Just as Buxton finished dialing 9-1-1, Lobban allegedly lunged at Buxton, then took off running. Lobban ran behind some Hummer vehicles parked nearby. Buxton says that as Lobban ran, he again reached his hand into his shirt near his waistline. That placed Buxton in fear that Lobban may have a gun, so Buxton ran to another row of Hummers for protection and began firing shots toward Lobban from his own handgun. Lobban then ran past the row of Hummers and appeared to be exiting the premises. Buxton followed Lobban and later recounted in his Firearms Incident Report, that he ran toward Lobban "to insure that the suspect was actually exiting the property. At this point, I felt he was possibly running away. I followed further in an attempt to maintain sight of the suspect." Lobban approached a hedgerow located at the west side of the dealership, attempted to jump over it, but caught his leg and fell over the hedges. By this time, Buxton had cleared the last line of parked vehicles and, thus, had no more cover. When Lobban stood up on the other side of the hedgerow, he turned to face Buxton. Buxton wrote in his report, "Fearing he had drawn a weapon behind the hedge, I fired another round, at which time the suspect turned and fled east, through the wooded area adjacent to the property." Lobban did not at any time display or fire a weapon at Buxton. Buxton returned to his cell phone which he had dropped when first apprehending Lobban. The 911 operator was just calling him back at that moment. Buxton was put through to PPPD and, within minutes, the first officer, Scott Martin, arrived at the dealership. Martin had ensured that a police perimeter was established around the dealership concurrent with his arrival. When Scott got to the dealership, he found Buxton and was briefed as to what had transpired. A brief search of the premises was commenced pending arrival of the PPPD K-9 unit. While awaiting their arrival, Buxton spotted Lobban hiding under a vehicle in the dealership's service area. Lobban was apprehended by Scott and placed in a police cruiser. Scott determined that Lobban was impaired, probably by alcohol, and was essentially incoherent. Scott did an "article search" of the premises to see if any items belonging to Lobban could be found. A cell phone and wallet were recovered, but there was no sign of a firearm. The search did not concentrate on a firearm specifically, but the search was intended to find any item that Lobban had handled. The K-9 unit was able to trace Lobban's scent through the Hummers, across the hedgerow and back to the service area. The search concentrated on the areas where Lobban had been known to have crossed. No search was done of the wooded area behind the hedge, because the tracking dogs did not point to that area as having been traveled by Lobban. Scott reported in to his headquarters after hearing Buxton's explanation of the events that transpired. The discharge of a weapon in that scenario seemed unwarranted to Scott, so he reported it to his supervisor. Within minutes, Detective Doswell arrived at the dealership to further investigate the situation. Doswell arrived to find Lobban already in custody and Buxton standing in the parking lot with another security guard. Buxton told Scott he had fired four shots at Lobban initially and then two more shots after Lobban jumped the hedge. However, there were five shell casings found in the first location and only one near the hedgerow. The events concerned Doswell enough that he asked Buxton to come into headquarters and make a statement about what had occurred. Buxton initially agreed to do so. After a few minutes, however, he handed his cell phone to Doswell so that Doswell could talk to Buxton's attorney. Doswell and the attorney set up a meeting for later that same day, a Thursday. The attorney later called Doswell and said he and Buxton could not come in until the next day (Friday), so the meeting was rescheduled for that day. On Friday, March 28, 2010, Buxton and his attorney arrived at the PPPD headquarters. Doswell informed Buxton that he was investigating the event as a probable illegal discharge of a firearm and that criminal charges could be filed. Buxton was not read his Miranda rights at that time however, in that no charges had yet been filed. At some point, Doswell determined that Buxton had been involved in another incident relating to the discharge of his firearm while on duty. In that case, Buxton was working at a bowling alley when a group of kids attempted to "jump him." One kid spit on Buxton and during the brief confrontation, Buxton pulled his firearm. Buxton discharged his gun, firing into the ceiling of the establishment (because, said Buxton, someone hit his arm just as he was shooting. Buxton did not say what he was aiming at when he fired.). After interviewing Buxton and his attorney, Doswell revisited Dew Cadillac and did some further investigation. Fragments of bullets from Buxton's firearm had been recovered from the tires of two Hummers on the car lot. In order to obtain licenses which allow a person to use a firearm in conducting their authorized activities, a person must undergo a background check and certain training and education. The Class "D" license held by Buxton required 40 hours of training (which can be dispensed with if the applicant has prior corrections or law enforcement experience). The training necessarily included instruction from the Firearm Instructor's Training Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual specifically warns against the unauthorized use of deadly force, i.e., discharging a firearm at an individual. The Manual stresses the need to retreat and disengage, rather than entering into a situation that might require using the firearm. Several examples are set out in the Manual to provide applicants guidance about how to avoid using deadly force. Two of those examples follow: Situation #1: You are guarding a liquor store and are advised by a customer that there is an armed robbery in progress. You look around the corner and see a man rushing out the front door with a firearm in his hand. Instructor Discussion: Instead of immediately looking around the corner, call the police first. The suspect could turn around and see you as you look around the corner, thus, increasing the probability of armed conflict. The man is running away from you, and there is no threat of death or great bodily injury. Don't shoot. Situation #2: You have been advised that a burglary has occurred at a warehouse you are guarding. The suspects were observed leaving the scene in a blue, 1972 Dodge. Later that night, while patrolling the grounds in a well-marked security vehicle, you observe the suspects' vehicle traveling through the parking lot at a high rate of speed with the headlights off. You see a flash come from the driver's side of the suspect's vehicle and, almost simultaneously, the front windshield of your patrol car cracks. The suspect vehicle continues through the parking lot at a high rate of speed. Instructor Discussion: Don't shoot. Record the license number and description of the vehicle and suspects if it is possible to do so from a covered position. Pursuit could result in serious injury to you or to innocent bystanders who may get in the way. Call for police as soon as possible. According to the expert testimony at final hearing (which was not rebutted or contradicted by Buxton), each of the above-described situations is more egregious than the one Buxton encountered at Dew Cadillac. It is clear that discharge of a firearm in Buxton's situation would be contrary to the guidance provided in the training materials. Each of the facts stated herein are based upon the testimony of live witnesses and written statements from police and investigative reports. Each of the witnesses appeared knowledgeable about his area of testimony, and each was credible. Buxton provided no evidence to contest or rebut any of the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services denying Buxton's licensure application for License No. G9402513 and taking such action as the Department deems appropriate as to each of Buxton's other licenses issued by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 10th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Stop 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Tracy Sumner, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Post Office Box 3168 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-3168 Kavin P. Buxton Post Office Box 13644 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent Agency is a Florida-licensed (Class "A" license number A88- 00297 private investigative agency. Respondent Foreman is the owner of the Agency. He is a Florida-licensed (Class "C" license number C00-02486) private investigator. He has been licensed for approximately the past 20 years. At no time during the period of his licensure has the Department taken any disciplinary action against him. At around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of September 30, 1994, Foreman interrupted his work schedule to drive a male tenant living in an apartment that he owned (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant") to the Henderson Mental Health Clinic, an outpatient mental health facility located in Broward County, Florida. The Tenant needed to receive treatment at the clinic. After parking his vehicle, Foreman escorted the Tenant to the reception area of the facility. Foreman was wearing a gun belt and a holster. A loaded firearm was encased in the holster. It was a warm day and Foreman did not have on a jacket. 2/ Consequently, the holstered firearm was in plain view. At the time, Foreman had a Department-issued Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, but he did not have a Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit. 3/ Detective Joel Maney of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was working a uniformed off-duty security detail at Henderson Mental Health Clinic that morning. From his position behind the reception counter, Detective Maney observed Foreman enter the reception area with the Tenant and noticed that Foreman was carrying a firearm. Not wanting to cause a disturbance inside the facility, Detective Maney did not immediately confront Foreman. He did, however, monitor Foreman's activity. After informing the receptionist that the Tenant had arrived and was waiting to be seen, Foreman left the facility. Detective Maney followed Foreman outside. As Foreman was walking on the sidewalk toward his vehicle, Detective Maney approached him and asked for identification. Foreman responded to the request by stating that he was a detective/investigator and that he did not have time to talk inasmuch as he was in the middle of an investigation. Eventually, Foreman produced his Florida driver license, his Class "C" Private Investigator License, and his Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License for Detective Maney. He also showed Detective Maney a five-pointed, star-shaped badge. In the center of the badge was a replica of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The words, "Special Investigator Foreman Investigative," were inscribed around the seal. When Detective Maney first saw the badge, he thought it was a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge because of its shape and because it bore the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Unlike a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge, however, Foreman's badge did not have a map of Florida superimposed on the seal. Moreover, the written inscription on the badge was different than that found on a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge. Throughout the period that he has been licensed, Foreman has used this badge as a means of identifying himself in connection with the performance of his duties as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent Foreman committed the violations alleged in Counts II and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, disciplining Respondent Foreman him for having committed these violations by imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue for consideration in these cases is whether the licenses held by Respondents should be disciplined in some manner because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein by the Department of State's Division of Licensing.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc., was licensed in Florida as a "Class B" Security Agency holding license number B98-00127. Respondent William Larue Scott, was the President/Manager of UCP and held a "Class D' security officer license number D93- 19846, a "Class G" statewide firearms license number G94- 03199, and a "Class ZB" organizational officer position license number ZB98-00179. William Shane Scott, son of William Larue Scott and an employee of UCP, held a "Class D" security officer license number D96-07113, a "Class ZB" organizational officer position license number ZB98-00180, and a "Class G" statewide firearms license number G97-01150. The Department of State, Division of Licensing, was then and is the state agency responsible for the licensing of non- certified security personnel and agencies and for the regulation of the non-governmental security industry in Florida. On June 7, 2000, Garry Floyd, an investigator with the Division since 1981, received a complaint that two security officers from UCP had been observed by security officers from another security firm working at a site while carrying unauthorized weapons. Security officers are authorized to carry certain weapons but not nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistols. Upon receipt of the complaint, Mr. Floyd sent a telefax message to UCP's President/Manager, Mr. William L. Scott, asking for an explanation. The following day, an individual who identified himself as Mr. William L. Scott, called and said he had received Mr. Floyd's message and was looking into the matter. At this point, Mr. Scott said he was one of the two security officers involved but that he and his associate were carrying revolvers, not semi-automatic weapons. Thereafter, on June 11, 2000, Mr. Scott sent Mr. Floyd a telefaxed memorandum in which he reiterated his denial of the allegations as to the weapons carried, explained that the allegations occurred because of animosity toward his firm, and requested the investigation be terminated because of a lack of evidence. On June 27, 2000, Mr. Floyd met with Robert Shank, the other security officer alleged to have been carrying the unauthorized weapon and questioned him about the allegations. Shank vehemently denied the allegations and continued to do so even after Floyd said he did not believe him. On July 3, 2000, Mr. Floyd went to Mr. Scott's home where Scott maintained UCP's home office. Though Floyd went there with the intention of speaking with Mr. Scott, he was unable to do so and spoke, instead, with Mrs. Scott, whom he asked to have Mr. Scott call him. Mr. Scott did not call as requested, however. Thereafter, on July 17, 2000, Mr. Floyd went to UCP's new office, but because so many other people were there, so as not to embarrass Mr. Scott, he made an appointment to come back on August 2, 2000. When Mr. Floyd spoke with Mr. Scott on August 2, 2000, he gave Mr. Scott a list of questions he had written down. Scott said he was not ready to admit anything and would not answer any questions, orally or in writing. As of the hearing, Mr. Scott had not answered any of the questions posed by Mr. Floyd. The questions are simple. They ask, primarily, about the ownership of the company and the positions held therein by both Scott and his son, as well as whether he has ever allowed any employee to carry semi-automatic weapons. Mr. Floyd also met with Eric Hege, an employee of UCP, and provided him with a list of eight questions, two of which concerned the type of firearms carried by Mr. Scott. However, Mr. Hege refused to answer the questionnaire. This stymied Mr. Floyd's investigation, and he could proceed no further with it. However, sometime during the first week of July, 2000, Mr. Floyd received a complaint from a local police department that UCP was using an unlawful scheme of colored lights on its vehicles. When he went to various places where ICP's vehicles were located, he saw that they did have unlawfully colored lights which could give the impression they were official police vehicles. One vehicle had a green light on the seat, and another had a blue light. Blue lights are not allowed on civilian vehicles. Only amber-colored emergency lights are allowed on civilian vehicles. Mr. Shank previously held a license to carry a semi- automatic weapon, but not during the period he was employed performing security duties for Respondent. He surrendered that license after he, too, was charged with carrying an unauthorized weapon. Though he was not licensed to do so, while he was on duty with UCP, he carried a semi-automatic weapon or, in the alternative, a revolver. He started carrying the revolver so that he would not violate the law. Mr. Shank is certain that William L. Scott knew he was carrying an unauthorized weapon because Scott purchased revolvers for himself and the others in July 2000, so they would not be in violation of the law. When Shank had pointed out that the semi-automatic weapons were against state law, William L. Scott replied, "Fuck the State. The statutes don't mean anything." On June 2, 2000, Mr. Shank, with William L. Scott's son and several other employees of UCP, was working as a security officer at The Harbor Club in Pinellas County. At that time he was carrying a semi-automatic weapon, as was Mr. Scott's son. He was of the opinion at the time that William L. Scott's approach was to violate the law regarding weapons and deny it if caught. In late July or early August 2000, William L. Scott held a meeting of his employees at which time he instructed them, among other things, that if Mr. Floyd were to contact them about the incident at The Harbor Club, they were not to give him any information. He also provided each security officer with a letter which instructed them, in the event they were contacted by any personnel from the Division of Licensing, to immediately notify their supervisor and to advise the state personnel that they could not be distracted from their duties. Employees were not to speak with a state employee until a supervisor had relieved him, nor were they ever to hand over their firearms to an inspector unless properly relieved. Investigators were to be referred to the company's attorney, and if the investigator refused to leave, the police were to be called. Mr. Shank has also performed services for UCP using a vehicle with green and red flashing lights on the roof. So have both Scotts and Mr. Hege. Mr. Shank was subsequently charged with driving a vehicle with improper lights as well as carrying a semi-automatic weapon. William L. Scott and Mr. Shank had a falling out over money in early September 2000. Shank then called Mr. Floyd to tell him what he knew of the allegations because he felt it was the right thing to do. When Boin Upton, at the time an employee of Excelsior Defense, also a security firm, came to work at The Harbor Club on June 2, 2000, he found representatives of UCP already were there. He thought this was unusual because he understood that his company had the contract to provide security for the club. He called his supervisor who came to the club and resolved the issue. A the time, however, he noticed that both Mr. Shank and William L. Scott, the two representatives of UCP, were carrying nine-millimeter semi- automatic weapons. When Mr. Upton asked about this, he was told by Mr. Shank that he had a "CC" waiver. A "CC" license is one which is issued to an apprentice private investigator and does not authorize the carrying of a semi-automatic weapon. Joshua Wilson also was a security guard who worked for UCP from July 7 through the end of August 2000, and whose duty stations were at the Lutz Apartment complex and at The Harbor Club. His job was to observe and report and to keep the peace, and he was not armed. However, he observed William S. Scott, William L. Scott's son carrying a nine- millimeter semi-automatic weapon at The Harbor Club during this period. Mr. Wilson recalls a staff meeting held by Mr. Scott during this period at which Mr. Scott discussed the investigation being conducted by the Division. At this meeting, he gave each employee a copy of the memorandum which advised employees not to talk with anyone from the Division but to refer them to a UCP supervisor. Scott indicated his opinion that Mr. Floyd had declared war on UCP and him, and he would not help him. Another former employee of UCP, Mr. Phelps, also recalls being told directly by Mr. Scott that if an investigator from the Division contacted him with questions about the company, he was not to answer them. In mid-June 2000, Officer Jim Routzahn of the Indian Shore Police Department conducted a routine traffic stop of William L. Scott. Mr. Scott got out of his vehicle wearing a uniform and badge and carrying a semi-automatic weapon. Scott's badge was in the form of a shield and not a star. Mr. Scott advised Officer Routzhan that he was the owner of a security company and was on official duty dropping off and picking up security officers. At the time, because Officer Routzahn received a high-priority call to go elsewhere, he gave Mr. Scott a warning and let him go. According to Mr. Floyd, a search of the records of the Division of Licensing fails to show any prior complaints against either UCP or either Mr. Scott. However, the records reflect William L. Scott was previously denied a license based on a conviction in Indiana. Mr. Floyd has known William L. Scott from when he, Mr. Floyd, was an investigator for another agency. During that former investigation, he found Mr. Scott to be very personable, helpful, and cooperative. Mr. Floyd, a retired Captain of Police from Tampa, considers this case to be serious because it involves the impersonation of a policeman. Based on his experience, "wanna-be's" constitute one of the biggest problems facing law enforcement, and even if the only issue here were related to the inappropriate use of colored lights on UCP's vehicles, he would still have filed an Administrative Complaint in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order revoking the Class "B" Security Agency License number B98-00127, the Class "D" Security Officer License number D93-19846, the Class "G" Statewide Firearms License number G94-03199, and the Class "ZB" Organization Officer Position, number ZB98-00179, all licenses held by William Larue Scott as President/Manager of Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc., be revoked. It is further recommended that the Class "G" Statewide Firearms License number G97-01150, held by William Shane Scott be placed on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Bensko, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondents' Class B, Class D, Class G and Class MB security licenses should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of private security guards and guard agencies in Florida. Respondent held a Class B Security Agency license, a Class D Security Officer license, a Class G Statewide Firearm license, and a Class MB Security Agency Manager license, all issued pursuant to and under the restrictions contained within the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Though the Class B Security Agency license was issued in the name of Alert Security Services, in reality, Respondent Maraia was the proprietor and operator of the agency under the license. Peter F. Walker was employed as the assistant manager of the 7 - 11 convenience store in Indian Shores, Florida on July 21, 1993. About 11:30 PM, that evening, he observed Respondent in the store about 8 to 20 feet away, wearing his security guard uniform shirt with khaki shorts. A patch on the shoulder of the shirt bore the logo, "Alert Security." As another customer was checking out, Mr. Walker heard a gunshot and then something hitting the floor. At this point, only Mr. Walker, his customer, and the Respondent were in the store. When Walker asked the Respondent about it, Respondent replied that a customer had come up behind him and was trying to take Respondent's weapon from the holster he had stuck in the waistband in the back of his shorts. Respondent claimed that when this happened, the clip from the weapon fell to the floor and one round in the clip went off. Later on, however, Respondent claimed the weapon had dropped and fired when it hit the floor. As Mr. Walker remembers it, however, he heard the shot before anything hit the floor. Patrolman Angela Cole had just pulled into the 7 - 11 parking lot late on the evening of July 21, 1993 when she heard a pop - as if someone had run over a bottle. She checked around the area and seeing nothing unusual, went into the store where she saw the clerk and the Respondent, whom she knew. Respondent was wearing a security badge and carrying a 9 mm weapon in plain view. When Cole spoke with Respondent and asked him why he wasn't in proper security guard uniform, because his dress that evening was not consistent with his usual security uniform, he indicated he was not feeling well. In response to her inquiry regarding the noise she had heard, and why he had the weapon in plain view, Respondent claimed he had dropped his weapon and he and the clerk were joking about it. At this point, however, Respondent seemed nervous and didn't want to discuss the matter further. Also about the same time, Patrolman Vance Nussbaum, of the Indian Shores Police Department entered the store to see Respondent, who had his 9 mm weapon in plain view and was wearing a security badge, engaged in conversation with the store clerk. The pistol was in a holster tucked into Respondent's pants in the back. Nussbaum took hold of the gun and shook it and then chastened Respondent for poor gun safety. At that point, Respondent indicated someone had just hit the magazine release on the weapon and the magazine fell to the floor. That individual was no longer in the area, however. Taken together, it is clear that on the evening in question, Respondent's 9 mm pistol, which was in his possession at the time, was somehow discharged. No report of this weapon discharge was ever filed with the Division, however. On May 23, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to the Holiday Villas II in Indian Shores. Upon his arrival at the scene, he saw June Hawks, who he knew to be a part-time security guard employed by Respondent, on duty in the resort's parking lot after a fire alarm had been sounded. This same activity was also observed, the following day, by E. D. Williams, Chief of the Indian Shores Police Department who presumed Ms. Hawks was working for Respondent. Chief Williams drew this conclusion because he had seen Respondent doing this work at the resort the night before and assumed the same firm was still in charge. On August 2, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to a Pick-Kwick in Madiera Beach based on a call about a drunk individual which call had come in to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office from an individual who described himself as Chris "Myers", a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. It is found that Chris "Myers" is, in actuality, the Respondent, Christopher Maraia, who had represented himself as a reserve police officer. This call was sent out to street units for response, thereby impacting on police operations in the area. When Nussbaum arrived at the scene, he observed Respondent, fully dressed in the uniform of a security guard, with patches, badge and weapon, in the company of a Madiera Beach Police Officer. At one time, Respondent had been a reserve officer with the Indian Shores Police Department but that status had terminated in December 1992. Keith Stillwagen had been employed by Mr. Maraia, off and on, for several years, but worked for him primarily as a security guard at the 34th Street Food Lion market in St. Petersburg between January and March, 1993. He was hired by Mr. Maraia personally, and the identification card Maraia issued to him bore Maraia's signature and license number. This employment was not reported to the Division as required. These allegations were investigated by Gary Floyd, an investigator with the Department of State, who initially interviewed Respondent regarding the alleged hiring of Ms. Hawks and Mr. Stillwagen. In a sworn statement to the investigator, Respondent indicated Alert Security Services had hired Stillwagen on weekends from January to March, 1993, and had also employed Hawks on holidays between April and June, 1993. He admitted that the firm did not notify the Department of State about the hirings and could give "no good reason" for failing to do so as required. In another sworn statement given to Investigator Floyd, Respondent indicated he had worked at Holiday Villas II on July 21, 1993 and had, while out of uniform but wearing a badge on his belt, visited a nearby 7 - 11 store. He admitted that at the time he had a 9 mm pistol with him and it had accidentally discharged when he dropped it. Respondent denied anyone had grabbed for the weapon. He did not report the discharge. On August 9, 1993, Floyd took a third statement from Respondent in which he admitted making the call about the drunk and initially indicating he was a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. He acknowledged this was not a true statement in that he had not held that status for a year and a half at the time. The following day, August 10, 1993, Respondent reiterated his statement to Floyd that he had been at the 7 - 11 when leaving a duty station and claimed he was not in uniform at the time. While he may not have been in full uniform, other credible evidence of record indicates he was dressed in a uniform shirt which bore the patch of his security guard; was displaying a security officer's badge; and was armed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case, dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, but finding Respondent, Maraia, guilty of Counts III, V and VI thereof and Respondent, Alert Security Services, guilty of Count I. It is also recommended that the Class "D", "G", and "MB" security licenses held by Respondents, Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. be revoked; that the C lass "B" license held by Respondent, Alert Security Services, be suspended for one year; and that Respondents jointly and severally pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Stop 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. Alert Security Services 15518 Redington Drive, Redington Beach, Florida 33708 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
