Findings Of Fact Brenda H. Gipson applied for licensure as a Class F Unarmed Guard. On her application Gipson did not reveal that she had been arrested and convicted for attempted aggravated assault. Gipson admitted that she did not report on her application the fact that she had been convicted of attempted aggravated assault because she was afraid she would lose her job. The circumstances surrounding the attempted aggravated assault arose out of dispute with a family member in which Gipson threw a hammer at the family member. Gipson testified that she was sentenced to 24 hours in jail by the Municipal Judge of Venice, Florida. Abilio Suarez, Gipson's supervisor with Feick Security, who is the coordinator for the contract between Feick Security and Florida Power and Light Company, testified that he had known Gipson since July of 1978, when she began to work for Suarez. Suarez stated that Gipson was a reliable person, was punctual, and dependable. Her duties involved personnel security on facilities belong to or operated by Florida Power and Light Company. Suarez testified that notwithstanding her concealment from Feick Security of her arrest and conviction for attempted aggravated assault, Gipson was considered eligible for continued employment with the company.
Recommendation Although the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law indicate that the Petitioner did falsify her application for licensure, the facts surrounding the incident, the extremely light sentence of the municipal court, and the recommendation of her supervisor should be considered in mitigation. Based upon the facts in mitigation, the Hearing Officer would recommend that Brenda Gipson be issued a license as a Class F, Unarmed Guard. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Curington Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brenda H. Gipson 3889 Charles Terrace Miami, Florida
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated ,that Max Bower had submitted an application for licensure as an unarmed guard to the Division of Licensing, and that Bower was qualified for licensure except for the grounds stated in the letter of denial dated March 9, 1979. Max Bower has been convicted and sentenced on three occasions for commission of a felony under the laws of the State of Florida. Bower admitted his arrest, conviction, and having served time in the New Jersey Penitentiary and in the Dade County Jail. His last conviction was in New Jersey, where he was sentenced to five to seven years and was released in October, 1971. Since that time, Bower has not been arrested for any offenses. Max Bower has pending at this time an application for restoration of his civil rights. Due to administrative delay, it will be several months before his application will be considered. Bower is currently employed with International Patrol and works as an unarmed guard from 12:00 midnight until 8:00 a.m. in the Justice Building (County Court Building) in Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Division of Licensing grant Max Bower a license as an unarmed guard (Class "F") at such time that his civil rights are restored. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Max Bower 10 South West 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Joseph M. Conover committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Conover is a licensed security officer. He holds Class D, DI, G, and MB licenses from the Department. His license numbers are D9817475, DI2000134, G2003451, and MB9900202. Mr. Conover's Class G license allows him to carry a firearm, subject to the provisions of Section 493.6115, Florida Statutes. Mr. Conover has been licensed by the Department since 1998, and he has been an armed security officer since 2000 or 2001. Mr. Conover is the president and chief operating officer of Nova, which has its principle office in Brevard County. Mr. Conover resides in Brevard County. Nova's principle office is located within his home. Mr. Conover has managerial and supervisory duties in his position as president and chief operating officer of Nova. The duties include scheduling armed security guards for clients, ensuring the guards' compliance with applicable regulations, soliciting new clients, and maintaining contact with clients and the guards that are on duty. At the time of the events giving rise to the Administrative Complaints, Nova provided armed security guard services for ten apartment complexes and residential communities in Orlando. Nova did not provide security services for any location in Brevard County. On April 29, 2006, while in route to an armed security post in Orlando, Mr. Conover stopped to render aid at a motor vehicle accident in Brevard County. He rendered emergency medical care2/ to one of the individuals involved in the accident, and he also directed traffic at the scene. He was wearing his security guard uniform and carrying his firearm in plain view at the time. On May 1, 2006, while in route to an armed security post in Orlando, Mr. Conover stopped at a Starbucks in Brevard County. He got out of his car and went into the store to purchase a cup of coffee. He was wearing his uniform and carrying his firearm in plain view at the time. Mr. Conover testified that he was "on duty" at the time of each incident because he was performing managerial and supervisory duties while in route to Orlando. He testified that immediately prior to the accident on April 29, 2006, he was fielding calls on his two-way radio from the armed security guards who were on duty in Orlando, and he can be seen talking on his radio or cell phone on the videotape of the May 1, 2006, incident. However, there is no credible evidence that Mr. Conover was providing any managerial or supervisory duties to the security guards during the time that he was rendering emergency medical care and directing traffic at the accident scene. The managerial and supervisory duties that Mr. Conover was performing at the time of the incidents did not require him to be armed. First, as Mr. Conover acknowledged, there is a difference between managerial and supervisory duties and armed security guard duties. A Class G license is not required in order to perform managerial and supervisory duties for armed security guards, particularly where such duties are being performed off-site. Second, Mr. Conover was nowhere near the sites that Nova was providing armed security services at the time of the incidents. He was approximately 40 miles, and at least 25 to 30 minutes, away from the sites. Criminal charges were brought against Mr. Conover for impersonating a police officer and carrying a weapon in plain view based upon his activities at the accident scene on April 29, 2006. The charges were nol prossed by the State. The Department began its investigation of Mr. Conover in May 2006 based upon information received from the Indialantic Police Department in Brevard County concerning the incidents described above. In July 2006, Mr. Conover's attorney sent a letter to the Department requesting the Department's "official interpretation of Florida Statutes § 493.6115 regarding carrying of weapons and firearms." The letter included the following summary of a conversation between Mr. Conover's attorney and Art Varnadore, who the letter represented to be the Chief of Regulation and Enforcement for the Department: ccording to Florida Statutes Chapter 493, a security officer can only carry a firearm while on duty at an armed post. A security agency manager can only carry a firearm while on duty at an armed post. A security agency manager or security officer traveling between armed posts may keep his firearm on him in the car. However, he cannot leave the vehicle with a firearm unless at an armed post. The Department did not respond to this letter or a follow-up letter sent by Mr. Conover's attorney in August 2006. The letters were sent after the Department began its investigation into the incidents giving rise to the Administrative Complaint. There is no evidence that Mr. Conover ever sought guidance from the Department prior to the incidents. Mr. Conover has been complying with the procedures quoted above since July 2006. The Department publishes a "Security Officer Handbook," as required by Section 493.6123(2), Florida Statutes, in order to provide guidance to licensees regarding "the legal authority, rights, and obligations of his or her specific license." A copy of the handbook is supposed to be provided to each licensee. The handbook includes the following provisions pertinent to this case: e. Class "D" Security Officers who also possess a Class "G" license may carry a firearm only when the duty assignment requires armed security and only while on the post of duty. Section 493.6115(3), F.S. Example: A Class "D" Security Officer who also has a Class "G" license and is normally assigned to an armed post is assigned, temporarily, to an unarmed post. He may not carry his firearm on the temporary assignment. Example: The same security officer, while serving on his usual armed post, may not wear his firearm when he leaves his assigned post for other than duty purposes, such as for lunch, or when traveling to or from home. During such non-duty periods, the firearm must be removed and secured. * * * g. While the licensee is on duty, his firearm must be carried in a holster and in plain view. It may only be carried concealed under those conditions addressed in VIII.c. Section 493.6115(3), F.S.[3/] The handbook does not include a specific example addressing the conduct of licensees responsible for managing and supervising armed security guards. The examples in the handbook focus on licensees with assigned "posts of duties." Mr. Conover did not rely on any of the guidance in the handbook; he testified that he did not recall ever receiving a copy of the handbook. Mr. Conover has no disciplinary history with the Department. There is no credible evidence that the Department investigated or prosecuted this case for an "improper purpose," as alleged by Respondents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Mr. Conover guilty of carrying a firearm in violation of Section 493.6115(3), Florida Statutes, on April 29, 2006, and on May 1, 2006, as charged in Administrative Complaint No. CD2006-1316; and Imposes an administrative fine of $100 on Mr. Conover; Issues a formal reprimand to Mr. Conover. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 20th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact In 1946 the Petitioner was convicted of the crime Assault, and he was placed on probation. In 1951 he was convicted of Cashing a Worthless Check. He was found guilty and placed on probation. Both of these convictions were reflected in the Petitioner's application. The Petitioner neglected to include in his application the fact that he was arrested for Burglary in 1945, convicted and fined for the crime of Leaving the Scene of an Accident in 1956, arrested for Fighting in 1956, and again in 1960 when he was arrested, convicted, and spent one year in jail. The Petitioner has not been convicted on any crimes since 1960. The Petitioner's failure to report various arrests and convictions in his application does not reflect favorably on his qualifications. The actions are quite old, however, and if he had reported them he would nonetheless be qualified for a license. The Petitioner did not report them because he was ashamed, and did not believe that the failure would cause the application to be denied. The Petitioner has been working as a guard under a temporary permit for approximately six months. He has served with distinction, and is well respected by his employer. Except for his failure to report the arrests and convictions set out above, the Petitioner is qualified to receive a license as an unarmed guard.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed violations of provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary action against Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Ronald W. Cone. Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License No. D89-03534 which expired on February 21, 1993. Subsequently, Respondent applied for renewal of the Class "D" Security Officer License in August, 1993. The renewal was granted by Petitioner. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, Respondent has, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, held a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License. From February 21, 1993, to April 12, 1993, Respondent performed his duties as an armed security officer at the Independent Life Insurance Building in Jacksonville, Florida. The building was open to the public at the time. On April 9, 1993, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Respondent arrived for work at his guard station in the center of the 80 foot vaulted ceiling lobby to the building. The acoustics of the lobby are such that a dime can be heard hitting the floor all the way across the area on a quiet day when there are few people in the facility, as was the case on April 9, 1993, at about 4:00 p.m. when Respondent decided to delve into his brown bag lunch. Leaving his subordinate, an unarmed security guard named William C. Piersky, on duty at the guard station, Respondent went to a restaurant area located in the lobby of the building approximately 125 feet from the guard station to eat his late lunch. The restaurant, operated by Morrison's Cafeteria, Inc., was closed at the time. The area was separated from the rest of the lobby by small partitions that stood three to four feet tall. Piersky was unable to see Respondent. A short time later, Piersky heard a loud report which he presumed was the discharge of a firearm. Although Piersky concluded the discharge he heard came from a firearm, his testimony is not credited on this point in view of his admitted unfamiliarity with bullets containing "birdshot", his admitted lack of involvement with firearms in previous security employment, and his present employment in the position previously held by Respondent. Respondent's testimony at final hearing was candid, worthy of belief and establishes that what Piersky really heard was not a firearm discharge. Rather, the loud report resulted from Respondent's action of blowing up and popping his paper lunch bag in an area with extreme acoustical sensitivity. Respondent admits that he was having fun at Piersky's expense and that when he returned to the guard station in the center of the lobby he remarked "can't believe I missed that bird." The reference to a bird was the sparrow that had found its way into the building. The bird had eluded capture by building maintenance personnel. Respondent's candid testimony establishes that he did not discharge his service revolver at the bird and that he did not load the weapon with a form of nonstandard ammunition known as birdshot on the day in question. In furtherance of his claim that a firearm had discharged, Piersky did an incident report on the matter. Three days later Respondent was fired. Piersky, previously an unarmed contract guard, now works as an armed security guard supervisor directly for Independent Life Insurance Company, as did Respondent prior to his termination. During the period of February 14, 1993 through April 12, 1993, Respondent performed duties as a security officer and armed security officer while his Class "D" license was expired. Upon receipt of a renewal notice and during his employment with Independent Life, Respondent's practice was to give that notice to the building manager's secretary to handle administratively. This had been a normal practice for licensed security guards during Respondent's employment with Independent Life. He followed this practice in the present instance and thought at the time that his license was renewed. Following his termination of employment and discovery of his license expiration, Respondent proceeded to obtain license renewal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of allegations contained in Counts III, IV and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order find Respondent guilty of allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine of $100 for each violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-4981 The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-5. Accepted, though not verbatim. 6.-7. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. 11.-12. Rejected, relevance. Adopted, though not verbatim. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings In Respondent's posthearing submission, he basically pleads guilty to the allegations contained in Count I and Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and not guilty to the remaining counts. Accordingly, further comment is not required. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Attorney at Law Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald W. Cone Post Office Box 447 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 323999-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., has held a Class "s" security guard agency license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Rollins Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Linda Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Linda and Rollins Donald have been the principal owners, corporate officers, and directors of Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., and as such are responsible for the control and operation of the agency. There is no licensed manager for the agency. At all times material hereto, Raymond Curtis Foxwood was an employee of North Dade Security, Ltd. Foxwood has never been licensed as a firearms instructor. An applicant for a statewide gun permit, also known as a Class "G" armed guard license, must submit to Petitioner an application for such license. The application form contains a Certificate of Firearms Proficiency which verifies that the applicant has received the statutorily-required firearms training by a licensed firarms instructor prior to the filing of that application for licensure.- on October 7, 1985, Foxwood submitted to Petitioner on behalf of North Dade Security, Ltd., approximately 20 applications for licensure as unarmed and armed guards. Although Foxwood was advised at that time by one of Petitioner's employees that the applications could not be processed due to the absence of licensure fees and due to deficiencies in completeness, the applicants were sent by North Dade Security to Petitioner's office to pick up their temporary licenses on the morning of October 8. When questioned about their applications, some of the applicants advised Petitioner's employee that they had received no firearms training, although their applications certified that they had. After the applicants were refused temporary licenses by Petitioner, North Dade Security sent the applicants to a gun range where Foxwood administered some firearms training for approximately four hours. Neither Rollins Donald nor Linda Donald was present at that training session. As of October 1985, several other persons employed by North Dade Security as armed guards had received no firearms training in conjunction with that employment. Most of the Certificates of Firearms Proficiency a contained within the applications of those latter employees and of the October 7 applicants were signed by Rollins Donald and by Linda Donald. 11. The numerous applications submitted by North Dadee La Security, Ltd., on October 7, 1985 was occasioned by a large contract entered into by North Dade Security, Ltd. requiring the immediate employment of a large number of armed guards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents North Dade Security, Ltd., Rollins Donald and Linda Donald guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and revoking the Class "B.' license of North Dade Security, Ltd., and further revoking the Class "K" firearms instructor licenses of Respondents Rollins Donald and Linda Donald. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee' Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Room LL-10 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0250 Jackie L. Gabe, Esquire Charles C. Mays, Esquire McCRARY & VALENTINE Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 800, Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The testimony at the final hearing in this cause was preserved by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by use of the court reporter. At the conclusion of the final hearing, Respondents determined that they would provide a transcript of proceedings for use by the undersigned and would therefore have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded thirty (30) days from the filing of that transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23, 1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties hereto subsequently agreed that that transcript was incomplete, and a complete transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 22, 1986. Accordingly, the parties' proposed recommended orders became due to be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings no later than October 22, 1986. Respondents filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986. However, Petitioner did. not file its proposed recommended order until October 23, 1986. On October 24, 1986, Petitioner also filed what it considered to be an uncertified "corrected transcript. A series of correspondence and conference calls then ensued due to the Respondents' inability to accept the "corrected~ transcript, and the parties were afforded additional time in which to resolve their differences regarding the September 22, 1986 transcript, which was determined by the undersigned to be the official transcript of this proceeding. By correspondence from Petitioner's substituted attorney filed on February 2, 1987, Petitioner withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to the use of the official transcript filed on September 22, 1986. Since Petitioner's proposed recommended order was filed late and no extension of time for the filing of that proposed recommended order was requested or granted, no rulings are made herein on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Although Respondents' proposed recommended order was timely filed, only Respondent's finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Respondents' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony of each witness. ================================================================= FIRST DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NORTH DADE SECURITY LTD. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES CORPORATION, LINDA H. TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND DONALD and ROLLINS DONALD, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellants, CASE NO. 97-1350 DOAH CASE NO. 85-4192 Vs. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee. / Opinion filed September 1, 1988. An appeal from an order of the Department of State. Michael J. Cherniga, of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard, C Tallahassee, for appellants. R. Timothy Jansen, Assistant General Counsel, Department of State, Tallahassee, for appellee. THOMPSON, Judgee. This is an appeal from a final order of the Department of State (Department) approving and adopting the hearing officer's recommended order holding that the firearms instructor licenses of the individual appellants should be revoked and that the security agency license of the corporate appellant should be revoked. We reverse and remand. The appellants raise, inter alia, the following two questions: (1) Whether the Department's failure to accurately and completely preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of appellants' due process rights, and (2) whether the Department's failure to preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing has materially prejudiced the appellants' rights to judicial review of this cause. At the final hearing in this case the Department attempted to preserve the testimony presented by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by the use of a court reporter. The Department notified appellants prior to the final hearing that it intended to preserve the hearing testimony in this manner, and that appellants would be responsible for furnishing any transcript they might need for review of the hearing officer's findings. Appellants were advised they were free to either hire a court reporter to produce such transcript or that they could use the Department's tapes t make their own transcript. Appellants neither hired a court reporter nor objected to the Department's announcement that it would tape record the proceedings. Unfortunately, the tape recorder malfunctioned, and numerous substantial and material portions of the testimony taken at the hearing were not transcribable because they were not recorded at all, or because the tapes were inaudible or unintelligible. The final hearing was concluded February 18, 1986. At the conclusion of the hearing the appellants determined that they would provide a transcript of the proceedings for use by the parties and would have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded 30 days from the filing of the transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23,1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) but the parties subsequently agreed that the transcript was incomplete. An allegedly complete transcript was filed with DOAH on September 22, 1986, and the parties' proposed recommended orders were due to be filed no later than October 22, 1986. Appellants filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986 and the Department filed its recommended order October 23, 1986 together with what it labeled a "corrected" transcript. The appellants refused to accept the "corrected" transcript and the parties were afforded additional time to resolve their differences regarding the September 22 transcript. Ultimately, the transcript filed September 22 was determined by the hearing officer to be the official transcript of the final hearing. On February 2, 1987, the Department withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to use the transcript filed September 22, 1986. The hearing officer's recommended order was entered February 25, 1987, and the final order of the agency was entered September 23, 1987, more than one and one-half years after the date of the final hearing. Section 120.57(1)(b)6, Fla. Stat. (1985) provides in part: The agency shall accurately and completely preserve all testimony in the proceeding, and, on the request of any party, it shall make a full or partial transcript available at no more than actual cost. The statute requires agencies to accurately and completely preserve all testimony in §120.57(1) proceedings held before them, and this mandatory duty cannot be avoided or escaped by simply advising an opposing party that the agency proposes to preserve the testimony by tape recording and that the opposing party has the right to hire a court reporter. The appellants were entitled to rely upon the Department to accurately and completely preserve the testimony taken at the final hearing, yet review of the transcript herein reveals that the Department failed to perform its duty. There are numerous obvious omissions of substantial and material portions of the testimony received, and the answers to many of the questions posed are incomplete or inaudible. Because of the condition of the record the appellants are unable to obtain any meaningful review of the proceedings. Booker Creek Preservation. Inc. v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 415 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Florida Department of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) are not applicable, as these cases involved a factual situation where the appellant failed to furnish a written transcript although one could have and should have been obtained by the appellant. In this case the appellants made every effort to obtain a complete and accurate written transcript of the testimony but were unable to do so through no fault of their own. As the parties were unable to agree on a statement of the evidence, the appellants are entitled to a hearing de novo. The order of the Department is vacated and the cause is remanded for a hearing de novo on the petition. SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ ., CONCUR.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of security guards in Florida. On September 19, 1990, Petitioner, Rick Stephen Seaver, submitted an application for an unarmed security guard license and statewide gun permit to the Division. In Part V of the application, dealing with criminal history, Petitioner indicated he had not ever been convicted of a crime, and further stated he had not been convicted of any felonies. In reality, however, Respondent had been convicted of possession of marijuana in Johnson City, Tennessee, on February 19, 1981, and on October 23, 1986, was convicted of one charge of simple assault and one charge of carrying a firearm. This latter series of offenses also took place in Johnson City. When this information was made available to the Department, by a letter dated January 24, 1991, an Amended Letter of Denial, the Division denied the Petitioner's application for an unarmed security guard license, alleging that he had been guilty of fraud or willful misrepresentation in applying for or obtaining a license, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(a), Florida Statutes; had been convicted of crimes which directly relate to the business for which the license was sought, in violation of Section 493.6118(1)((c), Florida Statutes; and failed to have the requisite good moral character called for under the provisions of Section 493.6118(3), Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Respondent withdrew as a basis for denial the allegation of fraud or willful misrepresentation and further stipulated that none of the offenses of which the Petitioner had been found guilty were felonies. It is so found. Petitioner has been married to his wife for five years. Though he did not adopt her son by a previous marriage, he has provided the sole support and guidance to the boy since the marriage, and in Mrs. Seaver's opinion, has been a good father and good husband. For the five months prior to his dismissal from employment with Jewell Security Agency, as a result of the Division's action denying him a license, Mr. Seaver worked as an unarmed security guard in Bradenton. He worked as an outdoor guard at night, unarmed, at various establishments throughout the City of Bradenton, and during his term of employment, only one business where he was on guard, was ever robbed. That one occasion took place before he came on duty the day in question and the police were able to identify the perpetrators. According to James E. Jewell, owner of the agency and Petitioner's employer, Petitioner was an outstanding employee who was always on time, never called in sick, and performed his duties in a manner felt to be a credit to the company. Jewell found Petitioner to be completely honest and trustworthy. Before working with Jewell, Petitioner worked as a baker in Sarasota for 2 1/2 years after his move from Tennessee. He left that job only because of a dispute he had with the manager over some vacation time which previously had been approved, but which was later denied him. He quit and was not discharged. Before coming to Florida he also worked as a baker in Tennessee for about 13 to 14 years without difficulty and without any criminal record other than the offenses forming the basis for the denial here. The assault charge occurred just before he and his wife were married when he used a firecracker to blow out the window of the house of an individual, then under charges for rape, who was harassing and annoying his intended wife. The charge of carrying a weapon arose out of an unloaded gun which was found under the passenger seat of a vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger when he was stopped for the assault. The assault did not involve the use of the weapon, but as a result of his plea, he was convicted and sentenced to 11 months and 29 days in jail, all of which was suspended. Prior to the trial on those offenses, from the time of his arrest, he was free on bond. The possession of marijuana charge took place in 1981 at which time Petitioner was approximately 24 years old. At that time, he was found guilty of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250.00. Mr. Seaver has not had any other infractions and according to his wife, has not been cited with so much as a traffic ticket in the five years they have been married. No evidence to the contrary was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting Petitioner, Rick Stephen Seaver, a Class "D" Unarmed Security Officer License. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of April, 1991, 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 23rd day of April, 1991. Copies furnished: Henri C. Cauthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Rick Stephen Seaver 4411 21st Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34209 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent holds a Class "D", unarmed security guard license, No. GD-0106713, which was most recently renewed on July 3, 1983. The Respondent also holds a Class "G", statewide gun permit (armed security guard license) , No. GG-0025231, which was issued on July 3, 1983. The Division of Licensing of the Department of State did not approve or deny the Respondent's application for a Class "G" license within a 90-day period from the date of receipt of the application and, accordingly, by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division was required to, and in fact did, issue a Class "G" license to the Respondent. Except for the operation of the 90-day provision in Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division of Licensing would not have issued the Respondent a statewide gun permit because of the Respondent's criminal record. For the same reason, it was a mistake for the Division of Licensing to renew the Respondent's Class "D" license in 1983. On February 28, 1977, the Respondent was arrested on the roof of a department-store and charged with burglary, to which he entered a plea of nolo contendre. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for 5 years. During the summer of 1980, the Respondent and two of his friends apprehended two thieves who had stolen some personal property from a vehicle. Later, the Respondent appeared in court to testify against the two thieves. On April 15, 1981, the Respondent was arrested for grand larceny. On November 9, 1981, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to a larceny charge of failing to redeliver a hired motor vehicle. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the De- partment of State issue a Final Order which (a) Would revoke Respondent's Class "D" and Class "G" licenses and (b) would order Respondent to forthwith return such licenses to the Department of State. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1984 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Stuart Phillip Coon 12824 Southwest 114 Terrace Miami, Florida 33183
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be disciplined for allegedly operating various security services without a license as charged in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On April 25, 1989, petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division), received by mail from an anonymous source a copy of a business card reflecting the name of respondent, Robert D. Wingard, and another individual, and indicating that respondent provided the following services: "Executive & V. I. P. Protection, Undercover Investigation, Alarm Technology, Bonding & Courier Work." The card further represented that Wingard held "Lic. No. 34882-809099." The card listed Wingard's address as 4419 Melbourne Street, Punta Gorda, Florida. After receiving the card, a Division investigator, Daniel J. Cabrera, interviewed respondent in Punta Gorda on May 11, 1989. During the course of the interview, respondent acknowledged to Cabrera that he operated a private investigative service, performed the services of a private investigator, operated a security guard agency and performed the services of a security guard, all under the name of Security Enforcement Specialists. However, Wingard maintained he had all necessary licenses from the state. According to Charlotte County records, Wingard applied for and was issued an occupational license by that county on June 18, 1988. The administrative complaint has used that date as the date on which Wingard commenced providing the above services. An examination of Division records indicated that Wingard did not hold those licenses needed to operate the services described in finding of fact 2. Therefore, all services being provided by Wingard were performed without the proper licensure from the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the administrative complaint issued against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Donald R. Alexander 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 27th day of December, 1989.
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the period of time specified in the Administrative Complaint, May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, 24-Hour Security held a Class "B" Security Agency License, number B91-00117. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Richard R. Cullen was president of 24-Hour Security and held, among other licenses, a Class "M" Manager License, number M86-00152. 24-Hour Security, whose only office is located at 1515 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, is in the business of providing security guards to businesses and condominiums. It employs licensed security guards and trains and supervises them to ensure that they adequately perform their duties and carry out the instructions of 24-Hour Security's clients. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Michelle T. Reilly was employed by 24-Hour Security and worked as assistant to Mr. Cullen. She began working for 24-Hour Security in September 1992 and has always been highly regarded as an employee by Mr. Cullen. He has trained her in all aspects of the private security service business in order for her to get the experience necessary to qualify for a chapter 493 manager's license. Prior to February 16, 1995, she had never held any type of license authorized by chapter 493 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cullen was aware that she was not licensed. Since the agency's inception, Mr. Cullen has designated himself manager of 24-Hour Security and has considered himself ultimately responsible for the operation of the agency. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Reilly's business cards identified her as "Branch Manager," and she was identified as such by licensed employees of 24-Hour Security. On one occasion during the Department's investigation, Ms. Reilly expressly identified herself to an investigator of the Department as manager of 24-Hour Security. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, in addition to performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties, Ms. Reilly assisted Mr. Cullen in (1) hiring and training licensed security guards; (2) preparing daily work schedules for the guards; (3) preparing post orders outlining the duties a guard is to carry out at a particular post, including the client's special instructions or requirements; (4) supervising the operation of the agency's dispatch center; (5) addressing clients' problems; (6) consulting with clients regarding proper security precautions; (7) conducting post inspections to ensure that the guards are at their posts, properly uniformed and carrying out their responsibilities; and (8) writing security proposals for clients and in developing new accounts. In assisting Mr. Cullen with these duties, Ms. Reilly at times was allowed by Mr. Cullen to direct and control the activities of licensed security officers and to operate the agency. When Mr. Cullen was advised by the Department that Ms. Reilly could not function as or be designated as "manager" of 24-Hour Security, he immediately removed her business cards from the office. Ms. Reilly applied for a Class "MB" manager's license on November 9, 1994. Her application was denied by the Department by letter dated January 17, 1995, because she had "not demonstrated the lawfully gained experience or appropriate training" required for licensure. Ms. Reilly was issued a Class "D" Security Officer license on February 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding 24-Hour Security, Incorporated, and Richard R. Cullen guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $500 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on petitioner_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 9: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 8. The following are my specific rulings on respondent_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 5. Paragraph 2: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact set out in the second portion of the first sentence and in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as merely summaries of testimony. The proposed finding of fact in the final sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 3: The proposed finding of fact in the first sentence was adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 6. The remaining proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. Paragraph 4: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as merely a summary of testimony; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as argument. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as unnecessary; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as legal argument. The proposed finding of fact in the last sentence is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 5. Paragraph 9: The proposed finding of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The proposed findings of fact in the last two sentences are rejected as argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 11: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Cullen, President 24-Hour Security, Incorporated 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 109 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0250 The Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
