The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's private investigator licenses should be revoked based on conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail contained in an Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein mailed October 11, 1985. Preliminary Statement The Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing, issued an Administrative Complaint to assess an Administrative fine against Respondent Arthur Letourneau, on November 9, 1984. The complaint was amended on March 5, 1985. A second amended complaint was issued on October 11, 1985 seeking revocation of Respondent's license. That complaint is the charging document which is the focus of this hearing. That document alleges as follows: Count I: The Respondent operated a private investigative agency for hire utilizing unlicensed investigators and process servers prior to becoming licensed as a Class "A" agency in violation of Sections 493.319(1)(g) and 493.304(1), Florida Statutes. Count II: The Respondent performed the services of a Private Investigator for hire without a Class "C" license in violation of Section 493.319(1)(g); Count III: Respondent has incurred and has failed to satisfy two judgments for outstanding fees for private investigations which constitute misconduct under Section 493.319(1)(f). The investigations were performed by David Tracy and Anthony Luizzi and judgments and fees are outstanding in the amount of $5,314.44 (Tracy) and $1,731.00 (Luizzi). At the hearing, Respondent's Counsel filed an ore tenus Motion for Continuance of the hearing based on a claimed lack of timely notice to prepare for the hearing. Respondent's Motion was tentatively denied. 1/ Additionally, Respondent's Counsel challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, alleging, inter alia that the referenced statute violated Respondent's due process in that the statute was overbroad, ambiguous and may involve the prohibition of innocuous activities. Counsel also alleged that the statutes as enacted violated Respondent's First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. Finally, Respondent's counsel averred that conduct proscribed by Section 493.301, F.S. involved conduct which although improper to be engaged in by an unlicensed investigator, is the type conduct considered permissible by attorneys utilizing the services of investigators. The undersigned lacks authority to render determinations of the alleged unconstitutionality of statutes and therefore denied Respondent's Motion to Dismiss based on the alleged unconstitutionality of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material, the Petitioner, Division of Licensing is the state agency having authority and jurisdiction to license and regulate private investigators and private investigative agencies pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Arthur Leteurneau, applied for a Class "C" private investigator's license and a Class "A" private investigative agency's license on April 9, 1984. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The applied for licenses were issued to Respondent on September 21, 1984. Respondent holds Class "A" private investigative agency's license No. GA8400007 and Class "C" private investigation's license No. GC0400013, both effective September 21, 1984. Prior to his licensure in Florida, Respondent worked (in Florida) for various attorneys and law offices in Dade and Broward counties. (TR 211-225; Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent performed a variety of services for said attorneys including the photographing of accident scenes, taking sworn witness statements, locating the whereabouts of witnesses and other persons and service of legal process. Additionally, while working for attorney Richard Auerbach, Respondent recruited two other individuals, Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy to assist him in the performance of investigative work. David Tracy worked with Respondent from January thru September, 1983. (TR 91-95). Respondent gave Tracy specific work assignments such as the taking of witness statements, photographing accident scenes and completing client's interview sheets. At the time Tracy performed the services, he was not licensed as a investigator or as an intern. Tracy worked without a surety bond or insurance. A dispute arose between Respondent and Tracy concerning the payment of fees for Tracy's services. Tracy filed a claim against Respondent in Circuit Court, Broward County, regarding the payment for services and on September 18, 1984, a judgment was entered in his behalf in the amount of $5,314.44 for services rendered. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, TR 100-103). That judgment was outstanding at the time of this hearing. (TR 107). Anthony Liuzzi began working with Respondent in July, 1883 and continued through September, 1983. At the time Liuzzi was a licensed investigator intern and was working under the sponsorship and insurance of the Intercounty Investigative Agency. (TR 133). Liuzzi, like Tracy, also assisted Respondent in completing work assignments including taking pictures of accident scenes, researching property ownership, interviewing clients and taking witness statements relating to personal injury claims. Like Tracy, Liuzzi also had a dispute with Respondent over fees for his services and filed a claim in Circuit Court for unpaid wages in the amount $1,731.00. Liuzzi received a judgment against Respondent in the amount climbed which was unsatisfied at the time of the hearing herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; TR 138- 139). Prior to his licensure, Respondent spoke to several employees employed by Petitioner concerning the requirements for and his need to obtain an investigator's license in circumstances similar to the arrangements he had with the several lawyers for whom he performed investigative work. Excluding employee Pam Pingree, Respondent was advised (by Petitioner's staff) that he was not required to be licensed by Petitioner. Ms. Pingree advised Respondent that although it was not required that he be licensed, inasmuch as he was eligible for licensure and to remove any cloud concerning the need for him to be licensed, he should apply for and obtain a license. Respondent first spoke to Petitioner's employee Seymour Klosky on August 20, 1980. During the meeting with Klosky, Respondent also net with John Bianco, an investigator employed by Petitioner. Respondent later met with Harvey Matthews, also an employee of Petitioner, who related that what he was doing was permissible based on Respondent's detailed description of the manner in which he conducted assignments for the various attorneys. Respondent met with Matthews on October 8, 1983 and on February 9, 1984. TR 207-208. During the February 9, 1984 meeting with Matthews, Respondent requested a meeting with Pam Pingree who advised him of Petitioner's policy with respect to the need for licensure to engage in the type work that he was performing for attorneys. Ms. Pingree related that it "wasn't the policy of the Department to prosecute people if they have the qualification [Respondent] had, why don't he [Respondent] get a license." (TR 208). Respondent agreed to, and in fact applied for licenses, as indicated, on April 9, 1984. Respondent's application for licensure was investigated by Petitioner's employee Richard Chauncy. Respondent was investigated by investigator Chauncy on April 10, 1984. During the investigation, Respondent offered his experiences with law firms in Dade and Broward Counties as examples of the investigative experience he had. Additionally, Respondent listed his experience as a Deputy Sheriff with the Cook County Sheriff's office in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent was employed by the Cook County Sheriff's office from December 1970 thru July, 1979 as a Deputy Sheriff. Respondent also served as a private investigator in Chicago from the period June, 1970 to October, 1981 as a self employed private investigator on a part time basis. Petitioner was well aware of the fact that Respondent conducted private investigative work for various law firms in the Miami area during a period in which he was not licensed as a private investigator or licensed to conduct a private investigative agency. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Additionally, Petitioner was aware that Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy had filed complaints against Respondent based on the dispute for unpaid wages which is the subject of the amended administrative complaint filed herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Page 3, Section v.) Additionally, Liuzzi had filed with Respondent at least three complaint letters which were the subject of investigation by Petitioner, prior to the time Respondent filed his application for licensure. (Respondent's Exhibits 1, 3 and 4). The judgments, which are the subject of the amended administrative complaint, were entered shortly (three days) prior to Respondent's licensure. The operative facts forming the basis for the issuance of the judgments involve the disputed wage claims of Anthony Liuzzi and David Tracy. Respondent was qualified to hold a private investigative and private investigator's agency license based on the experience requirements set forth in Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes (1985). Petitioner's policy is to "take disciplinary action against an applicant who performs investigative services without a license, generally in the form of an administrative fine, and at the same time grant an otherwise qualified person a license." (TR 26-28, Testimony of Petitioner's Division Director, Shelley Bradshaw). All of the work performed by Respondent, which is the basis of the complaint filed herein, was work performed prior to Respondent's licensure either as a private investigator or a private investigative agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1986.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner's rule challenge petition should be dismissed for failure to present issues that meet the requirements of Sections 120.56(1), 120.56(3), and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, and if so, whether Respondent is entitled to an award of costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Sections 120.569(2)(e), 120.595(3), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for a Class "C" private investigator license on or about May 15, 2000. By letter dated September 5, 2000, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application for a Class "C" license as a private investigator was denied. The letter stated as follows in relevant part: Failure to qualify under Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. You have not demonstrated the necessary lawfully gained, verifiable, full-time experience or appropriate training. Your application is therefore being denied. Petitioner filed a request for an administrative hearing with Respondent on or about September 13, 2000. He filed an amended request for hearing with Respondent on or about September 15, 2000. On September 27, 2000, Respondent issued an Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend. This order referenced Rule 28-106.201(2), Florida Administrative Code, and found that Petitioner's hearing request was substantially deficient because it did not contain the following: An explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interest will be affected by the agency determination; A statement of disputed issues of material fact. The Petitioner has not disputed the material facts at issue in this case; which is whether the Petitioner provided the Division with information which the Division could then verify. Verification is achieved by actually speaking with the persons provided by an applicant to obtain information as to what duties were performed and to obtain a percentage of the time worked which involved investigative work. Petitioner provided information concerning former employers in the Affidavit of Experience section of the application. After submitting the application, Petitioner submitted an affidavit from an investigator, however that investigator was not Petitioner's employer and therefore not in the position to verify Petitioner's experience. For the first time, in Petitioner's requests for a hearing, Petitioner submits information concerning a former career in executive recruiting consisting of an affidavit, notarized in Maryland, of a former co- worker. This information was never provided to the Division and is not listed anywhere on the application submitted by Petitioner nor is there any way to verify any of the information in that affidavit as the affiant's address and telephone number are not provided. In his petitions for hearing Petitioner has raised only legal issues which are not legally the forum of a formal administrative hearing. Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes . . . . A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; A statement of the specific rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action . . . . (Emphasis added) Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend also determined that: (a) Petitioner's hearing requests improperly mixed rule validity challenge arguments for Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, proceedings with disputed material fact arguments for proceedings under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes; (b) Petitioner's argument that his Juris Doctorate training and related legal work experience met the statutory requirements of Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes, was a statutory construction/legal argument presented in the guise of factual issues; (c) The Division of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction to decide constitutional validity arguments in a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding; and (d) Petitioner's argument that he is entitled to licensure by default due to the failure of the agency to meet the 90-day time requirement of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, is a legal issue in light of the tolling provision of Section 493.6108, Florida Statutes. In a footnote to the Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend, Respondent referred to two documents that Respondent attached as a courtesy to Petitioner. The first document was Respondent's Opinion Letter No. 92-50. This letter responded to a specific inquiry, determining that an attorney, who was not a member of the Florida Bar and who wanted to perform sub-contract investigative work for a licensed private investigation agency, was not exempt under Section 493.6102(6), Florida Statutes, from having to separately qualify for "C" licensure requirements. The second document was Respondent's internal memorandum, identified herein as Opinion No. 92-4. This memorandum determined that legal training and work experience of attorneys do not automatically qualify them for a Class "C" license. Instead, each application should be considered on a case-by-case basis. On October 10, 2000, Petitioner filed his Request for Formal Administrative Hearing, citing Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, as authority to challenge certain of Respondent's rules and statements defined as rules. Petitioner claims that Respondent routinely applies heightened scrutiny to applications submitted by attorneys, persons who are qualified to be attorneys, or others who have research and investigative skills but no actual police or criminal justice experience. Petitioner's hearing request first argues that Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend, together with its attachments, all of which are referenced above, set forth policies having the effect of rules. In Petitioner's "First Rule Challenge," he argues that Respondent's interpretation of the time limitations for processing license applications in Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, together with Respondent's interpretation of the tolling provisions of Section 493.6108(1), Florida Statutes, constitute a rule. Petitioner concludes that Respondent is without delegated legislative authority to extend the 90-day application processing time of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, unless Respondent does not receive the fingerprint investigation report required by Section 493.6108(1), Florida Statutes, prior to the expiration of the 90-day processing period. Petitioner's "Second Rule Challenge" argues that Respondent's Opinion No. 92-4, a memorandum dated January 23, 1992, constitutes a rule because: (a) Respondent uses the opinion to define the "practice of law"; and (b) Respondent relies on the opinion in refusing to recognize experience gained by lawyers in the practice of their profession unless the lawyer was engaged in "full-time investigative work." However, Respondent concludes by acknowledging that the opinion recommends a case-by-case analysis of each attorney's application to determine whether the attorney has the experience and training required by Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's "Third Rule Challenge" also argues that Respondent's Opinion No. 92-4 constitutes a rule. According to Petitioner, Respondent relies on the opinion to find that an attorney, even if a member of the Florida Bar, lacks creditable "college coursework related to criminal justice, criminology, or law enforcement administration." See Section 493.6203(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner concludes that Respondent does not have authority to interpret the meaning of the statutory term, "related to," so narrowly. Petitioner's hearing request did not include a "Fourth Rule Challenge." Petitioner's "Fifth Rule Challenge" states that Respondent's Opinion Letter No. 92-50, dated October 20, 1992, is an unpromulgated rule. Petitioner claims that Respondent relies on this opinion to set broad policy concerning the agency's treatment of the experience and educational qualification of unlicensed attorneys. Petitioner states that the opinion infringes on the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Bar. Petitioner asserts that he is substantially affected because he is an unlicensed attorney. Petitioner's "Sixth Rule Challenge" states that Respondent's Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend is an unpromulgated rule. Specifically, Petitioner claims Respondent created a rule by refusing to credit applicants with work experience that is not "verifiable by actually speaking with the persons provided by an applicant to obtain information as to what duties were performed and to obtain a percentage of the time worked which involved investigative work." According to Petitioner, Respondent has no authority to establish such an agency specific meaning of the common term, "verifiable experience." Petitioner's "Seventh Rule Challenge" argues that Respondent has adopted a special meaning for the term "private investigation" which contravenes the statute. Petitioner takes issue with Respondent's interpretation of "private investigation" as defined in Section 493.6101(17), Florida Statutes. Petitioner also challenges Respondent's interpretation of the experience requirement of Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has withdrawn his "Eighth Rule challenge" regarding the validity of Rule 1C-3.100(3)(a), Florida Administrative.
Findings Of Fact In 1993, Respondent Carl Clausen, along with some acquaintences, was interested in opening a private investigative business or becoming associated with a private investigative agency. Mr. Clausen had an extensive background in police investigative and security work and was well qualified to be licensed as a private investigator. In pursuit of getting into the business of private investigations, Mr. Clausen attended a business recruiting meeting held by a private investigative company on March 19, 1993. Ms. Bronson, owner of Prosearch International, then the holder of a valid Class A Private Investigative Agency license, also attended the meeting where she met Respondent. After the meeting, Ms. Bronson and Respondent discussed various ways he might became associated with her investigative agency in order to expand the services Prosearch could offer potential clients. These discussions included buying part or all of Prosearch. At some point after the recruiting meeting, Ms. Gentry, a local attorney in Tallahassee, Florida, was appointed to represent a man accused of murder in Quincy, Gadsden County, Florida. Ms. Gentry felt the defense team needed an experienced investigator who could effectively work within a predominately minority community in Quincy. Ms. Gentry contacted Ed Rawls about possibly working the case. However, Mr. Rawls was a reserve Gadsden County Sheriff's Deputy, and had an obvious conflict in investigating the case for Ms. Gentry. Mr. Rawls recommended Mr. Clausen as a potential investigator. Ms. Gentry called Mr. Clausen on March 24, 1993, and requested that he come the next day for an interview. On March 25, 1993, Mr. Clausen asked Ms. Bronson to meet him for lunch to discuss her employing him as an intern private investigator. An intern private investigator holds a Class "CC" license once the sponsorship becomes effective. Eventually, the intern can obtain a Class "C" investigative license. Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson met for lunch and Ms. Bronson agreed to sponsor Mr. Clausen. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Bronson about his scheduled meeting with Ms. Gentry. Soon after the meeting, Ms. Bronson left town to take care of some personal matters. After lunch, Mr. Clausen went directly to Ms. Gentry's office for the meeting she had scheduled. Ms. Gentry interviewed Respondent to determine whether he had the experience and ability to perform the investigation she felt was necessary to prepare for her client's murder trial. Ms. Gentry discussed some general details of the case with Respondent in order to more fully assess Respondent's abilities to investigate her case should the Respondent become licensed as an investigator. Respondent did not receive the case file from Ms. Gentry, nor did Respondent receive information such as addresses which would have enabled him to begin an investigation. Ms. Gentry felt that Mr. Clausen was very well qualified. At the initial meeting Respondent made it very clear to Ms. Gentry that he would not begin any investigation until he was properly licensed or could conduct the investigation under one of the exemption categories in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, such as an employee for an attorney. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry he was not at present in business as a private investigator, but that he wanted to be and was working on the prospect. However, Ms. Gentry did not want to deal with the paperwork or potential liability of an employment relationship with Mr. Clausen. Therefore, Mr. Clausen needed to become licensed as quickly as possible so that the investigation could begin. Respondent and Ms. Gentry met again on March 30, 1993. However, the meeting contered on the quickest way Respondent could become licensed as an investigator. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry that his license would most likely be in order April 2, 1993, when Ms. Bronson, through Prosearch, would return to formalize his application at the Department of State for the internship. In short, Mr. Clausen would have a Class "CC" license. Prior to licensure as a Class "C" or "CC" licensee, Respondent did not advertise or solicit any investigative business on his behalf. Respondent only participated in an employment interview for future employment after he was licensed and discussed various methods of becoming legally able to pursue Ms. Gentry's case. Likewise no investigation was begun prior to his licensure. On April 2, 1993, Ms. Bronson filed Respondent's sponsorship papers and Respondent filed an application for a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Because of the sponsorship, Respondent was employed by Prosearch International, a Class "A" private investigative agency, under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Ms. Bronson furnished Mr. Clausen with letters of introduction and appointment as her investigator. These letters were given to Ms. Gentry and a contract for services was entered into. On April 6, 1993, Ms. Gentry met with Mr. Clausen at her office where he was furnished with names, addresses, physical evidence and access to Ms. Gentry's case file. The case file contained police reports and probable cause affidavits on the case. Ms. Gentry requested Mr. Clausen to proceed immediately with the investigation. Mr. Clausen began the investigation on the morning of April 7, 1993, by interviewing the defendant in jail. Around April 21, 1993, Prosearch presented its first invoice for services to Ms. Gentry. The invoice contained charges for Mr. Clausen's meetings on March 25 and 30, 1993. However, the charges were not for investigative services. Ms. Gentry felt it was appropriate for Prosearch to bill for those hours even though she was aware no investigative work had begun and she had no contract with Respondent or Prosearch until April 6, 1993. Thereafter, Gadsden County paid the first invoice to ProSearch. Aroung May 7, 1993, ProSearch submitted a second invoice to Ms. Gentry. The investigation and report were completed and delivered by Ms. Bronson to Ms. Gentry's office around June 22, 1993. Both Ms. Gentry and Ms. Bronson praised Mr. Clausen's investigation and report as excellent. From March 25, 1993, to July 3 or 4, 1993, discussions between Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson regarding the future organization and market strategy for ProSearch or another business occurred almost daily. At the July meeting it became clear that Ms. Bronson had decided to associate with two others and gave Mr. Clausen a ProSearch check for his commission on the first invoice. On July 6, 1993, Ms. Bronson sent letters firing Mr. Clausen and notifying the Division that she would no longer sponsor Mr. Clausen. However, there was still billable time for investigative services outstanding for the investigation for Ms. Gentry. Additionally, Mr. Clausen was due his commission for those hours. Ms. Bronson said she had no money to pay wages or workman's compensation and therefore did not have funds to pay Mr. Clausen's his commission or expenses. Anxious to resolve the situation and not having contact with Ms. Bronson, Mr. Clausen submitted a final invoice on Specialty Security Services, Inc., letterhead to Gadsden County. The invoice referenced the first and second ProSearch invoices, showing the first invoice as paid and the second invoice as unpaid. The Gadsden County Commission approved and paid the invoice. Mr. Clausen used Special Security Services, Inc., letterhead because his word processor is programmed to always include the "Special Security Services, Inc." (SSS) letterhead. Otherwise, Special Security Services, had no role in this matter and should be dismissed as a party. Further, none of Mr. Clausen's activities violates Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Respondent should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not violated Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 1C-3.122(2), Florida Administrative Code, and that the petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 94-0853 The facts contained in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Petitioner's Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The statements contained in paragraphs 1, 5 and 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate. The statement contained in paragraph 3, of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are either introductory or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John Wardlow Attorney at Law Post Office Box 84 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed violations of provision of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary action against Respondent's Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License; his Class "C" Private Investigator License; his Class "D" Security Officer License; his Class "G" Statewide Firearm License; and his Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License.
Findings Of Fact The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Respondent's Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A93-00352, effective October 11, 1993; his Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C93-00189, effective March 8, 1993; his Class "D" Security Officer License, Number D93- 10584, effective July 15, 1993; his Class "G" Statewide Firearm License, Number G93-01 133; effective May 24,1993, and his Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License, Number M93-00074, effective July 15, 1993, are hereby REVOKED. It is further ORDERED based on a complete review of the record and in accordance with the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law Number 27 and the Hearing Officer's finding of aggravating circumstances pursuant to Rule 1 C-3. 113(5), Florida Administrative Code, that as to Count III of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent be and is hereby FINED $700.00 pursuant to Rule 1C-3.113(2)(q), Florida Administrative Code. Payment of the administrative fine shall be by cashier's check or money order payable to the Department of Stated Division of Licensing within thirty (30) days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of allegations contained in Counts I, II and III of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order revoke Respondent's Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A93-00352, effective October 11, 1993; his Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C93-00189, effective March 8, 1993; his Class "D" Security Officer License, Number D93-10584, effective July 15, 1993; his Class "G" Statewide Firearm License, Number G93- 01133; and his Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License, Number M93-00074, effective July 15, 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-12. Accepted in substance, though not verbatim. 13. Incorporated by reference. 14.-17. Accepted in substance. 18.-19. Incorporated by reference. 20.-23. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 24.-38. Accepted in substance, though not verbatim. 39. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 40.-42. Incorporated by reference. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. Accepted in substance. 2.-4. Rejected, argument. 5. Rejected, Class C license was effective in March. 6.-10. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. 11. Incorporated by reference. 12.-15. Unnecessary to result, rejected. Rejected, hearsay. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. 20.-26. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 27. Rejected, credibility. 28.-29. Accepted. 30.-31. Rejected, credibility, not supported by weight of the evidence. 32.-38. Rejected, relevance. 39. Accepted in substance. 40.-41. Rejected, credibility. 42. Accepted in substance. 43.-46. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 47.-48. Accepted in substance. Rejected, subordinate, credibility. Rejected, credibility. 51.-52. Rejected, subordinate. 53.-54. Rejected, relevance, credibility. Rejected, subordinate, credibility. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Rejected, subordinate, relevance, credibility. 58.-59. Rejected, credibility, weight of the evidence. 60.-62. Rejected, relevance, subordinate to HO findings. Rejected, credibility. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Incorporated by reference. 66.-68. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 70.-77. Rejected, subordinate, argumentative, legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole and Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner Gilbert Hevia's application for a Class "C" private investigator's license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On November 18, 1993, Petitioner submitted an application dated October 18, 1993, to the Department for a Class "C" private investigator's license. Paragraph 8 of the application directed the applicant to list the sponsor and time period for any internship he had completed. Petitioner listed an internship under the sponsorship of Carlos A. Fernandez for the period from March 15, 1991 through September 17, 1993. In a letter dated February 24, 1994, Cindi Merritt, a Service Representative for the Department's Bureau of License Issuance, advised Petitioner that the Department was investigating his experience for the Class "C" license. The letter confirmed that the Petitioner was entitled to two months credit for investigative experience under the sponsorship of Mr. Rolando Baldomero of Tri-Star Security Systems, Inc. ("Tri-Star") from June 10, 1991 through August 1991. The record in this proceeding does not reveal how the Department became aware of Petitioner's experience with Mr. Baldomero since that internship is not listed on Petitioner's application. Apparently, Petitioner presented some supplemental information to the Department to be considered. However, it is not clear when or how such information was presented. At the hearing, the Department agreed that Petitioner was entitled to two months credit for his internship with Tri-Star. The February 24, 1994 letter states that the Department's service representative "asked Mr. Carlos A. Fernandez (who sponsored you after Mr. Baldomero) to complete the completion/termination of Sponsorship Form. Mr. Fernandez sent the completed form back on February 22, 1994. He indicated that he could not supply your dates of employment because he no longer had your records. He also stated 90 percent of your job duties entailed office work and that you did not successfully complete your internship with him." As set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, counsel for the parties apparently discussed and agreed prior to the commencement of the hearing in this matter that the sole issue to be resolved in this case was whether Petitioner's employment with Mr. Fernandez's company, CAF Associates, Inc. ("CAF"), qualified as lawfully gained investigative experience for purposes of Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. Mr. Fernandez testified at the hearing and claimed that Petitioner's job duties with his company were mainly clerical and only 10 percent of Petitioner's work was investigative in nature. This contention is rejected as not credible. Mr. Fernandez has apparently decided to try to thwart Petitioner's effort to obtain his own license. The more persuasive evidence established that, from at least March of 1992 through September of 1993, Petitioner was intricately involved in all aspects of the operations of CAF, which is a private investigative agency. At some point during this time period, Petitioner was made President of the company. Respondent worked 45-60 hours a week for CAF. He did field work on his own and with subcontractors of the company. He was also actively involved in the administration of the business, but he only spent 5-15 hours per week on administrative duties. In sum, the evidence conclusively established that Petitioner had qualifying experience under Mr. Fernandez for at least eighteen (18) months from March of 1992 through September of 1993. It appears that Petitioner actually began working for Mr. Fernandez prior to March of 1992, but the exact date his employment began has not been established in this proceeding. Furthermore, it is not clear that Petitioner's job duties prior to March of 1992 would qualify as experience for purposes of Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. As noted above, there is no dispute that Petitioner obtained two (2) months of qualifying experience with Tri-Star Security from June of 1991 through August of 1991. The evidence also conclusively established that Petitioner obtained qualifying experience with CAF from March, 1992 through September 1993. The evidence was not conclusive as to Petitioner's activities from August 1991 through March 1992. Thus, the evidence presented only established that Petitioner had twenty (20) months of qualifying experience. At the hearing, Petitioner claimed that he had several other forms of experience that qualified for credit under Section 493.6023(4), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioner contended that he had successfully completed some college coursework in criminal justice and had also completed some law enforcement training. These items are not listed on his application. Petitioner testified that he completed two semesters of college work in "pre-law." No evidence was presented as to the specific courses taken, how many hours were completed or how such coursework should be translated into credit for purposes of the experience requirement of the statute. Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner submitted certain additional information which he contends supports his claim to experience arising from matters not previously considered by the Department. As discussed in more detail below, the evidence presented was not sufficient to reach a conclusion as to the amount of credit, if any, which should be afforded to Petitioner for these matters. However, in view of the confusion arising from the stipulation as to the scope of the hearing, these matters should be reviewed and considered by the Department prior to the entry of a Final Order in this case. With his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner filed a Certificate of Completion awarded to him by the Southeast Florida Institute of Criminal Justice/Miami-Dade Community College. This information was apparently not provided to the Department when it initially reviewed Petitioner's application. The certificate indicates that Petitioner completed a course for "State Certified Security Training for "D" License" on September 13, 1990. Petitioner contends that this certificate evidences completion by Petitioner of "college coursework related to criminal justice, criminology, or law enforcement administration" or "law enforcement-related training received from any federal, state, county, or municipal agency" as described in Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. The Department has not commented on whether this program can qualify under the statute. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to conclude how much, if any, credit should be given to Petitioner for the completion of the training for the class "D" license. During the hearing, Petitioner claimed that his work experience while a member of the United States Marine Corps should also be considered towards the experience necessary for licensing. The evidence established that Petitioner was stationed in the Persian Gulf from approximately November 1990, through April 1991. During that period, he was assigned to an intelligence officer who was responsible for investigations and hearings in a wide variety of matters. Petitioner claims his job duties included investigation and quasi-law enforcement duties. Petitioner did not list his military experience on his application. Section VI of the Class "C" license application states that "if military experience is to be used towards satisfaction of the experience requirement . . ., a copy of [the Respondent's] DD 214 must be provided with the application." The required form has not been provided so Petitioner's military experience has not been verified. The Department contends that Petitioner deliberately submitted a misleading application that claimed he was employed by CAF from March 1991 through September 1993. The evidence presented in this case is insufficient to reach such a conclusion. There is obviously some confusion as to when Petitioner actually began working for CAF. This confusion has been exacerbated by Mr. Fernandez's claim that Petitioner's employment records have been lost. The more persuasive evidence in this case established that Mr. Fernandez has sought to keep Petitioner from obtaining a license. Petitioner apparently thought there was little doubt that he met the experience requirement. His application failed to list several matters that could potentially be credited towards the total experience needed for licensure. The evidence in this case, however, is insufficient to conclude that the twenty- four (24) month total has been met.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner has gained eighteen (18) months of verifiable full-time experience or training as a result of his employment with CAF and two (2) months as a result of his employment with Tri-Star. Petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to produce additional evidence within sixty (60) days to establish that he has met the remaining four (4) months experience requirement. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of December 1994. 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 7th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Addressed in the preliminary statement and in Findings of fact five (5). Rejected as unnecessary. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Fernandez was a formal sponsor pursuant to Section 493.6116. Rejected as argumentative. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact five (5), six (6) and seven (7). (7). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact five (5), six (6) and seven Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact seven (7). Addressed in the Preliminary Statement and in Findings of Fact eleven (11). Subordinate to Findings of Fact twelve (12). Subordinate to Findings of Fact thirteen (13). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact one (1) and two (2). Subordinate to Findings of Fact two (2) and fourteen (14). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact thirteen (13). Subordinate to Findings of Fact five (5), six (6), and seven (7). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact three (3) and seven (7). COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 J. James Donnellan, III, Esquire 1900 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license Number A88-00071, in the name of Orlando Detective Bureau, effective March 21, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license Number A86-00182, in the name of Tampa Bay Detective Bureau, effective August 1, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "AA" Private Investigative Branch Agency license Number AA88-00026, in the name of Highlander Detective Agency, effective August 18, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator license Number COO- 01501, effective October 20, 1987. Respondent holds a Class "E" Repossessor license Number EOQ-00103, effective August 1, 1988. Respondent holds a Class "MA" Private Investigative Agency Manager license Number MA86-00215, effective August 1, 1988. In May 1989, during an investigation of Respondent for suspected violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, Respondent failed to submit information concerning his business practices or methods regarding the repossession of a 1986 Amberjack Sea Ray boat, after proper demand by the Petitioner. In May 1989, during an investigation of Respondent for suspected violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, Respondent failed to submit information concerning his business practices or methods regarding the repossession and sale of a 1982 Chrysler New Yorker automobile, after proper demand by the Petitioner. On February 15, 1988, Respondent, his agents or employees, repossessed a 1982 Chrysler Newyorker automobile in Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, on behalf of Chrysler Credit Corporation. Subsequently, Chrysler Credit Corporation authorized Respondent to sell the automobile and turn the proceeds over to them. Respondent failed to account to Chrysler Credit Corporation as to the disposition of the vehicle or the proceeds of the sale thereof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty on Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, and that all licenses of the Respondent be suspended for a period of one year and that he pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count; that Respondent be found guilty of misconduct on Count III, and that all licenses of the Respondent be suspended for a period of five years and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of December, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capital, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Harold W. Charlton, c/o Tampa Bay Detective Agency 8430 40th Street North Tampa, FL 33604 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint by subcontracting with individuals named therein to provide private investigative services at a time when they were not licensed as a Class "A" investigative agency. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, by allowing an improperly licensed person, John Polk, to direct the activities of licensees, or exercise operational control over the regulated activities of Morse Security Group, Incorporated. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count VI in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to report to the Department the termination of persons listed in that count. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by directing the activities of licensees, thereby acting as a manager, subsequent to the voluntary deactivation of his Class "C" private investigator's license and Class "M" private investigative/security agency manager's license. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by misrepresenting his agency by advertising in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 1993, that his agency is "Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agency", when it is not. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to certify the completion or termination of the internship of William J. Smithberger when he had the duty as a sponsor to do so.
Findings Of Fact Morse Security Group holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number AOO-00919, effective June 30, 1993, which was originally issued in 1976, and is currently active. Harvey Morse, the principal of Respondent, holds a Class "C" private investigator license, number COO-008861, effective November 24, 1992, which was originally issued in 1975, and was placed on inactive status by the Department on January 21, 1993. Harvey Morse also was issued a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI89-00348, effective January 8, 1993, a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, No. GOO-11067, effective December 6, 1991, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993, and a Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager license No. M85-00112, effective August 7, 1992, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993. Craig Hull became employed with Respondent in February of 1993, as a part-time investigator. Hull worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent, and held himself out to the public as an employee. When Hull entered into his contractual employment agreement with Respondent, he was given a vacation/sick day policy document noting his status as a full-time employee of Respondent. Hull executed an Employment Agreement which referred to him as the "employee" and also referred to him as an "independent subcontractor" for the purpose of withholdings. At the time of Hull's employment with Respondent, he held a Class "C" private investigator license. In all aspects of Hull's employment with Respondent, he conducted himself, and was treated as an employee. Hull did business for Respondent under the Respondent's corporate name; held himself out to the public as being Respondent's employee; signed contracts on behalf of Respondent; received letters and correspondence as an employee; was directed when and were to show up for work; how to answer to the telephone; when to answer the telephone; and in all other respects was under the direct control and supervision of Respondent. During the course of employment with Morse Security Group, Hull possessed no occupational license, business cards, stationery, telephone listing, brochures or printed material that identified him as having any relationship with Respondent other than employee and filed no fictitious name with the Department of State. In dealing with clients and the general public, Hull held himself out as an employee of Respondent and his business cards indicated that he was an employee of Respondent. Of the five cases that Hull handled on behalf of Respondent, he at no time attempted to limit the Respondent's liability to any of those clients by asserting that he was an independent contractor, or had any other relationship with Respondent other than employee. Respondent never identified Hull to others an anything other than an employee. At no time did Respondent attempt to limit its general liability to the public as to Hull's employment by the use of the term subcontractor. Respondent never attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the public by the use of the term subcontractor as to Hull's employment. Respondent's liability insurance in effect from 1991 through 1994, specifically covered Hull as an employee of Respondent. John K. Polk was employed by Respondent from February 5, 1992 through March 27, 1993. At the inception of Polk's employment, he entered into an employment contract with Respondent. The agreement for employment was entitled "Employment Agreement", and consisted of twelve paragraphs. Throughout the employment agreement Polk is referred to as employee and Respondent is referred to as employer except in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10 informed Polk that as employee he would be regarded as a subcontractor or independent contractor for the purposes of taxes, workers' compensation, licenses, permits, and insurance. During the course of Polk's employment his relationship with Respondent was governed by the employment agreement. In addition to the employment agreement signed by Polk, he received a separate document entitled, "Employee Vacation/Sick Leave Policy". The vacation/sick leave document further identified and regulated Polk as an employee. During the course of Polk's employment with Respondent Polk did not maintain a separate general liability policy. At no time during the course of Polk's employment with Respondent did Respondent attempt to limit its liability to its clients by treating Polk as anything other than as an employee. Polk never attempted to use the fact that the term "subcontractor" had been used in paragraph 10 of the employment agreement in order to limit Respondent's liabilities to clients. Polk's employee fidelity bond questionnaire for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Insurance was submitted by Respondent listing Polk as an employee, and Polk was covered under the policy for any acts of negligence of omissions. During the period of Polk's employment with Respondent he held no separate occupational license. Polk's business cards and stationery was provided by Respondent, and identified Polk as an employee of Respondent. The business telephone employed by Polk during his employment with Respondent was identified as Respondent. Polk worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. At all times Polk held himself out as an employee to Respondent's clients. During the course of his employment with Respondent, Polk was covered under Respondent's general liability policy for any acts of negligence or omission committed by Polk. Randy Morgan was employed with Respondent as an investigator from January 1, 1991, to approximately December, 1992. Morgan did not have a written contract for employment with the Respondent. Morgan was compensated by the case on an hourly basis by Respondent. Morgan was responsible for withholding his own Social Security and federal income taxes. Morgan considered himself as an employee of Respondent, and was under the supervision and control of Respondent. At all times during the course of his employment Morgan held himself out as an employee of Respondent, not as a subcontractor. Robert O. Sutley was employed by Respondent from November of 1992, until approximately March, 1993. During his employment with Respondent, Sutley held "DD", "B", and "G" licenses from the Department. Sutley entered into an employment agreement with Respondent which consisted of twelve paragraphs entitled "Employment Agreement". Within the employment agreement, the term "independent contractor" was a term used in relation to the workers' compensation and the withholding of taxes. Respondent did not attempt to limit its liability to the general public in regard to Sutley. Throughout the course of his employment with Respondent, Sutley held himself out as an investigator employee of Respondent. During his employment with Respondent, Sutley was under the supervision and control of Respondent. Respondent was contacted on a cold call by Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for the purposes of advertising. After negotiations, Respondent caused to be issued an advertisement in the Martindale-Hubbell directory. Respondent initially instructed Martindale-Hubbell to advertise that Respondent was "one of the oldest and largest investigative agencies in Florida". The basis for the requested advertisement that Respondent was one of the oldest and largest was Respondent's purchase of a statewide detective agency, which had been in business in Florida since the 1950's, and that Respondent has an affiliate office in Europe and other parts of the United States. Pinkerton's of Florida has been licensed in Florida as an investigative agency since 1968. Pinkerton's has employed over 25 investigator employees on an annual basis over the last five years. Prior to its publication in Martindale-Hubbell, Respondent was not aware of the contents of the advertisement. The ad, as published, stated that the Respondent was the oldest and largest investigative agency in Florida. Respondent became aware of the contents of the advertisement upon receipt of the complaint filed against him by the State. Respondent then sent a letter to Martindale-Hubbell, inquiring why the advertisement read "Florida's oldest and largest private investigative agency", as opposed to "one of Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agencies" as previously instructed by Respondent. Martindale-Hubbell acknowledged that the final draft of the advertisement had been done without Respondent's approval and that an error had been made by Martindale-Hubbell in the advertisement, as it appeared in their publication. Respondent instructed Martindale-Hubbell to cease further advertisement. Respondent reported on his letterhead stationery to the Department the termination of the following persons: Colard, Crews, Fitzgerald, Martin, Morgan, Polk, and Stebbins within the statutory time limit. When Respondent was advised by Mr. Matlack that the computer printout from the Department showed that the above named people were still on a list indicating that they were associated with Respondent, Respondent sent another letter dated April 27, 1993 to the Department advising them of the termination of those listed individuals. As of October 15, 1993, the above named persons were still listed as in Respondent's employ. During the period from January 1, 1993 to April 1993, Harvey E. Morse voluntarily deactivated Class "C" Private Investigator's License and Private Investigative Security Agency Manager's License. Morse voluntarily deactivated licenses upon his graduation from the police academy and his association with the Florida Highway Patrol as a full time auxiliary trooper. Upon voluntary deactivation of Morse's licenses, Morse notified each of the company's employees that Morse would not be involved in any more investigations, and that the employees were to receive their direction from either Dwayne Rutledge or Maria Morse. Morse continued to engage in non-regulated functions such as marketing, sales, computer functions, bookkeeping, and payroll and teaching, training and instruction. During the periods of voluntary deactivation of his license, Morse would run a driver's license record on the computer, receive a printout, and hand it to an employee. Morse refrained, however, from being involved in an investigation based upon that printout. Morse has refrained from involvement in any regulated activities from the time that he voluntarily deactivated his license. Once Morse voluntarily deactivated his license, the primary person responsible for investigations and management of employees was Dwayne Rutledge. During the period from September 1992 to January 1993, Harvey E. Morse supervised and trained John Polk. Morse was always available by way of pager or cellular phone, and in constant contact with John Polk during that time period. Further, Respondent installed a two-way radio system so that Morse could talk with and supervise John Polk on a constant basis. Morse was never more than 60 miles from John Polk during his internship from September 1992 till January 1993, and Morse was in daily contact with John Polk in regard to pending investigations, new matters, old matters, and the general business of the Respondent's office. On several occasions during the above stated time period, Polk would communicate with Morse while he was on patrol in a Florida Highway Patrol vehicle, and ask questions of Morse concerning how investigative matters should be handled. Polk was afforded certain latitude by Morse to make administrative decisions on a day-to-day basis as his training progressed, and Morse placed more confidence in Polk's abilities in certain areas. However, Morse still oversaw those decisions. At all times, Polk's supervision of Respondent's employees was under the direct supervision and control of Morse or other licensed managers in Respondent's employ. The purpose of the Respondent's purchase of a two way radio system was twofold: One, to communicate with other investigators during the course of an investigation; and the other was to afford constant communication among Morse, the office managers, Dwayne Rutledge and Maria Morse, and the investigators, in case of a question would arise in the performance of their duties. Rutledge, as well as Maria Morse, became employed as office manager(s) shortly after 1990, and both he and Mrs. Morse were continuously available to the employees and oversaw, in conjunction with the Morse, the performance of their regulated duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is WHEREFORE, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner having failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated those sections as alleged in Counts I through IX of the Administrative Complaint, it is hereby recommended that said Counts be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3890 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner waived the filing of proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count II, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22; Count IV, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; Count V, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count VIII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Count VI, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2 (in part), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Count VII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Count III, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. Rejected as argument or conclusory: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 2, 21; Count IV, paragraphs 9; Count V, paragraph 2(in part); Count VII, paragraphs 4; Count III paragraphs 4, 9. Rejected as redundant or surplusage, or irrelevant and immaterial: Count II, unnumbered paragraphs 13, 18, 19; Count IV, paragraph 5; Count VI, paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Mail Station-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 William J. Sheaffer, Esquire William J. Sheaffer, PA. 609 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing the following facts were found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A", private investigative agency license Number GA 0002275 and a Class "C", private investigator license number GC 0001218. Respondent has been actively engaged as a private investigator in the Daytona Beach/Volusia County area of the State of Florida for over 25 years. A substantial portion of Respondent's activities as a investigator, are performed for attorneys representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants who employ the Respondent to investigate accidents, locate and question witnesses, photograph vehicles and sites, serve subpoenas for trial and deposition, and on occasion to perform surveillance. Records of the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Florida, reflect that Respondent was arrested on September 9, 1982 by the Ormond Beach, Florida, Police Department and charged with Attempted Murder. The State Attorney For The Seventh Judicial Circuit, by Information dated September 22, 1982, charged the Respondent with Attempted First Degree Murder and Aggravated Battery. By Order of August 10, 1982, the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, accepted the Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Aggravated Battery, a Second Degree Felony. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of 5 years. Respondent has no previous criminal record, although once arrested in 1974 on a complaint that was Nolle Prosequi by the State of Florida as a case of mistaken identity. Respondent's testimony that he was aware of only 1 complaint to the Department against him as a private investigator and that that complaint was disposed of as "unfound" went unrebutted. The circumstances that led up to Respondent's arrest on September 9, 1982 were domestic in nature: The Respondent objected to a relationship that had developed between his 12-year-old daughter, Vicky, an eighth grade student, and Thomas Parker (Parker) a 17-year-old boy about a year before the shooting incident on September 9, 1982. The Respondent came to disapprove of Parker because of Respondent's view that Parker was too old for his daughter, did not go to work or school, had no parental supervision or discipline, and was of dubious character and reputation. Respondent's efforts to terminate the relationship were frustrated. Respondent became convinced that Parker had introduced his daughter to sex, alcohol and the use of marijuana and other drugs. Respondent forbade his daughter from seeing Parker but the relationship continued and caused friction and tension within the family. Within a year, Vicky went from an "A" student to a "drop-out". Respondent sought advice and assistance from friends and public officials in regard to terminating this relationship but to no avail. Vicky was sent to live with Respondent's son in another part of the state but was brought back home when Parker began to pose a threat to the tranquility of the son's home. During the evening of September 8, 1982, Respondent and his wife, Louise Kinney, discovered that Vicky was missing from her bedroom. Respondent proceeded to search for Vicky but to no avail. Respondent reported this to the Ormond Beach Police Department because he thought Vicky had run away and was in the accompany of Parker. Sometime between 3:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m on September 9, 1982, Respondent heard someone at Vicky's bedroom window and went outside to "check it out" with a .357 magnum pistol, a metal baseball bat and a flashlight. Respondent found Parker and a friend helping Vicky into her bedroom window. When Parker and his friend saw Respondent they ran and Respondent gave chase. While chasing Parker, Respondent tripped over a vent pipe to a storage tank and the pistol discharged hitting Parker in the lower back. Respondent's testimony that he did not intend to shoot Parker and that the shooting was accidental went unrebutted. These comments are consistent with Respondent's explanation to the police officers called to the scene of the shooting and consistent with his comments to Dr. Barnard, a psychiatrist. Respondent's testimony that it was his intent to only hold Parker at the scene for the police so that Respondent could charge Parker with trespassing and possibly relieve a bad situation at home went unrebutted. Neither Parker nor his friend were armed. While Dr. Barnard's report indicates that Respondent was legally sane and competent at the time of the shooting, the testimony of Dr. Maximo Hancock, a psychiatrist and Dr. Barnard's initial and supplemental reports indicate that Respondent was under a tremendous emotional strain that could have resulted in Respondent reacting without knowing what he was doing at the time. Parker has brought a civil suit against Respondent for damages predicated in the part upon allegations that Respondent's action constituted negligence in a deliberate assault or battery. Respondent homeowner's insurance carrier which insured Respondent for negligence but not for deliberate and willful acts, has "accepted the risk" and is furnishing Respondent with legal defense in this civil litigation. Of the 10 witnesses to testify for Respondent, 8 of them were attorneys that had known Respondent for a period of time and had employed Respondent before and after the shooting incident to perform those services listed in paragraph 2 above. The general consensus of these witnesses was that the Respondent enjoyed an excellent reputation as an investigator for skill and competency, trustworthiness and high ethical standards, and for pursuit of his investigative duties without breach of the peace. None of these witnesses expressed any reservation or hesitancy about continuing to use Respondent's services because of any propensity toward violence. These witnesses viewed the shooting incident of which all were aware, as an isolated personal matter unrelated to and outside the scope of his activities as an investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State issue a final order finding the Respondent not guilty of the violations as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State LL 10, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry P. Duffett 120 E. Granada Boulevard Post Office Box 2633 Ormond Beach, Florida 32075 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1985. =================================================================
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Shaw Investigations aided or abetted Shaw Investigation Agency, Incorporated, an Alabama private investigative corporation not licensed to conduct business in Florida, and that corporation's private investigator employees, in engaging in unlicensed activity in Florida in violation of Section 493.6118(10(n), Florida Statutes; (2) whether Shaw Investigations failed or refused to cooperate with an agency representative's official investigation by not furnishing documentation required under a subpoena duces tecum in violation of Sections 493.6118(1)(o) and 493.6121(4), Florida Statutes; (3) whether Shaw Investigations committed misconduct in the course of regulated activity by failing to provide a client with written reports and accounting of investigative expenditures in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes; (4) whether Shaw Investigations Agency, Incorporated, performed private investigations in Florida without a license in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 1C- 3.120(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code; (5) whether Shaw Investigation Agency, Incorporated, allowed unlicensed persons to perform private investigative services in Florida in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes; (6) and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these consolidated cases, Shaw Investigations, Mitchell D. Shaw, Owner, had a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license, no. A89-00262, and Mitchell D. Shaw had a Class "C" Private Investigator license, no. C89-00625. Shaw Investigations currently has a valid Class "A" license, which was effective February 3, 1998, and expires on November 8, 1999. Mitchell D. Shaw has a valid Class "C" license, which was effective September 16, 1997, and expires on August 2, 1999. Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., Mitchell D. Shaw, President, is an Alabama corporation. It is not licensed as a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency in Florida. Michelle Davis, Linda Moulton, and Ricky Tharpe are former employees of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. They worked for the Alabama investigative agency at all times relevant here. However, they were not licensed Florida private investigators or private investigator interns on those dates. Ms. Davis worked for Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. as a private investigator intern and secretary. Ms. Moulton worked as a private investigator for the Alabama investigative agency. Mr. Tharpe was hired to work as a sales manager and private investigator in Alabama. His duties included conducting surveillance and checking tag numbers. F. Page Whatley was an employee of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., at all times relevant here. He did not have a Florida private investigator or private investigator intern license on those dates. Mr. Whatley obtained licensure as a Florida private investigator on February 6, 1997. The earliest that Mr. Whatley could have worked as a private investigator in Florida was upon submission of his complete application on November 5, 1996. Jeffery Lee Fears (Fears) was a resident of Georgia. In April of 1994, Fears was in Panama City Beach, Florida, on spring break when he died at a condominium complex, Ocean Towers. The Panama City Beach Police Department ruled his death a suicide.1 The Fears family hired Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., to conduct a private investigation into the death of their son. They specifically hired the Alabama private investigative corporation because they did not agree with Florida law enforcement authorities that Fears' death was the result of suicide. The Fears investigation consisted of numerous witness interviews in Georgia, Florida, and other states, the gathering of evidence and witness information, and an examination of the physical site of death in Panama City Beach, Florida. When the Fears investigation was initiated and until March of 1996, Mr. Shaw was president of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. Sometime between March 15, 1996, and March 15, 1997, Mr. Whatley became president of the Alabama corporation. When the Fears investigation was initiated, the Florida investigative agency was the employer of investigators, other than Mr. Shaw, who held Florida Class "C" Private Investigators licenses. However, Mr. Shaw did not utilize the services of the other licensed Florida investigators in the Fears case. On May 3, 1994, Ms. Davis traveled alone from Dothan, Alabama, to Panama City, Florida, at the direction of Mr. Shaw. While she was there, Ms. Davis attempted to locate Charles Russell, the security guard who was on duty at Ocean Towers the night that Fears died. She also obtained a copy of a report from the Panama City Beach Police Department relative to an accident that occurred the same night as the Fears death. Upon her return to Dothan, Alabama, Ms. Davis prepared a written report of her investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On May 4, 1994, Mr. Tharpe traveled to Panama City, Florida, with Mr. Shaw and another employee of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. They first went to the Panama City Beach Police Department, where Mr. Tharpe attempted to get the gun that allegedly killed Fears. The men then went to the Ocean Towers complex where they talked to the manager, took pictures of the accident scene, measured the time required to walk up and down stairs and to go up and down in the elevator, observed blood stains, and looked for bullets on the outside of the building. On May 5, 1994, Mr. Shaw directed Ms. Moulton to travel alone to Panama City, Florida, from Dothan, Alabama, to locate the security guard, Charles Russell. After making inquiries at the apartment complex where Mr. Russell lived, Ms. Moulton learned that he was out of town. She then returned to Dothan where she prepared a report of her investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On May 19, 1994, Mr. Tharpe traveled with Mr. Shaw and the Fears attorney to Panama City, Florida. The men went first to the Panama City Beach Police Department in an unsuccessful attempt to get the gun that allegedly killed Fears. Next, Mr. Tharpe went with Mr. Shaw and the attorney to the Ocean Towers complex where they observed the site of Fears' death. Lastly, the men attempted unsuccessfully to locate Mr. Russell at his apartment. Upon his return to Dothan, Alabama, Mr. Tharpe prepared a written report describing the investigation conducted that day on behalf of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On May 27, 1994, Ms. Moulton again traveled alone to Panama City, Florida, as directed by Mr. Shaw. She first inquired whether two local television stations had any news footage relative to the death of Fears. She learned that the stations did not have any such footage. Next, Ms. Moulton went to Mr. Russell's apartment complex. Her inquiries revealed that he was back in town but not at home. Ms. Moulton set up surveillance to wait for Mr. Russell's return. She subsequently took pictures of a man entering Mr. Russell's apartment and got the tag numbers of six vehicles in the parking lot behind the apartment. Ms. Moulton went to the local tag registration office. She got the names of all the owners of the vehicles except one, which was unregistered. Ms. Moulton returned to Mr. Russell's apartment and continued her surveillance. When Mr. Russell left his apartment, Ms. Moulton took a picture of him with his car, noting his physical description and the make, model, and color of his car. She then returned to Dothan, Alabama, where she made a written report of her investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On June 1, 1994, Mr. Shaw directed Ms. Moulton to travel from Dothan, Alabama, to Panama City, Florida, to set up surveillance on Mr. Russell's apartment. She waited outside Mr. Russell's apartment until Mr. Shaw arrived to conduct an interview. Ms. Moulton then traveled to the local library to research the newspaper coverage on Fears' death. She retained a copy of a newspaper story about the incident. Next, Ms. Moulton went to the Panama City Police Department to obtain information on shootings between March 28, 1994 and April 6, 1994. She learned that there were no such incidents. Ms. Moulton went to the Bay County Sheriff's Department to obtain information on shootings that occurred between March 28, 1994 through April 6, 1994. She learned that her request would require payment for the research and copies of the results. Ms. Moulton went to the Panama City Beach Police Department to obtain the same type of information. She retained a computer print-out on all calls that the department responded to between the relevant dates. Ms. Moulton then returned to Dothan, Alabama. She prepared a written report of her investigations conducted on June 1, 1994, for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On June 22, 1994, Ms. Davis went to Panama City Beach with the Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., investigators and the Fears family. While she was there, she participated in the investigation by timing the walk from a Burger King restaurant to the sixth floor of the Ocean Towers. On July 18, 1994, Mr. Tharpe traveled alone to Panama City, Florida, on behalf of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. He first went to the Panama City Beach Police Department in an attempt to pick up the gun that allegedly killed Fears. Next, Mr. Tharpe conducted an interview with Mr. Russell at his apartment. Mr. Tharpe prepared a written report of his investigation for Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. On October 18, 1994, Ms. Moulton traveled with Mr. Shaw to Panama City, Florida. She did not independently conduct any investigative work. However, she was present when Mr. Shaw interviewed Dr. William Eckerd, the Bay County coroner. On at least one other occasion, Mr. Tharpe traveled alone to Panama City Beach, Florida, on behalf of Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc. He took a blood test kit to locate spots of blood at the scene of Fears' death at Ocean Towers. Mr. Shaw testified that Mr. Tharpe's primary involvement in the Fears investigation was as an expert hired to build a model of the crime scene. This testimony is not persuasive. On November 18, 1995 or November 19, 1995, Henry Locke of Panama City, Florida, decided to hire a private investigator to research the work history of a co-worker, Ron Barlow. Mr. Locke looked in the local phone book and called Shaw Investigations using a local number. Mr. Locke spoke with a man who identified himself as a private investigator. The man on the phone said that he would meet with Mr. Locke the next day on his way back to Dothan, Alabama, from working on a case in Panama City Beach, Florida. Until that time, Mr. Locke did not know that the investigator was from Dothan, Alabama. Page Whatley was the man who showed up at Mr. Locke's home the next day. Mr. Locke believed Mr. Whatley was the man he had spoken to on the phone. Mr. Locke told Mr. Whatley that he wanted a background check on the work history of Ron Barlow, a co-worker. Specifically, Mr. Locke explained that he wanted to know the places where Mr. Barlow had worked and the type of work he had done. The information that Mr. Locke provided to Mr. Whatley was personal and confidential; Mr. Locke did not want anyone, especially Mr. Barlow, to know about the private investigation. Mr. Whatley agreed to provide Mr. Locke with the requested information for a fee in the amount of $750. Mr. Locke and Mr. Whatley signed a contract dated November 20, 1995, indicating that the work to be performed included a background check. The contract heading was "Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc." The "Inc." on the contract was crossed out, indicating that the contract was with Shaw Investigations, the Florida Agency. In November of 1995, Mr. Shaw was president of the Alabama investigative agency. Mr. Whatley was not licensed in Florida at that time. Mr. Locke mailed a check in the amount of $750 the next day. He sent the check to a Dothan, Alabama, address. The check is dated November 20, 1995, and made payable to Shaw Investigation Agency. Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., subsequently cashed the check. Shaw Investigations, the Florida agency, does not perform computer-generated background checks because it does not have the necessary technical equipment and staff. Mr. Shaw uses the equipment owned by the Alabama corporation and its employees, who are unlicensed in Florida, to do the research necessary for that type of work. Mr. Locke was not aware of these facts when he sent his check to Dothan, Alabama. He thought the Alabama office was a branch of the Florida agency. In December of 1995, an employee from Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., called Mr. Locke on the telephone to tell him that a background check on Ron Barlow did not reveal a criminal record. The Alabama employee also discussed the results of Ron Barlow's workman's compensation claim history. At that time, Locke did not complain that the information provided was not satisfactory because it did not include Ron Barlow's work history. Isabel Shaw, an employee of Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., testified at hearing that she mailed Mr. Locke a copy of the report in January of 1996 in accordance with company procedure. This testimony is not credible. About one year later, Mr. Locke contacted other local investigators. One of those investigators recommended that Mr. Locke contact Petitioner to file a complaint against Shaw Investigations. Petitioner received Mr. Locke's complaint on February 28, 1997. Around the time that Mr. Locke filed his complaint with Petitioner, he called the Dothan, Alabama, office to complain that he had not gotten a report. An employee in the Alabama office told him that he had been given a verbal report in December of 1995. He and the employee got into an argument and the employee hung up the phone. Mr. Whatley wrote Mr. Locke a letter dated April 7, 1997, apologizing for any misunderstanding and enclosing a copy of a two page report containing Ron Barlow's workman's compensation claim history. Mr. Locke has never received the information he originally requested concerning Ron Barlow's work history. In March of 1995, Petitioner received a complaint from officials in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) concerning Mr. Shaw's investigation of the Fears case. Petitioner directed its investigator, Robert Cousson, to hold his investigation in abeyance until FDLE completed its investigation of the Fears case. On June 28, 1996, Mr. Cousson contacted Mr. Shaw by telephone and requested a copy of expenses involved with the Fears case, the entire case file, a list of investigators who had worked on the case, and a list of the code numbers of those investigators. Mr. Shaw responded that the case was confidential. He stated that he would need to obtain the permission of his clients. On July 2, 1996, Mr. Cousson again telephoned Mr. Shaw. In that conversation, Mr. Shaw stated that the Fears family would not consent to release the case file. According to Mr. Shaw, the Fears family threatened to sue if the file was released. Mr. Cousson responded that he would cure that problem by issuing a subpoena for the file. On July 3, 1996, Petitioner faxed the subpoena to Shaw Investigations, Mitchell D. Shaw, Owner. On July 10, 1996, Mr. Cousson personally served the subpoena on Mr. Shaw in his office. During that visit, Mr. Shaw produced a letter dated July 8, 1996, from Mr. Shaw's attorney. The letter states that the Fears hired Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., to conduct the Fears investigation. According to the letter, Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc., was not subject to Petitioner's regulations or subpoena power. The attorney's letter reveals that the Florida agency was hired by the Alabama agency to do some work on the Fears case. However, according to the letter, the work of the Florida agency was completed more than two years prior to the issuance of the subpoena. The letter states the records of the Florida agency were not subject to preservation or disclosure under Section 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes. Nevertheless, the attorney's letter enclosed two investigative reports, stating that Shaw Investigations was not in possession of any other records that were responsive to the subpoena. The first report, dated July 18, 1994, was prepared by Mr. Tharpe. The second report, dated October 18, 1994, was dictated by Mr. Shaw and typed by Ms. Moulton. At a later date, Mr. Cousson received a copy of a contract between Shaw Investigations and Shaw Investigations Agency, Inc. The contract is dated April 14, 1994. According to the contract, the Florida agency was paid to take pictures, interview a witness, and provide a scale diagram of the accident scene for a possible model. Mr. Shaw produced no other documents as responsive to the subpoena. However, he verbally provided Mr. Cousson with the code numbers of the Alabama investigators used on the Fears case. The investigation of the Fears case by Shaw Investigation Agency, Inc., was ongoing at the time of the hearing. The entire case file of the Fears investigation is still in existence, including documents generated as a result of the contract between the Florida investigative agency and the Alabama investigative agency. In addition to not providing the subpoenaed investigative files, Mr. Shaw did not provide any records pertaining to the fees and costs paid by the Fears, a list of all personnel employed during the period of April 18, 1994 through June 30, 1995, including the coded list of all employees and payroll records for the period of April 18, 1994 through June 30, 1995. Mr. Shaw did not provide any documents relating to the Florida investigative agency's activities in the Fears investigation other than as set forth above.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the Florida licenses of Shaw Investigations and Mitchell D. Shaw for three months, and imposing the maximum fine for Counts I-IV and VII-IX in Case No. 97-0369 and for Counts I-II, IV, and VI-VII in Case No. 98-1761. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Wenceslao Manuel Lora (Lora), was the chief executive officer of, as well as a director of, respondent, ABA Professional Association, Inc. (ABA), a business located in Miami, Florida. On November 6, 1990, the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the decision of the Department of State, Division of Licensing, to revoke the licensure of Lora, a private investigator and repossessor, based on his 1985 conviction for burglary, unlawful interception of oral and wire communication, and criminal conspiracy. Since such time, neither Lora nor ABA have been licensed to provide private investigative services in the State of Florida. In April 1991, Lora met with a salesperson for Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation (Southern Bell) to renew the advertisements ABA had run in the Southern Bell yellow page directory for Dade County, Florida, the previous year. As ultimately approved by Lora in June 1992, the display advertisement for the 1991-92 yellow page directory was substantially the same as that run the prior year, and ABA secured listings under the yellow page headings of "Detective Agencies," "Investigators," "Lie Detection Services," and "Polygraph Examiners & Service." As published in the September 1991 Southern Bell yellow page directory the display advertisement appearing under the yellow page heading of "Detective Agencies" stated that ABA was available to provide the following services: . MISSING PERSONS-SPECIALTY WITH CHILDREN . SURVEILLANCE-VIDEO-PHOTOGRAPHY . INTELLECTUAL ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES . BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS (CRIMINAL & CIVIL) . REPORTS WITHIN MINUTES . MULTI LINGUAL STAFF . INTELLIGENCE DATA AVAILABLE & FINANCIAL REPORTS . POLYGRAPH TEST The display advertisement further represented that most major credit cards were acceptable forms of payment, and that ABA was licensed, bonded and insured. In addition to the display advertisement that appeared under the heading "Detective Agencies," the 1991-92 Southern Bell yellow page directory also carried at Lora's request, a similar, although smaller, display advertisement for ABA under the heading of "Investigators," and under the headings of "Lie Detection Services" carried ABA's name and telephone number and under the heading "Polygraph Examiners & Service" directed the reader to "See Our Ad At Detective Agencies." As a consequence of the appearance of the foregoing advertisements in the 1991-92 Southern Bell yellow page directory, petitioner filed the administrative complaint at issue in this proceeding, which charges respondents with violating the provisions of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by conducting or advertising the business of a private investigative agency after revocation of licensure. However, apart from demonstrating that respondents advertised as providing, for consideration, private investigations, there was no compelling proof that, as a consequence of such advertisements or otherwise, the respondents actually engaged in the business of furnishing private investigations. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding the respondents guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the sum of $1,000.00 against respondents, jointly and severally. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of November 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 6th day of November 1992.
