The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for a Class "C" private investigator license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for a Class "C" private investigator license. The Department denied that application by letter dated November 24, 1993, for the reason that Petitioner had not shown that he had the two years of full-time experience or training required for licensure. As evidence of his two years of full-time experience or training, Petitioner had submitted to the Department an affidavit from attorney Mark M. Spatz of the law firm Simons and Spatz and an affidavit from attorney Lawrence S. Ben of the law firm Chikovsky and Ben. Both of those affidavits had been altered. Although Petitioner did perform some services for attorney Spatz' law firm by assisting in the investigation and preparation of some cases for trial from September of 1990 to June of 1992, he did so as an independent contractor and not as an employee. That law firm provided Petitioner with no training or equipment and exercised no control over him. Petitioner was simply given an assignment and told to complete it for a flat rate. Petitioner was not held out by the law firm to be an employee, he was not carried on any of the firm's insurance policies, no taxes were withheld from his pay check when he carried out an assignment, and Petitioner did not receive a weekly paycheck. Petitioner's contacts with that law firm were minimal and numbered less than ten. Petitioner worked as an employee at the law firm of Chikovsky and Ben. He performed both janitorial work and investigative work. The amount of his time spent working as a janitor versus the time spent working as an investigator while employed by that law firm is unknown as is the length of time he was employed there.
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 licensure as a Class "C" private investigator. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 28th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-0086S Petitioner's proposed findings of fact delineated by letters A-I have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 5-10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Fenel Antoine 1019 Northwest 5th Avenue, #2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State Department 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 At all times relevant hereto, Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator's License Number C90-00727 and a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, Number G90-02226. In April 1991 Respondent taught a Saturday morning class, the third or fourth week of that month, in which Beatrice Price and Ryan Martin were trainees. At the conclusion of the lecture Respondent took the two trainees on a "real" investigation. The subject of the investigation was a dentist, Dr. Kathleen Gerreaux, under surveillance on either a worker's compensation claim or a liability claim (conflict in the testimony and the type of surveillance is not relevant). Respondent placed a microphone under the blouse of Beatrice Price a/k/a Beatrix Herrera and had her go to the office of Dr. Gerreaux to try and learn in what activities she was engaging. The conversation was recorded in Respondent's van parked some distance away. When Herrera returned to the van the tape was replayed in her presence and the words of the investigator and Dr. Gerreaux could be clearly understood. Shortly thereafter Dr. Gerreaux left her office and returned to her home. Respondent took the van to the vicinity of the residence, parked several houses away and rigged Ryan Martin with a microphone under his shirt and had him go to Dr. Gerreaux's home to attempt to get her to go jogging or perform some other exercise which could be videotaped. Herrera overheard the conversation between Martin and Dr. Gerreaux while waiting in the van. This incident was not reported to Petitioner until several months later after Herrera had contacted plaintiff's investigator to complain about an incident which she was told she had been taped without her knowledge or consent. When told that her evidence was insufficient to support her claim Herrera told the investigator about the taping of the conversation with Dr. Gerreaux. This initiated the investigation which led to the Administrative Complaint filed herein. After talking to Herrera and Martin the investigator also interviewed Respondent regarding the taping incident. Respondent admitted to the investigator that he had used Herrera and Martin to intercept the conversations with Dr. Gerreaux, but said the tapes were unintelligible. Respondent's version of this incident was similar to the testimony given at the hearing by Herrera except for the clarity of the taped conversation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding David J. Berry guilty of violating section 493.6118(1)(f), F.S. and that an Administrative fine of $1000 be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 2nd day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald L. Jones, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license issued by the State of Florida under license number A 0001058, issued on October 12, 1987, to expire June 30, 1989. From 1969 through 1976, he also held a Class "C" Private Investigator license No. 227-C, and on July 7, 1988, applied again for a Class "C" license. From late 1976, however, to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988, he did not hold a valid "C" license in Florida. In 1986, Respondent agreed to sponsor Paul E. Hartigan for a Class "CC" Investigator Intern license utilizing his, Respondent's, license, Number GK 0001058 or 000007271. Neither was a bona fide Class "C" license, however. The sponsor form signed by the Respondent indicated he held a class "C" license. This was incorrect. As of June 23, 1988, Respondent was notified by the Department, by certified mail, that he did not possess a valid Class "C" or "A" license. That letter was correct as to the Class "C" license, but it was incorrect as to the Class "A" license. Janet R. Yonts, a well to do, eccentric, elderly woman who is active in animal rights causes in Florida and elsewhere, first met Respondent in 1986 through Mr. Bert Wahl, Jr., also active in those causes. In March 1988, she again contacted Respondent to do some work for her. She was looking for a private investigator to secure evidence of animal abuse against a Mr. Curtis, operator of the King Kong Zoo in Brooksville, Florida, who was suspected of abusing his animals. A corollary effort of Ms. Yonts, and one which she gave to Respondent, was to secure help for a friend, Ms. Bates, in her efforts to remove her trailer home from Mr. Curtis' property. Ms. Yonts was, for the most part, satisfied with Respondent's performance in their 1986 dealings. At that time, she paid him between $3,000 and $4,000 without receiving either an itemized statement or a report. Mr. Singleton attempted to get the evidence that Ms. Yonts desired concerning Mr. Curtis but denies he was in any way employed to move Ms. Bates' trailer. Ms. Bates was occupying her own trailer in a rental space on Mr. Curtis' property and had fallen behind in her rent payments when Mr. Curtis raised the rental payments considerably. Though Respondent denies any substantial effort to achieve the release of Ms. Bates' unit, and though he claims that what efforts he made did not constitute private investigation, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, in March or April 1988, he met with Ms. Bates and Mr. Curtis' stepson to discuss the possibility of getting the trailer off the property. Respondent contends that this meeting dealt primarily with an effort to get Mr. Curtis' stepson to provide evidence against his stepfather regarding the animal abuse allegations. In addition, he made at least one reconnaissance trip to the site, a trip on which he made a video tape which he played at the hearing. On that visit, he was unable to find the trailer in question because it had already been moved by someone else at Ms. Bates' direction As a result of the arrangement between Ms. Yonts and Mr. Singleton, however, she paid him $1,400.00 of which $500.00 was to be and was paid to Ms. Bates far back rent payments. The balance was to be used by Respondent both in his efforts to secure release of the trailer and to gather evidence against Mr. Curtis on the animal abuse allegations. There is substantial question in Ms. Yonts' mind as to how and where the remaining $900.00 was actually used. She made many phone calls to Respondent in an effort to get him to give her an accounting of the money spent and a report of his actions along with a bill for his services. He either ignored her requests or refused to provide such an accounting. Ms. Yonts also tried to get an accounting through her friend, Ms. Grabau, who was familiar with Mr. Singleton and what he was to do, and her efforts were also to no avail. Ultimately Ms. Yonts requested her Maine attorney, Mr. Strong, to contact Mr. Singleton and request an accounting and statement. When this was done, Respondent initially agreed to provide it, but immediately thereafter refused. Because Mr. Strong did not show a written authorization from Ms. Yonts, Respondent took the position that the confidentiality of his relationship with his client precluded him from releasing any information. He took the same position with Ms. Yonts' Florida attorney, Mr. Horan, who requested, both telephonically and in writing, an accounting and statement from the Respondent. At no time was either furnished. Respondent denies having received any request from Ms. Yonts and indicates he would have provided such requested information if he had been asked. By the same token, he also states that if either attorney or anyone purporting to represent Ms. Yonts had shown him a written authorization from her to release the information, he would have done so at that time. His testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Granted his reluctance to release the information to Ms. Grabau, both attorneys communicated with him on their professional letterhead, indicating their representative status, and he neither provided them with the information nor indicated what he would accept as authorization. Neither did he call Ms. Yonts to verify the authorization. It is clear Mr. Singleton had no intention of providing any statement or accounting to Ms. Yonts or her representatives for the $900.00 she gave him. At the hearing, however, he testified he spent well in excess of $1,000.00 worth of time in pursuit of her interests and that he earned every bit of the $900.00 fee she paid. Even at the hearing, however, he did not itemize and it is not at all unreasonable that Ms. Yonts should request an itemization. Having requested one, it is also not unreasonable that she should receive it. There was substantial issue raised by Respondent as to Ms. Yonts' competence to testify and to recall with any degree of accuracy the substance of her dealings with him. He made much of her inability to recall the actual address of her daughter whom she has not seen for several years. She related, however, that her daughter, from whom she is estranged, a not unusual situation, had recently moved. He alleged she rides around in a limousine with a basset hound who is not house broken, but she denied that, requesting to keep her animals out of the discussion. When his counsel asked her when she last combed her hair, she stated that she didn't comb it, but then quickly pointed out that she recently had a permanent and brushes it instead. While Respondent claims that Ms. Yonts, in her automobile outside of Ms. Grabau's house when she retained him to represent her in the matters in issue here, invited him to go to Australia with her, claiming they could have a good time, she unequivocally denies that happened. She admits to having been hospitalized for mental problems at one time in the past but claims she voluntarily admitted herself and was released when she recovered. She also admits that sometime around 1974, her not insubstantial property was placed into a conservancy but she has since been restored to full control over it and the conservancy has been cancelled. It is clear from the testimony given at the hearing and from personal observation of all parties, that while Ms. Yonts may be eccentric and unusual, while her syntax in speech may be unusual, and while she may be somewhat unsure as to the exquisite details of occurrences (times and dates), her testimony as a whole makes it clear she is competent to testify and her credibility is good. She is past seventy years of age. Though she may be reluctant to discuss her pets, this does not mean her recollection of past facts is faulty and when she claims to have repeatedly requested a statement and accounting of her fee from the Respondent, she is believable. Her eccentricities and idiosyncrasies in no way detract from the weight of her testimony in regard to the fundamentals of her story. Respondent's innuendo that she was coached as to what to say in her testimony by the Department's investigator is unsubstantiated and without merit. Ms. Yonts paid Respondent a substantial sum for the work he did for her on the prior occasion and at that time also got no itemization. Apparently, none was requested then. In the instant case, however, after she decided she could no longer work with him, while in the course of a conversation with someone about her dissatisfaction, it was suggested to her that she should get an itemization from Respondent as to the disposition of the money she had given him. When she entered the agreement with him, no set fee was agreed upon. She took it for granted Respondent would do what was necessary and would thereafter charge her a reasonable fee for his services. There was no request then for an itemized report. However, after the termination of their relationship, and after she spoke with another detective agency where she again was advised to get an accounting, she then requested one from Respondent. It was only when her repeated efforts to contact Respondent failed that she requested Horan and Ms. Grabau to speak with Respondent, and admittedly, she did not advise him that either was her representative. Respondent was first licensed in Florida as a private investigator in 1969 and, to the best of his knowledge, was licensed as such continuously ever since. As was seen before, however, his licensing history shows otherwise. In 1976 his "C" license was changed to an "A" license and he has maintained his "A" license throughout. Respondent changed from a "C" license to an "A" license because of the large number of investigator interns who wanted to work for him. He claims he called the Secretary of State's licensing office in Tallahassee at the time and was told by whomever answered the phone that to use interns in his work, he needed an "A" license. He also claims he was told he would have to change the "C" license to an "A" license when, in reality, he could have maintained both. In order to act as an investigator, one must hold a "C" license, but one may own and operate an investigative agency with merely an "A" license if one does not perform investigative work himself. Each year, after the change over, Respondent's "A" license was renewed. He relied completely on these automatic renewals as well as the fact he did what was advised by Department personnel to indicate he was properly licensed. Even in the case of Mr. Hartigan, the intern, who had been denied licensure because the Department claimed no record of Respondent, his "master," having a "C" license, when Respondent sent in evidence of his license status, Hartigan was licensed. He felt this was additional evidence of the propriety of his licensure status. Respondent is aware of the requirement in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, that interns holding a "CC" license work under the supervision of the holder of a "C" license. Since Hartigan was licensed with a "CC" license while working for Respondent, who in reality held only an "A" license at the time, Respondent now claims that the Department is estopped from denying he was properly licensed as the holder of a "C" license at the time. All of this relates to the period of time during which Respondent was performing investigative services for Ms. Yonts. The issue of estoppel is a legal issue which will be discussed and resolved in the Conclusions of Law, infra. While Mr. Singleton admits to having done work for Ms. Yonts in 1986, his employment was arranged by Mr. Wahl and he did not meet her until about a year and a half later when Ms. Grabau advised him Mr. Curtis was suing Ms. Yonts because of the surveillance he had done. He met with Ms. Yonts at Grabau's house where they talked both inside the house and outside in her car. It was at this time Ms. Yonts allegedly suggested he accompany her to Australia as her bodyguard, a suggestion he interpreted as a pass. As was noted previously, Ms. Yonts denies this and her story is the more credible. It was also at this time that Ms. Yonts asked Respondent to continue the investigation into Mr. Curtis' activities. He claims that at this time he advised Ms. Yonts, and she agreed, that nothing would be committed to paper, reports or bills. He claims Ms. Yonts never told him that either Mr. Strong, in Maine, or Mr. Horan, in Florida, were her attorneys nor did she give him any authorization then to release the information he discovered to anyone other than her, and he was unable to reach her directly since he had no phone number for her. This may well be true because Ms. Yonts is, if nothing else, mobile. Respondent denies ever being hired by Ms. Yonts to move Ms. Bates' trailer. This may be true, however, he was retained by her to assist Ms. Bates in extricating herself from the situation in which she found herself regarding her trailer. He was sent money by Ms. Yonts with instructions to deliver $500.00 to Ms. Bates, which he did. Nonetheless, somewhat later, when it became obvious to him there would be some trouble over the trailer and Ms. Yonts' relationship with Curtis, he decided to look further into the matter. It was at this point he drove out to the park to find the trailer but discovered it had, by that time, been moved. In his opinion, his activities regarding the trailer had nothing to do with private investigations, however, either in practice or under the definition outlined in Section 493.30, Florida Statutes. There came a time in their relationship when Respondent "fired" Ms. Yonts as his client by long distance phone call because the evidence she was looking for regarding Curtis' abuse of animals simply was not there. When he told her that, she got quite upset, he claims, but soon calmed down: He claims great compassion for Ms. Yonts and believes she is being used by many people. From their day-to-day relationship he concluded she did not possess all her faculties and was not living a realistic existence. He kept the $900.00 remaining from the $1,400.00 he received from Ms. Yonts because he believed he earned it as a result of his continuing investigation on her behalf. Though he claims to have kept a rough calculation of hours and mileage spent in this investigation in his records, he has never produced them to Ms. Yonts or her agents, or at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, as to his current licenses as a Private Investigator and Private Investigative Agency, be placed on probation for a period of six months under such terms and conditions as the Department may specify; that he be reprimanded; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0117 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on a;; of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the signature block indicating Respondent held a "C" license was pre-printed on the form. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent received $1,400 from Ms. Yonts as a fee to both assist Ms. Bates and look into the alleged animal abuse by Mr. Curtis. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence and law. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent: Last sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. First, second and last sentences rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. Balance accepted and incorporated herein. 3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 & 6. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of pertinent law and a comment on the allegations. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Accepted. 12 & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to 1st and 2nd sentences. Third and fourth sentences irrelevant. Fifth sentence accepted. First and Second sentences rejected as argument. Third sentence rejected. Petitioner offered evidence to this effect which was objected to by Respondent. Balance accepted. Rejected as conclusive in Findings of Fact. Last sentence rejected as not a pertinent finding of fact. First sentence a recitation of evidence. Balance irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Douglas M. Wycoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent, Frank R. Kuiken, Jr., should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At approximately 3:00 PM on August 30, 1989, Manatee County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Kenyon saw Respondent's wife, Michelle, driving their automobile in the city of Bradenton with a blue flasher posted on the dash board inside the windshield. Because the unauthorized use of such a light is prohibited by law, Deputy Kenyon stopped Ms. Kuiken and when he approached the car, noticed she had moved the light from the dashboard to the floor. When he asked her why she had such a light in the car, she replied that her husband, a private investigator, used it in the course of his business in emergency situations. Deputy Kenyon requested Respondent be contacted and come to the scene. When he arrived, Kuiken advised Kenyon that he was a private investigator and used the light only in cases of extreme emergency in the performance of those duties. He further related he had not yet had the opportunity to use it. Mr. Kuiken also indicated that in addition to being a private investigator, he was a process server appointed by two local judges, and a court officer. Deputy Kenyon attempted to verify Respondent's claim to being a court officer but was unable to do so. Upon request, Respondent refused to show a private investigator's license, but indicated he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Several days later, Mr. Eugene Blitch, an investigator with the Department of State's Division of Licensing, was contacted by the Bradenton Police Department regarding Mr. Kuiken's claim to being a private investigator, and requested to confirm the licensing status. Blitch's inquiry and search of official state records revealed that Kuiken was the holder of a concealed weapon permit but did not hold, does not now hold, and never has held a license as either a private investigator or a private investigative agency. There was no evidence presented with reference to the occupational license. Respondent's business card, which he gave to the Deputy Sheriff indicates he holds himself out, without qualification, as an "investigator" offering surety recovery, missing persons searches, and service of process services. He claims this card was not given out to the general public but only to attorneys and finance companies for whom he worked on a contract basis. On September 7, 1989, Mr. Blitch, in the company of a Manatee County detective, went to the Respondent's home in Bradenton where upon inquiry from Blitch, Respondent admitted he did not hold a license to do private investigative work. He also indicated he carried no liability insurance but claimed, however, that he did not work for the public and did not advertise or hold himself out to the general public as a private investigator. He indicated he worked for attorneys, as a process server, and as an employee of ITT Financial Services. Inquiry of the manager of this concern revealed Respondent was not an employee of the company but did security and investigative work for it on a contract basis from time to time. During his interview with Blitch, Respondent denied having admitted to the deputy that he was a private investigator, but the other evidence contradicts this and is found to be more credible. The evidence of record clearly indicates that Respondent held himself out as an investigator, and the hearsay statement of the ITT manager confirms this. Respondent asserted to Mr. Blitch that since he did no work for the general public and limited his activity solely to process serving, work for attorneys, and for ITT, he was not required to be licensed. When advised that his understanding was incorrect, he quickly agreed to do whatever was necessary to "get legal".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Frank Robert Kuiken, Jr., be assessed an administrative fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Robert Kuiken, Jr. 5655 Tousley Drive Eau Claire, Michigan 49111 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Richard K. Black submitted his application for a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license and a Class "C" Private Investigator license to the Department of State on November 11, 1982, together with all the fees. By letter dated November 19, 1982, the Department advised Mr. Black of the approval of the issuance of the Class "A" license subject to certain qualifications, which were not challenged by Mr. Black and are not at issue. By letter dated November 18, 1982, the Department advised Mr. Black that it had denied his application for licensure as a Class "C" Private Investigator because Mr. Black failed to meet the experience requirements of Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes. Mr. Black made a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Black is qualified to hold a Class "C" Private Investigator license except for his lack of experience. Investigative activities of a private investigator include, but are not limited to, searching records, interviewing witnesses, making personal observations of physical evidence, conducting surveillances, and reporting the results and conclusions of these activities. While a student at Broward Community College during 1974 and 1975, Mr. Black served as a member of the "504 Committee," a volunteer organization whose purpose is to assist persons protected by Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mr. Black's primary duties with said committee consisted of receiving complaints of alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act concerning lack of physical access to public facilities, taking physical measurements of said facilities, performing library research to determine the applicability of the Act to said facility, and attempting to obtain compliance of the owner of the facility when a violation was found. Of these duties, the interviewing process and taking physical measurements would be qualified experience. No evidence was presented by Mr. Black regarding the specific amount of time which he devoted to these functions. While a student at Broward Community College during 1976 and 1977, Mr. Black engaged in a volunteer voter registration project for the handicapped. Mr. Black's primary duties in this regard consisted of obtaining voter registration data from public records, identifying areas in which registration of the handicapped was low, conducting house-to-house registration drives in said areas, writing letters, and arranging car pools. None of these activities qualify as experience for licensure as a private investigator. Mr. Black served as a volunteer firefighter for the North Andrews Volunteer Fire Department from 1972 to 1976. During this time, he attended a bomb and arson investigation seminar and assisted in a few arson investigations. Mr. Black did not document the specific number of investigations which he conducted or the amount of time spent in said investigations. During 1979 and 1980, during the tenure in office of Sheriff Ken Katsaris, Mr. Black served as a volunteer "special deputy" in Leon County. Mr. Black's primary duties consisted of inspecting polling places in the county to determine if proper access existed for the physically handicapped and reporting non-complying conditions to the Sheriff. While not all of Mr. Black's activities were qualified experience, he spent approximately 120 total hours on all activities in this project in 1980. For approximately three months, from August until October 1981, Mr. Black served as a nonpaid intern with the Florida Parole and Probation Services. Approximately 50 percent of this time was devoted to the qualified activities of locating probationers and parolees and assisting in investigations. Mr. Black assisted in processing service-connected or related disability claims for disabled veterans on a volunteer basis in the Leon County area. He assisted on five or six cased during the last several years. No evidence was submitted to document the specific amount of time Mr. Black devoted to the investigation of these claims. Mr. Black assisted the Alburquerque, New Mexico, police in locating the whereabouts of a fugitive from justice. This assistance was as a volunteer, and Mr. Black testified that he spent 20 to 25 hours a week for three months on this project. While attending Florida State University, Mr. Black participated in various programs to assist handicapped students. These activities are similar to the activities in which Mr. Black engaged as described in Paragraph 6 above. No evidence was presented as to the amount of time spent in qualified investigative activities during this time period. Mr. Black completed a four-day course in crisis intervention in 1981. Mr. Black obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from Florida State University. Although some of his course work in general subjects would be the same as the general course work required for a degree in criminology and some of the psychology courses which Mr. Black took would be helpful to an investigator, none of the course work which Mr. Black took is directly related to training as a private investigator. In evaluating the experience requirement for a Class "C" Private Investigator experience which is substantially identical and equal in force, power, effect and import as the experience gained in actually performing the services of a private investigator as a Class "CC" intern investigator. In evaluating the amount of time spent in investigative activities, the Department applies a standard 40-hour work week to the hours submitted by the applicant. The Department does not count volunteer experience in evaluating whether an applicant has met the time requirement unless the number of hours worked and the supervision exercise can be fully documented. Mr. Black has never been licensed as a Class "CC" intern investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the application of Richard K. Black for licensure as a Class "C" Private Investigator be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 20th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Richard K. Black 249 Oakview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Licensing issue Patricia T. Uyaan a Class "C" Private Detective License. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 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 24th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Patricia T. Uyaan 316 Linden Lane Orange Park, Florida 32073 =================================================================
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner satisfies the "experience or training" requirement to obtain a Class "C" private investigator's license.
Findings Of Fact On May 22, 1989, Petitioner filed an application for a Class "C" private investigator's license. Included in that application, Petitioner related that he was employed by Austin Private Security Specialists of Austin, Texas as a security officer-undercover investigator during the period from September, 1985 until July, 1987. During his employment with Austin private Security Specialists (Austin), approximately 60% of Petitioner's job duties included investigative work and the remaining 40% was in security related work. Respondent did not credit Petitioner's investigative experience which he claims based on his employment at Austin; however, he was credited with nine months security experience based on his employment at Austin. Respondent' denied Petitioner's claim for investigative experience in Texas based on its determination that Petitioner was not in compliance with Texas regulations while he was employed at Austin. Petitioner also claimed experience for employment with Wackenhut Company of Tampa during the period February 28, 1989 through July 28, 1989. At Wackenhut, Respondent was employed as a private investigator intern. At Wackenhut, Petitioner worked under the sponsorship of Robert Crane, private investigator and successfully completed his work for Wackenhut during Crane's sponsorship. Petitioner was credited with five months investigative experience for his employment at Wackenhut. A review of Petitioner's relevant personnel records from Texas indicates that Petitioner was registered as a commissioned security guard from October 29, 1985 until September 4, 1986. Petitioner was registered as being employed in security sales from September 4, 1986 until September 30, 1987. Petitioner was never registered as an investigator with Austin or any other Texas company. In Texas, to properly perform investigative work, an applicant, as Petitioner, must either hold a private investigator's license or be registered under a qualifying company's license as doing investigative work for the company to be in compliance with state regulations. Section 35 of Texas article 4413(29 dd) and Sections 35 and 36A, Rules and Regulations of the Texas Board of Private Investigators. Petitioner was not otherwise exempt from licensure in Texas as he failed to demonstrate that he was employed exclusively as an undercover agent during the period for which he claims experience based on his Texas employment. Respondent has a written policy of not crediting experience or training without required licensure or registration as it is difficult to verify such experience without licensure and it is practically impossible to determine whether the applicant has complied with applicable law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a class "C" private investigator's license. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol D. Roberson 1714 Old Village Way Oldsmar, FL 34677 Henry D. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mailstation #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A00-01205, and a Class "C" Private Investigator Licence, Number C00-01229. Respondent has been licensed as a private investigator since 1962. During that time, there has been no disciplinary action against his licenses. On or about May 26, 1994, Leslie Dillingham hired Respondent to obtain proof of her husband's homosexuality for use in a divorce and custody proceeding. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she requested that Respondent conduct a surveillance of her husband, Mr. Dillingham, and his alleged boyfriend. She also requested that Respondent send someone who could pass as being gay to attend a meeting of an alleged support organization for homosexual men at a branch of the public library on May 28, 1994. Ms. Dillingham wanted to find out the names and addresses of the gay men who were members of the support group. Respondent represented to Ms. Dillingham that he would conduct the surveillance and that he had employees that could assist him in performing these services. He told Ms. Dillingham that he had an employee who could pass as being gay and infiltrate the organization of gay men. However, that employee was out of town. Respondent said he would contact this employee and have him attend the meeting at the library. During the initial meeting between Respondent and Ms. Dillingham, she expressly informed Respondent of the time constraints involved in the investigation. She needed all available information before June 7, 1994, which was the trial date for her divorce and child custody proceeding. Ms. Dillingham specifically requested an oral daily report, an itemized statement of the work done, and a written report of the outcome of Respondent's investigation. Respondent was to make his daily reports by telephone to Ms. Dillingham's home or office. Ms. Dillingham gave Respondent some pictures of her husband and his alleged boyfriend along with the tag numbers for their automobiles. She also gave Respondent a retainer in the amount of $1,500. She agreed to pay Respondent and/or his employees $40 per hour. Respondent immediately began his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's residence on May 26, 1994. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent worked alone and did not engage any employee or other investigator to assist him with the investigation. On May 27, 1994, Respondent continued his surveillance of Mr. Dillingham's apartment and made spot checks at the home of the alleged boyfriend who lived in a different part of town. The surveillance revealed no contact between the two subjects. Respondent did not attempt to make his daily report to Ms. Dillingham. On May 28, 1994, Respondent conducted surveillance of the subjects' residences, first one and then the other, until 4:00 p.m. At that time, Respondent went to the library branch where the support group was scheduled to meet. He had been unable to arrange for his employee to infiltrate the meeting. Instead, Respondent sat outside the door of the meeting where he could hear the group planning a Memorial Day picnic. He was able to record the tag numbers of some of the men attending the meeting. Neither of the subjects attended the support group meeting. After the meeting, Respondent resumed his surveillance at the residences of Mr. Dillingham and the alleged boyfriend. They did not have any contact with each other. Again, Respondent did not attempt to contact his client to make his daily report. The next day was Sunday, May 29, 1994. Once again Respondent's surveillance of the subjects' residences was not fruitful. Respondent contacted his client, Ms. Dillingham, who directed him not to begin surveillance of the husband until after noon the next day. Ms. Dillingham did not want Respondent to conduct surveillance on the morning of May 30, 1994, because her husband would have visitation with their son during that time. Monday, May 30, 1994, was Memorial Day. Respondent's surveillance from 1:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. did not reveal any contact between the subjects. However, Respondent made his daily report to his client. Ms. Dillingham informed Respondent that she was attempting to serve her husband's male friends with subpoenas for deposition. She told Respondent that once "the cat was out of the bag," continued surveillance probably would not be useful. On May 31, 1994, Respondent was unable to locate the vehicle of the client's husband at home or at work. Spot checks throughout the day revealed no activity between the subjects. When Respondent made his daily report, Ms. Dillingham told him that depositions of her husband's friends would take place on June 2, 1994, and mediation on June 3, 1994. After this conversation, Respondent understood that the surveillance part of the investigation was complete. Ms. Dillingham's husband had visitation with their son on Wednesday evening, June 2, 1994, and on the weekend from Friday, June 3, 1994, through Sunday, June 5, 1994. Ms. Dillingham did not want surveillance conducted during visitation periods. Ms. Dillingham and her sister, Karlene Goller, tried to reach Respondent by phone several times everyday from June 1, 1994, through June 4, 1994. They were not successful. On Sunday, June 5, 1994, Respondent returned one of Ms. Dillingham's calls and agreed to meet her at her office. During the meeting, Respondent returned the photographs of Ms. Dillingham's husband and his alleged boyfriend. He also gave her the tag numbers of some of the men who attended the support group meeting at the public library. Ms. Dillingham was dissatisfied with the results of Respondent's investigation because it had not produced any evidence of her husband's homosexuality. Respondent informed Ms. Dillingham that he had worked for 60 hours on the case. Ms. Dillingham was so upset that Respondent agreed to continue the investigation without charging her for his time in excess of the $1,500 retainer. Respondent said he would visit some gay bars to determine whether anyone knew Mr. Dillingham. Respondent told Ms. Dillingham that he might have to pay someone at the gay bars to contact him if they saw Mr. Dillingham at a bar. On Monday, June 6, 1994, Respondent went to some gay bars. At a bar known as the Metro, Respondent made contact with a bartender/security man, Bruce Long, who knew most of the gay men in town. However, Mr. Long did not know Mr. Dillingham by name and verbal description. Respondent gave $50 dollars to Mr. Long and promised to furnish him with a photograph of Mr. Dillingham. In exchange for the money, Mr. Long agreed to call Respondent if he saw Mr. Dillingham. Around 11:00 p.m. on June 6, 1994, Respondent met with Ms. Dillingham and her sister at a Waffle House on Roosevelt Boulevard. She gave a photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Respondent to show to Mr. Long at the Metro. Later that night, Respondent returned to the Metro. He gave the photograph of Mr. Dillingham to Mr. Long who agreed to show it around to friends and bartenders at other gay clubs. June 7, 1994, was the date of the final hearing in Ms. Dillingham's divorce and custody proceeding. After checking with Mr. Long to find out if any of his gay friends knew Mr. Dillingham, Respondent beeped Ms. Dillingham indicating that he had no new information. Ms. Dillingham never saw Respondent's investigative report marked as Petitioner's Exhibit One (1) until an investigator from Petitioner's office showed it to her. She never received an itemized statement or bill indicating how Respondent spent her retainer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order reprimanding Respondent, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250 and placing the licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of February 1996. SUZANNE HOOD, HEARING OFFICER 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 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 except for last sentence in 3(a) of the Proposed Facts which is rejected. No persuasive evidence that Respondent and his client discussed the need to make inquiries at gay bars during the initial meeting. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to greater weight of evidence. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10 and 16-17. Accept in Findings of Fact 17 that Respondent agreed to visit some gay bars but reject that Respondent offered to buy testimony. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry H. Wells Attorney at Law 8015 Tara Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
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 Since 1972, petitioner Dennis F. Darnell has been in the tow truck business. He owns and operates one such truck. In addition to towing disabled cars to garages, petitioner has had five years' experience in locating and repossessing all types of vehicles. Typically, a financial institution would engage him to retrieve an automobile from a borrower in default, after telephoning the borrower that a tow truck was coming. In such cases, the lender furnished petitioner a "route sheet" with the name and address of the borrower and a description of the car. At one time or another, petitioner has worked in this way for every bank in Marion County. Petitioner has also been hired by private investigators to tow away vehicles the investigators had already tracked down. Occasionally, petitioner himself has used information obtained from utility companies, the courthouse and the post office to locate vehicles for repossession. In the winter of 1979, Mr. Reister, an employee of the respondent, told petitioner that petitioner needed a license in order to continue to do the work he had been doing for the banks. This was the first petitioner had heard of any such requirement. He agreed to stop working for the banks until he obtained a license and asked Mr. Reister to send him application forms. One week after he received the forms, petitioner submitted the completed forms to respondent. From the time he spoke to Mr. Reister until the time of the hearing, petitioner did not tow any repossessed cars for banks. On receiving respondent's letter of disapproval, petitioner retained counsel who requested a formal administrative hearing. Respondent referred petitioner's counsel's request for an administrative hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent grant petitioner's application for private investigative agency license, DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 4th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel L. Hightower, Esquire 116 South East Fort King Street Ocala, Florida 32670 William J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Department of State Room 1801, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
