The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint concerning unlawfully committing a battery upon a person he had placed under arrest and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and enforcing the practice standards of law enforcement officers. The Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer being certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 12, 1986, and holding Law Enforcement Certificate No. 82811. He was employed by the DeFuniak Springs Police Department as a law enforcement officer during the period of October 29, 1985, until his termination on November 13, 1997. On April 12, 1997, Daniel Robertson was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his girlfriend. The vehicle was stopped by Officer James Burnham of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department for a traffic violation at approximately 3:00 a.m. When the officer approached the vehicle, he detected a strong odor of alcohol which he believed to come from the driver. He asked the female driver to step out of the vehicle and submit to a field sobriety test. Upon completion of the test, he placed her under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. While the officer conducted the field sobriety test on the driver, the passenger, Daniel Robertson, began arguing with Officer Burnham about the test and creating a verbal disturbance. Officer Burnham radioed for other officers to respond to the incident. Officers Travis Howell and the Respondent, Kenneth G. May, of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department, together with a civilian, Bradley Stafford, responded to Officer Burnham's call for assistance. Stafford was a civilian authorized by the police department to ride along with Officer Howell as an observer. Once his girlfriend was arrested, Mr. Robertson became concerned about driving the vehicle home, since he owned the pick-up truck in question. Officer Burnham advised him that if he could pass a sobriety test in the field, then he would be allowed to drive home. Officer Burnham administered two field sobriety tests to Robertson and advised him that he had failed both tests and could not drive his vehicle. Mr. Robertson began again loudly arguing with Officer Burnham, after being told to quiet down. Officer Burnham advised him that he was under arrest for disorderly intoxication and told him to place his hands behind his back. Mr. Robertson refused to place his hands behind his back and Officers Burnham, Howell and May, the Respondent, had to physically subdue Mr. Robertson as they attempted to handcuff him with his hands behind his back. Because Officer Burnham had already placed the female driver in the back seat of his patrol car, he asked the Respondent to transport Mr. Robertson to the county jail. The Respondent thereupon escorted Mr. Robertson to the Respondent's police car. Officer Howell followed the Respondent and Mr. Robertson but never physically touched Robertson. The Respondent physically placed Robertson into the back seat of the police car. Robertson was verbally complaining, using foul language, but did not physically resist being placed in the police car. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain and berate the Respondent until the Respondent finally slapped him one time in the face, while Robertson was seated in the car with his hands cuffed behind his back. Robertson was then transported to the Walton County Jail by the Respondent and charged with disorderly intoxication and resisting arrest without violence. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain to the Respondent, although he was not physically resistant or physically struggling with the Respondent. Once they were inside the jail with his hands still cuffed behind his back and in the presence of other officers, the Respondent sprayed Robertson in the eyes with pepper spray. Mr. Robertson was continuing to be verbally abusive at this point, but his hands were cuffed behind his back and he engaged in no physical contact with the Respondent. The Respondent maintains that he sprayed Mr. Robertson with pepper spray because Robertson was coming toward him in a threatening manner. This account of events is belied by the testimony of Officer Howell, however, which is more credible under the circumstances, as it is not self-serving and which is accepted. The Chief of Police of DeFuniak Springs, Mr. Ray Burgess, and the Assistant State Attorney, Clayton Adkinson, felt that an unbiased investigation was needed and therefore requested the services of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct the investigation into Mr. Robertson's complaint. Special Agent Carl Causey with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) was assigned to conduct an investigation into Robertson's complaint against the Respondent and did so. He interviewed numerous witnesses including Robertson, Officers Burnham and Howell, and the civilian who rode with Officer Howell on the night in question, as well as the Respondent. Respondent stated at his interview with Agent Causey that he told Officer Burnham that Mr. Robertson had intentionally kneed him in the groin while he was placing him into the police car and therefore Robertson should be charged with resisting arrest with violence. This statement was contrary to the statements of officers Burnham and Howell and Mr. Bradley Stafford. It is also contrary to the statements those three individuals made in their testimony at hearing. During Agency Causey's second interview with Officer Burnham, Officer Burnham denied that the Respondent ever told him that Robertson had kneed him during the process of getting Robertson into the patrol car. Upon completion of his investigation, Agent Causey filed an investigative report. Agent Causey also arrested the Respondent and charged him with two counts of battery on Mr. Robertson. The Respondent pled no contest to those charges in the Walton County Court and was adjudicated guilty on both counts of misdemeanor battery involving Mr. Robertson.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and as elucidated by the other authority referenced herein and that the Respondent's certification be subjected to a six-month suspension, followed by a one-year probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of March, 1999. H. R. "Bob" Bishop, Jr., Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, Aubrey Moran, who holds a Florida pharmacist's license, No. 0010982, was the managing pharmacist and the dispensing pharmacist at Lake Mary Pharmacy, 185 North Country Club Road, Lake Mary, Florida, a community pharmacy that holds permit No. 0007301. Half a block away from Lake Mary Pharmacy Robert L. Bevier, M.D., who was then Lake Mary's "principal general practitioner," had his office. COCAINE In the fall of 1981, Dr. Bevier brought respondent an article from a medical journal, which read, as follows: Make Your Own TAC; It Works Well Atlanta--An Atlanta emergency physician has reported good results with a topical anesthetic called TAC made of tetracaine, cocaine, and epinephrine. Dr. Michael Kessler, director of a seminar on Outpatient Surgical Techniques for the Non-Surgeon, said his group at a freestanding emergency clinic sees large numbers of pediatric patients, and TAC has worked well as a topical anesthetic for children as well as adults. The recipe for TAC (taken from the January 1980 Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, according to Kessler) calls for 300 mg. tetracaine hydrochloride powder; one-fourth ounce (7,090 mg.) cocaine flakes; 30 cc 1:1000 inject epinephrine, and distilled water. The tetracaine is dissolved in a small amount of distilled water; the epinephrine and cocaine added; and the mixture combined with distilled water to make 60 cc volume. It should be stored in a brown bottle and has a shelf-life of 21 to 30 days. Dr. Bevier asked Mr. Moran to compound some of this mixture. Mr. Moran did not keep cocaine in stock ordinarily, but he acquired some from a wholesaler and dispensed 60 cc. amounts of the TAC solution to Dr. Bevier on three occasions. On each occasion Dr. Bevier wrote a prescription for himself on a form on which "AB 8796510" appeared just under his signature. The prescriptions were dated September 8, November 3 and November 23, 1981, and were filled on the dates written, except for the first, which was not filled until September 14, 1981, perhaps because of a delay in obtaining ingredients. Mr. Moran was under the impression that Dr. Bevier was using the solution as a local anesthetic in his practice for procedures like the removal of warts. Solutions of this type are also used to anesthetize mucous membranes. Cocaine in solution with epinephrine is of no use to an abuser. Deposition of Charles L. Park, p. Testimony of Respondent. (T. 112) In early December of 1981, Dr. Bevier asked Mr. Moran for the TAC ingredients to keep on hold in his office so that he could mix the solution up along, as needed. Mr. Moran's only information about shelf life was what he had read in the article from the medical journal Dr. Bevier had shown him. He did in fact deliver the ingredients to Dr. Bevier, including four quarter ounce packages of cocaine hydrochloride flakes, on December 3, 1982. Dr. Bevier signed the official Drug Enforcement Administration form (DEA 222) required in connection with this transaction, and delivered it to the pharmacy. INVESTIGATOR ARRIVES After the cocaine flake purchases, Will A. Merrill, an investigator for petitioner Department of Professional Regulation visited Mr. Moran in the course of investigating Dr. Bevier. On May 27 and 28, 1982, Mr. Merrill examined respondent's records, and talked to Mr. Moran. Precisely what was said is a matter of dispute. At the very least, Mr. Merrill advised Mr. Moran that irregularities in Dr. Bevier's record keeping regarding Schedule II drugs were being looked into. Cocaine, Demerol (Meperidine) and Dilaudid are all controlled substances, and are listed on Schedule II in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The investigation culminated in an emergency suspension of Dr. Bevier's license to practice medicine on September 12, 1982. Thereafter the investigation of respondents began. DEMEROL AND DILAUDID Lige Williams, a cancer victim, was Dr. Bevier's stepfather. On July 14, 1982, and again on August 2, 1982, Mr. Moran filled prescriptions for Mr. Williams written by Dr. Bevier, each for sixty 100 milligram tablets of Demerol. He dispensed the medicine to Mr. Williams. On August 9, 1982, Mr. Moran dispensed a 20 milliliter ampule of Demerol to Dr. Bevier for office use after Dr. Bevier signed the appropriate Form 222. Dr. Bevier himself came into Lake Mary Pharmacy with a prescription for one hundred 100 milligram tablets of Demerol for Lige Williams on August 13, 1982, and Mr. Moran filled the prescription. On August 16, 1982, Mr. Moran dispensed a second 20 milliliter ampule of Demerol to Dr. Bevier for office use, again after Dr. Bevier signed the appropriate Form 222. Three days later Dr. Bevier presented another prescription for a hundred 100 milligram tablets of Demerol for Lige Williams, which Mr. Moran filled. On August 26 and September 8, 1982, Dr. Bevier signed two more Form 222s and Mr. Moran dispensed two more 20 milliliter ampules of Demerol for office use. Dr. Bevier told Mr. Moran that the Demerol ampules were "primarily . . . for Mr. Williams' use." (T. 103) The parties stipulated that Mr. Moran dispensed another fifty 100 milligram tablets of Demerol at some time "from or about May 1, 1981 until August 30, 1982" to unspecified person(s) under unspecified circumstances. On September 9, 1982, Mr. Moran filled a prescription Dr. Bevier wrote and personally presented for Lige Williams for 100 four milligram tablets of Dilaudid. When Mr. Moran questioned the quantity of tablets, Dr. Bevier said that Lige Williams was leaving Lake Mary to go back to his own home and that he "want[ed] him to have enough tablets to get him up there and hold him until he can be seen by a physician up there." (T. 93) Dilaudid and Demerol in the sequence and dosages to be inferred from the prescriptions Mr. Moran filled for Mr. Williams, even assuming Mr. Williams received the full contents of all four ampules, are commonly and appropriately prescribed for terminally ill cancer patients, according to the uncontroverted medical testimony.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaints filed against respondents. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 21st day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. C. Hutchison, Jr., Esq. Hutchison & Mamele 230 North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wanda Willis, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner (the School Board) has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. See Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the School Board employed Respondent as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional service contract and assigned her to teach at Mae M. Walters Elementary School. Respondent began her employment with the School Board in 1993. While on traffic detail on August 10, 2000, Officer Calicchio stopped a car with an expired tag. At the time pertinent to this proceeding the car, a convertible, had its top down. The driver, a male, and Respondent, the front seat passenger, were the only occupants of the car. After the car pulled off the road, Officer Calicchio parked his patrol car behind the stopped vehicle, approached the vehicle, and asked the driver for his license and registration. The driver responded that he did not have his driver's license on his person and gave his name and date of birth to Officer Calicchio. Respondent informed Officer Calicchio that the vehicle belonged to her and gave him her license and the car's registration. Officer Calicchio returned to his patrol car to verify the information that had been given to him and to determine whether the driver had a valid license. While he was doing that, Officer Gomez appeared at the scene as backup for Officer Calicchio. Officer Gomez observed marijuana particles on the driver's shirt and in the car. After Officer Gomez related his observations to Officer Calicchio, the two officers took the driver into custody and placed him in the backseat of Officer Calicchio's patrol car. Officer Calicchio returned to the vehicle and observed marijuana particles in the vehicle. Officer Calicchio asked Respondent if he could search the vehicle. She consented and got out of the vehicle. After he completed his search, Officer Calicchio asked Respondent if he could search the large purse she was carrying. She consented and began pulling objects out of the purse and placing them on the hood of Officer Calicchio's patrol car. When Respondent slid her purse back up on her arm, Officer Calicchio asked if her purse was empty. Respondent answered in the affirmative. Officer Calicchio asked if he could look inside her purse. Respondent responded by leaning the purse towards him so he could look inside. Officer Calicchio observed two yellow envelopes in the bottom of the purse. Respondent consented to Officer Calicchio retrieving the two envelopes and opening them. The envelopes contained a green, leafy substance. When Officer Calicchio showed Respondent the contents of the envelope and asked what the substance was, Respondent fled on foot. Officer Calicchio, immediately followed by Officer Gomez, pursued Respondent. As she was fleeing, both officers observed Respondent reach into the front of her pants and pull out a plastic bag. As she was attempting to throw the bag into some bushes, Respondent slipped and fell to the ground. The plastic bag fell to the ground, landing next to the Respondent. The two officers recovered the bag and took Respondent into custody. The plastic bag contained a white-yellowish substance that Officer Calicchio field-tested using a Valtox field test. The substance tested positive for cocaine. Officer Calicchio also performed a field test on the green, leafy substance that was taken from the envelopes in Respondent's purse. The substance tested positive for cannabis. Subsequent tests by John Gall, a forensic chemist employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Officer, confirmed that the substance in the plastic bag was cocaine. The cocaine taken from the plastic bag weighed 35.2 grams. Respondent's conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring both Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Respondent's misconduct impaired her service in the community. On December 13, 2000, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent's employment and begin proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order that upholds the suspension of Respondent's employment and terminates her professional service contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 22nd day of August, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for a license from the Florida Real Estate Commission was properly denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, his Background, and the Application Leroy L. Baines, Jr., was born on October 31, 1985. Currently 29 years old, he is employed with a financial services company. He serves on the board of a non-profit organization called Butterfly Foundation Group. The organization works with underprivileged and at-risk youth. He also works with J.J.’s Boxing Club and Global Village, both non-profit entities. In 2005, Mr. Baines pled no contest to a criminal traffic infraction: operating a motor vehicle without a valid license (“Criminal Traffic Infraction No. 1”). He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced. Respondent’s Ex. No. 1 at 00028. The following calendar year, 2006, Mr. Baines was convicted of driving while his license was cancelled, suspended, revoked, or he was disqualified from holding a license (“Criminal Traffic Infraction No. 2”). Id. at 00022. In 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Mr. Baines pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty of two federal crimes: 1) conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, and 2) carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (the “Federal Criminal Offenses”). Id. at 00013. Mr. Baines was sentenced to 55 months imprisonment for the Federal Criminal Offenses on June 18, 2008. He served his sentence in prisons located in Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. His sentence expired on June 30, 2014, and he was discharged from supervision on September 3, 2014. Id. at 00040. On April 11, 2014, Respondent received Mr. Baines’ application for licensure as a real estate associate (the “Application”). He answered “Yes” to Background Question 1, which asks, “Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction . . . ?” Id. at 00010. After the background questions in the Application, the Application states, “If you answered ‘YES’ to any question in [the background questions], please refer to Section IV of the Instructions for detailed instructions on providing complete explanations, including requirements for submitting supporting legal documents.” Id. In the Application’s “Section IV(b) – Explanation(s) for Background Question 1,” Petitioner listed the Federal Criminal Offenses. For one of the two offenses under “Penalty/Disposition,” he wrote “Time Served”; for the other, he wrote “55 months.” Id. Under “Description” as to each of the two Federal Criminal Offenses, Petitioner wrote, “5 years Supervised Release.” Id. Despite the Application’s detailed instructions that require criminal traffic infractions to be listed (“This question applies to any criminal violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses . . . .” Id.), Petitioner failed to list the two Criminal Traffic Infractions. Petitioner’s Case Mr. Baines testified that his application should be granted because he has cooperated with Respondent by providing everything that was asked of him during the Application review process. Although he had not included the Criminal Traffic Infractions on the written Application, he freely admitted during the hearing it was his responsibility at the time he made out the Application to report them and to offer any relevant explanation of them. With regard to the Criminal Traffic Infractions, Mr. Baines testified he spent 30 days in the Orange County Jail. He seeks leniency in this application process based on his age at the time of the offenses which he claimed, at first, was 16. Noting the difference between his birthday and 2005 and 2006, Mr. Baines conceded during cross-examination that he was several years older than 16 at the time of the Criminal Traffic Infractions. Mr. Baines elaborated on the Federal Criminal Offenses explaining that he had fallen in with former high school friends whom he had not seen for some time when they recruited him to drive the get-away car in a robbery. He stated that at the time of the crime he was in possession of two guns both of which he had been carrying legally prior to the crime: a nine millimeter Glock and a .40 caliber handgun. Mr. Baines’ time in prison was spent without any violations of prison rules, according to his testimony, and he completed the post-release program successfully. His success in serving his time is the basis, Mr. Baines asserted, for his release from federal supervision so promptly after the expiration of the sentence. No documentation of “good behavior” in prison, however, was offered at hearing. In an attempt to demonstrate rehabilitation, Mr. Baines referred to his service to the Butterfly Foundation, J.J.’s Boxing Club, and the other two non-profit organizations with which he works that serve at-risk youth in the Pompano and Fort Lauderdale areas. He also averred that he had been cleared by the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) to work with underprivileged youth for cheerleading and gymnastics although he offered no supportive documentary evidence from DCF. Mr. Baines did submit to Respondent as part of his application three documents related to rehabilitation. The first extolled his work as an employee. The second was written by a teacher at Stranahan High School who is a fellow basketball player at pick-up games in a public basketball court in Plantation, Florida. The third was written by his pastor at the Living Waters Sanctuary in Oakland Park, Florida. The authors of the letters all write highly of Mr. Baines. In support of his case for rehabilitation, Mr. Baines testified that after his conviction for the Federal Criminal Offenses, he had had only one slip-up: a urinalysis (“UA”) positive for marijuana, a substance he had used as a youth. Mr. Baines claimed that the UA was conducted only because those supervising his post-release case sent him for the testing after Mr. Baines had voluntarily acknowledged his recent use of marijuana. But for the single marijuana incident, Mr. Baines asserted under oath that his record after his conviction, in prison and out of prison during a post-incarceration discharge period, had been spotless. His admirable conduct, he testified, is what led to the court to promptly release him from federal supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 16th day of July, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Leroy L. Baines, Jr. 4808 Northwest 8th Court Lauderhill, Florida 33317 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William N. Spicola, General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Profession Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Harlen Brown, was called and testified that he is a member of a corporation which owns the property which is the subject of this hearing and is located at 477 Northwest Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida. He testified that the licensee rented the space from the corporation on a month to month basis and that he was aware of the charges pending against the licensee. 1/ Brown stated that he was experiencing problems with licensee Washington and that residents of the community had also expressed their problems which were in the nature of a nuisance to the community but that the residents are not criminally inclined. Brown indicated that he would file an application to operate the premises as a beer and wine disco arrangement and that it was his intent to renovate the premises and cater to adults and not minors. He expressed the opinion that the problems stemmed from the prior lessees. Brown urged that if the licensee's license was revoked, that it be done without prejudice. Michael Somberg, a beverage officer for approximately 18 months testified that he visited the Spot Bar on November 2, 1975, along with public safety officers Swain, Davis and others at approximately 12 o'clock, based on complaints that minors were consuming alcohol. Police officers that were also on the scene made an I.D. check of all the occupants on the premises and detained a juvenile, Larry Melvin, whose age as subsequently established revealed that he was 15 years old. He at the time of his detainment was carrying a sealed can of Miller's Beer. Somberg tasted and smelled the beer and determined that it was an alcoholic beverage. He placed Melvin under arrest and the beer was given to Officer E. W. Pfitzenmaier, who in turn submitted it to the crime laboratory bureau of the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department for a laboratory analysis report. The examination conducted on the beer submitted that it contained ethyl alcohol 2.01 percent by volume or 1.61 percent by weight. Somberg testified that there was a flurry of activity on the premises when they announced themselves as beverage agents and/or policemen and that there was an attempt by the patrons to rid themselves of several packets and other items which turned out to be contraband. Somberg found one aluminum packet which contained 8 small packets of what appeared to him to resemble cocaine. He also gathered small amounts of marijuana and other paraphernalia from the floor of the premises. He retained the paraphernalia and had a field reagent test conducted on the narcotics. Present with Somberg was Officer Pfitzenmaier who also assisted in gathering the large wrapper which contained the 8 small packets of the white substance which according to him resembled cocaine also. Pfitzenmaier testified that he, at all times, maintained the confiscated items under his care, custody and control until turned over to the Dade County Laboratory Department. The various reports and items were received in evidence and marked for identification as Board's Exhibits 3 through 10. Also introduced was the notice of hearing which was issued to Licensee Washington and as Exhibit Number 12 the notice to show cause why his license should not be revoked. An examination of the items revealed that the licensee and/or his agents sold to a minor a liquid containing ethyl alcohol; that among the items confiscated was heroin and marijuana i.e., 13.6 grams of marijuana and heroin and 8 small packets containing cocaine. Also introduced was a carton containing 100 packages of non Florida tax paid cigarettes which were found on the licensed premises on January 8, 1976. This possession violates Florida Statutes 561.29(1)(B).
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's assessment of sales tax against Petitioner pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: By Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings dated October 15, 1990 (the "Assessment"), Respondent, Department of Revenue (Department), determined that taxes imposed under Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, were due from Petitioner, Jose A. Espino, for the unlawful sale, use, consumption, distribution, manufacture, derivation, production, transportation or storage of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine. Specifically, the notice provided Petitioner with a "Notice of Assessment of tax, penalty, and interest on the deficiency" as follows: Date of Transaction or Incident (On or About) August 22, 1990 Estimated Retail Price 2 Kilo Cocaine $25,000.00 25% Surcharge [s.212.0505(1)(a), F.S.] $12,500.00 25% Surcharge [s.212.0505(1)(b), F.S.] $ 6,250.00 Penalty of 5% per month, maximum of 25% of Tax and Surcharge Due [s.212.12(2), F.S.] $ 937.50 Additional Penalty of 50% [s.212.12(2), F.S.] $ 0 Interest of 1% per month [s.212.12(3), F.S.], accrues at the rate of $6.16 per day. INTEREST computed thru 9/21/90 $ 49.28 Total Amount Due with this Notice $19,736.78 The factual basis for the Assessment was Petitioner's involvement in the transactions described in Findings of Fact 4-9 below. Petitioner filed a timely Petition to Challenge the Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings. The only basis for the challenge set forth in the Petition was a contention that Petitioner was not engaged in the unlawful transportation of cocaine and that Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes was not applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. During discovery and at the formal hearing in this case, Petitioner also challenged the estimated retail price used by Respondent in making the calculations set forth in the Assessment. Petitioner has not contested the mathematical accuracy of the Assessment nor has Petitioner contested the form of the Assessment or presented any evidence that the procedures for issuing the Assessment were improper. No evidence was presented that Petitioner has paid the sales tax assessed by Respondent or that the sales tax assessed has been paid by another individual on his behalf. In August of 1990, Petitioner, Jose A. Espino, was the owner of a paint and body shop located at 12524 S.W. 128th Street, Miami, Florida. Petitioner was present at the paint and body shop on August 22, 1990. On this date, he had agreed to meet with an individual who was working as a confidential informant for the Metro-Dade Police Department. Petitioner had previously negotiated with this confidential informant to sell four (4) kilos of cocaine at $30,000 per kilo. On August 22, 1990, Jerry Hull, a senior narcotics detective with the Metro-Dade Police Department, and the confidential informant drove to Petitioner's place of business. Detective Hull was seated on the passenger side of the front seat and observed the Petitioner coming out of the building carrying a maroon utility bag. Petitioner approached the vehicle occupied by Detective Hull and the confidential informant. Detective Hull got out of the vehicle and allowed Petitioner to get into the front seat. Detective Hull got into the back seat and the confidential informant drove the car east on S.W. 128th Street. As the confidential informant drove the vehicle, Detective Hull introduced himself to Petitioner and asked if he "brought the merchandise..." Petitioner stated that he had and inquired if Hull had the money. By his statements, Petitioner acknowledged his readiness to sell the cocaine he brought into the van. After inquiring about the money, Petitioner opened the utility bag he had carried into the van and showed Detective Hull a package. Petitioner gave the package to Hull and opened a cut previously made in the wrapping exposing a white substance inside. Detective Hull asked Petitioner for a sample. Based on his experience, Detective Hull identified the substance in the package as cocaine. Petitioner has, by virtue of the Respondent's Request for Admissions, admitted the substance he was carrying was cocaine. Petitioner told Detective Hull he had two (2) kilograms of cocaine in the bag. The Request for Admissions confirm that Petitioner carried two (2) kilograms of cocaine into the vehicle. Shortly after Petitioner showed Detective Hull the cocaine, a police car pulled up behind the van driven by the confidential informant. The police stopped the van and Petitioner was arrested and charged with trafficking in cocaine. No evidence was presented as to the disposition of the criminal charges. A copy of the police arrest report was forwarded to the Department of Revenue. As noted above, the Department of Revenue issued the Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings on October 15, 1990. This Assessment was issued based upon the information contained in the Metro-Dade Police arrest report. As set forth above, the Assessment was issued in the amount of $19,736.78. The estimated retail price used by the Department of Revenue in calculating the tax due was $12,500 per kilogram. This estimate of retail price was derived from a price list compiled by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The price appearing in the FDLE report is based upon average prices for various types of illegal narcotics sold throughout Florida. The FDLE price list used by DOR in preparing the Assessment is segregated by the type of drug and by various regions of the state. The price used in this Assessment was based upon the FDLE report compiled from information available as of June 7, 1989 for the Miami region. This region included Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties and included prices for transactions involving the sale of one (1) kilo or more of cocaine. Thus, the report reflects the economic fact that larger quantity purchases occur at relatively lower prices. The price of cocaine rose sharply between 1989 and 1990. A subsequent update of the FDLE report utilizing information available as of August 1, 1990, revealed prices in the Miami region rose to $22,000 for kilogram size sales of cocaine. Thus, it appears the price used in the Assessment in this case is significantly lower than either the anticipated sales price of the parties ($30,000 per kilo) or the price reported by the FDLE in its later report (August 1, 1990). If anything, the Assessment was based on a conservative estimate of actual retail prices in the Miami area at the time. Petitioner has not provided any persuasive evidence to show the Department of Revenue's estimated price of $12,500 per kilo is inappropriate. Interest on the Assessment continues to accrue at the rate of $6.16 per day since September 28, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Jose A. Espino, is liable for taxes, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1989), and assessing the amount of such liability at $19,736.78, plus interest at the rate of $6.11 per day since September 28, 1990. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31st day of July, 1992. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and in the Preliminary Statement. Rejected as constituting legal argument. While the Petition in this case did not challenge the mathematical accuracy of the tax assessment, Petitioner asserted in discovery and at the formal hearing that the estimated retail value utilized by Respondent in making the Assessment was not accurate. This suggestion is rejected. As set forth in Findings of Fact 12 and 13 and Conclusions of Law 12, the estimated retail value utilized by Respondent in this case was reasonable. Rejected as vague and constituting legal argument rather than a Finding of Fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12 and 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and addressed in Conclusions of Law 10. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. 15. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Vicki Weber, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Angel M. Gonzalez, Esquire 28 W. Flagler Street Suite 806 Miami, Florida 33130 James McAuley Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to a search conducted inside the Leon County Florida home residence of the Respondent and her husband, Lynwood Moore, the following items were discovered and seized by agents of the Leon County Sheriff's Department and the Tallahassee Police Department, pursuant to a search warrant: A brown print canvas bag which contained seven plastic packets. Each plastic packet contained cocaine, a controlled substance named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. The total aggregate weight of the cocaine within the seven bags was forty-five grams. The said brown print canvas bag also contained three bottles which themselves contained benzocaine, inositil, and procaine HCL, respectively. A brown case which contained a set of triple beam balance scales, graduated in metric weights. The said scales contained a residue of cocaine, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. The said residue was located on the weighing pan of the scales. Three smoking pipes which contained an aggregate of grams of cannabis, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03 Florida Statutes. A transparent plastic bag which contained 1.9 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. A cellophane cigarette pack wrapper which contained 2.4 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. A brown glass vial which contained a residue of cocaine, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. Attached to the said vial was a miniature spoon. Two transparent glass vials which each contained a - residue of cocaine, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. A small gold colored straw or tube which contained a residue of cocaine, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. A single edged razor blade which contained a residue of cocaine, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. A partially burned, hand-rolled cigarette which contained .3 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. The Respondent married Lynwood hove on June 27,1970, and the two have lived together as husband and wife since that date to the present time. The Respondent has lived at the Leon County Florida home residence described in Paragraph One since 1977. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on November 29, 1974 as a law enforcement officer and issued certificate Number 02- 13249. Respondent was employed with the Florida State University Police Department on November 29, 1974, and assigned as a uniform patrol officer. The Respondent performed this function as a full-time employee until October 22, 1982 when she was promoted to the position of Education Officer. The Respondent performed this function as a full-time employee until February 15, 1983. (a) On June 4, 1975, the Respondent wrote and filed a police report as the reporting officer. The Respondent stated in the report that upon the arrest and search of an individual on a charge of vandalism, three cigarettes which appeared to be marijuana were found in the individual's wallet. The Respondents wrote and filed an evidence impoundment form regarding the incident which described her impoundment of three suspected marijuana cigarettes and a "Zig Zag" package. On November 15, 1975, the Respondent wrote and filed a police report as the reporting officer. The Respondent stated in the report that she and another officer had stopped a motorist for a traffic violation. The Respondent stated that the other officer conducted a pat down search of the motorist and discovered what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette in the motorist's shirt pocket. On October 20, 1976, the Respondent wrote and filed a police report as the reporting officer. In the report, the Respondent stated that during a pat down search of an individual she found marijuana on the individual's person and seized it. On December 21, 1977, the Respondent wrote and filed a police report as the reporting officer. In the report, the Respondent stated that during the search of an arrested person's automobile, she discovered a plastic box which contained one suspected cannabis cigarette, a plastic bag of suspected cannabis and a plastic bag of suspected hashish. The Respondent stated in her report that she arrested the person for possession of cannabis and hashish. The Respondent wrote and filed an evidence impoundment form regarding the incident which described her impoundment of a rolled cigarette, a plastic bag of marijuana, a partially smoked cigarette, a plastic bag of hashish, a cigarette roller and cigarette papers. On May 9, 1978, the Respondent wrote and filed a police report as the reporting officer. In the report, the Respondent stated that she found a marijuana cigarette in a truck that three juveniles stood by. The Respondent also stated in her report that she observed rolling papers that were apparently dropped on the ground by the juveniles upon her approach. The Respondent's report also indicated that one of the juveniles was searched and the search uncovered a plastic bag containing marijuana. The Respondent wrote and filed an evidence impoundment form regarding the incident which described her impoundment of suspected marijuana cigarettes. On July 25,1979, the Respondent wrote and filed a police report as a reporting officer. The Respondent stated in the report that she had assisted another officer in stopping a motorist. The Respondent stated in her report that upon looking into the motorist's vehicle, she saw a plastic bag containing suspected cannabis which she seized. The Respondent stated in her report that a further search of the motorist's vehicle revealed a rolled cigarette of suspected cannabis, eleven pieces of cigarettes and suspected cannabis seeds. The Respondent arrested the motorist for possession of cannabis. On October 8; 1979, the Respondent wrote and filed a police report as the reporting officer. The Respondent stated in the report that she arrested a person for driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis. The Respondent wrote and filed an evidence impoundment form regarding the arrest which described her impoundment of a brown pipe, two packages of smoking papers and cannabis. Tallahassee police received information that Lynwood Moore, husband of Respondent, was selling drugs in this area. In a combined operation with local authorities and the federal drug administration, Richard G. Hafner, an FDLA agent in Panama City, came to Tallahassee to set up a meeting with Moore to buy cocaine. With the assistance of an informant, Hafner contacted Moore and arranged for the informant to pick up one ounce of cocaine on January 18, l983. On February 2, 1983 Hafner and the informant met Moore at a filling station and they arranged for Hafner to come to an address that evening to buy an ounce of cocaine. Hafner, accompanied by the informant who was pregnant at the time, went to the address which he discovered to be a house outside the city set back from the highway more than one hundred yards with no lights on. Two or three cars were parked in front and Hafner decided the area was too dangerous under the circumstances and he returned to Tallahassee. The informant then called Moore's residence and Respondent answered the telephone. Hafner took the phone from the informant and told Respondent he was calling about the "puppies" and that the area selected to purchase the puppies was unsatisfactory as being too remote and requested she get the message to Lynwood. Hafner had been told by the informant that in telephone conversations with Moore one "puppy" was to be used to designate one ounce of cocaine. When Hafner asked Respondent to give the message to her husband, she appeared to fully understand the message she was to deliver. At a subsequent meeting with Hafner, Lynwood Moore became suspicious of Hafner and refused to sell him any cocaine. For several years Lynwood Moore has bred, raised and sold greyhound dogs, both as a business and an avocation. Respondent testified that she frequently got calls from prospective greyhound buyers inquiring about buying dogs from her husband. Some of these calls would be late in the evening and be received from women. Geneen Marsh, the informant, agreed to help police authorities arrest Lynwood Moore in exchange for releasing her husband from prison. Ms. Marsh had been buying cocaine from Moore for more than six months making purchases of 1/8 ounce twice per week. She often called the Moore residence and on occasion talked to Respondent who would pass messages to her husband. Marsh never received any cocaine from Respondent but Respondent was at home on several occasions when Marsh picked up her "buy" at the Moore residence. On one occasion Lynwood Moore had the balance scale on which the cocaine was weighed in the room while Marsh was there to pick up her buy and Respondent came into the room where the scales were in clear view. Following the controlled buys of cocaine from Lynwood Moore, the police obtained a search warrant and, on February 15, 1983, a search was made of the Moore's residence. Upon arrival of the police officers accompanied by Lynwood Moore they allowed Lynwood to go in first to alert his mother who was living with them so she would not be too upset at the arrival of the police. Upon entering the residence the police put all occupants in the living room while the search was conducted. Upon their arrival Respondent was in the bathtub washing her daughter's hair. She was told the police were there and when she exited the bathroom she was taken immediately to the living room. Upon being told the nature of the search Respondent gave no evidence of surprise but remained stoical. Two police officers searched the master bedroom occupied by Respondent and her husband. The officer who searched the walk-in closet found the items in findings l(a) and l(b) above on the floor of the closet. Although these bags were under hanging clothes on the side of the closet containing men's clothing, they could be seen without first having to remove the clothes which partially obscured these bags. The aroma of cannabis was noted in the bedroom by the police officers. The other police officer, Spears, searched the remainder of the room. On the top of the dresser in the master bedroom Spears found a cup containing several .38 caliber bullets, a razor blade with some white powder, later identified as cocaine, on the cutting edge, and police collar insignia. Also on the dresser was a marijuana cigarette, a glass cutting screen, and a man's jewelry box. Inside the jewelry box were rings, cuff links, a bag containing marijuana, three bottles containing traces of cocaine, and many wrappers used to wrap bills in $1000 and $2000 bundles. In the bottom drawer of the night stand alongside the bed were three marijuana pipes containing some marijuana in each. These pipes were covered by letters, insurance policies and exercise instructions. Some of Respondent's personal effects were kept in this night stand. Lynwood Moore testified that his wife never touched any of his possessions or intruded on his side of the closet. She wouldn't dare open his jewelry box and look in it. He normally kept the cocaine in a detached building on his property but a few weeks before the raid brought the cocaine into the house where it would not absorb as much moisture as in the out building. He insisted his wife had no knowledge that he was dealing drugs and that he left home at all hours and returned when he pleased without offering any explanation for his actions. Respondent testified that she never looked on her husband's side of the closet that she had never seen any evidence of drugs in their residence that Lynwood had been raising and selling greyhounds for several years and she often received calls regarding purchase of these dogs that she never saw Ms. Marsh until she testified at the earlier Career Service hearing that she never walked in while Lynwood was dispensing drugs to Marsh and that she never saw a marijuana cigarette, the razor blade, scales, or any other evidence of drugs in her home. On the other hand Respondent, while undergoing training leading to certification as a law enforcement officer, received training in drugs, in drug identification and drug paraphernalia. She also received refresher courses from time to time. After her promotion to sergeant she was made education officer at the FSU police department and given the duty, inter alia, of instructing other officers in the prevention of drugs on campus. A display board with pictorial identification of various drugs and drug paraphernalia was on the wall in her office. As noted in finding of fact 5 above Respondent has made numerous arrests for possession of controlled substances and was fully capable of identifying a marijuana cigarette and paraphernalia used with controlled substances. Accordingly, her testimony that she never saw any drugs or any drug paraphernalia in her home is simply not credible. While she may never have participated in any of her husband's "dealings" the paraphernalia associated with such transactions could hardly have been kept in the master bedroom and Respondent be totally unaware of its presence.
The Issue Whether Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications of a law enforcement officer to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Brown, was issued certificate number 43-83- 002-01, and certified as a law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 1, 1983. The Respondent was also issued certificate number 43-78-500-00, and certified as a correctional officer on July 1, 1981. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a police officer by the Lakeland Police Department. Respondent was assigned as a detective to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) (now SID) of the Lakeland Police Department in 1987. Respondent's duties as a detective with the Lakeland Police Department- SIU were primarily the investigation, apprehension, and arrest of those individuals involved in the sale, delivery, and possession of illegal narcotics. The main goal of the Lakeland Police Department-SIU was to curb vice and illegal narcotics, and get them off the street. When Respondent began with the unit, there were five or six detectives. By 1989, the unit had grown to 18 detectives, two sergeants, and a lieutenant. The growth of the unit was due to the increase in illegal drug trade in Lakeland, especially of crack cocaine, which had reached almost epidemic proportions by 1989. Hand-in-hand with the increased drug trade was an increase in street- level violence, including drug related shootings, in certain areas of the city. As part of his duties, Respondent participated in "buy-busts" or sting operations and reverse sting or "reverse" operations. A sting or "buy-bust" requires an undercover officer or confidential informant (CI) under an officer's supervision to purchase illegal narcotics with previously recorded "buy" money issued by the Lakeland Police Department. Once the "buy" was completed, the purchased drugs would be field tested by the officer, placed into an evidence bag and marked, impounded into evidence, and then sent to a lab for analysis. The entire chain-of-custody would be documented from the time the officer obtained the drugs, to the time they were returned from the lab. The seller would either be arrested immediately after the sale, or a warrant for his/her arrest obtained within a short time. Whenever possible, the buy would be recorded by audio or videotape. In July of 1989, LPD had ample recording equipment available to its officers for such purposes. A reverse sting is the opposite situation where an undercover officer or CI under supervision sells drugs to another individual. Prior to conducting a reverse sting, the officer would obtain a known quantity of a previously tested substance (marijuana or cocaine) from a supervisor at the police department. The above was done for evidentiary purposes so that it could be proven in court that the substance sold to the targeted individual was, in fact, cocaine or marijuana. Once the drugs were sold to an individual, he/she was immediately arrested to avoid putting the drugs back on the street, or letting the drugs "walk." The drugs sold to the subject would be recovered, and sent to the lab to be re-tested. With one exception, authorized by the State Attorney's Office involving a very small amount of marijuana, drugs were not allowed to "walk" after a reverse. If a situation were to arise where drugs were to be "walked," prior approval would have to be obtained from the State Attorney's Office. Whenever possible, reverse sting transactions were to be audio or video recorded. Additional law enforcement assistance or backup was always required on a reverse sting operation for safety and evidentiary purposes. Before a reverse sting was conducted, prior approval or authorization from one of the SIU supervisors, was required. Once a reverse sting was completed, the money obtained from the purchaser was always required to be logged and impounded into evidence to preserve the chain of custody for evidentiary purposes. All stings and reverse stings were to be documented in reports. In July and August of 1989, the Respondent was thoroughly familiar with the procedures and proper methods for conducting stings and reverse sting operations. He had conducted or been involved in scores of such operations and, prior to the incidents giving rise to the instant case, had followed accepted procedures. It was a common occurrence that SIU detectives would locate and confiscate abandoned or discarded illegal drugs without making an arrest. Sergeant Tom Brown testified that although initially all "found contraband" had to be turned in and reported for each separate instance, he changed this policy due to the volume being recovered by 1989, and allowed his detectives to turn it in by the end of their shift to a superior to be placed in a safe, documented on one report, and disposed of later. Respondent was well aware of the policy for turning in found contraband, and prior to the incidents in the case at bar, followed said procedure. Although at one time, PDD detectives were allowed to resell found contraband in "quickie-reverse stings," this practice had been abandoned by 1989 due to problems with chain-of-custody and later proving in court the nature of the items sold. SIU investigators were also responsible for collecting intelligence information on individuals involved in criminal activity. In July of 1989, there were two individuals, Bill Lepere and Lynn Adams, responsible for maintaining intelligence reports or files. In addition, the members of SIU shared information at weekly meetings. In July/August 1989, after-hours work, such as arrests, had to be approved by a supervisor. In July/August 1989, if a SIU detective was investigating an active CI, either one working with Lakeland Police Department or another law enforcement agency, it was necessary to notify another member of SIU to avoid compromising an active investigation. In July/August 1989, if a SIU detective was conducting an investigation into alleged criminal activity of another police officer or law enforcement agent, it required notification and approval of a supervisor. By 1989, Respondent was a senior detective in DIU, who routinely followed policies and procedures, and even helped develop a SIU policy manual. In July and August 1989, it was standard operating procedure for investigations by SIU detectives and all Lakeland police officers to be conducted only after notifying and obtaining permission from a supervisor. In July and August 1989, all SIU detectives and all Lakeland police officers were to document their activities regarding investigations in reports in a timely manner. In July and August of 1989, all SIU detectives and all Lakeland police officers were to handle evidence collected in the course of their duties in accordance with departmental procedures. In July and August of 1989, all SIU detectives and all Lakeland police officers were prohibited from using evidence for their own personal use or from concealing it, destroying or tampering with, or withholding it in any way. In July and August of 1989, Respondent had a good working and trusting personal relationship with his supervisor, Sergeant Tom Brown. In July and August of 1989, Respondent also had a good working and trusting personal relationship with his partner, Vic White, and all members of the SIU. Respondent and his partner were considered two of the most self- motivated and aggressive officers in the unit, and Respondent had received citations and commendations for his work. In late 1988, Reggie Burns, a Special Agent (SA) with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) made contact with an individual by the name of Gloria Taylor. At the time, SA Burns, an agent since 1985, was assigned to the narcotics squad out of the Miami FBI Office. SA Burns met with Gloria Taylor in the Richland County Jail in Columbia, South Carolina, with the purpose of seeking her cooperation with them regarding some of her associates that were involved in criminal activity. Taylor became a paid FBI informant for SA Burns in exchange for Burns securing her release from jail. The FBI was aware of Gloria Taylor's criminal history, which made her more attractive as an informant due to her contacts. As with all confidential informants utilized by Burns and the FBI, Taylor was specifically instructed not to engage in criminal activity except at the direction of Burns. Taylor was instructed that whenever she was associating with those who dealt in narcotics, Burns was to be notified. It was not known whether Taylor abided by the above instructions prior to her dealings with Respondent. By their nature, CIs are hard to keep track of since their movements are not restricted. They are often in the streets, at large, and the agent may have to initiate contact with them. Taylor generally maintained contact with SA Burns from the time she began working with him until August of 1989. Prior to July of 1989, Burns became aware that Gloria Taylor was travelling to Tampa and Lakeland regularly, and possibly living in Lakeland. Due to the above, Burns contacted the FBI SA in Lakeland, "Doc" Gardner, as well as Sergeant Lynn Adams, Sergeant William Lepere, Sergeant Tom Brown, and Detective Ronnie Clayton, and possibly even Respondent of the Lakeland Police Department, and requested that they monitor Taylor's activities, and those of other individuals he was investigating at the time. SA Burns did not know Respondent prior to July 1989, and had not heard anything about him. Gloria Taylor first met Willie Brown in 1987. Although she had been stopped by him several times, he had never arrested her, and she had no disagreements with him. At all times in her contacts with Respondent, Taylor was aware that Respondent was a Lakeland Police Officer. In July/August of 1989, Gloria Taylor was a well-known criminal figure in the Lakeland area with a reputation for being involved in drug dealing, along with members of her family, T. Y. Brown and Gary Brown, who were known as the "Miami Boys." Gloria Taylor was thought by members of the Lakeland Police Department-SIU to be responsible for putting large amounts of illegal drugs out on the streets of Lakeland. In that time period, Gloria Taylor had a reputation for being a dangerous individual. Respondent, along with other members of the Lakeland Police Department, were involved in the arrest of Taylor's brother, T. Y. Taylor. T. Y. Taylor was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for that offense. Taylor was upset with the Lakeland Police Department, and Respondent personally, due to her brother's arrest and conviction. There were rumors that Gloria Taylor and her family had a "contract" out for the murder of Respondent, his partner Vic White, and Sergeant Tom Brown in retaliation for T. Y. Brown's arrest and conviction. In addition, there was a great deal of violence associated with drug dealers in general during that time period. Despite repeated attempts to make good cases on Gloria Taylor, she seemed to always escape prosecution or lengthy jail sentences. This was a source of frustration for Respondent and other SIU members. Prior to July of 1989, it became well-known in the SIU that Gloria Taylor was working with the FBI as an informant, and Respondent was aware of this fact. It was believed among members of LPD-SIU and Respondent that Taylor continued to engage in illegal drugs activities despite being an FBI-CI. During this same period of time, there was a feeling of mistrust by the LPD-DIU, not only of the FBI in general, but of SA Burns in particular. Lakeland resident, SA "Doc" Gardner, was the source of some of this distrust as he related that SA Burns appeared to be deviating from FBI policies. However, Gardner confirmed that SA Burns was authorized to come to the Lakeland area, and was conducting a legitimate investigation. This was related to the SIU and Respondent specifically prior to July 1989. Gardner made it known to the SIU and Respondent in particular that he was working with SA Burns. Gloria Taylor was a regular topic of conversation at SIU meetings prior to July 28, 1989. Prior to July 28, 1989, Respondent made only one mention at the SIU meeting that he was working on something regarding Gloria Taylor. Everyone else in the unit was working on something related to Gloria Taylor also. In July/August 1989, Respondent could have readily obtained assistance for an investigation into Gloria Taylor from Sergeant Tom Brown, his partner Vic White, or others in SIU. Respondent should have gotten authorization for such an investigation from Sergeant Brown. If Respondent had wanted to initiate an investigation of an FBI-CI like Gloria Taylor, it would have been considered a major case in July 1989. Such an investigation would require backup, prior authorization from a superior, and would have to be documented by reports. Prior to July 1989, Respondent had not conducted a major investigation without the knowledge, approval, and authorization of his superiors. Respondent never sought or received authorization from Sergeant Brown or anyone at the Lakeland Police Department to sell drugs to Gloria Taylor. Sometime in 1989, Respondent approached Gloria Taylor at a Lakeland residence, and took her for a ride in his Lakeland Police Department's unmarked vehicle. While they were in Respondent's vehicle, Respondent showed her a quantity of crack cocaine packaged in small-sized baggies inside a larger baggie. Respondent stated he had confiscated the cocaine during a drug bust. Respondent indicated to Taylor he wanted to "get rid of" the cocaine, and asked $700 for it. Ms. Taylor gave him $650, and agreed to pay him the remaining $50 later. Respondent later threatened to arrest Gloria Taylor if she didn't pay him the remaining $50, which she eventually did. Gloria Taylor later sold the $700 worth of cocaine to other individuals. Gloria Taylor, at first did not tell SA Reggie Burns of her drug purchase from Respondent, but did tell him later when confronted by SA Burns. At that meeting, Burns instructed Taylor not to meet with Respondent again until a controlled buy could be set up. SA Burns received permission from his Assistant Special Agent in Charge to conduct a monitored buy from Respondent to Gloria Taylor. The transaction was arranged for July 28, 1989, at McDonald's on Ariana and Central Avenue in Lakeland. Agent Burns, assisted by SA Pat Johnson, supplied Taylor with a recording device, which she hid in her bra, and prerecorded buy money. At this July 28, 1989, meeting, Respondent arrived in his Lakeland Police Department vehicle. Respondent did not pat Gloria Taylor down for weapons. Gloria Taylor met with Respondent, purchased approximately 10 pieces of crack cocaine from Respondent, and paid him $100 for the crack cocaine. Respondent indicated that the cocaine he sold Taylor was confiscated during a drug bust. During her discussion with Respondent on July 28, 1989, Taylor and Respondent discussed him giving her brother Gary Cocaine. Respondent indicated he could carry as much cocaine as he wanted while he was on duty, but if he was off duty, he might have to come up with an excuse. Respondent asked Taylor to keep him apprised of Reggie Burns' and the FBI's activities. Taylor did not acknowledge her relationship with Burns. Respondent cautioned Taylor not to tell anyone about their dealings. After the transaction with Respondent was completed, Taylor turned over the cocaine and tape-recording to SA Burns. SA Burns submitted the cocaine to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) lab for analysis. The results were that it was, in fact, cocaine. At no time on July 28, 1989, or thereafter did Respondent attempt to arrest Taylor, or retrieve the cocaine he sold her. After the July 28, 1989 transaction, SA Burns notified the Tampa FBI Office of his investigation of Respondent. The Lakeland Police Department was also notified of the investigation. At no time after the Lakeland Police Department were notified did anyone come forward and inform SA Burns, or anyone at the FBI, that Respondent was conducting an authorized investigation of Gloria Taylor. SA Burns then had Taylor set up a second meeting with Respondent. The meeting took place at the same location as the July 28, 1989 meeting, at 12:15 a.m., on August 17, 1989. Gloria Taylor was given $600 in previously recorded and photocopied FBI "buy" money. Prior to the meeting, Gloria Taylor was searched, her vehicle was searched, and the other cooperating witness, Catherine Smith was searched, all with negative results; that is, no money or contraband were discovered. Gloria Taylor was again equipped with a recording device. Respondent arrived in the same unmarked vehicle, and Gloria Taylor entered his car while SA Burns and Johnson surveilled her. Respondent, again, did not pat Taylor down to see if she had any weapons. During the second monitored meeting between Respondent and Taylor, Respondent sold her 32 rocks of cocaine, and Taylor paid for it with $350 of the FBI buy money. Respondent told Gloria Taylor she could cut the rocks up, sell them, and double her money. Immediately following the transaction, Taylor met with SA Burns, and turned over the crack cocaine, tape recorder and tape, and excess money. SA Burns turned the 32 cocaine rocks in to the DEA lab for testing. The rocks tested positive for cocaine. At no time on August 17, 1989, did Respondent attempt to arrest Gloria Taylor, or retrieve the cocaine. Respondent never told Sergeant Brown about the sales on July 28 and August 17, 1989, after they were completed. Respondent never got authorization to let Gloria Taylor "walk" with the drugs sold to her on July 28 or August 17, 1989. Respondent never requested backup for his meetings with Gloria Taylor on July 28 or August 17, 1989. Respondent never received authorization to work overtime on drug investigation on July 28 or August 17, 1989. Respondent never filled out any intelligence reports on his anticipated or actual sales to Gloria Taylor. Respondent never had pretested drugs issued to him by a supervisor prior to his July and August 17, 1989, sales to Gloria Taylor. Respondent never placed into an evidence bag, marked, impounded, or turned in the money to the Lakeland Police Department from the July 28 or August 17, 1989, drug sales to Gloria Taylor. To date, no one, even Respondent's partner Vic White, has come forward to state Respondent told them of his drug sales to Gloria Taylor before- the-fact. Sergeant Brown never approved warrants against Gloria Taylor for either sale. Gloria Taylor received immunity and $4,000 from the FBI for her participation in Respondent's case. In February of 1991, Gloria Taylor was arrested by the Lakeland Police Department for trafficking in cocaine. In March of 1991, Taylor was sentenced to life in prison as a habitual felony offender. The FBI did not assist Taylor in any way in that case. Gloria Taylor was not paid anything or compensated in any way for her testimony at the hearing in the instant case. After the second sale of drugs from Respondent to Gloria Taylor, Respondent was arrested by members of the Tampa FBI Office and the Lakeland Police Department. The $350 FBI buy money was recovered from Respondent's person after his arrest. At no time during Respondent's conversations with Gloria Taylor did he ask her to become a confidential informant for the Lakeland Police Department. After Respondent's arrest, Sergeant Lynn Adams, assisted by then-FBI Agent "Doc" Gardner, conducted a thorough search of Respondent's vehicle and office. Prior to the search, Respondent's vehicle had been in FBI custody. There was no U.S. currency found in Respondent's vehicle. There were no intelligence reports, found in Respondent's vehicle. Notebooks found in the vehicle were secured, boxed, and placed in Lieutenant Roddenberry's office for safekeeping. Located in Respondent's car was a zip-lock bag with a small cocaine rock and a sip-lock bag with white powder, both field-testing positive for cocaine. The five $20 bills of FBI buy money from Respondent's first sale of cocaine to Gloria Taylor were not located by Adams or Gardner in the search of the vehicle. Adams and Gardner thoroughly searched Respondent's office, which had been padlocked since his arrest. Notebooks found in the Respondent's desk were placed into a box for safekeeping in Lieutenant Roddenberry's Office. The only U.S. currency located in Respondent's desk was a $1 bill altered to look like a $20 bill. The five $20 bills that were FBI buy money from the July 28, 1989, transaction were not located anywhere in Respondent's desk or office. There were no reports located in Respondent's desk or office. There were no notes or notations referencing Gloria Taylor found in Respondent's car, desk, office, or notebooks, although Adams and Gardner specifically looked for such notes. The search of the car and office took approximately three and a half to four hours. Respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury for two counts of distribution of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school, and one count of carrying a firearm while engaged in a drug trafficking crime. Respondent was acquitted of the charges after a jury trial in May 1990. Several members of the Lakeland Police Department believed Respondent was conducting his own "sting" operation at the time of his arrest, and would work with him again as a law enforcement officer. After his arrest, Respondent continued to testify on cases where he had been the arresting officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989) and that Respondent's certification be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-4067 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 ,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54(inpart) ,55,56,57(inpart),58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78 ,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,98,101,102,103,104,105,106,1 07,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,1 27,128,129,130,131,132,133,135,136,137,138,139,140,143(inpart),144,145,146,147,1 48,149,150,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,1 70 Rejected as insufficient evidence or as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 96,97,99,100,134,141,142,143(in part),151,152 Respondent's findings of fact Respondent's proposed findings of fact were submitted in an unnumbered format. For identification purposes, I have assigned a page and paragraph number to each full paragraph as they appear in Respondent's proposed recommended order) Accepted in substance: page 1, para. 1, para. 2 (in part); page 2, para. 2 (in part), para. 3 (in part); page 3, para. 2 (in part); page 4, para. 1 (in part), para. 2 (in part), para. 3 (in part); page 5, para. 2, para. 3 (in part), para. 4 (in part); page 7, para. 1 (in part), para. 2 (in part); page 8, para. 1 (in part), para. 2 (in part) Rejected as not supported by credible evidence: page 2, para. 3 (in part); page 4, para. 1; page 5, para. 3; page 5, para. 4; page 6, para. 1, para. 2 Rejected as irrelevant or subsumed: page 1, para. 2; page 2, para. 1, para. 2 (in part); page 3, para. 1, para. 2; page 4, para. 2, para. 3; page 5, para. 1, page 7, para. 1, para. 2; page 8, para. 1, para. 2 COPIES FURNISHED: Gina Cassidy, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 C. Kenneth Stuart, Jr. P.O. Box 2177 Lakeland, FL 33806-2177 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offense charged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The offense At all times material hereto, respondent, James E. Weaver, was employed as a law enforcement officer by the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department, and was duly certified by petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Department), having been issued certificate number 02-29327 on December 24, 1981. 2/ On May 16, 1991, respondent invited Martin County Deputy Sheriff Beverly Brame, who was operating undercover and whose status as a law enforcement officer was unknown to respondent, to his apartment for the announced intention to "get high" on a marijuana cigarette and "watch the Simpsons [television show]." During the course of her visit, respondent produced one hand rolled marijuana cigarette, which he proceeded to light and inhale in the presence of Deputy Brame. The defense of entrapment In response to the administrative complaint which charged respondent with having failed to maintain an essential requirement for certification, to wit: good moral character, by "unlawfully and knowingly [being] in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance named or described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: marijuana, and did introduce the said substance into his body," the respondent moved to dismiss the charges based on the defense of entrapment. Based on findings of fact which follow, that motion is denied. The events giving rise to Deputy Brame meeting respondent at his apartment on May 16, 1991, to share a marijuana cigarette had their genesis on April 18, 1991, when Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Special Agent Bernard Mortenson and his supervisor were invited to meet with members of the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department. At that meeting, the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department requested FDLE's assistance in determining whether or not respondent was involved in the use or sale of marijuana. The information supporting such concern was stated to be "a well known suspicion [the derivation of which was not explicated] within the department that [respondent] used marijuana," and a statement one Shelia Hudson, a bartender at O'Malley's Raw Bar, had made to Detective Hudacsek of the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department that respondent "had supplied her with a small amount (baggie) of marijuana in approximately October 1990." Based on such information, at the direction of his supervisor, Special Agent Mortenson undertook an investigation of respondent on behalf of FDLE. Initially, respondent was placed under surveillance to detect any criminal activity. Such surveillance was conducted on April 29, 1991, and May 1, 2, 6 and 7, 1991, with Deputy Brame being recruited as a member of the unit early on should an opportunity for surveillance of respondent within one of his known haunts, such as O'Malley's Raw Bar, arise. Respondent was not, however, observed to frequent those places he was known to frequent, when under surveillance, and his activities failed to reveal anything of a criminal nature. Consequently, Special Agent Mortenson proposed to arrange a meeting, between Deputy Brame, who would operate undercover as "Beverly Brown," and the respondent for the purpose of developing a friendly relationship with respondent, if possible, and to observe his response to the subject of marijuana. 3/ On May 13, 1991, Deputy Brame, dressed casually in jeans and a T-shirt, approached respondent as he exited a restaurant adjacent to the Home Depo parking lot in Palm Beach Gardens, and related to him the "story" FDLE had devised as the premise for their meeting. The scenario, as it developed, resulted in Deputy Brame relating to respondent that her purse had been stolen from her truck, while parked in the parking lot, and upon being advised by respondent about the reporting process expressing concerns as to whether she might get into trouble because she had two "marijuana joints" in the purse. According to Deputy Brame, as related to respondent, she had recently located to the area from Alaska, where marijuana usage had been "decriminalized" or was "legal," and was concerned that she might get in trouble for her possession in Florida. In response to the scenario devised by FDLE, respondent evidenced no concern regarding her possession of marijuana, assured her she would not get in any trouble, and completed an incident report and vehicle/property report which, although detailing the incident and the other contents of her purse, failed to mention the two "marijuana joints" that were reported to have been in the purse that was stolen. After respondent took the information for his reports, he and Deputy Brame continued to engage in casual conversation for about 10 to 15 minutes, during which time Deputy Brame had occasion to compliment him on how "cool" he had been about the marijuana in her purse, and respondent had occasion to ask her, and she agreed, to meet him at O'Malley's bar the next night. At approximately 11:30 p.m., May 14, 1991, respondent and Deputy Brame met in front of O'Malley's bar but, since it was closed, proceeded to the Irish Brewery, another bar, which was located at the other end of the same strip mall. There, respondent and Deputy Brame spent approximately one and one-half hours socializing. During that time, respondent related to Deputy Brame, among other things, that he had gotten "high" on duty with a former lieutenant with his department, as well as one time while he was working traffic. Finally, at some point in the conversation, respondent offered that it was a fantasy of his to get high and watch the Simpsons television show, and the parties agreed to meet at his apartment to watch the Simpsons and get high. Respondent gave Deputy Brame one of his business cards, with his home number written on it, and it was agreed that she would call him at 3:00 p.m., May 16, 1991, to finalize arrangements. Deputy Brame telephoned respondent at 3:00 p.m., May 16, 1991, without success, but at 3:30 p.m. he answered the telephone. During that conversation, Deputy Brame related to respondent that: . . . I've been trying to see if I could, you know, get a hold of anything so we could watch the Simpsons and . . . you know, get high like we talked about, and I haven't been able to get anything. I was wondering if you were, by any chance? Respondent replied: No. You know, I have one person I'm going to call and, if he's home--he's a cop, but he doesn't work with me. He works for another police department. And, he has some good connections and, I'm going to call him and see--and, if he's home, he might be able to. Respondent cautioned, however, that "I don't want to even get my hopes up" since, "lately its . . . hard for [cops] to find," and observed that he wished he currently worked an area with street crime, like he used to, where it was easy to shake down street dealers so you could "have your own little stash." Later, respondent resolved to call the other officer and call her back in a few minutes. Shortly thereafter, respondent called Deputy Brame and told her that his contact didn't have anything, but that he had one other alternative, a friend who was a paramedic, living in Lake Park, and who he was going to drive over to see. Arrangements were then made for Deputy Brame to call respondent at 6:00 p.m. At or about 6:00 p.m., Deputy Brame called respondent and respondent advised her that "I was successful in obtaining one joint." Thereafter, the parties agreed to meet in the parking lot of O'Malley's bar so they could go to respondent's apartment and "get stoned and watch the Simpsons." At or about 7:30 p.m., May 16, 1991, Deputy Brame met respondent in the parking lot, and followed him to his apartment in her vehicle. Thereafter, following approximately 15 minutes of casual conversation, respondent produced one hand rolled marijuana cigarette (joint) which he proceeded to light, inhale, and offer to Deputy Brame. Deputy Brame, under pretext, then attempted to leave the apartment with the joint, but exited without it when respondent objected. On May 24, 1991, Special Agent Mortenson telephoned respondent, advised him that "there was a matter we needed to discuss," and asked that he meet him at the FDLE office. Respondent agreed to meet with Special Agent Mortenson at 11:00 a.m., and at that time Special Agent Mortenson advised him that FDLE had been conducting an investigation into his use and possession of marijuana while a police officer with the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department, advised him of his Miranda rights, and asked him if he would like to make a statement. At that point, respondent advised he wanted to confer with an attorney, and he left the office. Then, at or about 2:50 p.m., respondent returned, stated he had consulted with some attorneys, and wished to make a statement regarding the matter. In his sworn statement, taken May 24, 1991, respondent confessed that while employed as a police officer with the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department he had used marijuana "in excess of ten" times, some of which were on duty with other uniformed officers; that while employed by the Belle Glade Police Department he had, "a couple of times," shaken down street dealers for their marijuana; and that the last time he had used marijuana was May 16, 1991, with Deputy Brame. Such statement was given without coercion, and only after being advised of his Miranda rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner render a final order revoking respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of July 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July 1994.
