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.
The Issue Did Respondent violate the provisions of Section 817.567, Florida Statutes (2004), or any lesser included offenses, Section 943.1395(6) and/or (7), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and/or (c), by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2004), requiring maintenance of good moral character?
Findings Of Fact Undisputed Facts: Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 5, 1995, and was issued Correctional Certificate Number 157626. Additional Facts: Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A11 is a copy of an interoffice memorandum from Respondent to the "Personnel Dept." This reference to the personnel department is taken to refer to the Florida Department of Corrections, in view of other proof in this record. The interoffice memorandum goes on to describe as the subject "transcript and diploma." The interoffice memorandum says "I have enclosed a copy of my diploma and transcript. Please place these in my personnel file and update my records and incentive. Thank you, W.S.D." The exhibit reflects in a handwritten note of unknown origins, "This diploma & transcript are ineligible for CJIP because this is not an accredited college." Nothing else in this record describes the nature of the transcript and diploma referred to in the interoffice memorandum concerning the particulars of the transcript and diploma that was mentioned on January 31, 1999, nor can it be reasonably inferred. As evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A15, Respondent prepared and signed an employment application with the Florida Department of Corrections for the position of Correctional Probation Officer on June 14, 2004. In the course of this application Respondent listed under the section related to college university or professional school "Southern Mississippi" at "Hattiesburg, Mississippi", which he allegedly attended from August 1996 through August 2003, participating in a course of study referred to as "Criminal Justice" at which, according to the application, he earned an M.S. degree. In fact Respondent had never attended the University of Southern Mississippi as explained in correspondence dated July 6, 2004, from Greg Pierce, University Registrar at the University of Southern Mississippi directed to Terry Foskey, a payroll specialist with the Department of Corrections, Region I Service Center, who had inquired of the University of Southern Mississippi concerning Respondent's status as a student. This correspondence is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A9. Moreover, a transcript, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A3, which Mr. Foskey had supplied a verification specialist in the registrar's office at the University of Southern Mississippi, Trudy Stewart or Steward, was found not to resemble a transcript from that university, as explained by Mr. Pierce in his correspondence. The transcript, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A3, had been received by Mr. Foskey on June 28, 2004. Mr. Foskey was uncertain of the information contained in the transcript. This led to his inquiry to the University of Southern Mississippi, with the determination being made that the transcript did not come from that university. While Mr. Foskey was attempting to clarify the status of the transcript with the University of Southern Mississippi, he was contacted by Respondent who asked if Mr. Foskey had received the transcript. Mr. Foskey replied that he had and asked what Respondent wanted done with that transcript. Respondent answered that he had pulled up information on a program known as ATMS, which the Florida Department of Law Enforcement uses to track certified officers, Respondent among them. As a result Respondent said that he needed this document, meaning the transcript, entered into the ATMS because he was transferring from his present position into another position he referred to as security. There was a series of e-mails as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A8 from Respondent to Mr. Foskey. The first was on July 1, 2004. It says "Per telephone call, please place information in ATMS 2 and in my personnel file Thanks." Then the name and position of Respondent as Classification Officer at Santa Rosa CI-119 is provided. On that same date another e-mail was dispatched from Mr. Foskey back to Respondent which said "Thank you for the follow-up." As reflected in the exhibit, on July 7, 2004, Respondent sent an e- mail to Mr. Foskey, with the subject line being "Re: Transcript," which said in its text, "Mr. Foskey, how long does it take for the information to be entered into ATMS 2?" The change in employment position by Respondent that was being described for Mr. Foskey related to the application, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A15. Pertinent to this inquiry, the Correctional Probation Officer job being sought by Respondent required a bachelor's degree level of education as a prerequisite to filling the position. The reference made by Respondent to the M.S. degree from University of Southern Mississippi is perceived as Respondent's attempt to show that he had the necessary level of education to apply for the job. In relation to his pursuit of the Correctional Probation Officer position, on June 8, 2004, Respondent had filed a request for demotion with the Regional I Service Center Department of Corrections for personal reasons, requesting permission to move from his position of Senior Classification Officer to that of Correctional Probation Officer. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A15A. As a result of the incident concerning the purported transcript from the University of Southern Mississippi, the Department of Corrections, Office of the Inspector General investigated. That investigation was conducted by David Ellis. In a discussion between Mr. Ellis and Respondent concerning the subject transcript, Respondent acknowledged that he had the documentation sent to personnel, taken to mean the personnel office with the Department of Corrections. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that he had requested that the transcript be sent to personnel and had supplied information to a company to have it sent. Respondent did not remember the name of the company, as he explained to Mr. Ellis. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that he had read a personnel memorandum on the Department of Corrections website about a university in southern Florida that would accept life experience for college credits and that he, meaning Respondent, searched the web and found that the University of Southern Mississippi did likewise. The memorandum about the university in southern Florida, refers to Florida Southern College, and is found to be that as reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered A5. Respondent then sent an e-mail to the internet company requesting information about college degrees. The company sent him a package explaining the process and he sent something back about his life experiences, with a check of $800.00 and a list of other college credits earned elsewhere. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that he then received the subject transcript at his home from the University of Southern Mississippi on a later date. This is found to be as arranged through the internet company. The transcript that he received at home, Respondent compared to the one that had been received by Mr. Foskey and Respondent told Mr. Ellis they were the same with the exception that his transcript copy had a seal in the middle. Respondent acknowledged to Mr. Ellis that he had not taken any of the courses on the transcript that has been described and had not earned any grades for any of those courses reflected on the transcript. When Mr. Ellis asked Respondent why he would send something to personnel that he had never officially done, Respondent replied because he thought it was all right. Mr. Ellis asked Respondent to give him information about the internet company that Respondent had referred to and any information regarding payment to that company by Respondent. Respondent called Mr. Ellis back and told him that the name of the company was CustomDegrees.com. It is found that Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 is information from CustomDegrees.com that Respondent relied on. Nothing about this information from CustomDegrees.com provided to Respondent, and for which Respondent paid a service fee, could reasonably be interpreted to serve as the functional equivalent of having earned the degree from the University of Southern Mississippi for which Respondent intended to take credit. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered A3A constitutes a handwritten educational history which Respondent provided to CustomDegrees.com for them to provide the degree which was falsely portrayed as having been issued by the University of Southern Mississippi.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding violations of the Statutes and Rules referred to and suspending Respondent's Correctional Certificate Number 157626 for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 12th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.A. 1308-B Dunmire Street Pensacola, Florida 32504 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, adopted revised rules of practice and procedure which became effective on September 10, 1981. Among these is Rule 23-21.09, Florida Administrative Code, which establishes "matrix time ranges" that are used in determining presumptive parole release dates for persons who are serving prison terms. In determining presumptive parole release dates, the Respondent's rules require that a "salient factor score" be determined based upon such factors as the number of prior criminal convictions, the number of prior incarcerations, total time served in prisons, the inmate's age at the time of the offense which led to the first incarceration, the number of probation or parole revocations, the number of prior escape convictions, and whether burglary or breaking and entering is the present offense of conviction. The degree or severity of the present offense of conviction is then determined. The Respondent's Rule 23-21.09 sets guidelines for time ranges for presumptive parole release dates depending upon the severity of the present offense of conviction and the salient factor score. The more severe the present offense of conviction, the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. Similarly, given the severity of the offense, the higher the salient factor score the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. The rule replaced a rule which set different matrix time ranges. The new rule generally sets longer time ranges, but this is not uniformly true. The Petitioner, Seimore Keith, is an inmate presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner Keith was convicted of grand theft in July, 1980, and was sentenced to serve five years in prison. The conviction was the result of a guilty plea which was entered in accordance with a plea bargain. During plea negotiations, Petitioner Keith was advised that his presumptive parole release date under Florida Parole and Probation Commission rules would require that he serve no more than 25 months in prison. At the time that Petitioner Keith's presumptive parole release date was set by the Respondent, the new Rule 23-21.09 had come into effect, and the Petitioner's presumptive parole release date was set to require that he serve 32 months in prison. The Petitioner, Ronnie McKane, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted of the offense of armed robbery in February, 1981. Under rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Petitioner McKane's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by Respondent in setting McKane's presumptive parole release date. The Petitioner, Daniel P. Hull, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted in September, 1971, of the offense of robbery and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. He was paroled in 1974, but was reincarcerated as a result of a parole violation in 1976. In 1977 he escaped, and was recaptured in January, 1981. On June 1, 1961, Petitioner Hull was convicted of the offense of escape and sentenced to serve nine months. Under the rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Hull's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rules were applied by Respondent in setting Hull's presumptive parole release date, and it has been set subsequent to the expiration of his sentence. Hull will therefore be released when his sentence expires in March, 1982. The Petitioner, Douglas L. Adams, was convicted of the offenses of possession of marijuana and uttering a forged instrument, and sentenced in February, 1981, to two consecutive five-year sentences. Under the rules in effect when Adams was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23- 21.09, Adams' presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by the Respondent in setting Adams' presumptive parole release date. During 1980, the Respondent directed its staff to begin considering proposed changes to its rules of practice and procedure. Various proposals were considered, and by September, 1980, a proposed rule package had been developed. The Respondent directed its staff to submit the proposed rule package to the Governor and members of the Cabinet, various pertinent legislators, county and circuit judges, prosecutors and public defenders, superintendents of each prison in the State, and to members of the Supreme Court and the district courts. The Commission opted to conduct various workshops throughout the State, and to invite all interested persons to share their input. Notices of the workshops were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The workshops were conducted, and the Commission commenced formal rule-making proceedings. Notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and hearings were scheduled. Notice of the formal rulemaking proceedings was also published in the St. Petersburg Times, the Pensacola Journal, the Tallahassee Democrat, the Orlando Sentinel-Star, and the Florida Times-Union. Persons who had requested specific notification were provided it. In response to this notice, the Respondent received considerable written input, and oral presentations were made at hearings that were conducted. The final hearing in the rule-making proceeding was conducted on June 19, 1981, and the rules, including Rule 23- 21.09, were thereafter adopted effective September 10, 1981. Notice of the proposed rule changes and of the formal rulemaking proceeding was not specifically disseminated to inmates at Florida's prisons. The proposed rules were for- warded to the superintendent of each facility. At some of the institutions the proposed rules were apparently posted. All persons who requested copies of the proposed rules from the Florida Parole and Probation Commission were provided them. Numerous prisoners and organizations that represent prisoners made input during the various states of the rulemaking proceeding. None of the Petitioners in this matter were specifically noticed of the rulemaking proceeding. One of the Petitioners had heard that rules were being proposed, and requested copies of them from members of the Legislature or from Department of Corrections personnel. None of the Petitioners requested copies of the proposed rules from the Respondent or anyone connected with the Respondent.
The Issue Whether Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Richard Charles Gaston, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent stipulated that the Petitioner has standing to institute this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code. Section 944.292, Florida Statutes, provides that the civil rights of persons convicted of a felony as defined in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution of the State of Florida, are suspended "until such rights are restored by a full pardon, conditional pardon, or restoration of civil rights granted pursuant to s. 8, Art. IV of the State Constitution." Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Florida, authorizes the Governor to grant pardons restoring civil rights with approval of three members of the Cabinet. The initiation of the process for consideration of whether an inmate should have his or her civil rights restored pursuant to Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Florida, is governed by Section 944.293, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 944.293, Florida Statutes (1989), provides the following: Initiation of restoration of civil rights. --With respect to those persons convicted of a felony, the following procedure shall apply: Prior to the time an offender is discharged from supervision, an authorized agent of the department shall obtain from the Governor the necessary application and other forms required for the restoration of civil rights. The authorized agent shall insure that the application and all necessary material are forwarded to the Governor before the offender is discharged from supervision. In implementing Section 944.293, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has promulgated Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"). The Challenged Rule provides, in pertinent part: Discharge of an Inmate. When an inmate has completed all combined sentences imposed upon him or is released by parole, pardon or court order, the Secretary or his designated agent shall furnish such inmate with a certificate of discharge upon his release from custody. All qualified inmates shall be given the opportunity at the time of their release to complete an application for restoration of civil rights, Form DC4-322, Restoration of Civil Rights. Form DC4-322 is hereby incorporated by reference. A copy of this form may be obtained from any institution or from the Bureau of Admission and Release, Department of Corrections . . . . The Respondent releases approximately 40,000 to 45, 000 inmates each year. The release of an inmate, including an inmate convicted of a felony, involves a somewhat lengthy process and the completion of a number of forms, including a form for restoration of civil rights. The date upon which an inmate is to be released from prison becomes "frozen" seven days prior to the inmate's release. Even after the release date is determined and considered "frozen", however, that release date may be modified because of conduct of the inmate after the date is "frozen" but before the inmate is actually released. The completion of the forms necessary to institute a determination of whether an inmate's civil rights should be restored begins approximately 120 days prior to the inmate's projected release. Pursuant to the Challenged Rule, the Respondent has designated an employee of the Respondent at Marion Correctional Institute to interview inmates to be released and provide a Form DC4-322, Restoration of Civil Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), to inmates to be released. A completed Application is mailed by the Respondent to the Florida Parole Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") on the date that the inmate is released from prison. The Respondent does not send the completed Application until the day the inmate is actually released from prison because the release date may change at any time prior to the actual time the inmate is released. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that the Respondent cannot inform the Commission after it has forwarded an application that the inmate's proposed release date has been modified or that the Commission would not ignore an application upon such notification. Some, but not all, inmates convicted of felonies may not be eligible for restoration of their civil rights at the time of their release from prison; these inmates are subject to supervision after leaving prison. Some inmates convicted of felonies, such as the Petitioner, have, however, completely served their sentences and are released from all supervision at the time they are released from prison. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that such inmates are not eligible for restoration of their civil rights immediately upon their release from prison.
The Issue The Administrative complaint dated September 19, 1994, alleges that Respondent, a licensed class "D" security officer, violated section 493.6118(1)(j), F.S. by committing a battery on or about January 28, 1994. The issue is whether that violation occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this action, Respondent, Ivan Machiz, was licensed as a class "D" security officer, license number D91-19035, by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, pursuant to chapter 493, F.S. The proceeding at issue is the only disciplinary action in evidence against Mr. Machiz' license. On January 28, 1994, Mr. Machiz visited Jameryl Curley at her apartment in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Machiz and Ms. Curley had been roommates. Mr. Machiz sought to recover his claimed possessions, including some chairs and a French racing bicycle. Ms. Curley told Mr. Machiz she had sold the items as payment for some delinquent bills and that he was not entitled to take them. He moved to take the bicycle and she hung on to it. The couple argued and struggled over the bicycle. In the struggle Mr. Machiz grabbed Ms. Curley and pinned her left arm behind her back, twisting it and causing her to cry for help. Benjamin Dobrin, who lived with his brother in the next door apartment and shared a back porch with Ms. Curley, answered the call and found Mr. Machiz on top of Ms. Curley, forcing her face-first into a couch or futon, and twisting her arm behind her back. Mr. Dobrin immediately returned to his apartment and called "911" for help. He then went back to Ms. Curley's apartment. By then, she was up and was holding on to the bicycle and Mr. Machiz was dragging it with her. She was crying and yelling, "Help, you're hurting me. Stop!" Mr. Dobrin and his brother stopped the bicycle and Mr. Machiz left. Deputy Chris Williams arrived shortly thereafter and found Ms. Curley upset and hyperventilating. After interviewing the Dobrins, Ms. Curley, and then Mr. Machiz (at his apartment in the next building), Deputy Williams arrested Mr. Machiz. He admitted that he put Ms. Curley in a wristlock because she was struggling against his attempts to recover what he claimed was his. He was not protecting himself or another from physical harm. At the criminal trial on one count of a battery charge, on March 24, 2994, County Judge Cynthia A. Holloway heard the testimony of the Deputy, Mr. Dobrin, Ms. Curley, and Mr. Machiz, and admonished that Mr. Machiz had no right to "self-help" recovery of his property, to go to someone's apartment to remove property over objection, and to "pulverize anybody to get that property back". (Respondent's exhibit #1, p. 20) The court withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed Mr. Machiz on six months probation, with the provision for termination after four months on the condition that he perform 25 hours of community service, pay court costs and write a letter of apology to Ms. Curley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order finding that Ivan Drew Machiz violated section 493.6118(1)(j), F.S., and imposing a penalty of $500 fine. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 13th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Dept. of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ivan Drew Machiz 481 Hardendorf Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30307
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 13-84-002-01 on July 14, 1984. On September 1, 1988, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit working in the misdemeanor division. While on duty and driving his employment car on the evening of September 1, 1988, Respondent was in the area of Lee Street and 20th Street in Orlando, Florida. He was in the area attempting to locate a witness as part of a criminal investigation he was conducting. He had previously made the acquaintance of a person named Ruby Burk. He would on occasion drive past her house and stop and they would talk and once previously had engaged in a sex act. On the night of September 1, 1988, he went to Burk's house, talked with her and then left on a futile attempt to locate a witness. He then returned to Burk's residence, picked her up and proceeded to a dark secluded area on an unpaved street which borders an elementary school. Shortly thereafter, while on routine patrol, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff observed Respondent sitting behind the wheel of the state vehicle in a complete state of undress. When she shined her bright lights into the vehicle, the Deputy observed the head of a black female pop up from the direction of the Petitioner's lap. The Deputy recognized Burk and observed that she was fully clothed. The Deputy permitted Respondent to put his pants on before he exited his vehicle. Respondent and Burk were engaging in fellatio in the front seat of the state vehicle. At the time of the incident, Respondent was having marital problems which caused him to be despondent. In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated that he had been a certified law enforcement officer for over four years at the time of this incident and has had no prior disciplinary problems. He has performed his job in private security and as an investigator in an exemplarily capacity. In September 1988, Respondent was discharged by the State Attorney, but was given a favorable recommendation He is presently employed as a Child Protective Investigator with HRS. He is respected by his peers and in his community. The violation of the law and rules by the Respondent was an isolated incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1990, 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 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19 (in part), 21. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant: Paragraphs 7 (that Burk had been convicted of engaging in prostitution on Westmoreland Street), 11, 16 (in part), 19 (in part), 20, 22. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in part), 6, 7. Rejected as irrelevant or as argument: Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa L. Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Leon B. Cheek, Esquire 101 Sunnytown Road Suite 306 Casselberry, FL 32707 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302
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 Whether Respondent, a corrections officer, has failed to maintain the qualification to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 19, 1993, as a Corrections Officer, Certification Number 136191. Respondent’s certification is active. At all times relevant, the Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Central Florida Reception Center. On November 5, 1994, Karen Mills was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Seminole County Sheriff’s office. At the time of the event, Officer Mills had been working under cover for five years with the City/County Investigative Bureau. Officer Mills was working undercover at one o’clock on a Saturday morning posing as a prostitute on the sidewalk and parking lot located at State Road 427 and Pomosa in Sanford, Florida. On November 5, 1994, Mills approached a black male driving a Toyota car, later identified as the Respondent, Travis Long, when he stopped for a traffic light at the corner of State Road 427 and Pomosa. After idle conversation, the Respondent asked what she was doing. She advised that she was trying to make some money. He asked her if she would “take it up the ass?” She took that to mean that he wanted anal intercourse. Mills said yes and asked him how much money he was willing to pay. Respondent said $25.00. Mills said she wanted $40.00. Respondent agreed but stated that he would have to go get the money from an ATM and also that he wanted to get something to eat. He asked Mills if she wanted to go with him to get something to eat. Mills declined. Mills did not immediately arrest Respondent because she wanted to see the money to confirm that he was there to buy sex. Respondent left the area and returned 20 minutes later. Upon his return, Respondent asked Mills if she was a cop and asked her to pull up her shirt to prove that she was not carrying a recording device (a wire). Mills asked Respondent if he was a cop. He said no, and ultimately exposed his penis as a way to prove it to her. Mills asked Respondent to show her the money and kept encouraging him to do so, by saying, “You ain’t gonna pay me . . . You ain’t got no money. I just want to be sure I’m gonna get paid.” Respondent finally showed Mills the money and mouthed, without speaking, “I will pay you.” As soon as she saw the money, Mills, who was wearing a wire, gave the predetermined code. Respondent began to pull away in his vehicle but other officers pulled him over and arrested him. Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, a second degree misdemeanor, in the County Court for Seminole County, Florida, on January 5, 1995. Respondent was adjudicated guilty, and a $100 fine was imposed. Respondent’s testimony that, although he conducted himself as above stated, he did not have the intent to solicit for prostitution on the night of November 5, 1994, is not credible. Respondent was an energetic, hard-working individual. Respondent had no prior criminal or employment discipline problems prior to this incident. Respondent has continued in his current position as a corrections officer in the three years since the incident and has received above-average ratings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993). Respondent's certification be SUSPENDED for a period of six months and that the Commission impose such conditions on his reinstatement as it deems reasonable and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Bardill, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
