Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Ivan Carrandi (Carrandi), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 17, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Carrandi. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Carrandi had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Carrandi and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Carrandi filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Carrandi denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Carrandi on January 1, 1985, at which time he freely admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1980 and 1981, while a student at Miami Dade Community College, Carrandi used marijuana approximately two or three times and cocaine approximately two or three times. He has not, however, otherwise used controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Carrandi's background, that Carrandi possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana and cocaine approximately 8 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Carrandi, born November 12, 1960, used marijuana two or three times and cocaine two or three times about 8 years ago when he was 20-21 years of age and a student at Miami Dade Community College. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Carrandi has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Carrandi has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Ivan Carrandi, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the violations of Sections 943.13(7), 943.1395(7), and 800.03, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)b, concerning the licensure qualification of good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged, as pertinent, with licensure and regulation of the practice standards and practice of certified law enforcement officers, in the manner prescribed by Chapter 943, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was certified as a Law Enforcement Officer on May 8, 1995, and issued Certification Number 155216. The Respondent was a Fire Chief in Gulf Breeze, Florida, at times pertinent to this proceeding. On June 21, 2008, the Respondent went to the Edge of Paradise Day Spa (the Spa) as a customer seeking a massage. He arrived at about 5:45 p.m. The Spa is owned by Ms. Vickie Edge. She holds a Massage Establishment License and a Facial Specialist License issued by the State of Florida. The business is located in Destin, Florida, on Highway 98. It offers its customers massage therapy and various beauty treatments. It employed Jennifer Edwards, a state-licensed massage therapist, on June 21, 2008. Because he did not have an appointment, the Respondent had to wait until the massage therapist, Ms. Edwards, returned from a meal break. During this time he conversed with the owner, Ms. Edge, while he completed a "new customer form." The Respondent is a public servant and did not want his identity associated with patronizing a massage establishment. Ms. Edge assured him that customers often did not use their true identities, in completing the form, for this reason. The Respondent therefore entered a fictitious name, "Jim Martin" on the form, also stating that he was from Ohio. He told Ms. Edge that he was a guest at a nearby Days Inn motel and was in the area on business, working on a “Networking” job for a Pensacola bank. The customer form contained a notice to the effect that removal of all clothing was not required, that body parts not being massaged would be covered by a large sheet or towel, and that “. . . no reputable massage therapist will ever touch you in a sexual way.” The Respondent signed the form, with the fictitious name and phone number, and paid Ms. Edge a cash fee of $75.00 for a 60-minute massage. The massage therapist, Ms. Edwards, returned to the spa at about 6:10 p.m., accompanied by her friend, Karen Arrington. She met the Respondent (for the first time) and then went to the massage room to prepare for the Respondent’s massage. About five minutes later she showed the Respondent to the massage room. She told him to undress and lie face down on the massage table under a twin-size bed sheet. She told him to thus cover his "private areas" and to tuck the sheet under his hips. The Respondent agreed and, while Ms. Edwards was out of the room, he disrobed. After several minutes, Ms. Edwards knocked on the door and re-entered the room, finding the Respondent lying face down under the bed sheet. He was nude, except for the sheet covering him. Ms. Edwards pulled the sheet down to his lower back and began massaging his lower back, keeping his buttocks covered by the sheet. During this process the Respondent pulled the sheet down, exposing his buttocks. Ms. Edwards replaced the sheet, admonishing him to keep that area covered. Upon finishing with his back, Ms. Edwards told the Respondent to roll over and lie on his back while she continued with the massage. He was covered from the top of his back downward while this change of position was made. Ms. Edwards then continued with the massage. While thus lying on his back, the Respondent pulled the sheet down, exposing his erect penis to Ms. Edwards while she was about three feet away. She testified that she had never before seen a man’s penis like that, in that there was ". . . excess skin over the top of his penis." The Respondent acknowledged in testimony that he is uncircumcised. While thus exposed, the Respondent began to apparently masturbate, using his hand. Ms. Edwards was about three feet away at the time. She did not consent to this conduct and was very upset by such an act in front of her. Ms. Edwards ran out of the room and to the lobby area and told Ms. Edge that the Respondent was "back there jerking off.” She also told Ms. Arrington, and told her to call the police. The Respondent then dressed and came into the lobby. Ms. Edwards yelled at him that the spa was a respectable establishment and that the police were being called. Ms. Edwards tried to block his exit, but the Respondent fled the building at this point. Ms. Edwards followed him. Ms. Arrington was already outside speaking with the “911” operator on her cell phone. Ms. Arrington grabbed the Respondent by the shirt and confronted him, at which point he pushed her to the ground and fled on foot down the sidewalk along Highway 98. He left his car in the spa parking lot. Ms. Edwards and Ms. Arrington followed the Respondent, calling to him to stop and that the police were on their way. Ms. Arrington stopped and picked up a beer bottle and broke it, carrying it with her to use as a weapon. She testified that she feared the Respondent might do her violence if she confronted him. The chase continued for more than one-half mile. A deputy sheriff arrived and Ms. Arrington pointed out the Respondent. The deputy took him into custody. On his own volition, the Respondent told the deputy that he had scratched himself during a massage and the masseuse had gone “ballistic.” The Respondent stated that he had done nothing wrong. When the officer asked him why he fled, he replied that one of the women was throwing bottles at him. Both Ms. Edwards and Ms. Arrington wrote witness statements for the deputy. In testimony, Ms. Edwards described the Respondent’s act verbally and with an illustrative hand motion. She did not describe the duration of the act, as she observed it. The Respondent maintained that he was doing no such act, but rather was scratching himself because the sheet caused him to itch. The Respondent used false identification information when he went to the spa because he is a public servant (fire chief) and did not want adverse publicity associated with his paying for a massage during a time when employees were subject to lay-offs due to shrinking budgets. He did not flee in his car because he did not want his identity to become known through means of his tag number.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the record evidence and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, revoking the Respondent’s Law Enforcement Certification, Number 155216. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 3rd day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gene Mitchell, Esquire 2101 North 9th Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald M. Bailey, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Arthur Steinhardt, on September 27, 1972; July 5, 1973; and November 17, 1975 applied to take the examination given to applicants for registration as real estate salesman by the FREC. All of these applications were denied on grounds that applicant had failed to give complete answers to questions on the application and had failed to show that he met the statutory qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character. At the instant proceeding the FREC's attorney stipulated that the giving of incomplete answers on the application was no longer an issue and that the FREC had been fully apprised of the applicant's past record of conviction. Applicant, who is presently 59 years old, was convicted in 1969 of grand larceny and uttering a forgery, and sentenced to prison for a term of six months to three years. He was released after serving nineteen months and applied for a pardon on May 19, 1971. On June 15, 1972 he was granted a pardon and his civil rights were restored. Since his release from prison he has worked as office manager for his sister who is a licensed mortgage broker and real estate broker. Applicant filed for bankruptcy and was discharged by the referee in bankruptcy in 1973. For the past six years he has had no further brushes with the law. The conviction for which applicant was imprisoned involved a family dispute and the ownership of family assets is presently in litigation with applicant and his sister attempting to recover estate assets from a brother. One witness, a member of the Florida Bar, testified to the good character and business reputation of the Applicant. One affidavit of good character has been received as late-filed Exhibit 2.
The Issue Whether or not the application filed by the Petitioner, The Deli, Inc., t/a The Follies, to hold a new series 4-COP, SRX license with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, The Deli, Inc., t/a The Follies, made application to receive a series 4-COP-SRK license from the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This application was made on December 9, 1976 as shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence and made a part of this record. After reviewing the application the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Beverage, through its Director, filed a letter of disapproval of the application on January 27, 1977. A copy of this letter is Respondent's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence and made a part of this record. The letter of denial indicated that the reason for denial was based upon the fact that the corporate officer one, Eugene O. Bernard, was not of good moral character, within the meaning of s. 561.15, F.S. Mr. Bernard is the president of the Petitioner, corporation. In the course of the hearing the Petitioner produced witnesses who established Eugene O. Bernard to be a man of good moral character and in the course of that presentation made out a prima facie case to show good moral character. (It would appear from the position of the parties that the President, Eugene O. Bernard, is over the age of 21 years) The Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Beverage, failed to establish any evidence which would impute the individual good moral character of Eugene O. Bernard, president of the Petitioner, corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the facts as established in this cause it is recommended that any disapproval of the license application which has been made by the Petitioner, The Deli, Inc., t/a The Follies, for a new series 4-COP-SRX license to be held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, which disapproval is premised upon the lack of good moral character of the corporate officer, Eugene O. Bernard, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Katz, Jr., Esquire 337 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles T. Collett, Esquire Staff Attorney Office of the General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Wayne Martin Dean (Dean), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 24, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Dean.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Dean had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Dean and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly sold cannabis and have possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Dean filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Dean denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, Dean initially applied with the County for employment as a correctional officer in 1983. During the course of the pre- employment interview on that application, which occurred on August 30, 1983, Dean divulged that he had used marijuana so frequently as not to be able to recall the number of times he had used it, and estimated that during the course of the preceding twelve months that he had used marijuana 500 times. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Dean started using marijuana while in high school and that following 1979, when he dropped out of school, that such use gradually escalated until it reached the level of abuse noted in 1983. As a consequence of such disclosure, the County denied Dean's application for employment. Following the denial of his application, Dean resolved that if he were to ever better himself, it would be necessary to disassociate himself from the use of controlled substances. As a consequence, Dean has not used any controlled substance since November 1983. In 1985, Dean reapplied with the County for employment as a correctional officer. During the course of the pre-employment interview on that application, which occurred on March 19, 1985, Dean again conceded that he had previously used marijuana so frequently as not to be able to recall the number of times, but that the last time was in November 1983. Dean also divulged that he had used cocaine approximately three times in his life, the last time being in early 1983, and that he had sold marijuana three or four times, the last time being in early 1983, from which he had made about $15. Under the provisions of rule 11B-27.0011(2), the use of a controlled substance does not conclusively establish that an applicant lacks the good moral character necessary for certification unless such use was "proximate" to his application. The Commission has not defined the term "proximate," and offered no proof at hearing as to what it considers "proximate" usage within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2). Variously, the law enforcement agencies of the state have been left with no definitive guideline from the Commission, and have adopted various standards. Pertinent to this case, Dade County has adopted a term of one year as the standard by which it gauges the "proximate" use of a controlled substance to an application for employment. Under such policy, an applicant who has refrained from such use for at least one year preceding application will not be automatically rejected as lacking good moral character. Rather, the applicant's entire background will be evaluated to determine whether he currently possess the requisite moral character for employment. 4/ Here, Dean, born November 14, 1962, used marijuana extensively for the twelve-month period preceding November 1983, last used cocaine in or about March 1983, and last sold marijuana in or about March 1983. In light of such protracted and frequent use, Dean's application for employment should have been denied as having failed to evidence the requisite good moral character necessary for employment as a correctional officer. While Dean's application for employment should have been denied in 1985, this proceeding is a de novo hearing on his application for certification, and his qualifications are, therefore, evaluated as of the date of hearing. To date, Dean has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost four years. His annual evaluations have all been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Dean has demonstrated that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer. While he did use controlled substances until his twenty-first birthday, his resolve to disassociate himself from such practice is supported by the proof. Under such circumstances, Dean's contact with controlled substances over five and one-half years ago is not persuasive proof of bad moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Wayne Martin Dean, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th of June 1989.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 8, 1995, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Question 9 of the application asked about the applicant's criminal history. In response to this question, Petitioner answered in the affirmative and stated the following: On May 24, 1995 I pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense, possession of a forged instrument in the third degree... . Question 13 of the application inquired as to whether the applicant had ever resigned from a regulated profession. Petitioner answered this question in the affirmative and stated: On October 6, 1995, as a condition of my sentence in the criminal matter...I executed an Affidavit of Resignation from the Bar of the State of New York. Petitioner testified at hearing that the incident giving rise to misdemeanor offense to which he pleaded guilty involved a divorce matter he was handling for a client. While practicing law in the State of New York, Petitioner was retained to handle what he initially believed was an uncontested divorce. When it became apparent that the divorce was being contested, Petitioner attempted to withdraw from the case, but at the client's insistence never did so. During the ensuing months, the divorce matter was not resolved by Petitioner. Nevertheless, after being repeatedly contacted by the client regarding the status of the case, Petitioner gave the client what purported to be a copy of his divorce decree. According to Petitioner, he conformed the document and knew no decree had been signed. The conformed document was never filed with the court. Petitioner's actions led his client to believe that the client was divorced when, in fact, he was not divorced. Petitioner was forthright in revealing his conviction and resignation from the New York Bar and acknowledged that his action was "a terrible mistake in judgment." While he admitted "there's no excuse for what I did," Petitioner attributed the incident to the stress in his life at the time caused by a myriad of circumstances. Among these circumstances was the illness and subsequent death of Petitioner's only law partner in his two-attorney law practice. Because of this, Petitioner's caseload increased significantly causing him to feel "overwhelmed." During this time period, Petitioner was also dealing with family problems related to the serious health problems of his parents. Petitioner pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense, possession of a forged instrument, and was convicted of the same. As a result thereof, on October 6, 1995, Petitioner was sentenced to three years probation. At the time of this hearing, Petitioner had served less than one year of his probationary period. Petitioner's probation will expire on October 5, 1998. At hearing, Petitioner presented numerous letters from family, friends, and business associates attesting to his good character. However, all the letters are based on these individuals' experiences and relationships with Petitioner prior to his October 1995 conviction. Petitioner appears remorseful about his prior conduct and has a sincere desire to be rehabilitated. However, Petitioner presented no evidence regarding his present character as reflected by his good conduct and reputation. Absent from the record is testimony from friends, relatives, business associates, employers, or church members regarding Petitioner's honesty, truthfulness, or trustworthiness subsequent to the date he pled guilty to possession of a forged instrument.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CARLOYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-647 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Alan Burton 10098 Dunkirk Road Spring Hill, Florida 34608 William N. Halpern Assistant Attorney General South Tower, Suite 107 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, John Hawks (Hawks), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hawks. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hawks had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hawks and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly cultivated and delivered cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hawks filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hawks denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hawks on January 25, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had, three years previously, grown four marijuana plants which he had given away, and that he had on another occasion, three years previously, delivered one ounce of marijuana to a friend. The circumstances surrounding these incidents were further developed at hearing. There, the proof demonstrated that in or about 1982, Hawks was employed by the Metro-Dade Water and Sewer Authority on a survey crew. While working in the field, Hawks stumbled upon a marijuana plant, which was identified to him by a coworker. Having never seen a marijuana plant before, Hawks took 3-4 seeds back to his home and planted them to see what they would do. What they did, following his fertilization, was die when they had matured to the stature of approximately one inch. Following their death, Hawks permitted a coworker to take the plants. Regarding his delivery of one ounce of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that in or about 1982, Hawks was about to go to Broward County to visit a friend when another friend, aware of the pending visit, asked him to deliver a package to the same friend. Hawks did so, and after delivering the package learned for the first time that it contained one ounce of marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hawks' background, that Hawks possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidences. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hawks, born November 13, 1957, delivered a package which contained, unbeknownst to him, one ounce of marijuana and grew four marijuana plans to a stature of approximately one inch approximately 7 years ago. Considering the nature of such acts, their isolation and lack of timeliness to the pending application, and Hawks' age at the time, they are hardly persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Hawks has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hawks has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, John Hawks, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Should Petitioner, Darius Jermaine Santiago's, application for a real estate sales associate license be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a real estate sales associate. He is 36 years old and has lived in Florida since June 2004. He works in a Subway restaurant. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate professionals in the State of Florida and has the statutory authority to approve or deny Petitioner's application. Petitioner’s application discloses the following criminal offenses: Indecent exposure [Exposed sexual organ to law enforcement officer] Volusia County, Florida Date of offense 7/28/2005 Pled no contest; adjudication withheld, 6 mos. probation, fined. Possession of cannabis, possession of narcotic paraphernalia, [Possession of cannabis not more than 20 grams] Volusia County, Florida Date of offense 2/9/2009 Completed a “Level I” program, charge Nolle Prosequi Trespassing of conveyance [Accused of entering a truck without permission] Volusia County, Florida Date of offense 5/12/2009 In February, 2010, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge referenced in 3c. He has performed 15 of 25 hours of community service imposed by the Court. On October 2, 2009, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for real estate sales associate licensure. The stated reasons listed in the Notice of Intent to Deny are: C. Having engaged in conduct or practices which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181, F.S. Convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. 475.25(1)(f), 475.181, F.S. Applicant has not had sufficient lapse of time, without government supervision, to establish rehabilitation by being crime free. M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Darius Jermaine Santiago’s application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Darius Jermaine Santiago 1534 Dunlap Drive Deltona, Florida 32725 Thomas W. O’Bryant Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie A. Owens, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 27, 1984, and was issued Certificate Number 02-84-002-01. In February, 1985, the Respondent was employed in a training position as a Highway Patrol Officer and had been in that position for about twelve months in February, 1985. T. 64. On the evening of February 10, 1985, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Officer initiated an investigation into a complaint of involuntary sexual battery alleged to have been committed by the Respondent on February 9, 1985. T. 9-10, 24, 13. (The Respondent has not been charged with this offense in this case.) Pursuant to that investigation, between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 A.M. on February 11, 1985, Detective David Gee, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by Lieutenant P. E. Dixon, Florida Highway Patrol, Lieutenant Maxwell, and others, drove to the residence of the Respondent. T. 10, 25. The Respondent came to the door fully dressed and was reasonably alert. T. 18-19. The Respondent was asked if the group could come inside his residence, and he invited them in. T. 25. After the group was inside, Detective Gee stated that the Respondent was a suspect in a sexual battery case. T. 25, 65, 11. Detective Gee then advised the Respondent of his rights pursuant to the Miranda requirements. T. 25, 11-12. The Respondent signed a waiver of rights form and consented to be questioned at that time, and did not ask to have a lawyer present. T. 11-12. During the interview inside, the Respondent and Detective Gee were sitting on a couch. T. 15. The Respondent said that he had had a female companion (the alleged victim) in his home on the night of February 9, 1985, (he was not on-duty) and that she had produced some marijuana that she had brought with her to the Respondent's home. T. 14-15. The Respondent said that he and she smoked two marijuana cigarettes, characterized in this record by one law enforcement witness as a small amount of marijuana. T. 14-15, 29. Detective Gee then looked into an ashtray that was directly in front of him on a coffee table in front of the couch and saw the end of one used marijuana cigarette. T. 15. He asked the Respondent if that were part of the marijuana and the Respondent said yes, it was. T. 15. The used bit of marijuana was very small, the cigarette having been burned all the way to the end of the paper. T. 16-17. There was only one used marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. T. 15. (There is a conflict of testimony as to whether there were one or two remains of marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. Detective Gee is credited with the more reliable memory of what was in the ashtray since he was the one who took the substance into custody.) Detective Gee then seized the bit of marijuana, which was in his plain view. T. 17. He did not have a search warrant. T. 33. The bit of substance seized by Detective Gee was cannabis or marijuana. T. 15, 16-17, 26-29. Detective Gee had permission to search the residence of the Respondent, but there is no evidence that the Respondent had any other marijuana or any other controlled substance in his possession. T. 34-35, 36-37, 66-67. Detective Gee did not have the substance analyzed to determine chemically if it was cannabis because he did not intend to charge the Respondent with a crime. T. 22. The authorities did not charge the Respondent with any crime connected with the substance found in the ashtray. T. 19-20. The Respondent had possession of the bit of marijuana seized by Detective Gee because he knew what it was and it was under his control and possession in his home, and his female companion was no longer there. Additionally, the Respondent possessed and consumed some small portion of marijuana provided to him by his female companion on February 9, 1985. The record does not contain precise evidence as to the amount, but it may be inferred from the visual evidence and testimony that the amount was substantially less than 20 grams. A law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce laws forbidding the possession and use of controlled substances. T. 30. A Highway Patrol Officer normally is assigned alone in a car, without direct supervision. T. 30-31. Such an officer may, on occasion, have a duty to seize controlled substances and destroy the same if a charge of illegal possession or use is not to be filed. T. 32. Saving the controlled substance for personal use would be a violation of that duty. Id. In such event, it is likely that there would be little complaint from the motorist from whom the controlled substance was seized. There have been no complaints concerning the work performed by the Respondent while employed by the Highway Patrol. T. 33. He is considered to be honest and trustworthy by reputation. T. 59-60.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter its final order finding that the charge of a lack of good moral character has not been proven, that the law enforcement certificate issued to the Respondent, Willie A. Owens, not be revoked, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. HEARING OFFICER Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4141 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact; by number, which have been rejected in this recommended order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 4-5. It appears that the Respondent was advised of the purpose of the visit after the group had entered, but the fact is not important to the result in the case. 8-9. It is true that both Detective Gee and Lieutenant Dixson have had significant experience in the identification of cannabis, but the proposed finding is subordinate. 9. The testimony of Detective Gee, that the remains of only one cigarette was in the ashtray, is adopted in this recommended order. 11. Rejected as not credible. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Two cigarettes were involved initially. While possession originated with the Respondent's companion, the Respondent then also possessed the cannabis. Rejected as not credible and contrary to the evidence. 8-9. The testimony of the Respondent (admission), Lieutenant Dixson, and Detective Gee was sufficient to establish the character of the substance as cannabis. 10. The evidence cited to support this proposed finding concerning an act of bravery has been ruled inadmissible. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin P. Jackson, Esquire 400 East Buffalo Avenue, Suite 110 Tampa, Florida 33603 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary (Lamary), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since October 23, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lamary.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lamary had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Lamary and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lamary filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Lamary denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Lamary on March 10, 1985, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Lamary used marijuana no more than five times, and more probably three times, and that she last used marijuana in 1982 when she was in high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lamary's background, that Lamary possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Lamary, born July 8, l964, used marijuana no more than five times, the last time being over 7 years ago when she was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ To date, Lamary has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over four years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Lamary has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June 1989.
