The Issue This case concerns the administrative prosecution by the Petitioner against the Respondent through an Administrative Complaint and amendment to that Administrative Complaint. The original statement in the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of purchasing a forged transcript, which transcript indicated that the Respondent had completed requirements for a masters degree from the Florida A & M University and had received that degree, and that the Respondent in turn used the forged transcript to fraudulently receive a certification from the Florida Department of Education, Office of Certification, to the effect that the Respondent held a masters degree. These acts on the part of the Respondent purportedly violate Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in particular, for reason that the Respondent has committed an act of gross immorality, used fraudulent means to secure a teacher's certificate, and engaged in conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness. The Respondent is also accused of violating Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, for failing to provide a proper example for students and to have violated Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code, by not practicing her profession at the highest ethical standard. By amendment to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent is also accused of violating Subsection 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, by being charged with uttering a forgery and for that charge being adjudicated guilty of a felony and placed on three years probation, due to her plea of nolo contendere to felony charges. Adjudication in this matter allegedly was made on August 3, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, by Administrative Complaint and the amendment to that complaint, attempts to discipline the Respondent by action in revocation or suspension of the teacher's certificate of Delma M. Dawson, or other appropriate action. The Respondent having been afforded the opportunity for a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, availed herself of that opportunity and the formal hearing was conducted on September 10, 1981. At present, the Respondent is the holder of a teacher's certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, No. 423465, issued on October 31, 1979, and valid through June 30, 1986. This is a regular certificate, masters level. Dawson had obtained this certificate through the process of an application filed with the Teacher's Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education. The date of the filing was June 29, 1979. The application and accompanying transcript to that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. The transcript associated with the application reflects completion of a masters program at Florida A & M University, with the award of a Master of Education Degree with a major in Elementary Education. In fact, this transcript was a fraudulent transcript which the Respondent had purchased from am individual at Florida A & M University named Eugene Sutton. Sutton had access to certain school materials which allowed him to fabricate the bogus transcript. Dawson was to pay $3,500.00 for the purchase of the bogus transcript indicating her achievement of a masters degree and, in fact, paid $3,000.00 for that purchase. At the time of the purchase, she knew that she had not completed the necessary course work and complied with the other requirements for receipt of the alleged graduate degree. Dawson had been a continuing education student at Florida A & M University beginning in January, 1976, and had earned 23 hours of credit. This credit earned was not part of the 54 hours necessary to achieve the masters degree she claimed to have, but was instead, credit towards the validation of her undergraduate degree from Edward Waters College of Jacksonville, Florida. That institution not being accredited, the credit earned from Florida A & M University was for purposes of validating a degree from that unaccredited school. The actual transcript of credit hours earned from Florida A & M University may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A. At present, the Respondent is an employee of the Duval County, Florida, School System. She was hired to work as a teacher in Duval County on August 23, 1977. On November 6, 1979, she presented the masters level certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education to the officials in Duval County which was an upgrade in her status and through the presentation of this credentials change, it ostensibly entitled her to approximately $900.00 a year in additional compensation in school years 1979- 80 and 1980-81. This is a differential between this teacher at the masters level rank of certification as contrasted with the teacher at a bachelors level of certification employed by the Duval County School System. Dawson never received this additional compensation in view of the discovery of her activities in purchasing a degree which she had not earned. Since the time of her involvement in the purchase of an illegal graduate degree, the Respondent has been charged in the Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida, under the provisions of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes, with uttering a forgery, a third degree felony and entered a nolo contendere plea to that offense. For this plea, the defendant was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for a period of three (3) years. The terms of the disposition of Respondent's case may be found in petitioner's Exhibit No. 16, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the judgment of guilt and placement of the defendant on probation. At present, the Respondent is being used as a substitute teacher in the Duval County School System and as an employee in the library services of that school system. Her most recent evaluation, as well as those evaluations made of her performance during the pendency of her service with bits Duval County School System, has shown her to be a satisfactory employee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license rights of the Respondent to teach in the State of Florida and the associated certificate No. 413465 be permanently revoked far the violations as established herein. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 16th day of October, 1981.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a), 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and 11B-20.0012(1)(f), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On December 13, 1991, Ms. Sanders was certified as a correctional officer in the state of Florida. Her correctional officer certificate is numbered 122576. On January 30, 2004, Ms. Sanders was employed as a sergeant by the Florida Department of Corrections at the Brevard Correctional Institution (Brevard), where Joseph Sonntag was an inmate. Mr. Sonntag is a diabetic, who must have insulin injections two times each day. On the morning of Friday, January 30, 2004, Bertie Gladys Florich, a correctional officer at Brevard, went to Mr. Sonntag's cell to awake him to take him to the medical unit for his insulin injection. Mr. Sonntag pulled the cover over his head and did not get up. Ms. Florich told Ms. Sanders that Mr. Sonntag would not get up and asked her to tell him to get up for his injection. Ms. Sanders went into Mr. Sonntag's cell, pulled the cover from Mr. Sonntag, and told his cell mate to leave the cell. Ms. Sanders snatched Mr. Sonntag by the collar of his shirt and flung him across the cell. As he landed, his leg hit the sink. Ms. Florich, who was on the next cell level, heard a thump. She looked at Mr. Sonntag's cell and saw Ms. Sanders helping Mr. Sonntag up. Mr. Sonntag had landed too far from his bunk to have fallen from his bunk. After Ms. Sanders left the cell, Mr. Sonntag told Ms. Florich that Ms. Sanders had pulled him forcibly off his bunk and that he had hurt his leg. Ms. Florich called Sergeant Carter, who was a superior officer. Sergeant Carter went into Mr. Sonntag's cell and came out later, stating that Mr. Sonntag needed to be taken to the medical unit. Mr. Sonntag told a male sergeant that Ms. Sanders had thrown him off the bunk. The male sergeant told Mr. Sonntag that if he made such an allegation that an investigation would be conducted and he would be placed in confinement while the investigation was being conducted. Because he feared being placed in confinement, Mr. Sonntag filled out an incident report, stating that he sustained his injuries by falling off his bunk. Mr. Sonntag was taken to the medical unit for treatment, and he also told medical personnel that he had fallen from his bunk. In an effort to cover up her injury to Mr. Sonntag, on January 30, 2004, Ms. Sanders completed and signed a Report of Injury or Illness, which was submitted to Brevard, indicating that Mr. Sonntag fell off his bunk. The report was false. On Sunday, February 1, 2004, Mr. Sonntag's mother came to visit him at Brevard. He told her that Ms. Sanders had thrown him off his bunk, causing the injury to his leg. Apparently, Mr. Sonntag's mother informed officials at Brevard of her son's allegations, because on Monday, February 2, 2004, Mr. Sonntag was asked by officials at Brevard to give another statement detailing the events that led to his injury. Senior Prison Inspector Barry Glover was assigned to investigate Mr. Sonntag's allegations. As part of the investigation, Mr. Glover interviewed Ms. Florich, who did not actually see how Mr. Sonntag sustained his injuries. While the investigation was being conducted, Ms. Sanders approached Ms. Florich in an attempt to get their stories straight. Ms. Sanders tried to get Ms. Florich to tell the investigator that Mr. Sonntag had either fallen off the bed or jumped off the bed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Lucinda Sanders did not violate Subsection 943.1395(6), Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-20.0012(1)(f); finding that Lucinda Sanders did violate Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes; suspending her Correctional Officer Certificate for two years; placing her on probation for two years following the suspension of her certificate; and requiring her to complete such training courses as deemed appropriate by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 27th day of April, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing revoke respondent's license number 83209-2. It is further recommended that upon proof of counseling or other rehabilitative measures taken by respondent, the Board exercise its discretion to relicense respondent with examination after a period of six months has elapsed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Licensing and Investigative Coordinator Florida State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg. B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1005 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Patrick V. Clancy, Esquire 2420 Garfield Street Hollywood, Florida 33020
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Tanika Parker was certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 9, 2005, and was issued correctional certification number 251547. (admitted fact) From August 13, 2004, until July 13, 2006, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections and was assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution. (admitted fact) On January 9, 2006, Respondent applied for a correctional officer position with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. (admitted fact) On March 10, 2006, as part of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office application process, Respondent answered the written question: "Have you had an unprofessional relationship with an inmate, detainee, probationer or parolee, or community controlee [sic]?" by circling on the form as her response: "No." (admitted fact) Also during March 2006, George Montenegro, a Senior Inspector in the Department of Corrections Inspector General's Office assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution, received information from a confidential informant that Respondent "was involved with" an inmate with the nickname of "Plump." Although an investigation was begun, it was not until early July when a second confidential informant disclosed the identity of Plump. It was inmate Leroy Rogers. Thereafter, Plump's phone calls were monitored, and his cell was searched on July 21, 2006. Among other items in Plump's cell were 34 photographs. At that point Respondent had resigned and was no longer an employee of the Department of Corrections. Since Respondent was in the process of being hired by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, Inspector Montenegro contacted that agency and spoke with Eric Monath, a Sergeant with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Division of Internal Affairs. The 34 photographs taken from Plump's cell included the following: one of a cake inscribed "Happy Birthday Plump"; one with a little girl licking the icing off the cake knife; two of the front of Respondent's residence with the little girl in front; eleven more of the little girl at various locations; one close-up of an adult female's breasts; six close-ups of an adult female's naked genitalia; eight of an adult female's genitalia and/or buttocks either partially or fully covered by underwear; one of a T-shirt decorated with two hearts, one of which was inscribed "Plump" and the other one "Plumpness"; and three of a woman in that T-shirt, wearing some of the same underwear depicted in some of the other pictures. The photos of the naked or clothed woman do not show the woman's face, head, or neck. They only focus on a particular part of the female's anatomy. One of the pictures, however, shows the female from behind with her hands on her hips, and that one reveals a scar or discoloration on the woman's left, inside forearm. On July 27, 2006, Respondent attended an orientation session at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, wearing a sleeveless shirt. Sergeant Monath saw that same identifying mark on Respondent's forearm. On August 1, 2006, Sergeant Monath met with Inspector Montenegro at the Walgreen's near Respondent's residence and presented the photos with the identifying Walgreen's information on the back of each one to the store's manager. The store manager confirmed that the identifying information was for that store and, using it, checked the store's computer records. The customer for whom the photographs were developed was Respondent. Inspector Montenegro and Sergeant Monath then drove to Respondent's residence and compared the front of the structure to the structure depicted in the photographs. It was the same, including the location of the sprinkler head in the front yard. The monitored phone calls made by Plump were to a female who was never identified in the phone calls. However, during one of the calls, the female yelled instructions to someone in the background named Taliyah. Respondent's application for employment by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office listed as the only person living with her, her daughter Taliyah Wilcox. Inmate Rogers' visitor log shows that Respondent visited him thirteen times between November 4, 2006, and July 7, 2007. She listed herself as a "personal friend."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking her correctional certificate numbered 251547. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 7th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: George G. Lewis, Esquire George G. Lewis, P.A. 950 South Pine Island Road, Suite 150 Plantation, Florida 33324 Sharon S. Traxler, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement - 7100 Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services 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 On September 14, 1977, a jury in Louisiana found Petitioner guilty of armed robbery of a bank on June 9, 1977. On December 22, 1977, the court sentenced Petitioner to 65 years at hard labor. After initial incarceration at the county jail, from which he escaped twice, Petitioner was sent to the state prison in Angola. The State of Louisiana added two years to his sentence, to run concurrently with the original sentence. After serving over 18 years, Petitioner was released from Angola on December 14, 1995. He received a commutation of sentence from Governor Edwin Edwards on December 12, 1995. Petitioner received 40 disciplinary reports the first three years at Angola, seven the next two to three years, and none the last nine years. While at Angola, Petitioner earned his GED and a two-year computer tech degree. He took correspondence courses from Louisiana State University and performed quite well. He paid for the college coursework by working in the prison fields. Seeing prison inmates dying, Petitioner suggested to the prison administration that inmates be trained in CPR. The prison administration agreed to allow six inmates to be trained in CPR so they could train the remainder of the inmates. Petitioner was one of the six inmates so trained, and he later trained persons outside the prison in CPR. After receiving counseling himself, Petitioner served as the chairman of the substance abuse and AA programs at Angola. Once an abuser of drugs and alcohol, Petitioner has not drunk or used drugs since being released from Angola, nor, presumably, well before his release. After being released from prison, Petitioner, with the permission of Louisiana and Florida authorities, returned to Fort Myers, which is where he grew up. He has just married a woman he has known since they were in high school. On returning to Fort Myers, Petitioner submitted 50-60 applications for jobs. He accepts without rancor that his criminal background has made it difficult to find employment. However, he eventually found a job as a painter and began work on February 12, 1996. He later took a nighttime job at a dry cleaners, but quit when he began working overtime as a painter. He has not yet been able to attend school due to financial reasons. However, Petitioner wants to work with the Ruth Cooper Center as a mental health technician. The Ruth Cooper Center would make available for him various educational opportunities, possibly including in the area of Petitioner's real interest of computer programming. Petitioner is highly intelligent. Petitioner is 41 years old and was in prison since he was 23 years old. He argues persuasively that, given the amount of time that he has been in prison, he should be allowed to demonstrate his rehabilitation through the leadership roles that he occupied while still in prison. After a rocky start, Petitioner prepared himself well in prison to demonstrate rehabilitation. He took advantage of all available opportunities and created additional opportunities for himself and others. However, clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation requires, given the seriousness of the original crime, that Petitioner demonstrate for more than five months that he is capable of living productively outside of a prison setting. He has shown that it is more likely than not that he is entitled to the exemption; in a few more months of productive life, he should be able to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to the exemption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying Petitioner an exemption without prejudice to reapplying at anytime. ENTERED on July 3, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on July 3, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Studybaker District Screening Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Culton Blue 3324 Armstrong Court Fort Myers, Florida 33916 Culton Blue 4822 Dueriamae Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33908
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harvey Jackson, in an inmate at UCI and has been at all times pertinent hereto. During the month of September, 1986, consistent with the rules of DOC, Jackson had a list of individuals on file who he desired to be allowed to visit him at the institution. These included members of his family and his fiancee, Ms. Ann Alexander. On September 22, 1986, Ms. Alexander came to visit Jackson at UCI. According to the routine procedure followed for the preparation of visitors' entrance into the Visitor's Park area, Ms. Alexander's purse was searched and she was subject to a pat search prior to being allowed into the secure area. During the search, it was determined she had $50.00 in U.S. currency in her possession and she was permitted to take that money into the Visitor's Park, leaving her purse at the waiting area. While Jackson and Ms. Alexander were together in the Visitor's Park, she purchased two cartons of cigarettes at the canteen and two orange drinks. The cartons of cigarettes were $12.00 each and the drinks were 35 each. Therefore, she spent approximately $24.70 of the $50.00 she brought in. Because she did not have a purse, she claimed later, upon questioning, that she put the change in the brown paper bag she got with the drinks and when she disposed of the bag in a trash can, inadvertently threw out the money as well. When she left the Visitor's Park area, she was subject again to a pat search and requested to indicate how much money she had. At that time, it was determined she had only $3.00 in her possession. According to corrections personnel who interviewed her, she gave several different stories as to what happened to the money she could not account for. Though both Ms. Alexander and Jackson stated she bought him two cartons of cigarettes, when he was searched prior to leaving the Visitor's Park, he had only one carton with him. The strip search conducted of him at that time also failed to reveal any money in his possession. Ms. Alexander was asked to go back into the Visitor's Park and look through the trash cans to try to find the money, and was accompanied by a guard. Because of the heat, however, it was an odious task and she admits her search of six or seven cans was not thorough. Unfortunately, she was unable to locate the money. As a result of this missing money, an incident report, (IR) was prepared. Ms. Alexander was not detained but was orally informed that her visiting privileges might be suspended and Jackson was allowed to return to his quarters. The IR merely outlined the information cited above but did not draw any conclusions as to what happened to the money. Mr. Davis, the corrections supervisor who was in charge of the corrections shift, concluded that Ms. Alexander disregarded the department's rules and regulations and recommended that her visiting privileges be revoked for an indefinite period. This IR was processed through channels to Mr. Cunningham, the Classification Supervisor, who under the provisions of Section 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., had the authority, in the absence of the Superintendent, to approve the suspension. He did so, and made sure that the Superintendent was informed. Thereafter, on September 29, 1986, Mr. K. W. Snow, who worked for Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, sent a letter to Ms. Alexander at her home address on file at the institution, indicating that her visiting privileges were suspended indefinitely beginning that date and would be reinstated on October 31, 1986, one month later. Notwithstanding that inconsistency regarding the length of the suspension, the practice at UCI, in the case of indefinite suspensions, is to reconsider the suspension on receipt of a request for reinstatement. In the case of a suspension for a definite term, they will reinstate upon request at the end of the suspension period. On the afternoon of September 26, 1986, several days prior to the dispatch of the suspension letter to Ms. Alexander, inmate Jackson was called to Mr. Snow's office where he was told that Ms. Alexander's visiting privileges were to be suspended for 30 days. At that time, he was advised that the basis for the suspension was her inability to account for the money she brought into the Visitor's Park on September 22. Though he requested a copy of the IR at that time, Jackson was not given a copy of it until in response to a discovery request after the filing of the rule challenge petition. Jackson was not advised of any opportunity either he or Ms. Alexander might have for a hearing on the matter prior to the suspension, or any appeal rights. Thereafter, Jackson wrote to Mr. Snow asking that he be notified of the suspension in writing, but this request was denied. The September 29, 1986 letter was not received by Ms. Alexander but was returned undelivered because of an erroneous address. On October 1, 1986, however, she wrote to Mr. Cunningham, having been advised by Jackson of the suspension, and the address on her stationery was used to again send her a letter of notification. This second letter was not returned. In her letter, Ms. Alexander explained her reasons for taking so much money into the Visitor's Park, and what she had done with a part of it. She also outlined her efforts to find the extra money. These explanations were not credited by the institution officials, however. Ms. Alexander's suspension has had a bad effect on Jackson, he claims. He felt frustrated and considered that his ability to be heard by the authorities was unnecessarily thwarted. He is of the opinion that the suspension was unfair because neither he nor his fiancee had broken any rules, and neither of them was given any opportunity to explain to the decision maker what had happened other than in writing and after the action was taken. As a result of the suspension, which has now expired, he missed two separate visits from his fiancee. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Alexander's suspension did not place any limits on visits by the other 7 or 8 people on his visitor's list. This suspension action has been utilized frequently as to other visitors as well as Ms. Alexander. Ms. Decker, for example, on September 29, 1986, was notified of the suspension of her visiting privileges on the basis that she had allegedly written a threatening letter to an official at the institution. She found out about her suspension through a phone call from her inmate fiancee. Neither she nor he, initially, was told of the reason for her suspension, and she was given no opportunity to rebut the allegations against her prior to the suspension action. Subsequent to the suspension, she was able to clarify the situation and her visiting privileges have been reinstated, albeit on less convenient days than she had previously. She believes this change in days was intended as punishment, but there is no evidence of this. Ms. Decker denies ever having been told that she could only spend $25.00 in the canteen as is alleged in Ms. Alexander's letter. In fact, there is no rule or policy limiting the amount that visitors may spend in the canteen nor is there a rule or policy which limits inmates to no more than one carton of cigarettes at a time. Mr. Jackson complains of the fact that neither he nor Ms. Alexander was afforded a hearing prior to the imposition of the suspension. There is no provision in the rule for a hearing prior to suspension in this type of case. This suspension was not intended as punishment for improper behavior by Jackson, but more a means of correcting an unauthorized situation and avoiding a security problem. Officials at UCI interpret the provisions of paragraph 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., as permitting the removal of a visitor from the visiting list for criminal activity, for a serious rule violation, for continuous infractions of visiting procedures, for security breaches, or a combination of those. While the instant situation is not considered to be criminal activity, a serious rule violation, or a continuing infraction, it is considered to be a security breach and it was to correct this situation that the institution officials suspended Ms. Alexander. Final action on the issue of a suspension of visiting privileges based on the IR is, by the rule, to be taken by the Superintendent, or the Assistant Superintendent, Classification Supervisor, or the next senior officer present in the chain of command in the absence of the Superintendent. Here, while the suspension letter in question was signed by Mr. Snow, the assistant classification supervisor, and while the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, was present on the day the suspension letter was signed, the letter clearly shows that the action was taken in the name of the superintendent and the testimony of Mr. Cunningham established that it was done with his concurrence. There is nothing in the rule that requires that the inmate or the visitor be afforded a hearing prior to the action suspending visiting privileges. If an inmate feels that the action suspending the visiting privileges of an individual on his list is improper and he can show a direct effect on him as a result thereof, he may file a grievance. Though Jackson indicates he filed a grievance in this case, there is no evidence of it. The incident report in question related strictly to the activity of Ms. Alexander and the action was taken against her even though, in so doing, an adverse effect was felt by Mr. Jackson. No doubt had he desired to do so, he could have grieved that situation, but, as was stated above, there is no evidence that he did so. There is a difference between an IR, as was written here, and a disciplinary report, (DR), which was not involved in this case. A DR involves misconduct on the part of an inmate which may result in disciplinary action, including a suspension of visiting privileges. An IR is nothing more than a memorialization of an unusual incident which is to be brought to the attention of institution authorities. Whereas an inmate is entitled to a hearing before action is taken on the basis of a DR, no hearing is required when an IR is written. If the incident resulting in an IR also results in a DR, a hearing would be afforded the inmate based on the proposed disciplinary action, not on the memorialization in the IR. There is no doubt that the removal of visitors from an inmate's visitors list does have an adverse effect on the morale and possibly the well- being of the inmate involved. However, the action is normally taken on the basis of the conduct of the visitor, not the inmate, and if a decision is made to suspend the visiting privileges of the visitor, the direct effect is on that visitor with a secondary effect only on the innate. In the instant case, officials concluded that Ms. Alexander's inability to account for approximately $20.00 in currency constituted a breach of security which authorized and in fact dictated a need to curtail her entry into the institution for a period of time. There is no evidence that Jackson committed any offense or did anything improper and it is, indeed, unfortunate that he was forced to suffer the deprivation of not being visited by his fiancee for a period of time. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the testimony of the numerous individuals involved in the investigation of this incident that the action taken under the terms of the rule to suspend Ms. Alexander's privilege to visit was not taken lightly and was based on a bona fide evaluation of a security risk to the institution.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), should revoke Respondent's correctional officer certificate on charges that he is not of good moral character because he committed a third degree felony by introducing contraband onto the grounds of the Hillsborough County Correctional Institution (HCI) in violation of section 944.47(1)(a), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ray D. Jones, was certified by the Commission on October 7, 2003, and holds Correctional Certificate 235065. He was employed as a DOC correctional officer from February 26, 2003, until June 22, 2011. Before this matter arose, Respondent had not been disciplined by the Commission. In early 2010, Respondent was working at HCI and assigned to supervise one of two squads of inmates working outside the prison for the Hillsborough County (County) public works department. On work days, County employees would drive the County vans from a County transportation facility to the prison, drive onto prison property and down the prison's entry road, and stop at a gate in the prison's perimeter fence. There, the work squads leave HCI by passing through the gate and boarding the vans. Respondent would sit in the passenger seat in the cab of the van assigned to his squad, and the inmates would sit in the back of the van. There was a partition between the cab and the back of the van. When the vans returned to the prison at the end of the work day, the supervisors and inmates would unload outside the gate, and the vans would leave the prison. On January 4, 2011, an HCI inmate request was submitted that alleged improprieties regarding the work squads. As part of the investigation of those allegations, the County vans were inspected upon arrival at HCI on the morning of January 10, 2011. Numerous hats, some tools, duct tape, toys, food containers, purses, money, glasses, sunglasses, and other similar items were found on both vans. These items were considered to be "nuisance contraband." In addition, some scissors and three folding knives were recovered. One of the folding knives was in a cup holder in the cab of the van assigned to Respondent's squad. The other two were found in an insulated lunch bag in the cab of the van. Those two knives had blades that were sharp, pointed, and about two and a half to three inches long. The other folding knife was similar. The knives were not authorized by the appropriate prison official for use as tools. The Commission did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was candy on the van when it was inspected. At one point, on cross examination by Respondent, Inspector Talbot testified that there was a lunch box full of candy on the van. However, when Respondent questioned him further on the premise that Respondent carried his lunch with him and that he had not passed through the gate at the time of the inspection, Inspector Talbot stated he did not recall whether "there was actually food in there, maybe one of the other inspectors will recall." No other inspector testified. Upon questioning, Respondent readily admitted that he knew the knives and other items of contraband were on the van. He explained that the knife in the cup holder was used to cut debris from lawn mower blades. The two knives in the insulated lunch bag were his personal knives. He explained that he brought them in the bag to the County transportation facility and placed the bag in the cab of the van assigned to his squad, where they stayed. He testified without contradiction that he used his knives to cut up fruit that was part of his lunch. He brought his lunch from home in another lunch bag, which he carried with him when he boarded the van. Respondent denied that any of the knives on his van ever were inside the HCI perimeter fence or that he ever allowed the inmates to have access to the knives. Although the inmates involved were assigned to a work squad, and the knives on Respondent's van were not readily accessible to them, the knives nonetheless posed a potential risk to the public, Respondent and his fellow work squad supervisor, the County van drivers, and the inmates themselves. Upon questioning, Respondent admitted giving candy to inmates. He denied sharing his personal food with inmates. Respondent stated to the inspectors that he did not think the items found during the inspection on January 10, 2011, were a "big deal." Respondent explained that he said this because similar items of nuisance contraband were found on both work squad vans inspected that day and that both vans passed monthly inspections with all the nuisance contraband in open view. Even if the folding knives were not observed in prior inspections, Respondent maintained that the inmates had no access to them and that they never were brought into the prison. DOC disagreed with Respondent and terminated his employment based on the contraband, Respondent's admissions, and his "no big deal" statement. The Commission also disagreed with Respondent and contends that the contraband, Respondent's admissions, and his attitude are clear and convincing proof of bad moral character. The Commission alleged and maintained in its PRO that Respondent brought the knives onto the prison grounds every day he was working as a work squad supervisor between July 1, 2008, and June 22, 2011. However, the evidence was clear that all the contraband items recovered during the inspection on January 10, 2011, including the knives, were removed from the vans at that time, and there was no evidence regarding contraband after that date. It was not clear from the evidence how long prior to the inspection the knives were in the van used by Respondent's work squad. Respondent testified that he brought the insulated lunch bag with his folding knives to the County transportation facility months prior to the inspection. There was no evidence as to how long the other knife was on the van prior to January 10, 2011. Respondent admits that he was "wrong" to have his knives on the van. He does not believe he introduced the knives into the prison. He also does not think he should lose his certification because they were in the cab of the County van and never inside the perimeter fence. Respondent testified that the supervisor of the other work squad van still is working as a correctional officer at HCI although there was not only the same kind of nuisance contraband but also a prohibited metal kitchen knife and fork in the back of his van, where it would be accessible to the inmates, when it was inspected on January 10, 2011. The evidence was not clear as to what discipline that officer received from the Commission, if any.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's correctional certificate for two years, giving him consideration for the time he has been unemployed by DOC, and reinstating his certification as of June 22, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, Respondent was licensed by the Florida Division of Real Estate under license number 0202980. On January 16, 1986, Respondent, represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty before the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to a charge of being involved in a scheme to defraud to obtain money by false pretenses by U.S. Mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 & 1342, and conspiracy to defraud to obtain money by false pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. Respondent was found guilty as per his plea and was sentenced, inter alia, to imprisonment in a United States Penitentiary for 4 years on the first count and for 1 year on the second, the terms to run consecutively. Respondent surrendered to authorities at the Federal Prison Camp, Leavenworth, Kansas, on May 5, 1986, and is presently incarcerated there.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 17th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 William J. Hogan 25392-004 B-2 Post Office Box 1000 L.V.C. Leavenworth, Kansas 66048 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character as required by chapter 943, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.011, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers and taking disciplinary action against them for failing to maintain good moral character as required by section 943.13(7). § 943.1395, Fla. Stat. (2009).2/ Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by Petitioner on July 8, 2009, and holds Correctional Certificate Number 284876. In February through May, 2010, the time frame relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at Miami-Dade Correctional Institute ("Miami-Dade CI"). Incident Giving Rise to this Proceeding On or about July 29, 2010, Captain Eric Parrish, a midnight shift supervisor at Miami-Dade CI, convened a meeting of several employees under his supervision. Among those present at the meeting were Respondent and Officer Demetrices Demeritte. The purpose of the meeting was to address rumors regarding alleged sexual activity among staff members while present or on duty at Miami-Dade CI.3/ Ultimately, these rumors were determined to be unsubstantiated. However, at the meeting, Demeritte informed Parrish that Respondent had exposed his penis to her while they both were on duty at Miami-Dade CI. Respondent verbally admitted at the meeting that he did show Demeritte his penis, but stated that she had wanted to see it. Parrish ordered everyone in attendance at the meeting to complete an incident report after the close of the meeting.4/ Consistent with Petitioner's standard practice regarding the completion of incident reports, Parrish requested that the reports be submitted by the end of the shift.5/ This gave the employees approximately four hours to complete their reports. Ultimately, Parrish collected completed incident reports from all in attendance at the meeting, including Respondent. In his incident report, Respondent stated that he and Demeritte had engaged in discussions regarding sexual matters on more than one occasion. Respondent acknowledged that he exposed his penis to Demeritte on one occasion when they had discussed its size, and that upon seeing it, Demeritte took off in her post vehicle. The next day she asked him not to do that again because he was not "her man." Respondent stated that he apologized to Demeritte and considered the matter resolved between them as friends. Based on the information provided in the incident reports, Parrish recommended that Respondent and others be reviewed for disciplinary action. On or about December 6, 2011, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging that he had failed to maintain good moral character, as required by section 943.17, by having engaged in acts that constitute indecent exposure pursuant to section 800.03. Violation of section 800.03 is a misdemeanor of the first degree. § 800.03, Fla. Stat. (2009). There is no evidence in the record that Respondent was arrested or prosecuted for, convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to, a violation of section 800.03. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing At hearing, Demeritte testified that while she and Respondent were on duty inspecting the fence line or refueling vehicles or at other posts, Respondent exposed his penis to her on four separate occasions. In doing so, he would tell her to "look" and would watch her while exposing himself. Demeritte testified that on one of these occasions, he stroked his penis. Demeritte testified that she was uncomfortable and offended by Respondent's actions, that she considered his actions vulgar, and that on each occasion, she drove away. After she finally confronted Respondent, he apologized and never exposed himself to her again. The undersigned finds Demeritte's testimony credible and persuasive. Demeritte reported the incidents to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, not until the July 29, 2010, meeting did she report the incidents to Petitioner. Demeritte claimed that she did not report the incidents due to a "breach of confidentiality." No specific explanation was provided regarding what the breach of confidentiality entailed or why it deterred Demeritte from reporting the incidents before July 29, 2010. At the hearing, Respondent recanted his statement in his July 29, 2010, incident report that he had exposed his penis to Demeritte on one occasion. Respondent testified that the statements in his report were "sarcastic" and that he had needed more time to complete his incident report. However, Parrish credibly testified that near the end of the shift, Respondent told him he was still working on the incident report, but that at the end of the shift, Respondent provided the completed, signed, dated report and did not ask for more time to complete the report. Respondent denied having exposed his penis to Demeritte while on duty, and testified that he previously had performed as a dancer at private functions and that she may have seen his penis under those circumstances. Respondent's testimony on these points was not credible. Consistent with his incident report, Respondent testified that he and Demeritte engaged in discussions of a sexual nature on several occasions. There is no other evidence in the record directly corroborating or refuting this claim. However, the evidence does establish that around the time of the incidents at issue in this proceeding, there was discussion of, and rumors regarding, sexual matters between officers employed on the midnight shift at Miami-Dade CI. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds credible Respondent's account that he and Demeritte engaged in discussions of a sexual nature. The undersigned does not find credible any claim by Respondent that Demeritte wanted or asked him to expose his penis to her. However, the undersigned finds it plausible that Respondent may not have understood that Demeritte was offended by his actions, particularly if they engaged in discussions of a sexual nature, and also given that she did not tell him, until after the fourth incident, to not expose himself to her. Indeed, once she told him not to expose himself to her, his behavior ceased and he apologized. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent previously has been subject to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Findings of Ultimate Fact Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent exposed his penis to Demeritte on four separate occasions, in violation of section 800.03, and that in doing so, he failed to maintain good moral character, as required by section 943.13(7). Respondent's behavior in exposing himself to Demeritte was inappropriate and unacceptable. However, the undersigned finds that the circumstances afoot around the time of Respondent's actions——specifically, discussions and rumors of sexual matters between staff, discussions of a sexual nature between Respondent and Demeritte, and the fact that Demeritte did not tell Respondent to stop exposing himself to her until after he had done so four times——may have created an atmosphere that led Respondent, mistakenly, to believe that such behavior was not a significant departure from the accepted norm on the Miami-Dade CI midnight shift at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order suspending Respondent's correctional officer certification for a period of six months, imposing two years' probation, and ordering Respondent to undergo counseling. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 6th day of August, 2013.
