Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at Sumter Correctional Institution near Bushnell, Florida. The Petitioner was convicted for sexual battery and robbery in proceedings before the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, State of Florida. On April 23, 1976, he was sentenced to serve 20 years for robbery and five years for sexual battery. Petitioner is presently incarcerated in accordance with these commitment orders. On December 19, 1979, Petitioner was interviewed by an examiner of the Parole and Probation Commission for the purpose of recommending a presumptive parole release date (PPRD). Under the Commission rules then in effect, the examiner was to consider the gravity of the offense for which the Petitioner was sentenced, establish a "salient factor score" and consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The examiner classified the offense as "greatest (most serious II)." He set the salient factor score as one. The examiner recommended setting the PPRD at the top of the appropriate range given the offense characteristic and salient factor score, and further recommended aggravating this period because of the concurrent conviction for robbery. The examiner recommended a PPRD of September 7, 1982. The Parole and Probation Commission reviewed the recommendation and considered the robbery conviction as being a greater aggravating factor than applied by the examiner. The Commission set the PPRD for February 25, 1986. Petitioner sought further review of the PPRD by the Commission and was unsuccessful. Petitioner has also been unsuccessful in pursuing judicial relief in connection with the PPRD. Commission Rule 23-19.01(5), Florida Administrative Code, as applied to the Petitioner, provided: If present offense of conviction involved multiple separate offenses, the severity level shall be based on the most serious of the offenses, and the other offenses may be used as aggravating factors. This shall be applied to both consecutive and con- current sentences. In adopting its rules, the Commission sought to develop criteria to predict the likelihood of successful parole. An inmate's history is the most reliable predictive device. Statistically, an inmate who has been convicted for more than one offense is a greater parole risk than an inmate who has been convicted for only one offense. The Commission's rule is thus a reasonable device for predicting the likelihood of successful parole.
The Issue The matters to be determined in this case concern an administrative complaint which has been filed against Monroe Monford a/k/a Monroe Monford, Jr. seeking to take disciplinary action based upon the allegation that the Respondent, by the entry of a plea of guilty to a violation of Section 893.13(1)(e) Florida Statutes, possession of cocaine, has thereby violated Sections 455.227(1)(c) and 465.016(1)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Monroe Monford also known as Monroe Monford, Jr. is a pharmacist licensed under the laws of the State of Florida, License No. 0009494 whose address is 3822 Elbert Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. In June of 1982 an investigation was conducted by the Duval County Sheriff's office, Duval County, Florida leading to the arrest of the Respondent. The arrest occurred at 5929 Ramona Boulevard in the Days Inn Motel. A monitor had been placed in the room where a suspected drug transaction was to occur and it was determined that the Respondent was involved in that transaction to the extent of conducting a test to ascertain if the substance being purchased was actually cocaine. It was later determined to be cocaine. Another individual who was in the room with Monroe Monford, one Eddie Lee Tuff, went to a car to obtain money that was being paid for cocaine. Subsequent to that time law enforcement officials entered the room which was under surveillance and found Monroe Monford on the bed counting the money in question. Monford was arrested for a violation of Section 893.135, Florida Statutes, trafficking in a controlled substance, namely cocaine. In response to charges which were brought against Respondent in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 82- 5383CFS, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the sale of cocaine and received a period of probation of five years, assessment of court costs in the amount of $12,153 and as a special condition of probation, was prohibited from practicing pharmacy in Florida or any other state while serving the probationary term. The offense to which he plead guilty was a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. Respondent was not adjudged guilty of the violation of law to which he plead, imposition of the sentence having been withheld pending the satisfactory completion of the probationary period. The date of the court disposition of the case was October 15, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent, John C. Minder, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) on November 17, 2014; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of professional mappers and surveyors pursuant to chapter 472, Florida Statutes. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed professional surveyor and mapper in Florida, having been issued Florida license number LS 4071. In December 2012, a three-count AC was issued to Respondent alleging violations of “former” sections 472.0351(1)(g), and (h), Florida Statutes (2012), through violating Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J-17.052(2)(a)8.d., and 5J-17.052(2)(c)1.a.5/ Respondent “freely and voluntarily” entered into a Settlement Stipulation with Petitioner that resolved the AC. That Settlement Stipulation contained the following provision at paragraph 11(e): Respondent shall provide the Board with a list of all signed and sealed surveys containing a minimum of six (6) surveys which were performed by Respondent within 120 days of the Final Order. The Board’s Probation Chair will randomly select (6) of Respondent’s signed and sealed surveys for review from the survey list submitted by Respondent. Within seven (7) calendar days6/ of being notified by the Board of the surveys which were selected for review, Respondent shall have post-marked and submitted to the Board Office signed and sealed surveys for the surveyed properties selected for review, along with copies of the relevant field notes, the relevant full size record plats, all measurement and computational records, and all other documents necessary for a full and complete review of the surveys, in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J-17.016, 5J-17.083, and 5J-17.085. Respondent must attend the Probation Committee meeting at which the surveys are to be reviewed. Failure to comply with this provision may result in Respondent being referred to the Department for non-compliance with the final order of the Board, and the Board may lift the stay of suspension. Respondent provided a list of his signed and sealed surveys for review. In accordance with the Board’s procedures, the Board chair randomly selected six surveys for the Committee to review. Mr. Roberts provided two surveys to each Committee member for their individual review. Respondent admits he appeared before the November 6, 2013, Committee meeting. The excerpt transcript of the November 6 Committee meeting recorded a discussion between the Committee members and Respondent. It further recorded that the Committee voted to “deny the [Respondent’s] six surveys.” The excerpt transcript of the November 7, 2013, Board meeting, aside from the cover page indicating that it involved Respondent (“IN RE: JOHN C. MINDER”), fails to specifically identify Respondent or the action that the Committee wished to be directed towards him.7/ Further, the transcript fails to reflect the actual vote taken by the Board, as the recording and transcript stopped before the vote was recorded. Respondent provided a second list of all his signed and sealed surveys for review. The Board chair randomly selected six new surveys for the Committee to review. Mr. Roberts provided two surveys to each Committee member for their individual review. Respondent admits he appeared before the February 19, 2014, Committee meeting.8/ The excerpt transcript of the February 19, 2014, Committee meeting recorded another discussion between the Committee members and Respondent. It further recorded that the Committee voted not to accept Respondent’s “second round” of surveys, and to lift the stay on Respondent’s license suspension until he “takes and passes the Florida Jurisdiction.” The excerpt transcript of the February 20 Board meeting reflects that the Committee reported to the Board: John Minder appeared with a second set of surveys. They were denied. He must take and pass the Florida jurisdiction portion of the State exam.9/ The Board’s Order Lifting Stay of Suspension, rendered on March 17, 2014, in pertinent part, provides the following: THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The report and recommendation by the Committee is hereby adopted. Respondent’s license is hereby SUSPENDED. If the Respondent files a written Petition for Reinstatement in conformity with the applicable administrative Rules (including but not limited to Rules 5J-17.083 and 5J-17.085, Fla. Admin. Code,) then the Board may consider the Petition and may reinstate the license. The Committee’s report only stated that Respondent “must take and pass the Florida jurisdiction portion of the State exam.” There is no Committee recommendation of lifting the stay of suspension or a suspension of Respondent’s license. Mr. Roberts was the only person to testify at the hearing. Mr. Roberts is not and never has been a licensed surveyor or mapper. His discussion of the probation process was helpful; however, he did not provide any direct testimony supporting the Complaint. His hearsay testimony cannot support a finding of fact. Although Mr. Roberts testified to what he saw Respondent provide and what the Committee members saw, his testimony cannot support the allegations that the surveys Respondent submitted were not in compliance with Minimum Technical Standards. There was no credible expert testimony provided to support the Petitioner’s allegations. Further, when asked the following: “And at that [General Board] meeting was a decision made to enter an order lifting a stay of suspension upon Mr. Minder’s license?” Mr. Roberts responded: “To the best of my recollection, the Board decided and voted unanimously to lift the stay of suspension on Mr. Minder’s license.” The Board transcript does not substantiate that recollection. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s surveys failed to meet minimum standards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers issue a final order dismissing the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 11th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional probation officer on February 1, 1991, and as a criminal justice training instructor on December 7, 1999. Her respective certificate numbers are 20851 and 205697. Respondent was first employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) on August 10, 1990. She was employed as a correctional probation officer. As a result of promotions, Respondent became a DOC Correctional Probation Specialist in February 1995, so that she was responsible for, among other things, various administrative duties, such as handling citizens' complaints of employee misconduct and coordinating training events. In April 2001, Respondent filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that DOC forced her to work in a hostile environment. On February 15, 2002, Respondent, alleging the same facts, commenced a legal action against DOC in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 02-60236-CIV. As part of the federal litigation, DOC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, in part, that Respondent's complaint failed to claim damages. In response, on March 28, 2003, Respondent, representing herself, filed a lengthy affidavit, to which she personally attested. In the affidavit, Respondent swore to the following statement: I requested assistance from management [following the departure of the other Correctional Probation Specialist from Respondent's office and DOC's failure to fill the empty position], but they refused to assign another Specialist to the office to assist me. As a result I had to work an average of five hours per week extra in overtime without pay to properly supervise this caseload to prevent from being reprimanded, suspended or terminated by [DOC]. I was not paid for this time. The evidence is clear that Respondent did not work overtime, with or without pay. The Correctional Probation Supervisor who directly supervised Respondent at the time testified at the hearing. Obviously not hostile to Respondent, the supervisor testified definitively that during the relevant period in the affidavit--March 2, 2001 through May 9, 2002--she was intimately familiar with Respondent's work, including her itinerary and travel logs. The supervisor testified that Respondent incurred no overtime whatsoever during this period, and this testimony is credited in its entirety. Respondent's sworn statement in the affidavit is false and was false at the time that Respondent made it. Respondent's sole purpose in making this false statement was to deceive the court and show an element of damages that did not, in fact, exist. DOC terminated Respondent on August 1, 2003. She has not since worked in a job that requires certification from Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificates as a correctional probation officer and criminal justice training instructor for one year retroactive to August 2, 2003; placing these certificates on probation for two years from the date of the final order; and requiring Respondent to attend an ethics course approved by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 18th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Faye E. Wright-Simpson
Findings Of Fact Ernest Brown is a registered real estate salesman holding a registration issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Brown received notice of the instant hearing as required by the statutes and rules. His probation officer testified she had contacted him and he had advised her that he would not attend the proceedings. Brown was placed on probation with an adjudication of guilt withheld by the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, on January 25, 1989 (see Exhibit 2). Paragraph 10 of the conditions of probation requires that Brown serve 180 days in the Pinellas County Jail on weekends from 7:00 p.m. Friday until 7:00 p.m. Sunday. Because of the appeal of his case, Brown did not begin serving this jail term until August 24, 1989. He has served 72 of the 180 days according to the records of his probation officer. Brown is currently in the custody of the State's probation department.
Recommendation The Board's counsel advised the Hearing Officer after hearing that Respondent had surrender his license. This constitutes an ex parte communication of which notice is hereby given to all parties. This fact is immaterial to consideration of the matter at hand. The Board has long taken the position, quite correctly, that surrendering of a license did not impair jurisdiction to consider violations of its statutes by a licensee while licensed. Similarly, surrender of a license cannot terminate the Hearing Officer's consideration of the matter after hearing. The instant case was duly heard and the Recommended Order prepared prior to receipt of any pleadings relative to surrender by Brown of his license. At this point, the Board may accept surrender of the license and dismiss the Administrative Complaint, in which case Brown would be considered not to have had any disciplinary action against him, or the Board may enter its final order based upon the record and this Recommended Order. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the license of Ernest Brown. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ernest B. Brown 2027 Thirteenth Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33172
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at Tomoka Correctional Institution, Daytona Beach, Florida. He is presently serving a sentence of 60 years and has a presumptive parole release date of 180 months. Petitioner specifically challenges the validity of the matrix time range contained in Rule 23-21.09(5), Florida Administrative Code. That provision contains a matrix which sets the time ranges for presumptive parole release dates. A copy of that matrix is attached to this order as Appendix I. The most current matrix was last amended effective October 1, 1982. The initial or first matrix was developed and became effective in 1979 in response to legislation adopted in 1978 which required the Parole and Probation Commission (hereafter referred to as Commission) to develop and implement objective parole guidelines. Prior to this time, the granting or denying of parole had been a subjective decision by the commissioners and required a majority vote of the commissioners. In originally developing the matrix, the Commission used the Thurston Scaling Method in ranking various criminal offenses from least to most serious offense. This method involved providing each of the Commissioners with 40 index cards on which the various criminal offenses were written. Each commissioner then ranked the various criminal offenses in order of seriousness. The Board then reviewed the results and arrived at a consensus on the ranking of the various crimes. The Thurston scaling methodology is an accepted scientific methodology for ranking different crimes by level of seriousness or severity. This methodology was recommended to the Commission by three consultants in the field of parole. These same three experts, Peter Hoffman, Director of Research for the U.S. Parole Commission, Dale Parent, Director of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission for the State of Minnesota, and Betty Taylor, a parole commissioner for the State of Oregon, advised and consulted with the board in developing the objective parole guidelines. After the initial matrix was adopted as a Commission rule, it was reviewed on an annual basis as required by statute. Since 1979, some changes in the matrix have been adopted by the Commission based upon their annual review. Each change was adopted as a rule change and the procedures for adopting or amending administrative rules were followed. The procedure for adopting the rule changes generally took at least 90 days. The present matrix contains six categories of crimes broken down by degrees. Each inmate is assigned a salient-factor score and by using this score with the offense for which the person was sentenced a time range for the Presumptive parole release date for that individual is obtained from the matrix. The Commission sets the presumptive parole release date within that range unless other factors warrant going outside that range by extending or reducing the number of months to the presumptive parole release date. The inmate's presumptive parole release date may also be extended for unsatisfactory institutional behavior while incarcerated. The Commission, in granting or denying parole, considers the total case package including those specific reasons which may serve as a basis for going above or below the matrix time range. When the Commission goes outside the matrix time range it must state its reason for doing so. Prior to March 1983, the forms of the Commission's actions were filed in a central storage area. In March 1983, the mechanism became available for feeding this information into the computer. Using the computer and data which is maintained by the Department of Corrections, the Commission now generates quarterly reports. These reports provide a statistical analysis which indicates whether the guidelines are being following by the Commission. This same data also provides a possible indicator for needed changes in the guidelines. All revisions to the guidelines must now be made based upon such statistical analysis. Sentencing guidelines and objective parole guidelines are separate. The salient-factor scores for the sentencing guidelines and objective parole guidelines are similar, but not the same. Sentencing involves a separate branch of government, a separate function, separate measurements, and separate criteria. Sentencing can be done only by a court of law and is accomplished by court order. Sentencing sets the limit of the incarceration period. The parole function is a function of the executive branch and cannot be ordered by the Commission. An offer of parole is tendered or offered by the Commission and the inmate may accept or reject the offer and its condition. If the inmate accepts an offer of parole, the form used is a contract form which must be signed and agreed to by the inmate. Parole results in release under supervision whereas completion of the sentence results in full release without conditions or supervision. Section 947.165(2), Florida Statutes, was amended by the 1982 legislature. See Session Law 82-171. Prior to this amendment, changes made in the objective parole guidelines were to be based upon the "experience" of the commission. The amended section provides that the Commission shall review the guidelines at least once each year and make any revisions considered necessary by virtue of statistical analysis of Commission actions. The initial report of the data generated by this statistical analysis was to be due January 30, 1983. See Florida Statute 947.13(3)(1982). The Commission and its staff began work immediately after the passage of 82-171 to implement the statistical analysis and reporting requirements.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Agency is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been since January 5, 1981, a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. His license number is ME 0037656. In or about February of 1988, a complaint was made against Respondent alleging that he engaged, or attempted to engage, in the practice of medicine in this state without an active Florida license. The complaint was reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board, which disposed of the matter by issuing, on April 23, 1988, the following Closing Order: THE COMPLAINT: Complainant alleges that the Subject of the investigation practiced or attempted to practice medicine without an active license in violation of Section 458.327 (1)(a), Florida Statutes. THE FACTS: Investigation substantiated the allegations in that Subject's license to practice medicine expired December 31, 1987, and was placed in an inactive status. Subject practiced medicine with an inactive license until approximately February 5, 1988, before he took steps to renew his license. THE LAW: Based on the foregoing, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause that Subject violated Section 458.327(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and there- fore is in violation of Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes. However, as Subject's license was inactive for a period of less than six months, this case should be closed by issuing Subject a Letter of Guidance. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the complaint be, and the same is hereby CLOSED with a Letter of Guidance. In January of 1991, the Agency's predecessor, the Department of Professional Regulation, issued a 22-count Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging that, in connection with his dealings with 11 patients in 1989 and 1990, Respondent violated subsections (1)(g)(Counts Twenty-One and Twenty-Two), (1)(m)(Counts Ten, Thirteen and Eighteen), (1)(q)(Counts Two, Five, Eight, Eleven, Fifteen and Nineteen), (1)(t)(Counts One, Four, Seven, Twelve, Fourteen, Sixteen and Twenty) and (1)(v)(Counts Three, Six, Nine and Seventeen) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes. Proceedings on these allegations were conducted in accordance with Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. On August 24, 1992, the Board issued a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in each of the 22 counts of the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him for having committed these violations. That portion of the Final Order addressing the Respondent's punishment provided, in pertinent part, as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Respondent's license to practice medicine is REPRIMANDED. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5000 to the Board of Medicine, Department of Professional Regula- tion, within 3 years of the date this Final Order is filed. Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is placed on PROBATION for a period of 3 years, subject to the follow- ing terms and conditions: . . . f. Respondent shall not practice except under the indirect supervision of a physician fully licensed under Chapter 458 who has been approved by the Board or its Probation Committee. Absent provision for and comp- liance with the terms regarding temporary approval of a monitoring physician, as provided below, Respondent shall cease pract- ice and not practice until the Probation Comm- ittee or the Board approves a monitoring physician. Respondent shall have the monitoring physician with Respondent at the first probation appearance before the Probation Committee. Prior to the approval of the monitoring physician by the Committee, the Respondent shall provide to the monitoring physician a copy of the Administrative Comp- laint and Final Order filed in this case. Failure of the Respondent or the monitoring physician to appear at the scheduled Probation Committee meeting shall constitute a violation of this Order. Prior to the approval of the monitoring physician by the Committee, Respondent shall submit to the Committee a current curriculum vitae and description of the current practice from the proposed monitoring physician. Said materials shall be received by the Board office no later than fourteen days before the first scheduled probation appearance. The attached definition of a monitoring physician is incorporated herein. The responsibilities of the monitoring physician shall include: Submit semi-annual reports, in affidavit form, which shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Description of probationer's practice. Brief statement of probationer's comp- liance with terms of probation. Brief description of probationer's relationship with monitoring physician. Detail any problems which may have arisen with probationer. Respondent shall be responsible for ensuring that the monitoring physician submits the required reports. Be available for consultation with Respondent whenever necessary, at a frequency of at least once per month. Review 50 percent of Respondent's patient records selected on a random basis at least once every other month. In order to comply with this responsibility of random review, the monitoring physician shall go to Respondent's office once every other month. At that time, the monitoring physician shall be responsible for making the random selection of the records to be reviewed by the monitoring physician. Review all patient records of patients treated with Schedule II-V controlled substances. Receive and review copies of all Schedule II-V controlled substance prescriptions in order to determine the appropriateness of Respondent's prescribing of controlled substances. Report to the Board any violations by probationer of Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. . . Respondent shall submit semi-annual reports in affidavit form, the contents of which shall be specified by the Board. The reports shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Practice location. Describe current practice (type and composition). Brief statement of compliance with probation terms. Describe relationship with monitoring/ supervisory physician. Advise Board of any problems. . . Respondent may prescribe Schedule II-V controlled substances with the restrictions set forth below: Respondent shall utilize sequentially numbered triplicate prescriptions in the prescribing of said controlled substances. Respondent shall provide one copy of each prescription for said controlled substances to the Department's investigator within 30 days. Respondent shall, within two weeks after issuance, provide one copy of each prescription for said controlled substances to his monitoring/supervising physician. Respondent shall maintain one copy of each prescription for said controlled sub- stances in the patient's medical record. This copy may be a xerox copy. During this period of probation, semi- annual investigative reports will be compiled by the Department of Professional Regulation concerning Respondent's compliance with the terms and conditions of probation and the rules and statutes regulating the practice of medicine. . . . At a meeting held November 18, 1992, Respondent received the approval of the Probation Committee to have Oliver Anderson, M.D., serve as his monitoring physician. Both Respondent and Dr. Anderson appeared before the Probation Committee at this November 18, 1992, meeting. Dr. Anderson is in his late seventies. Like Respondent, he has a general family practice. He and Respondent have known each other for over ten years. Dr. Anderson first visited Respondent's office, in his capacity as Respondent's monitoring physician, in February of 1993. At the outset of the visit, Dr. Anderson asked for, and was given, a list of all the patients that Respondent had seen in the last two months. From the list, he randomly selected the names of 71 patients (which was one half the number of patients on the list). He then obtained from Respondent, and thereafter reviewed, the records Respondent maintained on these 71 patients. Dahna Schaublin, a Department investigator, was assigned to serve as Respondent's probation monitor. On or about February 10, 1993, she prepared and transmitted to her supervisor, Crystal Griffin, an investigative report concerning Respondent's compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. In her report, Schaublin stated the following: A Final Order was filed on 8/24/92 regarding John Jackson, M.D. for prescribing Dilaudid to patients in 1989, violating FS. 458.331 (1)(q)(v). The Probation term is 08/24/92 to 08/23/95. Dr. Jackson was contacted and presented to the Miami BIS on 01/27/93 for an interview. He brought copies of prescript- ions for controlled drugs prescribed in Dec/ 1992-Jan/1993. Dr. Jackson did not have copies of other prescriptions with him stating he mailed one copy to the Board of Medicine and one copy to his physician monitor. Dr. Anderson, a family practitioner, is supervis- ing physician. Dr. Anderson has only been to Dr. Jackson's office on one occasion (the Order states he should review 50 percent of patient records on a random basis, and shall go to Dr. Jackson's office once every other month). Dr. Jackson decided to xerox each daily chart for each patient seen in the office and then mail Dr. Anderson a copy of the treatment chart (for that one occasion). Dr. Jackson stated that the reason he is not following the Order to the letter is because it was difficult for Dr. Anderson to review 50 percent of his patient records in person every month. We told Dr. Jackson this practice was contrary to the Final Order and we suggested he inform the Probation Committee. Dr. Jackson has not paid his $5000 yet, stating that he has 5 years to do so. Dr. Jackson has gone before the Probation Committee two times. Griffin inadvertently failed to forward Schaublin's investigative report to the Probation Committee. Accordingly, the Probation Committee took no action in response to the allegations made in the report. Respondent did not provide Schaublin with copies of prescriptions he wrote in February and March of 1993, "within 30 days," as required by paragraph 3k(2) of the Board's August 24, 1992, Final Order. It was not until April 14, 1993, that Respondent furnished Schaublin with copies of these prescriptions (which were written on numbered prescription forms). Respondent wrote prescription numbers 1041 through 1047 in April and May of 1993 (more specifically, prescription number 1041 on April 12, 1993; prescription number 1042 on April 14, 1993; prescription number 1043 on April 24, 1993; prescription number 1044 on April 26, 1993; prescription number 1045 on April 30, 1993; prescription number 1046 on May 2, 1993; and prescription number 1047 on May 12, 1993). These prescriptions were not among those that Respondent furnished copies of to Schaublin on April 14, 1993, however, none of them were written 30 days or more prior to April 14, 1993. On or about March 17, 1993, Respondent submitted his first semi-annual probation report to the Department. In the fourth paragraph of his report, Respondent asserted the following: I have complied fully with the terms of my probation. I have taken the course "Protecting your Practice" at the University of South Florida. I meet as scheduled with my monitoring physician Dr. O.D. Anderson whose letter will be Coming soon to you. We cover for each other every week taking calls on Wednesdays for Dr. Anderson and Thursdays for myself. We also alternate taking calls for each other every other weekend. We discuss patient care, as per the order, for all scheduled prescriptions written. In his report, Respondent did not indicate that there were "any problems" concerning Dr. Anderson's compliance with the provisions of the Board's August 24, 1992, Final Order which prescribed the responsibilities of Respondent's monitoring physician. Dr. Anderson submitted to the Department his first semi-annual report concerning Respondent's probation on or about June 13, 1993. In the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of his report, Dr. Anderson asserted the following: In my opinion, Dr. Jackson has been very sensitive to the Administrative Complaint and Order of the Department of Professional Regulation. This has been demonstrated by his good attitude in my visits with him, and in his compliance with providing for me duplicate copies of his Numbered Schedule II-V prescriptions. Dr. Jackson and his office personnel have been very responsive in allowing my random selection of charts for review on my visits to his office. With his wife's support, Dr. Jackson has complied well with the requirements of his probation. Although he indicated otherwise in his report, Dr. Anderson had made only one visit to Respondent's office in his capacity as Respondent's monitoring physician. It was not until September of 1993, that he next visited Respondent's office in his capacity as Respondent's monitoring physician. In conducting his review during this visit, he followed essentially the same procedure that he had followed during his February visit. In September of 1993, Respondent filed with the Board a Petition for Early Termination of Probation on the grounds of "1) hardship due to changed circumstances; and 2) fulfillment of purposes of penalty." In his petition, Respondent asserted that he had "fully complied with the requirements of probation with the exception of the fine." He did not mention that he had failed to provide Schaublin with copies of the prescriptions he wrote in February and March of 1993, "within 30 days," as required by paragraph 3k(2) of the Board's August 24, 1992, Final Order or that Dr. Anderson had failed to make the number of office visits required by paragraph 3f(3) of the Final Order. Dr. Anderson wrote a letter, dated October 21, 1993, in support of Respondent's petition. The letter read as follows: This is an interim report following the first semi-annual report dated May 19, 1993, which I submitted. I was appointed monitoring physician for Dr. Jackson at the Miami November 18, 1992, meeting of the Probation Committee of the Department of Professional Regulation. Again I have reviewed the Administrative Complaint dated January 24, 1991, and also the Notice of Right to Judicial Review, and Certificate of Service signed August 24, 1992, which were received by Dr. Jackson. He is on probation for the inappropriate prescribing of Dilaudid to eleven patients in 1989. Dr. Jackson continues his good care of his private patients, and the Insurance PPO and HMO patients here in Hialeah, Florida. In my opinion Dr. Jackson has been very sensitive to the Administrative Complaint and Order of the Department of Professional Regulation. This has been demonstrated by his continuing compliance with providing for me the duplicate copies of his Numbered Schedule II-V prescriptions. Dr. Jackson continues to be very responsive in allowing my random selection of charts for review on my visits to his office. Dr. Jackson continues to be very aware of which medications fall into Schedule II-V. We both have copies of the Drug Abuse Prevent- ion and Control Schedule II-V list. This letter is written to support Dr. Jackson's release from probation. In my opinion he is worthy of release as demonstrated by his continuing compliance. The Board considered Respondent's petition at its October 1-3, 1993, meeting. Both Respondent and Dr. Anderson addressed the Board during this meeting. Dr. Anderson told the Board that, in his opinion, Respondent had "corrected all his past difficulties very effectively." By letter dated October 6, 1993, from Crystal Griffin, Respondent was informed of the Board's action. The letter read as follows: This is to inform you that the Florida Board of Medicine, in a meeting held October 1-3, 1993, . . voted to: Terminate your probation; however, you will be required to pay your administrative fine by August, 1995 and complete 300 hours of community service per year for a period of 2 years. Furthermore, you are required to submit a plan for your community service. You should receive an Order shortly. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the Board office at (904) 488-0595. Sometime after the Board's October 1-3, 1993, meeting, but before the Board had issued the written order promised in Griffin's October 6, 1993, letter to Respondent, Schaublin first learned about Respondent's petition and the Board's action thereon. Thereafter, on December 7, 1993, she filed an investigative report concerning Respondent's compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation from the time of her last investigative report. In her December 7, 1993, report, she stated the following: Monitoring of the Subject's Probation is impeded because Dr. Jackson's failed to comply with terms of the Probation Order. The Final Order states: "k. Respondent may prescribe Schedule II-V controlled substances with the restrictions set forth below: (2) Respondent shall provide one copy of each prescription for said controlled substances to the Department's investigator within 30 days." Dr. Jackson: Did not provide copies of controlled substances prescriptions for February/March until April 14, 1993. There are 6 missing prescription forms from numbers 1041 to 1047. Dr. Jackson has failed to provide prescriptions for October/November 1993. This investigator met with Dr. Jackson at the Miami BIS on January 27, 1993 and requested copies of prescriptions be sent to this office within the 30 day time frame as mandated in the Final Order. A U.C.F. was issued by this Investigator on 12/7/93. This Investigator spoke with Constance Campbell on December 06, 1993 regarding Dr. Jackson's lack of compliance with the terms of the Final Order. We reported on 2/10/93 that Dr. Jackson's monitoring physician was not visiting his office "every other month" and making "random selection of the record[s]" as outlined in the Final Order f.(3). We are attaching copies of prescriptions for Controlled drugs for the months February 1993 through September 1993. On May 24, 1994, the Board issued a written order terminating Respondent's probation. The order provided as follows: THIS CAUSE came on before the Board of Medicine (Board) on October 3, 1993, in Miami, Florida for the purpose of considering Respondent's request to terminate the probation imposed by the Board's Final Order filed August 2 [sic], 1992. Upon review of the request, the testimony and evidence offered in support thereof, the recommendation of the Board's Probation Committee, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's probation shall be terminated. However, Respondent is still required to pay the administrative fine of $5,000.00 imposed by the previous Final Order and said fine must be paid by August 2, 1995. Furthermore, Respondent is required to complete 300 hours per year of community service in an area where medical services are needed during each of the next two years. This Order shall take effect upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1)(x) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, with the exception of the alleged violation relating to the submission of copies of prescription numbers 1041-1047, and disciplining him for having committed these violations by fining him $2,500.00, suspending his license for a period of 30 days and placing him on probation for a period of two years (subject to those terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate) beginning immediately after the end of the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of December, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 26th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since November 29, 2001, certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. She holds Correctional Certificate Number 2000056. Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick are Respondent's brothers. Respondent has lived in the same residence as her brother Javeres her entire life. Since February of 1999, when they were placed on probation for committing the felony crime of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16 years of age, Javeres Kendrick and Willie Kendrick have been under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC). On or about November 27, 2000, Respondent completed and submitted to the Department of Corrections (DOC) a Correctional Officer/Correctional Probation Officer Supplemental Application. At the time, she did not have any training or experience as correctional or probation officer. Question 4 on this employment application asked: Do you have a business or personal relationship with anyone presently incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system? If yes, give name, relationship, and place of incarceration/supervision. Respondent answered this question by checking "No." In doing so, she believed that she was providing accurate information to DOC. Although she was aware that her brothers were on probation, she did not understand them to be "incarcerated or under the supervision of the Florida Department of Correction's system," within the meaning of the question, because they were not in state prison. Furthermore, in her mind, she had a familial, not a "business or personal relationship" with her brothers.3 Respondent was ultimately employed by DOC as a correctional officer and assigned to Broward Correctional Institution (BCI). On September 18, 2003, a team of DOC correctional probation officers (Team), consisting of Raul Fernandez, Sara Bermudez, and Juan D'Elia, accompanied by local law enforcement officers, including David Torres of the Miami-Dade County Police Department, went to the residence of Javeres Kendrick at 4270 Northwest 197th Street, Miami, Florida, to conduct a "pre- planned sex offender compliance check." The purpose of the Team's visit was to ascertain whether Mr. Kendrick was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. When the Team arrived at the residence, Mr. Kendrick was outside washing a vehicle. The Team members exited their vehicles and walked up to Mr. Kendrick. They identified themselves as correctional probation officers and told Mr. Kendrick that they were there to make sure that he was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. To do so, they advised him, they needed to search his bedroom (which they were authorized to do by the court order placing Mr. Kendrick on probation). Mr. Kendrick responded that his bedroom was "a mess" and that he wanted "to go and clean [it] up" before the Team conducted its search. Despite being told that he "couldn't do that," Mr. Kendrick "bolted" away from the Team members and went "inside the house." Officers Fernandez and D'Elia followed Mr. Kendrick to the front door of the residence, where they were met by Respondent, who "intercepted" them and blocked their paths, thereby "prohibit[ing] [them] from entering [the residence] immediately." While standing in their way and interrupting their pursuit of Mr. Kendrick, Respondent, using profanity, yelled at Officers Fernandez and D'Elia in a "hostile and belligerent" manner, expressing her strong displeasure over their presence at the residence. She told them that they "had no right to be there," adding that "every time [they] show[ed] up there [they] always w[ound] up arresting her brother."4 Respondent was asked at least twice to "please move," which she finally did, albeit "in a very slow and deliberate manner." Officer Fernandez instructed Respondent to "take the children out of the residence and to wait outside until [the Team] conducted [its] search." With Respondent out of the way, Officer Fernandez and D'Elia entered the residence. Officer D'Elia spotted Mr. Kendrick "in the second bedroom on the left." Mr. Kendrick had his hand in a chest drawer. While Officer D'Elia "secured" Mr. Kendrick, Officer Fernandez searched the drawer and found "paraphernalia used for the pack[ag]ing of narcotics" and baggies containing what appeared to be cocaine and marijuana. After this discovery was made, Respondent came into the bedroom (contrary to the instructions she had been given) and asked "how much longer [the Team] had left." A conversation between Officer Fernandez and Respondent ensued, during which Officer Fernandez informed Respondent about "the narcotics that were in the drawer." Upon being so informed, Respondent, with the intent to deceive the Team, falsely claimed that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found was not her bother Javeres' bedroom. Rather, she told Officer Fernandez and the other Team members, the bedroom had last been occupied by her uncle, who "had wound up going to jail." As the Team was leading him away from the residence, Mr. Kendrick asked Respondent to "retrieve" for him from "his room" a pair of pants, socks, and tennis shoes that he could wear in jail. Complying with this request, Respondent, followed by Officer Bermudez, went straight to the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found (which was Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, contrary to what Respondent had previously claimed) and "retrieve[d]" the items her brother had requested. During her dealings with the Team that day, Respondent revealed that she was a correctional officer at BCI. Upon returning to his office, after having "finished processing Mr. Kendrick and logging in the evidence" seized from Mr. Kendrick's bedroom, Officer Fernandez complained to his supervisor about Respondent's hostile and obstructive conduct during the Team's "compliance check" at Mr. Kendrick's residence earlier that day. Inasmuch as Respondent was a DOC employee, Officer Fernandez's supervisor referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation pursuant to DOC policy. Scott Thomas, a senior prison inspector with DOC, conducted the investigation. As part of his investigation, Inspector Thomas reviewed the contents of Respondent's DOC personnel file (including the employment application she had submitted on November 27, 2000) and obtained sworn affidavits from Officers Fernandez, Bermudez, and D'Elia. In addition, on November 12, 2003, he interviewed Respondent under oath. During the interview, among other things, Respondent repeated the falsehood that the bedroom in which the "narcotics" had been found during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" was not her brother Javeres' bedroom. In addition, she falsely denied ever having used "profanity towards the [Team] members" conducting the "compliance check" and further falsely denied that that the Team members, during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check," ever told her to "wait outside the house." Respondent made these statements to Inspector Thomas knowing that they were not true. Inspector Thomas determined from his investigation that Respondent had "provided untruthful information" on her November 27, 2000, employment application and that she had engaged in "conduct unbecoming" a DOC employee during the September 18, 2003, "compliance check" at her residence. Based on the findings of Inspector Thomas' investigation, Respondent's employment with DOC was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Allegation Two and Three and, based on these findings of guilt, revoke her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 21st day of June, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harvey Jackson, in an inmate at UCI and has been at all times pertinent hereto. During the month of September, 1986, consistent with the rules of DOC, Jackson had a list of individuals on file who he desired to be allowed to visit him at the institution. These included members of his family and his fiancee, Ms. Ann Alexander. On September 22, 1986, Ms. Alexander came to visit Jackson at UCI. According to the routine procedure followed for the preparation of visitors' entrance into the Visitor's Park area, Ms. Alexander's purse was searched and she was subject to a pat search prior to being allowed into the secure area. During the search, it was determined she had $50.00 in U.S. currency in her possession and she was permitted to take that money into the Visitor's Park, leaving her purse at the waiting area. While Jackson and Ms. Alexander were together in the Visitor's Park, she purchased two cartons of cigarettes at the canteen and two orange drinks. The cartons of cigarettes were $12.00 each and the drinks were 35 each. Therefore, she spent approximately $24.70 of the $50.00 she brought in. Because she did not have a purse, she claimed later, upon questioning, that she put the change in the brown paper bag she got with the drinks and when she disposed of the bag in a trash can, inadvertently threw out the money as well. When she left the Visitor's Park area, she was subject again to a pat search and requested to indicate how much money she had. At that time, it was determined she had only $3.00 in her possession. According to corrections personnel who interviewed her, she gave several different stories as to what happened to the money she could not account for. Though both Ms. Alexander and Jackson stated she bought him two cartons of cigarettes, when he was searched prior to leaving the Visitor's Park, he had only one carton with him. The strip search conducted of him at that time also failed to reveal any money in his possession. Ms. Alexander was asked to go back into the Visitor's Park and look through the trash cans to try to find the money, and was accompanied by a guard. Because of the heat, however, it was an odious task and she admits her search of six or seven cans was not thorough. Unfortunately, she was unable to locate the money. As a result of this missing money, an incident report, (IR) was prepared. Ms. Alexander was not detained but was orally informed that her visiting privileges might be suspended and Jackson was allowed to return to his quarters. The IR merely outlined the information cited above but did not draw any conclusions as to what happened to the money. Mr. Davis, the corrections supervisor who was in charge of the corrections shift, concluded that Ms. Alexander disregarded the department's rules and regulations and recommended that her visiting privileges be revoked for an indefinite period. This IR was processed through channels to Mr. Cunningham, the Classification Supervisor, who under the provisions of Section 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., had the authority, in the absence of the Superintendent, to approve the suspension. He did so, and made sure that the Superintendent was informed. Thereafter, on September 29, 1986, Mr. K. W. Snow, who worked for Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, sent a letter to Ms. Alexander at her home address on file at the institution, indicating that her visiting privileges were suspended indefinitely beginning that date and would be reinstated on October 31, 1986, one month later. Notwithstanding that inconsistency regarding the length of the suspension, the practice at UCI, in the case of indefinite suspensions, is to reconsider the suspension on receipt of a request for reinstatement. In the case of a suspension for a definite term, they will reinstate upon request at the end of the suspension period. On the afternoon of September 26, 1986, several days prior to the dispatch of the suspension letter to Ms. Alexander, inmate Jackson was called to Mr. Snow's office where he was told that Ms. Alexander's visiting privileges were to be suspended for 30 days. At that time, he was advised that the basis for the suspension was her inability to account for the money she brought into the Visitor's Park on September 22. Though he requested a copy of the IR at that time, Jackson was not given a copy of it until in response to a discovery request after the filing of the rule challenge petition. Jackson was not advised of any opportunity either he or Ms. Alexander might have for a hearing on the matter prior to the suspension, or any appeal rights. Thereafter, Jackson wrote to Mr. Snow asking that he be notified of the suspension in writing, but this request was denied. The September 29, 1986 letter was not received by Ms. Alexander but was returned undelivered because of an erroneous address. On October 1, 1986, however, she wrote to Mr. Cunningham, having been advised by Jackson of the suspension, and the address on her stationery was used to again send her a letter of notification. This second letter was not returned. In her letter, Ms. Alexander explained her reasons for taking so much money into the Visitor's Park, and what she had done with a part of it. She also outlined her efforts to find the extra money. These explanations were not credited by the institution officials, however. Ms. Alexander's suspension has had a bad effect on Jackson, he claims. He felt frustrated and considered that his ability to be heard by the authorities was unnecessarily thwarted. He is of the opinion that the suspension was unfair because neither he nor his fiancee had broken any rules, and neither of them was given any opportunity to explain to the decision maker what had happened other than in writing and after the action was taken. As a result of the suspension, which has now expired, he missed two separate visits from his fiancee. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Alexander's suspension did not place any limits on visits by the other 7 or 8 people on his visitor's list. This suspension action has been utilized frequently as to other visitors as well as Ms. Alexander. Ms. Decker, for example, on September 29, 1986, was notified of the suspension of her visiting privileges on the basis that she had allegedly written a threatening letter to an official at the institution. She found out about her suspension through a phone call from her inmate fiancee. Neither she nor he, initially, was told of the reason for her suspension, and she was given no opportunity to rebut the allegations against her prior to the suspension action. Subsequent to the suspension, she was able to clarify the situation and her visiting privileges have been reinstated, albeit on less convenient days than she had previously. She believes this change in days was intended as punishment, but there is no evidence of this. Ms. Decker denies ever having been told that she could only spend $25.00 in the canteen as is alleged in Ms. Alexander's letter. In fact, there is no rule or policy limiting the amount that visitors may spend in the canteen nor is there a rule or policy which limits inmates to no more than one carton of cigarettes at a time. Mr. Jackson complains of the fact that neither he nor Ms. Alexander was afforded a hearing prior to the imposition of the suspension. There is no provision in the rule for a hearing prior to suspension in this type of case. This suspension was not intended as punishment for improper behavior by Jackson, but more a means of correcting an unauthorized situation and avoiding a security problem. Officials at UCI interpret the provisions of paragraph 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., as permitting the removal of a visitor from the visiting list for criminal activity, for a serious rule violation, for continuous infractions of visiting procedures, for security breaches, or a combination of those. While the instant situation is not considered to be criminal activity, a serious rule violation, or a continuing infraction, it is considered to be a security breach and it was to correct this situation that the institution officials suspended Ms. Alexander. Final action on the issue of a suspension of visiting privileges based on the IR is, by the rule, to be taken by the Superintendent, or the Assistant Superintendent, Classification Supervisor, or the next senior officer present in the chain of command in the absence of the Superintendent. Here, while the suspension letter in question was signed by Mr. Snow, the assistant classification supervisor, and while the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, was present on the day the suspension letter was signed, the letter clearly shows that the action was taken in the name of the superintendent and the testimony of Mr. Cunningham established that it was done with his concurrence. There is nothing in the rule that requires that the inmate or the visitor be afforded a hearing prior to the action suspending visiting privileges. If an inmate feels that the action suspending the visiting privileges of an individual on his list is improper and he can show a direct effect on him as a result thereof, he may file a grievance. Though Jackson indicates he filed a grievance in this case, there is no evidence of it. The incident report in question related strictly to the activity of Ms. Alexander and the action was taken against her even though, in so doing, an adverse effect was felt by Mr. Jackson. No doubt had he desired to do so, he could have grieved that situation, but, as was stated above, there is no evidence that he did so. There is a difference between an IR, as was written here, and a disciplinary report, (DR), which was not involved in this case. A DR involves misconduct on the part of an inmate which may result in disciplinary action, including a suspension of visiting privileges. An IR is nothing more than a memorialization of an unusual incident which is to be brought to the attention of institution authorities. Whereas an inmate is entitled to a hearing before action is taken on the basis of a DR, no hearing is required when an IR is written. If the incident resulting in an IR also results in a DR, a hearing would be afforded the inmate based on the proposed disciplinary action, not on the memorialization in the IR. There is no doubt that the removal of visitors from an inmate's visitors list does have an adverse effect on the morale and possibly the well- being of the inmate involved. However, the action is normally taken on the basis of the conduct of the visitor, not the inmate, and if a decision is made to suspend the visiting privileges of the visitor, the direct effect is on that visitor with a secondary effect only on the innate. In the instant case, officials concluded that Ms. Alexander's inability to account for approximately $20.00 in currency constituted a breach of security which authorized and in fact dictated a need to curtail her entry into the institution for a period of time. There is no evidence that Jackson committed any offense or did anything improper and it is, indeed, unfortunate that he was forced to suffer the deprivation of not being visited by his fiancee for a period of time. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the testimony of the numerous individuals involved in the investigation of this incident that the action taken under the terms of the rule to suspend Ms. Alexander's privilege to visit was not taken lightly and was based on a bona fide evaluation of a security risk to the institution.
