Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent holds a Class "D", unarmed security guard license, No. GD-0106713, which was most recently renewed on July 3, 1983. The Respondent also holds a Class "G", statewide gun permit (armed security guard license) , No. GG-0025231, which was issued on July 3, 1983. The Division of Licensing of the Department of State did not approve or deny the Respondent's application for a Class "G" license within a 90-day period from the date of receipt of the application and, accordingly, by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division was required to, and in fact did, issue a Class "G" license to the Respondent. Except for the operation of the 90-day provision in Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division of Licensing would not have issued the Respondent a statewide gun permit because of the Respondent's criminal record. For the same reason, it was a mistake for the Division of Licensing to renew the Respondent's Class "D" license in 1983. On February 28, 1977, the Respondent was arrested on the roof of a department-store and charged with burglary, to which he entered a plea of nolo contendre. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for 5 years. During the summer of 1980, the Respondent and two of his friends apprehended two thieves who had stolen some personal property from a vehicle. Later, the Respondent appeared in court to testify against the two thieves. On April 15, 1981, the Respondent was arrested for grand larceny. On November 9, 1981, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to a larceny charge of failing to redeliver a hired motor vehicle. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the De- partment of State issue a Final Order which (a) Would revoke Respondent's Class "D" and Class "G" licenses and (b) would order Respondent to forthwith return such licenses to the Department of State. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 25th day of September, 1984 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Stuart Phillip Coon 12824 Southwest 114 Terrace Miami, Florida 33183
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed violations of provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary action against Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Ronald W. Cone. Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License No. D89-03534 which expired on February 21, 1993. Subsequently, Respondent applied for renewal of the Class "D" Security Officer License in August, 1993. The renewal was granted by Petitioner. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, Respondent has, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, held a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. From February 21, 1993, to April 12, 1993, Respondent performed his duties as an armed security officer at the Independent Life Insurance Building in Jacksonville, Florida. The building was open to the public at the time. On April 9, 1993, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Respondent arrived for work at his guard station in the center of the 80 foot vaulted ceiling lobby to the building. The acoustics of the lobby are such that a dime can be heard hitting the floor all the way across the area on a quiet day when there are few people in the facility, as was the case on April 9, 1993, at about 4:00 p.m. when Respondent decided to delve into his brown bag lunch. Leaving his subordinate, an unarmed security guard named William C. Piersky, on duty at the guard station, Respondent went to a restaurant area located in the lobby of the building approximately 125 feet from the guard station to eat his late lunch. The restaurant, operated by Morrison's Cafeteria, Inc., was closed at the time. The area was separated from the rest of the lobby by small partitions that stood three to four feet tall. Piersky was unable to see Respondent. A short time later, Piersky heard a loud report which he presumed was the discharge of a firearm. Although Piersky concluded the discharge he heard came from a firearm, his testimony is not credited on this point in view of his admitted unfamiliarity with bullets containing "birdshot", his admitted lack of involvement with firearms in previous security employment, and his present employment in the position previously held by Respondent. Respondent's testimony at final hearing was candid, worthy of belief and establishes that what Piersky really heard was not a firearm discharge. Rather, the loud report resulted from Respondent's action of blowing up and popping his paper lunch bag in an area with extreme acoustical sensitivity. Respondent admits that he was having fun at Piersky's expense and that when he returned to the guard station in the center of the lobby he remarked "can't believe I missed that bird." The reference to a bird was the sparrow that had found its way into the building. The bird had eluded capture by building maintenance personnel. Respondent's candid testimony establishes that he did not discharge his service revolver at the bird and that he did not load the weapon with a form of nonstandard ammunition known as birdshot on the day in question. In furtherance of his claim that a firearm had discharged, Piersky did an incident report on the matter. Three days later Respondent was fired. Piersky, previously an unarmed contract guard, now works as an armed security guard supervisor directly for Independent Life Insurance Company, as did Respondent prior to his termination. During the period of February 14, 1993 through April 12, 1993, Respondent performed duties as a security officer and armed security officer while his Class "D" license was expired. Upon receipt of a renewal notice and during his employment with Independent Life, Respondent's practice was to give that notice to the building manager's secretary to handle administratively. This had been a normal practice for licensed security guards during Respondent's employment with Independent Life. He followed this practice in the present instance and thought at the time that his license was renewed. Following his termination of employment and discovery of his license expiration, Respondent proceeded to obtain license renewal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of allegations contained in Counts III, IV and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order find Respondent guilty of allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine of $100 for each violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-4981 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.-5. Accepted, though not verbatim. 6.-7. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. 11.-12. Rejected, relevance. Adopted, though not verbatim. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings In Respondent's posthearing submission, he basically pleads guilty to the allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and not guilty to the remaining counts. Accordingly, further comment is not required. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Attorney at Law Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald W. Cone Post Office Box 447 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 323999-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 15, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1991, Respondent performed the services of a security guard at a Best Western Motel in Orange County, Florida, As such he was employed by the motel. While performing the services above noted Respondent carried a 9mm Berretta automatic pistol in a holster external to his clothes. While performing the above-noted services Respondent's firearm was unloaded and he had hollow point 9mm shells in his pocket. While performing the above-noted services Respondent held neither a Class D nor Class G license. Respondent was performing the services of security guard while substituting for a relative who was ill. Respondent was working solely for the motel and was not associated with any security guard agency. The motel manager had requested that Respondent carry a unloaded firearm because several crimes had been committed in the vicinity of the motel. Respondent believed that as an employee of the motel, as contrasted with being employed by a security guard agency, Respondent did not need a security guard license. Further, Respondent believed he had a Second Amendment U.S. Constitutional right to overtly carry the firearm in the holster outside his clothing. At the time of this hearing Respondent was unemployed.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that the Petitioner had applied for a Class D, Private Guard license, and that the Petitioner meets all the criteria for such licensure with the exception of one year of experience in the security field within the State of Florida. Petitioner admits that he lacks one year of experience within the State of Florida, but the record reflects that the Petitioner has the requisite knowledge and a clean record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer must recommend that the Department of State give effect to the statutory language and deny the application of the Petitioner for licensure as a Class D, Private Guard. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Fixel, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Roy C. Hinze 1450 Sixth Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Findings Of Fact On or about January 31, 1990, the Petitioner, John P. Fletcher, applied for a Class "D" Unarmed Security Officer license. In Section 13 of the application, the Petitioner represented that he never had been arrested. In 1957, when the Petitioner was about 21 years old, he was arrested in West Union, West Virginia, with a brother and another man, and the three were charged with stealing gasoline from a filling station. The Petitioner denies that he stole the gasoline, saying that he and his brother did not know that the third man had not paid for the gasoline for the car they were riding in. The Petitioner's mother paid restitution, and the charges were dropped. In November, 1963, when the Petitioner was about 27 years old, he was arrested for, and adjudicated guilty of, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In fact, he was teaching a minor to drive a car against the wishes of the minor's parents. He served 60 or 90 days in jail in Lakeland on the charges. Two years later, in August, 1965, while he was working for the Peninsula Lumber Company, the Petitioner was arrested for alleged aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was put in jail for seven to 14 days while awaiting trial. The charges arose out of an altercation with a fellow employee. The Petitioner was upset about his pending divorce, and the other man kept picking at him about it. Three times, the Petitioner asked the man to stop, but he persisted. At one point, the man came at him in a threatening manner with a hammer in his hand, and the Petitioner cut him with a knife. In court proceedings, the other man admitted the truth of the Petitioner's version of the altercation, and the judge dismissed the charges. In January, 1983, the Petitioner was visiting at the home of his elderly mother, who was living alone in East Hillsborough County. The Petitioner was told that a bad-mannered neighborhood youth was vandalizing his mother's property and generally terrorizing her. The Petitioner was very angry about this. During the visit, he went out to his truck and found a firecracker, with fuse burned but not ignited, that he believed had been placed there by the youth of whom his mother had spoken. He sought out the youth, about twenty-one years old, grabbed him, and was going to "put a whipping on him" but did not. Instead, he threatened to do so if the youth did not stop his bad behavior, particularly towards the Petitioner's mother. As a result, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated assault. The Petitioner was placed on a pretrial intervention program on March 11, 1983, and he successfully completed the program on September 11, 1983. The charges were dismissed. The evidence did not explain why the Petitioner represented in Section 13 of his application that he never had been arrested. Although he conceivably could have forgotten about the 1957 arrest, it is not likely that he forgot about the others, and it is found that the misrepresentation was intentional. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Petitioner had occasion to work as a licensed armed security guard for Foley Security and Detective Agency and for United Security Agency in Tampa. The Petitioner worked for each of them for about a year, until each went out of business. He also worked for Securex and later Bedway as an unarmed security officer from January 29, 1990, until he voluntarily quit pending the resolution of his license application. The Petitioner also has worked as a truck driver and has operated heavy equipment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying the application of the Petitioner, John P. Fletcher, for licensure as a Class "D" Unarmed Security Officer. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of February, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The facts as set forth in the Stipulation above are incorporated within the Findings of Fact in this hearing. The applicant is now employed by Central Security Patrol. His supervisor in his employment as an unarmed guard has known Croft for 15 months. His supervisor's primary association and knowledge of Croft is job-related. Croft's supervisor considers Croft dependable, a good worker, and well liked by those who come in contact with him. Croft has had no problems with absenteeism from his job. Croft's further advancement within the company with which he is now employed is dependent upon acquisition of a Class G, armed guard license. Croft's reputation in the community was testified to by two of his neighbors who had known Croft for three to four years. Croft's reputation in the neighborhood is good. The neighbors, who observed Croft daily, testified to Croft's habits. Croft does not drink and lives quietly with his wife of four years. Croft works in his yard and at his job. Croft testified in his own behalf. Croft had a series of arrests and convictions arising out of his heavy drinking between 1963 and 1969. Croft was then arrested for driving under the influence and a moving traffic violation in May of 1975. In October of 1975, he was arrested for homicide, assault to commit murder, and discharge of a firearm. These charges were dropped. Croft stated that these charges were an outgrowth of his heavy drinking. Croft was married approximately four years ago and has not drunk alcoholic beverages for the past two years. Although Croft does not admit to alcoholism, he recognizes that his drinking was the cause of his problems and has ceased drinking. Concerning the gap in his arrest record between 1969 and 1975, Croft stated that he had drunk heavily during that period but had not been arrested. Croft's supervisor testified concerning the company's policy concerning issuance and control of firearms. The company which employs Croft owns and controls all employee weapons to the extent that the company purchases any private weapon owned by an employee which the employee wishes to use on the job. Only weapons originally owned by an employee may be retained in the employee's possession and removed off a security post. All other weapons owned by the company must be retained on a security post and transferred from one guard shift to the next.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the applicant, James Robert Croft, be issued a Class G, armed guard license. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James R. Croft 3545 Marlboro Avenue Jacksonville, Florida
Findings Of Fact Question 13 on Petitioner's application for an unarmed guard license reads as follows: "Have you ever been arrested". In response thereto, Petitioner answered in the affirmative and, in accordance with the instructions to list all arrests, stated that he had been arrested for breaking and entering in 1965, at which time he served one year in prison; and that he had been arrested for armed robbery in 1969, at which time he was sentenced to five to ten years in prison. No other arrests were listed. Petitioner's application was signed under oath and recited that all information contained in the application was true and correct. Petitioner is presently on probation from his armed robbery conviction, and his probationary period will not expire until March 4, 1981. His civil rights have not been restored from that conviction, although he intends to apply for restoration upon completion of his parole period. At the time that the Petitioner's employer was assisting him in completing his application, Petitioner indicated to Mr. Martin that Petitioner had been arrested and convicted of offenses in addition to those revealed on his application. Those omitted arrests and/or convictions include fighting and unlawful assembly in 1962; assault with a knife in 1964; buying, receiving and concealing stolen property in 1966; assault and battery in 1968; and prison breach in 1974. Although Petitioner's parole officer believes he is being rehabilitated, Ms. Barrett, in the two and one-half years she has known Petitioner, only speaks to him on the telephone once a month and sees him every two months. More importantly, Ms. Barrett is unable to state that she would hire Petitioner as a security guard at her home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a Class "F" Unarmed Guard License. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John C. Henderson 1771 North East 176th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Christopher Hargraves, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his Class "B" Security Agency License, Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit, and Class "MB" Manager of Security Agency License.
Findings Of Fact At all timed pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher W. Hargraves (Respondent/Mr.Hargraves), was the holder of Class "B" Security Agency License No. B87-00007, Class "MB" Security Agency Manager License No. MB 90-000019, and Class "G" Statewide Firearms License No. G91-00245. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Hargraves was president of Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention Associated, Inc. (Protection Unlimited), a company which provided security services in the Tampa Bay area. The address of record for Protection Unlimited is 1511 Clement Road, Lutz, Florida 33549. Mack Cummings began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in early 1996 and worked there until late 1996. At the time Mr. Cummings was employed to work as a security guard for Protection Unlimited, he was also employed by Providence Security. As a security officer for Providence Security, Mr. Cummings' assigned posts were three Checkers Restaurants located in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Cummings' shift at Checkers began at 8:00 p.m. and ended between 1:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. The variation in the time Mr. Cummings' shift ended was due to and coincided with the time the particular Checkers' manager completed the restaurant's closing. When Mr. Cummings was employed by Protection Unlimited, he was assigned to work at Channel 13, a television facility located in Tampa, Florida. When he was being considered for the position of security officer, Mr. Cummings told Respondent about his assignment with Providence Security and advised Respondent that he would be unable to report to Channel 13 until after midnight. Nonetheless, Mr. Cummings was scheduled to begin his shift at Channel 13 at midnight. As a result of his employment at Providence Security, Mr. Cummings usually did not report for duty at Channel 13 until after midnight. Respondent was aware that on many nights Mr. Cummings was not reporting to Channel 13 until much later than midnight. Steven Cox worked for Protection Unlimited as a security officer during most of 1995. As a security guard for Protection Unlimited, Mr. Cox' assigned posts were Channel 13 and a yacht, the Claire T. While working at Channel 13, Mr. Cox performed security duties in plain clothes. At the time Mr. Cox was employed by Protection Unlimited, no uniforms were issued to him. Mr. Hargraves issued uniforms to Mr. Cox approximately two months after Mr. Cox began working for Protection Unlimited. David Gilbert was hired as a security officer with Protection Unlimited on or about July 10, 1995. Mr. Gilbert often worked with Steven Cox while both were employed with Protection Unlimited. During this time, Mr. Cox often observed Gilbert performing security duties in civilian clothes, rather than in a uniform. Michael Munger began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in late 1994 and worked for that agency for approximately nine months. As an employee of Protection Unlimited, Mr. Munger was assigned to Channel 13. Although Mr. Munger performed security duties at Channel 13, he was never provided with a uniform and thus, performed these duties in plain clothes. Willie Lee began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in June 1995 and worked for the agency until January 1996. Mr. Lee's assigned post was Channel 13. When Mr. Lee was initially employed by Protection Unlimited, he was not issued an agency identification card. A month or two after Mr. Lee was employed by Protection Unlimited, Respondent gave him a card which Respondent referred to as an agency identification card. The only information contained on the card was "Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc.," the typewritten name "Willie Lee," and Mr. Lee's signature. Also, the "agency card" had spaces designated "photo" and "agency representative," although the card contained neither a photo of Mr. Lee nor the signature or name of the agency representative. Barbara Norman was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited for several weeks in 1995. Respondent never provided Ms. Norman with uniforms to wear while she was performing security duties. Moreover, Ms. Norman had only a Class "D" license and therefore was not authorized to work as an "armed guard." Consistent with this Class "D" license, Protection Unlimited did not provide Ms. Norman with a firearm while she worked at Channel 13. However, she was told to wear an empty holster. Glen Davis was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in 1996. Mr. Davis was assigned to the Claire T yacht. Mr. Davis was not issued uniforms to wear while conducting security duties for Protection Unlimited. On April 8, 1996, Gary Floyd and Gene Blicth, investigator for the Department, performed a proactive inspection of the Claire T while Mr. Davis was on duty and observed that Mr. Davis was not wearing a uniform. William Scott was employed with Protection Unlimited in February 1996 and continued working for the agency until July 1996. While employed with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott worked as a both a security guard and as acting supervisor for the agency. During the time that Mr. Scott worked for Protection Unlimited, he usually relieved by Mack Cummings or Steve Pritchard, also employees of Protection Unlimited. One night Mr. Pritchard did not report to work and no guard was or came on duty when Mr. Scott's assigned shift ended. Several times during his employment with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott needed to leave Channel 13 before the end of his shift. In these instances, and before leaving his post early, Mr. Scott gave prior notice to Respondent. Upon being so informed, Respondent told Mr. Scott that he should not indicate on the log that he had left his post early. As acting supervisor with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott was aware that Respondent routinely generated scheduling documents, time sheets, and payment schedules related to the operations of Protection Unlimited. Mr. Scott observed Respondent throw away many of these documents. The documents that Respondent discarded were less than two years old. On or about March 8, 1996, Investigator Floyd performed a proactive inspection of the yacht, the Claire T. At the site, he spoke with a man who identified himself as Rocky Cocozza. Mr. Cocozza was working as a security guard on the vessel and produced an agency identification card from Protection Unlimited. During this inspection, Mr. Cocozza was wearing black trousers and a black jacket. Under the jacket, Mr. Cocozza was wearing a blue short-sleeve shirt which contained an emblem identifying the employing agency; the emblem was on the left side of the shirt, just above the pocket. However, the emblem on the shirt could not necessarily be seen when Mr. Cocozza was wearing the black jacket. On March 18, 1996, Investigator Floyd was on the premises of Channel 13. As he was leaving that facility, Investigator Floyd observed Respondent performing security duties in the reception area. Investigator Floyd then approached Respondent and asked to see his agency identification card. Respondent did not produce a current agency identification card. On or about May 3, 1996, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's address of record to inquire about matters related to Protection Unlimited. After determining that no one was on the premises, Investigator Floyd left one of his business cards on the door of Respondent's address of record. On the card, Investigator Floyd wrote, "Chris, please call." The note on the card was directed to Respondent, whose first name is Christopher. Later that same day, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's residence. After Respondent's wife told Investigator Floyd that Respondent was not at home, Investigator Floyd gave one of his business cards to Respondent's wife and requested that she give it to Respondent. On the card given to Respondent's wife, Investigator Floyd also wrote a note requesting that Respondent call him. After waiting two months and receiving no response from Respondent, Investigator Floyd left several telephone messages for Respondent between July 10 and July 29, 1996. The telephone messages were left with Respondent's answering service and requested that Respondent return Investigator Floyd's calls. Although Respondent's answering service confirmed to Investigator Floyd that all of his messages had been conveyed to Respondent, Respondent never returned Investigator Floyd's telephone calls. On August 20, 1996, Investigator Floyd reached Respondent by telephone and scheduled a meeting with Respondent for August 22, 1996. On the day of the scheduled meeting, Respondent called Investigator Floyd and canceled the meeting. The following day, August 23, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent at the Channel 13 security desk and, again, attempted to schedule a meeting with Respondent. Respondent indicated that he would call Investigator Floyd the following Monday, August 26, 1996, to schedule a meeting. After he had not heard from Respondent by 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent to schedule a meeting. During the August 26, 1996 telephone conversation, Respondent refused to set a date to meet with Investigator Floyd, indicating that he was too busy. However, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he would call him the next week to schedule a meeting. Because he previously had been unsuccessful in scheduling a meeting with Respondent, after speaking with Respondent by telephone on August 26, 1998, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 and served Respondent with a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena required Respondent to produce and provide the Department with various records maintained and related to the business operations of Protection Unlimited. The documents requested by the subpoena included the following: weekly assignment schedules; daily guard logs; time sheets; payroll records; personnel records of specified employees; and Employee Action Reports from January 1995 through March 1995, December 1995 through February 1996, and January 1996 through August 1996. Respondent failed to provide all of the documents requested in the subpoena. Respondent provided several of the requested documents but many of them appeared to have some of the information on them obliterated with "white out." With regard to several of the requested documents, Mr. Hargraves noted on the subpoena that the records could not be located. On or about September 3, 1996, after receiving some of the documents Respondent had provided pursuant to the subpoena, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 to speak with Respondent about the documents that had been requested. Upon arrival at Channel 13, Investigator Floyd told Respondent that he had a tape recorder and was recording the conversation. Respondent then refused to speak with Investigator Floyd and ejected him from the Channel 13 premises. Once Respondent ejected Investigator Floyd, Respondent went inside the Channel 13 building and locked the door. Investigator Floyd met with Respondent and his attorney on September 6, 1996, at the address of record for Protection Unlimited. During the meeting, Investigator Floyd discussed several areas of concern with Protection Unlimited, including the following: (1) general record keeping and record retention procedures; (2) filing of hiring and termination notices with Petitioner; (3) occupational license; (4) branch offices; and (5) general liability insurance. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, with regard to record keeping, Respondent acknowledged that he was a poor record keeper and that he routinely threw away records that he believed were no longer of use to him. Moreover, during this meeting, Respondent stated that he did not always file hiring and termination notices with Petitioner. During the course of his investigation, Investigator Floyd determined that Channel 13 permitted Respondent to bill for security guard services two weeks in advance. Based on a review of invoices from mid-December 1995 to August 1996, to Channel 13 from Respondent, Investigator Floyd found that Respondent had billed Channel 13 for his agency's services two weeks in advance. However, Respondent failed to make adjustments on subsequent invoices, to reflect a reduction in the actual number of hours worked by some security officers. For example, in July 1996, Respondent's invoices do not reflect the approximately nineteen hours that Mark Cummings was not actually at Channel 13. An investigation by Petitioner substantiated Respondent's admission that he did not always file hiring and termination notices. Among employees hired by Protection Unlimited, but for whom notices of hiring were not filed, were Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, William Scott, and Willie Lee. Furthermore, the Department's investigation found that Respondent failed to file termination notices for several of his employees, including William Scott, Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, and Willie Lee. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Respondent showed Investigator Floyd a Hillsborough County occupational license for Protection Unlimited. The license was dated September 5, 1996, and indicated that it was an initial issue, although Protection Unlimited had been in business since at least 1994. During the course of that meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his agency did not have an occupational license prior to the one dated September 5, 1996. Investigator Floyd discussed the issue of branch offices with Respondent during the September 6, 1996 meeting. At that time, Respondent acknowledged that he had no branch office license. This admission by Respondent is confirmed by Petitioner's records which revealed that Respondent had no branch office license for any location, including 3213 West Kennedy, Tampa, Florida, the location of Channel 13. Despite not having a branch office license which authorized him to carry on business activities such as interviewing potential employees at a location other than his address of record, Respondent routinely conducted such activities at Channel 13, located 3213 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Newspaper advertisements by Protection Unlimited, included a Channel 13 telephone number. When individuals called that number to inquire about available security officer positions, prospective job applicants were directed to come to Channel 13 for their job interview. During the time relevant to this proceeding, numerous job interviews to fill security officer positions for Protection Unlimited were routinely conducted at Channel 13. During the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees when they were hired. Respondent answered affirmatively and indicated that he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees before "they ever set foot" on their assigned post. The statement by Respondent that he always provided agency identification cards to employees upon hiring them is false in light of the credible testimony of Willie Lee that he performed his security duties for Protection Unlimited for at least a month before receiving his agency identification card. During the September 6, 1996, meeting between Investigator Floyd and Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he either permitted or had knowledge of his employees working in plain clothes while performing security duties. In response to this inquiry, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he neither permitted nor had knowledge that employees wore plain clothes while performing security duties for his company. The statement made by Respondent to Investigator Floyd was a false statement. The credible testimony of Barbara Norman and Glenn Davis, both employees of Protection Unlimited, was that Respondent never issued them uniforms in which to perform their security duties and, as a result thereof, they performed their duties in plain clothes. Furthermore, the credible testimony of Michael Munger and Steve Cox was that as employees of Protection Unlimited, they performed security duties in plain clothes. Despite his testimony to the contrary, Respondent was at the Channel 13 and observed that many times these employees were performing security duties while not in uniforms. Another issue addressed by Investigator Floyd during the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent concerned the required reporting of individuals who had been employed by Protection Unlimited. When asked by Investigator Floyd whether he had ever employed Barbara Norman and Michael Munger as security guards for Protection Unlimited, Respondent answered in the negative. This statement by Respondent is false in light of the credible testimony of Barabara Norman and Michael Munger. Ms. Norman and Mr. Munger were employed by and worked for Protection Unlimited in 1995. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent to provide proof of the required general liability insurance for Respondent's agency. Respondent implied that he had the required insurance coverage, but at that time had no proof of such coverage. However, Mr. Hargraves told Investigator Floyd that he would have his insurance company fax documentary evidence that Protection Unlimited had the required insurance. Although Mr. Hargraves indicated that he would request that the insurance company fax the information to Investigator Floyd that same day, no such proof of insurance was ever provided to Investigator Floyd. Respondent routinely performed duties as a security officer at Channel 13 during the period between March 1996 and August 1996, inclusive, although he did not have a Class "D" Security Officer License. Respondent routinely carried a concealed firearm while on duty as a security officer during the time period April 1995 to July 1996. Respondent told Glenn Davis that if investigators from the Department came to the Claire T, Mr. Davis was not to allow them on the post. Respondent indicated to Mr. Davis that he would be fired if he cooperated with the Department. Respondent also told Mr. Scott that he was not to speak with Department investigators and that if the investigators came to his assigned post, Mr. Scott was to have the police remove the investigators from the premises. Respondent told Mr. Pritchard not to speak with any investigators from the Department and to call the police if they came to Channel 13. Mr. Pritchard was told that he would be terminated if he spoke to any Department investigators. On July 13, 1996, at about 8:30 p.m. and while on duty at Channel 13, Mr. Scott locked his master key to the facility in an office he had just checked. Immediately thereafter Mr. Scott attempted to call Respondent. When Mr. Scott could not reach Respondent directly, he left several messages with Respondent's answering service. Respondent never turned the calls. When Mr. Scott left at midnight, he still had not heard from Respondent. The next day when Mr. Scott spoke with Respondent, about the "key" incident that has occurred on July 13, 1996. Respondent then directed Mr. Scott to indicate on the log that Respondent had returned Mr. Scott's call on July 13, 1998, shortly after 8:30 p.m., the time Mr. Scott had initially placed the call to Respondent. Mr. Scott told Respondent that he would not falsify the log. Later Mr. Scott observed that Mr. Hargraves had added an addendum to the daily log that falsely indicated that Respondent had responded to Mr. Scott's call the previous night.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts IV through XXIV and Counts XXVI through XXVIII; (2) dismissing Counts I, II, III, and XXV; and (3) revoking Respondent's Class "B" license, Class "G" license, and Class "MB" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele L. Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Four Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher Hargraves 12515 Mondragon Tampa, Florida 33625 Laura Vaughn, Esquire 401 East Jackson Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Ozell Barnes applied for a license as an armed and unarmed guard. He was granted an unarmed guard license. Barnes is employed as a caretaker/gardener at a nursing home for the elderly. Barnes' employer has no requirement for an armed guard, and Barnes' duties do not require him to be armed. Barnes is a remarkable man who, as a black deaf-mute, supports himself and his family in a regular competitive job. Because of his deafness, his written communication is often initially unclear to those not familiar with it; however, having met Mr. Barnes and having observed him during the hearing, the Hearing Officer finds that he is intelligent, well-oriented, and perceptive. Barnes qualified with a pistol; however, his instructor was not approved by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, as required by the statutes and rules. Barnes suffers from hypertension.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petitioner's application for licensure as an armed guard be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of December, 1979. 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 21st day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W.J. Gladwin, Jr., Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ozell Barnes 3009 Carver Street Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
Findings Of Fact As Needed Temps, Inc., Respondent, provides temporary employees to various businesses. Respondent is not licensed under Chapter 493. Respondent Mary E. Carter is president of Respondent. She is also the director of operations for SOS Security, Inc., whose principal place of business is at the same location as that of Respondent. SOS Security, Inc. holds a Class "B" license. In August, 1987, David Christy, who was a drywall laborer, was working temporary jobs that Respondent had found for him. On August 8 or 9, 1988, Respondent assigned him to SOS Security, Inc., which placed Mr. Christy as a security guard at a local bicycle racetrack. While working as a security guard, Mr. Christy wore the guard uniform of SOS Security, Inc. Mr. Christy was not a licensed security guard. SOS Security, Inc., which billed its customer for the security service, paid Respondent for Mr. Christy's services, and Respondent paid Mr. Christy. At least one other individual entered into a similar arrangement with Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. Willy Dorsey, whose security guard license had expired in 1986, was paid by Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. at different times for security work that he performed during an unspecified year. These incidents were not isolated. Respondent invoiced SOS Security, Inc. a total of over $13,000 in three invoices from March 20, 1987, through May 8, 1987, for "providing guard service."
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1988, 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 September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1402 1-2. Rejected as not finding of fact. 3-10. Rejected as recitation of evidence and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mary E. Carter President As Needed Temps, Inc. 6239 Edgewater Drive Suite N-5 Orlando, Florida 32810 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
