The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a Class "D" Security Officer license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Cherubin Bastien (Bastien) filed an application with Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department) for a Class "D" Security Officer license on July 1, 1994. The Department denied Bastien's application by letter dated August 24, 1994. At final hearing the only basis for denial at issue was that Petitioner was currently serving felony probation. On October 14, 1993, Bastien was sentenced, in State of Florida v. Cherubin Bastien, Case No. 93-5337CF10, on a charge of aggravated assault (firearm), before the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to two and one half years probation, and adjudication was withheld. Bastien's probation will not terminate until April, 1996. Bastien is currently on probation and was on probation at the time that he filed his application on July 1, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Cherubin Bastien's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-219S To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Cherubim Bastien 2322 Johnson Street, Apt. 1 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue presented in this case was whether the application of Albert Harris for a class F license as an unarmed watchman, guard or patrolman employee should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Albert Harris is an applicant for a class F license as an unarmed watchman, guard or patrolman employee. Harris was convicted of 1st degree murder in 1940 in the State of Florida, and sentenced to life in prison. Harris was paroled in 1960, 1965 and 1968. Since his release from imprisonment on parole in 1968, Harris has been arrested and fined for driving while intoxicated. No evidence was introduced that Harris' civil rights had been restored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the application of Albert Harris for a class F license be denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Harris 6969 North West 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Marvin Sirotowitz, Bureau Chief Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gerald Curington, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Plaza Level, New Capitol Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Brenda H. Gipson applied for licensure as a Class F Unarmed Guard. On her application Gipson did not reveal that she had been arrested and convicted for attempted aggravated assault. Gipson admitted that she did not report on her application the fact that she had been convicted of attempted aggravated assault because she was afraid she would lose her job. The circumstances surrounding the attempted aggravated assault arose out of dispute with a family member in which Gipson threw a hammer at the family member. Gipson testified that she was sentenced to 24 hours in jail by the Municipal Judge of Venice, Florida. Abilio Suarez, Gipson's supervisor with Feick Security, who is the coordinator for the contract between Feick Security and Florida Power and Light Company, testified that he had known Gipson since July of 1978, when she began to work for Suarez. Suarez stated that Gipson was a reliable person, was punctual, and dependable. Her duties involved personnel security on facilities belong to or operated by Florida Power and Light Company. Suarez testified that notwithstanding her concealment from Feick Security of her arrest and conviction for attempted aggravated assault, Gipson was considered eligible for continued employment with the company.
Recommendation Although the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law indicate that the Petitioner did falsify her application for licensure, the facts surrounding the incident, the extremely light sentence of the municipal court, and the recommendation of her supervisor should be considered in mitigation. Based upon the facts in mitigation, the Hearing Officer would recommend that Brenda Gipson be issued a license as a Class F, Unarmed Guard. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Curington Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brenda H. Gipson 3889 Charles Terrace Miami, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 13-84-002-01 on July 14, 1984. On September 1, 1988, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit working in the misdemeanor division. While on duty and driving his employment car on the evening of September 1, 1988, Respondent was in the area of Lee Street and 20th Street in Orlando, Florida. He was in the area attempting to locate a witness as part of a criminal investigation he was conducting. He had previously made the acquaintance of a person named Ruby Burk. He would on occasion drive past her house and stop and they would talk and once previously had engaged in a sex act. On the night of September 1, 1988, he went to Burk's house, talked with her and then left on a futile attempt to locate a witness. He then returned to Burk's residence, picked her up and proceeded to a dark secluded area on an unpaved street which borders an elementary school. Shortly thereafter, while on routine patrol, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff observed Respondent sitting behind the wheel of the state vehicle in a complete state of undress. When she shined her bright lights into the vehicle, the Deputy observed the head of a black female pop up from the direction of the Petitioner's lap. The Deputy recognized Burk and observed that she was fully clothed. The Deputy permitted Respondent to put his pants on before he exited his vehicle. Respondent and Burk were engaging in fellatio in the front seat of the state vehicle. At the time of the incident, Respondent was having marital problems which caused him to be despondent. In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated that he had been a certified law enforcement officer for over four years at the time of this incident and has had no prior disciplinary problems. He has performed his job in private security and as an investigator in an exemplarily capacity. In September 1988, Respondent was discharged by the State Attorney, but was given a favorable recommendation He is presently employed as a Child Protective Investigator with HRS. He is respected by his peers and in his community. The violation of the law and rules by the Respondent was an isolated incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1990, 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 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19 (in part), 21. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant: Paragraphs 7 (that Burk had been convicted of engaging in prostitution on Westmoreland Street), 11, 16 (in part), 19 (in part), 20, 22. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in part), 6, 7. Rejected as irrelevant or as argument: Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa L. Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Leon B. Cheek, Esquire 101 Sunnytown Road Suite 306 Casselberry, FL 32707 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a Class "F" Unarmed Security Guard. Question numbered 13 on that application form is as follows: "Have you ever been arrested? If yes, list any and all arrests and dispositions." Petitioner replied affirmatively and advised that in April, 1962, he had been charged with breaking and entering in Broward County and had served a three and one-half year sentence. He further advised that he had received a pardon from Governor Askew with permission to bear firearms. Petitioner did not report any other arrests or charges, since he believed that only felonies were required to be reported. The report moved into evidence by the Respondent lists various governmental entities as contributors of fingerprints at times when Petitioner was either "arrested or received" on several charges and the disposition of each. According to that report, Petitioner was either "arrested or received" by the police department in Youngstown, Ohio, in 1952 for carrying concealed weapons. Petitioner never knew he was charged with that crime, although he does recall that at that time he was working for a railroad and there was some type of incident with the police due to the fact that he and other railroad employees were carrying mace and blackjacks. The report further reflects that in 1961 Petitioner was "arrested or received" on several breaking and entering charges by law enforcement entities in St. Petersburg, West Palm Beach, and Raiford, Florida, and that he was sentenced to a prison term. Respondent presented no evidence to indicate that any of the breaking and entering charges were other than the crime(s) for which Petitioner has received a pardon. The report further indicates that Petitioner was "arrested or received" by the police department in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in 1968 for contempt of court, for which he was fined, and in 1970 for a "worthless check (warr)," for which he was also fined. Regarding the contempt of court charge, Petitioner was in a different courtroom on a different case, but the record is devoid of any evidence as to the type of matters involved. As to the worthless check, Petitioner attempted to redeem the check the following day, but found that he was too late.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's application for an Unarmed Security Guard License. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edward S. Narbut 317 South East 12th Avenue, Apt. 2 Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation By reason of the foregoing facts and conclusions, I hereby recommend that the Respondent's registration be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent's application for a Class "G," Armed Security Guard, License, be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Wesley James Thompson, Jr. 2153 North West 103rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33146, and 13357 Ashwand Road Opa Locka, Florida 33054
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated ,that Max Bower had submitted an application for licensure as an unarmed guard to the Division of Licensing, and that Bower was qualified for licensure except for the grounds stated in the letter of denial dated March 9, 1979. Max Bower has been convicted and sentenced on three occasions for commission of a felony under the laws of the State of Florida. Bower admitted his arrest, conviction, and having served time in the New Jersey Penitentiary and in the Dade County Jail. His last conviction was in New Jersey, where he was sentenced to five to seven years and was released in October, 1971. Since that time, Bower has not been arrested for any offenses. Max Bower has pending at this time an application for restoration of his civil rights. Due to administrative delay, it will be several months before his application will be considered. Bower is currently employed with International Patrol and works as an unarmed guard from 12:00 midnight until 8:00 a.m. in the Justice Building (County Court Building) in Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Division of Licensing grant Max Bower a license as an unarmed guard (Class "F") at such time that his civil rights are restored. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Max Bower 10 South West 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 37 years old. In 1985 and 1986, he was employed as a security guard in Cocoa, Florida. On October 17, 1968, he was arrested in Brevard County, Florida, and charged with a felony -- breaking in and entering with an intent to commit the misdemeanor of petit larceny. Petitioner and a friend had broken into a laundromat with the intent to break into a soda machine. Petitioner pled guilty to the felony. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Shortly thereafter, the sentence was set aside, and Petitioner was placed on probation. Petitioner was arrested for separate violation of the terms of his probation on November 6, 1969; August 18, 1970; January 3, 1977; and January 17, 1977. He was also arrested on May 29, 1974, in Melbourne, Florida, and charged with disorderly conduct -- prowling. Shortly after the May, 1974, arrest, Petitioner was referred to Brevard County, Division of Mental Health, for treatment. He was committed to the state mental health facility at Chattahoochee, Florida for further treatment at that time. Respondent's civil rights have never been restored after the felony conviction in 1968. On July 17, 1986, Petitioner executed his Application for Unarmed Guard License, the denial of this application resulted in the present hearing. In response to Question No. 13, which requires that the applicant list all arrests, Petitioner listed only "Breakin & Enting" (sic) in December, 1966 (sic).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a Class "D" license as an unarmed guard under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3005S TREATMENT ACCORDED RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Findings 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are accepted. Findings 2 and 3 are rejected in part as not supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Grady Griffis, Jr. 255 West Lucas Road Apartment No. E-322 Merritt Island, Florida 32952
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harvey Jackson, in an inmate at UCI and has been at all times pertinent hereto. During the month of September, 1986, consistent with the rules of DOC, Jackson had a list of individuals on file who he desired to be allowed to visit him at the institution. These included members of his family and his fiancee, Ms. Ann Alexander. On September 22, 1986, Ms. Alexander came to visit Jackson at UCI. According to the routine procedure followed for the preparation of visitors' entrance into the Visitor's Park area, Ms. Alexander's purse was searched and she was subject to a pat search prior to being allowed into the secure area. During the search, it was determined she had $50.00 in U.S. currency in her possession and she was permitted to take that money into the Visitor's Park, leaving her purse at the waiting area. While Jackson and Ms. Alexander were together in the Visitor's Park, she purchased two cartons of cigarettes at the canteen and two orange drinks. The cartons of cigarettes were $12.00 each and the drinks were 35 each. Therefore, she spent approximately $24.70 of the $50.00 she brought in. Because she did not have a purse, she claimed later, upon questioning, that she put the change in the brown paper bag she got with the drinks and when she disposed of the bag in a trash can, inadvertently threw out the money as well. When she left the Visitor's Park area, she was subject again to a pat search and requested to indicate how much money she had. At that time, it was determined she had only $3.00 in her possession. According to corrections personnel who interviewed her, she gave several different stories as to what happened to the money she could not account for. Though both Ms. Alexander and Jackson stated she bought him two cartons of cigarettes, when he was searched prior to leaving the Visitor's Park, he had only one carton with him. The strip search conducted of him at that time also failed to reveal any money in his possession. Ms. Alexander was asked to go back into the Visitor's Park and look through the trash cans to try to find the money, and was accompanied by a guard. Because of the heat, however, it was an odious task and she admits her search of six or seven cans was not thorough. Unfortunately, she was unable to locate the money. As a result of this missing money, an incident report, (IR) was prepared. Ms. Alexander was not detained but was orally informed that her visiting privileges might be suspended and Jackson was allowed to return to his quarters. The IR merely outlined the information cited above but did not draw any conclusions as to what happened to the money. Mr. Davis, the corrections supervisor who was in charge of the corrections shift, concluded that Ms. Alexander disregarded the department's rules and regulations and recommended that her visiting privileges be revoked for an indefinite period. This IR was processed through channels to Mr. Cunningham, the Classification Supervisor, who under the provisions of Section 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., had the authority, in the absence of the Superintendent, to approve the suspension. He did so, and made sure that the Superintendent was informed. Thereafter, on September 29, 1986, Mr. K. W. Snow, who worked for Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, sent a letter to Ms. Alexander at her home address on file at the institution, indicating that her visiting privileges were suspended indefinitely beginning that date and would be reinstated on October 31, 1986, one month later. Notwithstanding that inconsistency regarding the length of the suspension, the practice at UCI, in the case of indefinite suspensions, is to reconsider the suspension on receipt of a request for reinstatement. In the case of a suspension for a definite term, they will reinstate upon request at the end of the suspension period. On the afternoon of September 26, 1986, several days prior to the dispatch of the suspension letter to Ms. Alexander, inmate Jackson was called to Mr. Snow's office where he was told that Ms. Alexander's visiting privileges were to be suspended for 30 days. At that time, he was advised that the basis for the suspension was her inability to account for the money she brought into the Visitor's Park on September 22. Though he requested a copy of the IR at that time, Jackson was not given a copy of it until in response to a discovery request after the filing of the rule challenge petition. Jackson was not advised of any opportunity either he or Ms. Alexander might have for a hearing on the matter prior to the suspension, or any appeal rights. Thereafter, Jackson wrote to Mr. Snow asking that he be notified of the suspension in writing, but this request was denied. The September 29, 1986 letter was not received by Ms. Alexander but was returned undelivered because of an erroneous address. On October 1, 1986, however, she wrote to Mr. Cunningham, having been advised by Jackson of the suspension, and the address on her stationery was used to again send her a letter of notification. This second letter was not returned. In her letter, Ms. Alexander explained her reasons for taking so much money into the Visitor's Park, and what she had done with a part of it. She also outlined her efforts to find the extra money. These explanations were not credited by the institution officials, however. Ms. Alexander's suspension has had a bad effect on Jackson, he claims. He felt frustrated and considered that his ability to be heard by the authorities was unnecessarily thwarted. He is of the opinion that the suspension was unfair because neither he nor his fiancee had broken any rules, and neither of them was given any opportunity to explain to the decision maker what had happened other than in writing and after the action was taken. As a result of the suspension, which has now expired, he missed two separate visits from his fiancee. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Alexander's suspension did not place any limits on visits by the other 7 or 8 people on his visitor's list. This suspension action has been utilized frequently as to other visitors as well as Ms. Alexander. Ms. Decker, for example, on September 29, 1986, was notified of the suspension of her visiting privileges on the basis that she had allegedly written a threatening letter to an official at the institution. She found out about her suspension through a phone call from her inmate fiancee. Neither she nor he, initially, was told of the reason for her suspension, and she was given no opportunity to rebut the allegations against her prior to the suspension action. Subsequent to the suspension, she was able to clarify the situation and her visiting privileges have been reinstated, albeit on less convenient days than she had previously. She believes this change in days was intended as punishment, but there is no evidence of this. Ms. Decker denies ever having been told that she could only spend $25.00 in the canteen as is alleged in Ms. Alexander's letter. In fact, there is no rule or policy limiting the amount that visitors may spend in the canteen nor is there a rule or policy which limits inmates to no more than one carton of cigarettes at a time. Mr. Jackson complains of the fact that neither he nor Ms. Alexander was afforded a hearing prior to the imposition of the suspension. There is no provision in the rule for a hearing prior to suspension in this type of case. This suspension was not intended as punishment for improper behavior by Jackson, but more a means of correcting an unauthorized situation and avoiding a security problem. Officials at UCI interpret the provisions of paragraph 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., as permitting the removal of a visitor from the visiting list for criminal activity, for a serious rule violation, for continuous infractions of visiting procedures, for security breaches, or a combination of those. While the instant situation is not considered to be criminal activity, a serious rule violation, or a continuing infraction, it is considered to be a security breach and it was to correct this situation that the institution officials suspended Ms. Alexander. Final action on the issue of a suspension of visiting privileges based on the IR is, by the rule, to be taken by the Superintendent, or the Assistant Superintendent, Classification Supervisor, or the next senior officer present in the chain of command in the absence of the Superintendent. Here, while the suspension letter in question was signed by Mr. Snow, the assistant classification supervisor, and while the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, was present on the day the suspension letter was signed, the letter clearly shows that the action was taken in the name of the superintendent and the testimony of Mr. Cunningham established that it was done with his concurrence. There is nothing in the rule that requires that the inmate or the visitor be afforded a hearing prior to the action suspending visiting privileges. If an inmate feels that the action suspending the visiting privileges of an individual on his list is improper and he can show a direct effect on him as a result thereof, he may file a grievance. Though Jackson indicates he filed a grievance in this case, there is no evidence of it. The incident report in question related strictly to the activity of Ms. Alexander and the action was taken against her even though, in so doing, an adverse effect was felt by Mr. Jackson. No doubt had he desired to do so, he could have grieved that situation, but, as was stated above, there is no evidence that he did so. There is a difference between an IR, as was written here, and a disciplinary report, (DR), which was not involved in this case. A DR involves misconduct on the part of an inmate which may result in disciplinary action, including a suspension of visiting privileges. An IR is nothing more than a memorialization of an unusual incident which is to be brought to the attention of institution authorities. Whereas an inmate is entitled to a hearing before action is taken on the basis of a DR, no hearing is required when an IR is written. If the incident resulting in an IR also results in a DR, a hearing would be afforded the inmate based on the proposed disciplinary action, not on the memorialization in the IR. There is no doubt that the removal of visitors from an inmate's visitors list does have an adverse effect on the morale and possibly the well- being of the inmate involved. However, the action is normally taken on the basis of the conduct of the visitor, not the inmate, and if a decision is made to suspend the visiting privileges of the visitor, the direct effect is on that visitor with a secondary effect only on the innate. In the instant case, officials concluded that Ms. Alexander's inability to account for approximately $20.00 in currency constituted a breach of security which authorized and in fact dictated a need to curtail her entry into the institution for a period of time. There is no evidence that Jackson committed any offense or did anything improper and it is, indeed, unfortunate that he was forced to suffer the deprivation of not being visited by his fiancee for a period of time. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the testimony of the numerous individuals involved in the investigation of this incident that the action taken under the terms of the rule to suspend Ms. Alexander's privilege to visit was not taken lightly and was based on a bona fide evaluation of a security risk to the institution.
