The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Since September 26, 1986, Respondent, Dock Heidelberg, Jr., has been certified by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, as a correctional officer, certificate number 48931. On May 11, 1990, Otis James Lawrence, a police officer employed by the City of Opa Locka, Dade County, Florida, was engaged, under cover, in a reverse sting operation. At or about 8:30 p.m. that date, Officer Lawrence was approached by Respondent, who asked if he could get "a bag of weed," referring to cannabis (marijuana). Officer Lawrence guided Respondent into a hallway area where he gave Respondent a small plastic baggie of cannabis, less than 5 ounces, in exchange for $7.00 in United States currency. Officer Lawrence then identified himself and placed Respondent under arrest for the purchase and possession of cannabis, as proscribed by Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. On December 16, 1993, in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, Case No. 90-69237, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of unlawful possession of cannabis. The court found the Respondent guilty of the charge, but withheld adjudication, and assessed costs of $108.00. As for the charge of purchasing cannabis, no action was taken by the court. On March 26, 1996, during the course of Respondent's annual evaluation as a correctional officer employed at South Florida Reception Center, a FCIC report was obtained which revealed the aforesaid arrest. At the time, no information regarding the arrest was documented in Respondent's personnel file. Upon receipt of the information regarding Respondent's arrest, the matter was referred to a senior inspector with the Department of Corrections for investigation. That investigation was terminated when, on April 2, 1996, Respondent resigned his employment at South Florida Reception Center.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered which finds Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain good moral character, as defined by Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and therefore subject to disciplinary action for having violated the provisions of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes. For such violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the penalty set forth in paragraph 20, above, should be imposed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order find Respondent not guilty of all other charges raised by the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dock Heidelberg, Jr. A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Judy Limekiller (Respondent) committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 30, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida created by section 20.165, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. As such, Petitioner is fully authorized to prosecute disciplinary cases against real estate licensees. Respondent was at all times material to this matter, the holder of a Florida real estate license, license number 3131887. At all times material to the allegations of this case Respondent was an active sales associate with Michael Saunders and Company. Respondent’s address of record is 1529 Pelican Point Drive, HA 205, Sarasota, Florida. In January 2012, Respondent was a sales associate handling a transaction with Regina Zahofnik (Ms. Zahofnik). Ms. Zahofnik was the seller of property located at 4527 MacEachen Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. Respondent admits she signed Ms. Zahofnik’s name to a Cancellation of Contract and Release. Respondent did not have written authorization to sign for Ms. Zahofnik. Instead, she maintains Ms. Zahofnik gave her verbal authority to sign the document. In February 2012, Respondent was a sales associate handling a transaction with Lynda Kravitz. Ms. Kravitz was the seller of property located at 1526 Pelican Point Drive, BA 147, Sarasota, Florida. Respondent signed Ms. Kravitz’ name to a Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement. Ms. Kravitz did not authorize Respondent to sign the document. In February 2012, Respondent was a sales associate handling a transaction with Cherryne Kravitz. Ms. Kravitz was the seller of property located at 1526 Pelican Point Drive, BA 147, Sarasota, Florida. On or about February 10, 2012, Respondent signed Ms. Kravitz’ name to a Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase. Ms. Kravitz did not authorize Respondent to sign the document. In all situations, Respondent believed she was authorized to sign the documents. She claims either e-mail or text message gave her the go-ahead to sign documents so that they could be timely processed. In the case of Ms. Zahofnik, the “deal was dead” and could not close. Since the buyer elected to walk away from the purchase when the seller could not complete the transaction, Respondent maintains that no party was injured by the signing of the document and that by doing so the refund to the buyer was processed. In the case of the Kravitz sale, Respondent signed the property disclosure because she knew the property better than the sellers and an expedited completion of the paperwork was requested. Again, Respondent states Ms. Kravitz authorized the signature. And with regard to the signing of the contract, Respondent asserts that Ms. Kravitz was slow to return the contract and that she was getting pressure from the other Ms. Kravitz to get the paperwork completed. Eventually, both Kravitz daughters signed the contract. Respondent does not deny signing the contract. As a result of the allegations of this case, Michael Saunders and Company incurred expenses and lost commissions. Petitioner did not present evidence regarding the cost of investigating this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding Respondent in violation of the provision of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint as alleged by Petitioner, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00, and imposing a suspension of Respondent’s real estate license for a period of 30 days, with probation to follow for such period of time as the commission deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Leigh Matchett, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James P. Harwood, Esquire James Harwood, P.A. Suite 106 1277 North Semoran Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32807 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Juana Watkins, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donald W. Del Bello, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 402600, covering the area of music, which is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is currently employed by the Dade County Public School System to teach music at the elementary school level, and was so employed at all times pertinent to these proceedings. In these proceedings, the sole issue for determination was whether, on or about July 23, 1991, at Tropical Park, Dade County, Florida, the respondent exposed his sexual organs in a vulgar or indecent manner. The proof in this case was not, however, sufficiently compelling to satisfactorily resolve the issue raised. To support its case, petitioner offered the testimony of Sergeant James Julian, a police officer with the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department, who testified that on July 23, 1991, while operating undercover at Tropical Park, a public place, in Miami, Dade County, Florida, he observed respondent expose his sexual organs. According to Sergeant Julian, he observed the respondent, dressed in a white shirt, tie and green pants, and another man, dressed in running attire (tennis shoes, blue shorts and top), standing approximately 20 yards apart, and that, while watching each other they rubbed their crotches, removed their penises from their pants, and masturbated. According to Sergeant Julian, he was approximately 10 yards from the respondent and approximately 30 yards from the man in running attire when these events occurred, and that upon observing such activity he placed both men under arrest. Juxtaposed with the proof offered on behalf of petitioner, respondent testified that while he was in the park on the day in question, he was not dressed in a white shirt, tie and green pants but, rather, was wearing running attire (white running shoes, blue shorts and a white tee shirt), that he observed another male dressed in a white shirt, tie and green pants who was masturbating, and that he did not take his penis from his pants, expose himself or masturbate. Respondent's attire on the day in question was reasonably corroborated by two credible witnesses, and his testimony at hearing was consistent with his recitation of what had occurred to his attorney, within an hour of being released from police custody. Here, the proof offered by each of the parties appeared worthy of belief, and it cannot be concluded, based on the record in this case, which version reflects what actually transpired on the day in question. Therefore, considering the fact that the burden of proof in these proceedings rested on petitioner as discussed infra, it must be concluded that the proof fails to support the conclusion that respondent committed the offense as alleged in the administrative complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1993.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended, filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the holder of a Class "B" security agency license, number B 0001057. On July 27, 1995, Respondent was tried, was found guilty, and was adjudicated guilty of grand theft, a third-degree felony, in violation of Section 812.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On July 27, 1995, Respondent was tried, was found guilty, and was adjudicated guilty of perjury not in an official proceeding, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of Section 837.012, Florida Statutes. In the foregoing proceeding, the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, placed Respondent on probation for terms of five years and one year to run concurrently, and ordered Respondent to pay restitution in the amount of $15,783.67 to the victim.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended, and revoking Respondent's Class "B" security agency license number B 0001057. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 95-5217 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Daniel D. Goldberg 2812 Southwest 65th Avenue Miramar, Florida 33023 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny an application for a real estate sales associate license on the alleged grounds that, in violation of Subsections 475.17(1)(a), 475.181, and 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2008),1 the application discloses two felony convictions for crimes of moral turpitude, the initial application omitted a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), and the applicant’s explanation in mitigation of the incidents is allegedly unpersuasive.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible, in relevant part, for licensing real estate sales associates in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475. Petitioner applied for a real estate sales associate license on March 8, 2007, and Respondent proposes in this de novo proceeding to deny the application. Respondent states several grounds for the proposed denial of Petitioner’s application. First, the application discloses two felony convictions for crimes of moral turpitude, and the crimes would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license. Second, Petitioner omitted a DUI misdemeanor conviction from the initial application before the application was complete. Third, Respondent claims the applicant has not demonstrated honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character, and a good reputation for fair dealing. Finally, Respondent considers the applicant’s testimony in explanation or mitigation of the crime and omission in his initial application to be unpersuasive. The application discloses two felony convictions on November 23, 1993. When Petitioner was approximately 18 years old, Petitioner and three other teenagers committed aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and armed robbery against two male adults in Lee County, Florida. One of the teenagers struck each victim with a baseball bat; took articles of clothing, jewelry, wallets, and fishing rods and reels from each victim; and divided the articles among the perpetrators. Each teenager was under the influence of alcohol and controlled substances, including marijuana and other drugs. The victims required hospital treatment. The two felony convictions involve crimes of moral turpitude. The crimes exhibit inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. The two felony convictions are grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license. On March 29, 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated battery. The court adjudicated Petitioner guilty, sentenced Petitioner to 10 years’ imprisonment, to be followed by two years of probation, and ordered Petitioner to pay $1,500.00 in restitution to the victims. When the court convicted Petitioner on March 29, 1995, Petitioner was not qualified for a real estate sales associate license within the meaning of Subsection 475.17(1)(a). The statute deems that Petitioner is not qualified for a real estate sales associate license today, unless by lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation or other sufficient reason, it appears the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered by licensing Petitioner. For reasons stated hereinafter, a preponderance of evidence shows the crimes in 1993 do not make it likely that licensing Petitioner as a real estate sales associate will endanger the public. The testimony of Petitioner in explanation and mitigation of the crimes committed in 1993 is persuasive. Petitioner did not inflict physical harm on either of the victims. Petitioner’s participation was limited to driving the vehicle, which was his mother’s car, used in the commission of the crimes and accepting a portion of the stolen property. Petitioner was intimidated by the teenager who used the baseball bat on the victims, and that teenager was under the influence of alcohol and controlled substances. When arrested, Petitioner admitted his guilt to police and cooperated fully in the investigation. When sentenced, Petitioner faced the victims in open court, admitted his guilt, accepted responsibility, and apologized to the victims and their family members. Sufficient time has lapsed for Petitioner to be rehabilitated and to overcome the statutory presumption of unfitness. Approximately 15 and 14 years have passed, respectively, from the dates of the commission and conviction of the crimes. Almost six years have passed from the successful completion of probation on June 5, 2003. Petitioner’s subsequent good conduct after 1993 demonstrates his rehabilitation. Petitioner paid the $1,500.00 in restitution ordered by the court. Petitioner was released from prison in late 1999, after serving four years and eight months of his 10-year sentence. While in prison, Petitioner took classes in drafting, anger management, and life skills. Petitioner also attended alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous. Petitioner taught other inmates and read extensively. Petitioner also assisted with the development of a volley ball team for prisoners. Upon release from prison in late 1999, Petitioner moved to North Carolina for approximately two years, primarily to avoid contact with his former peer group. Petitioner worked two jobs and attended college where he continued to study drafting. In North Carolina, Petitioner was injured in an automobile accident and suffered severe head injuries. Petitioner was in a coma for nine days. After recovering from his injuries, Petitioner returned to his family in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner has been gainfully employed, self-supportive, and has been working for the past couple of years in a real estate office as an unlicensed assistant. Petitioner has earned a reputation for honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and good character and has earned a good reputation for fair dealing in a relationship of trust and confidence with safety to investors. Petitioner’s girlfriend and grandmother are each licensed by Respondent as real estate brokers. Both licensees recommend Petitioner for licensure. Two disinterested licensees also recommend Petitioner for licensure.2 On February 14, 2007, Petitioner was convicted of a DUI misdemeanor. Petitioner paid the court-ordered fine and satisfactorily completed his sentence of community service and probation. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the misdemeanor conviction for DUI is a crime of moral turpitude or one that directly relates to the duties of a real estate sales associate. Respondent did not cite any legal authority to show that the DUI conviction would be a ground for license revocation or suspension, if Petitioner were licensed. Finally, the DUI conviction does not evidence a lack of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character, or fair dealing. The initial application from Petitioner omitted the DUI conviction. Petitioner corrected the omission before the application became final and before Respondent formulated any proposed agency action. Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated August 5, 2008, of the omission. The letter notified Petitioner that the application was incomplete without documentation of the DUI conviction and requested the documentation needed to complete the application. Petitioner promptly complied and provided the requested documentation on August 22, 2008. If the initial application had disclosed the DUI conviction, Respondent cited no legal authority that would make the DUI conviction a ground for denying the application. Petitioner did not omit the DUI conviction from the initial application through a lack of candor. The testimony of Petitioner was credible and persuasive.3 The omission of the DUI conviction from the initial application evidences a lack of diligence. Any incompetence or lack of diligence that remains after August 22, 2008, when Petitioner completed the license application, can be corrected through a probationary license authorized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001(2).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting a probationary salesperson license to Petitioner consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Randall J. Cason, is a certified law enforcement officer having been issued certification number 0228323 on December 8, 1980 by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Until sometime in 1986, he was employed as a police office by the City of Miami. On or about March 4, 1986 Cason was convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery by a public servant (a first degree misdemeanor) and bribery by a public servant (a third degree felony). On April 21, 1986 he was sentenced to serve five years in prison for the felony conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's law enforcement certification number 0228323 be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Randall J. Cason 2521 Ludlum Road Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Mr. Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations of the. administrative complaint, Respondent, Michael James Hanly, was a licensed registered nurse, license no. RN 78035-2. On or about November 18, 1987, the Board of Nursing entered a final order regarding disciplinary action against this Respondent. The final order found the Respondent guilty of improper conduct and specified the following penalties: The licensee shall pay an administrative fine of $500.00 within 6 months. The licensee is hereby placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: The licensee shall not violate any Federal or State law, nor any rule or order of the Board of Nursing. The licensee shall submit written reports to the Board, which contain the licensee's name, license number, current address, current employer's name, address and telephone number, and a statement by the licensee describing his nursing employment and performance These reports shall be submitted quarterly, as scheduled by the Board probation section. The licensee shall enroll in and successfully complete, in addition to normally required continuing education courses, courses in the following subject areas: medical ethical considerations and legal aspects of nursing within six (6) months from the filing of this Order. * * * While employed as a nurse, the licensee shall be responsible for causing reports to be furnished by his employer to the Board; these reports shall set out the licensee's current position, work assignment, level of performance, and any problems. The reports shall be submitted every three months as scheduled by-the Board probation section. If employed otherwise than as a nurse, the licensee shall report the position, employer and place of employment to the Board section on the scheduled quarterly dates. If not employed, the licensee shall so notify the Board probation section on the scheduled quarterly dates. Any deviation from the requirements of this probation without the prior written consent of the Board shall constitute a violation of this probation. Subsequent to the entry of the final order, the Respondent did not submit reports, did not complete the continuing education, and did not pay the administrative fine. On June 10, 1988, the Department wrote to the Respondent to notify him that the terms of the final order had not been met. This letter was received by the Respondent on June 14, 1988. On June 29, 1988, the Department again wrote to the Respondent to advise him that he was delinquent and in violation of the final order. This letter was received by the Respondent on July 12, 1988. Upon receipt of the correspondence described in paragraph 3, Respondent replied to the Department by stating that the matters addressed in the final order were on appeal to the district court of appeal. The Respondent did not pay the administrative fine nor seek additional time within which to comply with the remaining terms of the final order. Finally, the Department wrote to Respondent on July 22, 1988, acknowledged that the final order had been appealed, but informed Respondent that he was required to comply with the final order unless a stay were entered by the appellate court. Respondent did not obtain a stay from the appellate court and, as of the date of the hearing, had not complied with the terms of the final order entered November 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Nursing enter a final order which finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint, imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250, and lengthens the period of Respondent's probation to four years. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 5th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, it is accepted that the Respondent filed an appeal which was assigned case no. 88- 1069; whether that appeal was timely or complied with the provisions of Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, is unknown and not a part of this record. It is accepted that the parties, for purposes of the hearing, believed the appeal to be proper. Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. The Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. An ex parte communication was submitted on June 19, 1989, which is rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone' Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 M. James Hanly, R.N. Post Office Box 1472 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Amended Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is presently 25 years of age. His date of birth is July 29, 1974. Petitioner had a troubled youth; however, since the August 6, 1994, incident (described below) that is the focus of the instant case, he has matured and gained a reputation of being a responsible adult member of his community. On Saturday, August 6, 1994, shortly after his twentieth birthday, at approximately 5:55 p.m., Petitioner was driving north on Andrews Avenue in downtown Fort Lauderdale. He had just finished running errands for his father in the downtown area and was on his way home. 5/ There were no passengers in his vehicle. As Petitioner approached the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, there was a woman standing on the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the intersection, facing south, who attracted his attention. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, the woman, Joyce Fleming was a police officer employed by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Officer Fleming was participating in an undercover operation designed to "combat street level prostitution activity." Her role in the operation was to pose as a street prostitute. When Petitioner stopped for a red light at the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, he made eye contact with Officer Fleming, who waved at him and pointed him toward a nearby parking garage, which was underneath an office building. Petitioner pulled into the parking garage and parked his car, head first, facing a concrete wall and beside concrete pilings. Officer Fleming, who was wearing a wire, then walked up to the driver's side of Petitioner's vehicle and started talking to Petitioner. The conversation she had with Petitioner was tape recorded 6/ and monitored by backup officers (who were in the vicinity). Officer Fleming began her conversation with Petitioner by complaining that a certain police officer, who, she told Petitioner, had been across the street from where she had been standing on North Andrews Avenue, was always "bothering" her. It was because of this police officer, she explained to Petitioner, that she had not "want[ed] to get in over there." After being told about the police officer, Petitioner asked Officer Fleming, "Why don't I meet you somewhere else?" To allay Petitioner's concerns, Officer Fleming told him that the police officer was no longer across the street and that therefore she could "get in" his vehicle. Petitioner, however, indicated to Officer Fleming that he was still "nervous about it," to which Officer Fleming replied, "If you're nervous, you can go on." Petitioner, though, did not "go on." He chose to stay. 7/ Officer Fleming then asked Petitioner what he "want[ed] to do." Petitioner answered, "I don't know, what do you want?" Officer Fleming's response was, "Well, I don't care; just tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you how much." Petitioner told Officer Fleming (whom he believed to be a prostitute) that he was interested in a "blow job." 8/ He and Officer Fleming then haggled over the price. Petitioner ultimately agreed to pay Officer Fleming $10.00, 9/ after which the following exchange took place between Petitioner and Officer Fleming: Officer Fleming: Okay. We can do that then. Petitioner: Why don't I meet you somewhere else? Officer Fleming: You don't want to do it here? Petitioner: Well, I don't want a cop pulling up. It was at this point in time that back up officers arrived on the scene and arrested Petitioner for "soliciting for prostitution" in violation of Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1. At no time did Petitioner actually pay Officer Fleming any money; nor was there ever any physical contact, sexual or otherwise, between Petitioner and Officer Fleming. (Petitioner remained in his vehicle, while Officer Fleming stood alongside the vehicle on the driver's side, throughout their conversation in the parking garage.) The charge that Petitioner had violated Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1 10/ by agreeing to pay Officer Fleming for oral sex was filed in Broward County Court, and it was docketed as Case No. 94-15421MO10A. On March 23, 1995, Petitioner filed a Sworn Motion to Dismiss in Case No. 94-15421MO10A. Appended to the motion was a copy of a transcript that had been prepared of the tape recording of the conversation Petitioner had had with Officer Fleming immediately prior to his arrest. The transcript, however, did not accurately and completely reflect the contents of the tape recording. It omitted Petitioner's affirmative response when he was asked by Officer Fleming, during price negotiations, whether he would be agreeable to paying $10.00 for her services. 11/ Pursuant to an agreement with the Municipal Prosecutor, Petitioner entered a Pre-Trial Intervention Program on or about July 5, 1995. Petitioner successfully completed the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. Consequently, on October 23, 1995, prior to any ruling having been made on Petitioner's Sworn Motion to Dismiss, the Municipal Prosecutor issued a Nolle Prosequi in Case No. 94-15421MO10A announcing that the "City of Fort Lauderdale decline[d] prosecution on all municipal violations against [Petitioner] arising out of [his] arrest on [August 6, 1994]." Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December of 1997 with a B.A. degree in English. On or about February 17, 1998, Petitioner submitted to the Department of Education (Department) an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate seeking an "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate. On the application, he acknowledged his August 6, 1994, arrest. From August of 1998 to January of 1999, Petitioner was employed as a tenth-grade English teacher at MacArthur High School in Hollywood, Florida (which, at the time, had an enrollment of 2,200 students). The principal of the school was (and still is) Beverly James. In Ms. James' opinion, Petitioner did a "very good job" while at the school, and she "would not hesitate" to rehire him if he received his teaching certification. In addition to his classroom responsibilities at MacArthur High School, Petitioner also served as the assistant coach of the school's wrestling team. The head coach of the team was Michael Zarra. In Mr. Zarra's opinion, Petitioner did a "good job coaching," and he would not "have any hesitation to have [Petitioner] back as an assistant wrestling coach." As evidenced by his job performance at MacArthur High School, by engaging in the conduct for which he was arrested on August 6, 1994, Petitioner has not impaired his ability to be an effective teacher. The incident, which took place when Petitioner was a 20-year old college student, four years before he began teaching at the school, was not widely publicized and it has not adversely affected his reputation in the community. By letter dated December 28, 1998, Petitioner was notified that his Application for Florida Educator's Certificate was being denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons that accompanied the letter. Shortly thereafter, Ms. James terminated Petitioner's employment at MacArthur High School. She did so only because she was told she had to inasmuch as Petitioner "would not be certified." On or about March 17, 1999, Petitioner was provided with an Amended Notice of Reasons reflecting that the denial of his application was based solely upon the August 6, 1994, incident involving Officer Fleming. Petitioner subsequently sought to reopen Broward County Court Case No. 94-15421MO10A. His efforts were successful. On June 23, 1999, Broward County Court Judge Joel T. Lazarus issued a Final Order of Dismissal in the case, which provided as follows: CAME ON TO BE HEARD on June 21, 1999 Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition and Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and being further advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition be and the same is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, as to Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court's consideration of the matters before it, this Court makes a determination that no material issue of fact that sustains the criminal charges against this Defendant exist[s] and that the Defendant is entitled to dismissal as a matter or law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss be and same is hereby GRANTED and the Defendant is herewith discharged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order reversing the Department of Education's preliminary denial of Petitioner's Application for Florida Educator's Certificate and directing the Department to issue, unconditionally, the "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2000.
