The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s application for a real estate associates’ license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate sales associates and brokers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2009). Petitioner is a retired individual from Exxon. He worked as a research technologist for Exxon for 34 years. As such, he traveled extensively both in-state and out-of-state for the company. He retired in late 2008 and moved to Florida, shortly thereafter. He lives in Florida with his wife and two step-sons and worked for a brief time in a real estate sales office. During that experience he became interested in obtaining a real estate sales associates’ license and applied for licensure around March 2009. In 1998 or 1999, Petitioner lived in Louisiana where he resided with his daughter. On three separate occasions he either inappropriately touched his daughter in a sexual manner or she inappropriately touched him in a sexual manner. His daughter was about nine years old at the time of the three incidents. However, Petitioner’s actions were not reported to law enforcement until sometime in 2002. In October, 2002, Petitioner was charged with three counts of molestation of a juvenile and aggravated incest in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisana. On September 10, 2003, Petitioner plead guilty to three counts of molestation of a juvenile and was sentenced to five years of supervised probation with a variety of conditions. The evidence showed that supervised probation in Lousiana is similar to house arrest in Florida. During his supervision, Petitioner participated in and completed therapy with his daughter and ex-wife. According to Petitioner, he made amends to both his daughter and other members of her extended family. His daughter, who is now in college, regularly calls him on the phone, visits him in Florida and stays at his house. He testified that they have a close relationship and she has forgiven him. However, Petitioner’s daughter did not testify at the hearing. Indeed, Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay corroboration of his good character or his rehabilitation. Given this lack of evidence, the record is insufficient to establish that Petitioner now has good moral character or rehabilitated himself. Petitioner also testified that after his convictions, he returned to work at Exxon and frequently traveled with special travel permits from the Court and GPS tracking, both in- state and out-of-state, for the company. However, without more details from a credible source, these facts do not establish good moral character or rehabilitation. Petitioner completed his sentence in September 2008, and moved to Florida. He has not had any further criminal involvement with the law. Unfortunately, because of his record, he has had great difficulty finding employment. Petitioner worked as an assistant in a real estate office for about three months; his contact with the public was limited. His work in the real estate office precipitated Petitioner’s interest in becoming licensed. Petitioner testified that the agent he worked for was willing to hire him at his office. This agent did not testify at the hearing. Again, Petitioner’s testimony, by itself, is insufficient to establish good moral character. Additionally, there has been insufficient time between his release from supervision and the date of the hearing (approximately two years). Given these facts, Petitioner’s application should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner has been rehabilitated sufficient to show good moral character and denying Petitioner’s application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvah T. Wickboldt 1150 Fort Pickens Road, Unit F-1 Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Special Counsel Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West 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
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, Humberto Jimenez (Jimenez), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two and one-half years, 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 Jimenez. 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 Jimenez 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 Jimenez 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, Jimenez filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Jimenez denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.OO11 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 Jimenez on July 24, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana in the past. His use of cocaine occurred in 1983, when he was 19 years of age, and consisted of using the drug twice on the same day. His use of marijuana occurred in 1981 or 1982, while he was a high school student, and occurred on no more than four occasions. But for these isolated occasions, Jimenez has not used cocaine or marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Jimenez's background, that Jimenez possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of cocaine and marijuana. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Jimenez, born January 1, 1964, used marijuana infrequently, the last time being about 7 years ago when he was 17 years of age and a high school student. His use of cocaine occurred on but one day in his life, and at the time he was 19 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/ Currently, Jimenez is married and the father of a fourteen-month-old daughter. He has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two and one-half years. His annual evaluations demonstrated that his performance has been 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, Jimenez 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, Humberto Jimenez, 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 Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in an Amended Administrative Complaint dated January 31, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Dieguez is a certified law enforcement officer employed by the Sweetwater Police Department. As such, he holds a position of high trust. Dieguez abused that trust by failing to maintain good moral character. Specifically, he sexually abused a minor over a period of years, and lied under oath to law enforcement officers investigating the abuse. For almost a decade, Dieguez was in a relationship of trust with a young girl (the victim). Dieguez abused that trust by taking advantage of his access to the victim to sexually violate her on repeated occasions, beginning when she was well below the age of consent. Dieguez maintained the victim's silence by virtue of his position of authority over her. More specifically, at all times material to this case, Dieguez is the primary breadwinner for the victim, the victim's mother, and the victim's two siblings. Dieguez alternated acts of kindness and generosity toward the victim with threats and intimidation. Dieguez also left a paper trail which, for reasons set forth below, provided clear and convincing evidence of his guilty knowledge of his improper conduct toward the victim. Dieguez created at least three documents which he referred to as "contracts" between himself and the victim. The contracts first came to light on February 15, 2001, when the victim's mother accompanied her daughter to the Metro-Dade Police Department to lodge an abuse complaint against Dieguez. At that time, the victim told investigators, "He wrote me contracts, like stating something in return, like touching my vagina, having sexual intercourse, or me to ejaculate him." In the context of Dieguez' relationship with the victim and, more significantly, in considering the "contracts" as a whole, it is clear that the contracts were part of an ongoing scheme by Dieguez to induce the victim to continue to submit to him sexually, and to maintain silence about the abuse. Within days of filing the complaint, the victim's mother had a change of heart. Henceforth, and through the date of the hearing, she impeded the investigation by actively discouraging her daughter from cooperating with investigators. Dieguez was nevertheless questioned under oath about the abuse allegations by duly-authorized investigating officers. He denied any improper conduct towards the victim. In May 2001, three documents matching the victim's description of the "contracts" were found in the trunk of Sweetwater police vehicle number 953. Specifically, the documents were located underneath a lining attached to the spare tire compartment. Vehicle number 953 had previously been assigned to Dieguez. The handwriting on the documents was matched to Dieguez. The "contracts," which were admitted into evidence without objection, speak loudly regarding the improper nature of Dieguez' relationship to the victim. At the time of the final hearing, the victim, then 19, testified in support of Dieguez, claiming that she had lied to investigators, and to friends, about having been abused by him. By the time of the hearing, the victim had, as one of the investigating officers put it, "flipped twice" as to whether she had in fact been abused by Dieguez. The victim was accompanied to the hearing by an attorney, who entered an appearance on her behalf but made no motions. The victim's mother was also present with Respondent. The trier-of-fact carefully observed the young woman's demeanor under oath and has no hesitation in saying that her purported denial of abuse served instead to corroborate the "contracts" in which Dieguez documents the true and improper nature of his conduct toward the victim. The victim was plainly in distress as she gave her testimony. She claimed, unpersuasively, not to remember details of her allegations, nor of the investigation itself. She claimed not to have spoken with her mother about her allegations against Dieguez at any time after February 15, 2001. In fact, she denied speaking to anybody about the allegations, including the attorney who was present on her behalf. Under all the circumstances, the "contacts" in Dieguez' handwriting affirmatively and compellingly demonstrate the unreliability of the victim’s in court denial of abuse. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its law enforcement officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that officers who lack good moral character may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement. Making a false statement under oath is an independent ground upon which a law enforcement officer's license may be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dieguez's law enforcement certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teri Guttman Valdez, Esquire 1550 Madruga Avenue, Suite 323 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Rod Caswell, 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
The Issue Whether respondent should deny petitioner's application for a real estate salesman's license because she set fire to her car in Holyoke, Massachusetts, in 1989?
Findings Of Fact The mother of four children, Carmen R. Torres lived in Springfield, Massachusetts, for the ten years preceding her move to the vicinity of Williston, Florida, on March 9, 1990, when her husband retired. A homemaker, she did not work outside the home. In 1989, she bought a brand new Renault Alliance, paying the dealer cash she borrowed elsewhere. Although the car was "no good," the dealer would not honor the warranty. Intending to destroy the car in order to collect insurance money, she threw a bottle of gasoline inside the car, then lit it. Afterwards she regretted what she had done, decided against submitting an insurance claim, cancelled the insurance policy that covered the car, and gave the car away for parts. She testified convincingly that she has never done anything remotely like this, before or since, and that she was "not the type of person to do that." T.13. Six months later she told a fireman she had set the car on fire, and the prosecutor's office was notified. Eventually petitioner was found guilty of a type of arson, fined $500 and required to perform community service, all of which she disclosed on her application for licensure. Since the move to Florida, petitioner has enjoyed an excellent reputation among her new neighbors. She and her husband have built a house on a 1.25 acre lot in Williston Highlands, "the nicest home . . . in [the] whole development." T.17. She and her husband keep the lawn "manicured." In Florida, she worked three months as a cashier for Kwik King. Since her brush with the law in Massachusetts, she has had no encounter with any law enforcement officer.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent grant petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate agent. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 30th day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson St. P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Carmen R. Torres P.O. Box 63 Morriston, FL 32668 Joselyn M. Price, Esquire Suite 107 South 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801
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, James Battle (Battle), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 1988, 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 Battle. 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 Battle 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 Battle 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 cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Battle filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Battle 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 record, 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 Battle on December 18, 1987, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1982 and 1983, while a junior and senior in high school, Battle used marijuana approximately 15 times. He has not used marijuana since his graduation from high school in 1983, and has never used any other form of controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Battle's background, that Battle possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana during high school. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Battle, born May 18, 1965, used marijuana approximately 15 times, the last time being over 6 years ago when he was 18 years of age and a senior in high school. He has not used marijuana since, and has never used any other form of controlled substance. 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, Battle has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately one year. His evaluations have been 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. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, and following his graduation from high school, Battle has been continuously employed. Additionally, he has served in the National Guard for almost five years, and attained the rank of E3. Overall, Battle 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, James Battle, 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, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
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, Arvis Bethel (Bethel), 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 Bethel.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 Bethel 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 Bethel 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. You have unlawfully committed an assault and battery on Louie F. Clayton. You have unlawfully and knowingly purchased stolen property. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Bethel filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Bethel 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 Bethel on October 7, 1985, at which time he divulged that he had purchased stolen property a few times, so long ago as to not exactly remember when; had used marijuana, although he could not recall the number of times, 12- 13 years before the interview; and had tried cocaine twice, 3-4 years before the interview. Also conceded by Bethel was his conviction in 1965 of assault and battery. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Bethel's background, that Bethel possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing incidents. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, the proof demonstrates that at some time prior to 1966, the exact date not being known due to the passage of time, Bethel did receive a few auto parts which, although he did not know at the time he received them, were apparently stolen property. At the time, Bethel and his friends raced cars and in the process of maintaining their cars traded parts. Such was the circumstance under which Bethel, who was then not more that 20 years of age, having been born October 1, 1944, received parts which later proved to have been stolen. On June 2, 1965, Bethel, then 20 years of age, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, of assault and battery, a misdemeanor, and served four months in the Dade County Jail. That conviction, which occurred almost 25 years ago, arose as a consequence of a fight Bethel had with one Louie F. Clayton. On September 26, 1986, Bethel entered the United States Army where he served honorably for over six years. By the time he was discharged on February 9, 1973, he had been promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, had served two tours of duty in Vietnam, and had been awarded, among other indicia of distinguished service, the Army Commendation Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, and Good Conduct Medal. Admittedly, while in Vietnam, Bethel used marijuana, however, since that time, a period of over 16 years, he has not used it. Following his discharge from the service in 1973, Bethel was employed by Florida Portland Cement Company, and was continuously employed by such company, except for the period of July 1976 through January 1977, until it went out of business in 1984. During the period of July 1976 through January 1977, Bethel, along with other employees of Portland Cement, suffered a brief layoff. During that period, Bethel was employed as a corrections officer by the Department of Corrections in Florida City, albeit without certification. The only recent blemish on Bethel's record is his use of cocaine on two occasions in 1981 or 1982, during the course of his divorce. Such conduct is atypical of Bethel's character, and his remorse for having used such substance is credited. In light of the circumstances, such usage is not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Bethel has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three and one- half 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. Bethel is now, and has been for some time, a respected member of the community. He is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Masons. He has attended Miami Dade Community College where he has amassed 78 semester credits. During the last semester he attended, the winter term which ended March 1, 1986, Bethel carried 18 semester hours of class work, and received a 3.33 grade average out of a possible 4.0. Overall, Bethel 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, Arvis Bethel, 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 day of June 1989.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a building inspector on August 6, 2003. The application was reviewed by Respondent and subsequently denied on the basis that it contained “materials which questions [sic] the good moral character of Petitioner,” and that Petitioner’s application "failed to provide complete supporting documentation relating to all previous disciplinary actions which could also impact a determination concerning [Petitioner's] moral character." No notification that Petitioner’s application lacked supporting documentation was sent by the Department to Petitioner. Petitioner’s application lists prior convictions for traffic-related offenses, such as careless driving, driving with a suspended license, and DUI. Petitioner has never been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, false statement, fraud, or theft. Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony. Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time that all of the traffic-related offenses were committed. Petitioner is now a recovering alcoholic who has been actively involved with Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) for over three years on a voluntary basis. His sobriety date is May 25, 2001. The sobriety date is important because it marks the date when an alcoholic makes and implements a commitment to a new way of life. AA operates on the principle generally accepted by the medical community that alcoholism is a disease, and not a moral issue. AA operates on the principle that although there is no cure for alcoholism, there is a daily reprieve. AA is a 12-step program providing guidelines to living. AA works only if the alcoholic follows the twelve steps to the best of his or her ability. A person who is not willing to change his or her life cannot be helped by AA. AA is an ongoing lifetime process of personal improvement, the pinnacle of which is service to others. Petitioner is a totally different person now as compared to the way he used to be. Petitioner admits that his alcohol-related impairment was the primary cause of the episodes of misconduct prior to his commitments to a life of sobriety and to the principles of the AA program. Petitioner’s last criminal conviction was in 1998. Since becoming sober, Petitioner purchased his own home and recently married. Petitioner is an officer in his AA home group, with responsibilities that include overseeing the group’s activities, setting up meetings, chairing meetings, providing coffee, and paying rent for the meeting site with monies that the group has entrusted to him. Petitioner regularly chairs his home group meetings, and has spoken on alcohol-related issues to several other community groups, including the Salvation Army and the Comprehensive Alcohol Rehabilitation Program. Petitioner has become a person of integrity who cares about others, reaching out to new AA attendees as a mentor. Petitioner has been regularly employed since he stopped drinking. Joe Iagrossi has known Petitioner for a little more than two years. Petitioner is employed by Iagrossi’s company, Construction Inspections of the Palm Beaches. Iagrossi considers Petitioner to be a reliable, honest, and truthful employee, trusts Petitioner’s judgment, and has confidence in his work. Iagrossi believes that Petitioner has the ability to distinguish right from wrong, as well as the character to observe the difference. There have never been any conduct issues with Petitioner, and he possesses a good reputation within the company. Iagrossi is of the opinion that Petitioner can practice building inspection with reasonable skill and safety to the general public. Richard Sussan is Petitioner’s AA sponsor and has known Petitioner for two years. Sussan considers Petitioner a person of integrity, who cares about others, is reliable and honest, and is very committed to AA. Petitioner is a member of, and is actively involved with the activities of, Christ Fellowship Church. Petitioner is a regular volunteer in the church’s Special Needs Ministry. The Special Needs Ministry is a program which allows families of children with special needs to attend regular church services by providing volunteers to watch the special needs children during that time. For the past two years Petitioner has volunteered every other Sunday to watch a special needs child so that the child's parents can attend church services. Petitioner is highly regarded by church officials and church members who know him, and in that group he enjoys a reputation of being very reliable, honest, and a person of integrity and good morals. Petitioner worked for the architectural firm of Ames Bennett & Associates, P.A. for fifteen years. Petitioner’s duties included field inspections for residential and commercial projects, for code and contract compliance, from geotechnical and foundation through trim work, ADA, and fire safety oversight. Petitioner also managed the office, paid bills, interviewed job applicants, and showed new employees inspection techniques. Petitioner passed the Southern Building Code Congress International certification examination for Building Inspector on November 20, 2001. Petitioner passed the International Code Council certification examination for Building Inspector on September 18, 2003. Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code governs enforcement of the Florida Americans with Disabilities and Accessibility Implementation Act. The Act defines “disability” as “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and includes alcoholism."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a building inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 9th day of August, 2004.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman on or about January 22, 1991. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on or about April 25, 1991. The sole basis for Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was Petitioner's status as a defendant in multiple civil lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Petitioner voluntarily stated in answer to Question 8(b) on his application that he was a defendant in those suits. The lawsuits at issue arose from the failure of Centrust Savings Bank. Petitioner was President of Centrust Savings from sometime in February, 1988, to sometime in July, 1989. Petitioner served on the Board of Directors of Centrust from sometime in August, 1987, to sometime in July, 1989. The lawsuits allege that Petitioner and other officers and directors of Centrust breached their fiduciary duties to the corporation and violated federal securities laws. The allegations against Petitioner in the law suits at issue are nothing more than allegations in civil suits. Petitioner has motions to dismiss in each law suit. There has been no judicial determination or finding of wrongdoing by Petitioner in any of the law suits in which Petitioner is a named defendant. The uncontroverted evidenced established that Petitioner is an honest, truthful, and trustworthy individual. Petitioner is of good moral character and has an impeccable reputation for honesty and fair dealing in the business community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of January 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of January 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s license as a corrections officer should be disciplined, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a certified Corrections Officer, certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, holding certification number 286299. Sometime in 2012, Respondent’s brother, Jeremiah Grzegorczyk, had an agreement with Ms. Mears to watch her apartment while she was on vacation. At the time, Respondent's brother was friends with Ms. Mears and had helped her in the past by letting her stay at Respondent's brother's trailer when she did not have a place to stay. However, while Respondent was aware of who Ms. Mears was and that she was a friend of his brother, he did not otherwise know her and did not know how to contact her. At some point, Respondent's brother told Respondent that Ms. Mears informed Respondent's brother that she was not coming back to Blountstown and that he could have whatever items were left in the apartment after Ms. Mears’ mother removed the items she wanted since any leftover furniture and other items were going to be thrown out. Because Respondent had a truck, Respondent's brother asked Respondent for help removing items from Ms. Mears’ apartment. Respondent agreed to help his brother move the items out of Ms. Mears' apartment. Upon arriving at the apartment, Respondent's brother opened the door. The apartment had boxes and trash scattered around. It smelled and appeared to have been abandoned with many things already removed from the apartment by someone. There was no DVD player or Playstation 3 game box in the apartment. Further, the look and condition of the apartment corroborated the story Respondent's brother gave to Respondent regarding the non- return of Ms. Mears and disposition of the property that remained in the apartment. At some point during the removal, Respondent's brother spoke to Ms. Mears on his cell phone and talked about picking up items from her apartment. Respondent was aware of the call but was not privy to the entire phone conversation. However, Ms. Mears was aware that some of her furnishings had been removed from her apartment and that Respondent's brother had removed some items. Respondent and his brother divided the various items of property between them. Respondent retained various kitchen items, used DVDs, a broken lamp, dresser, small dresser, mirror, king-size bed, and bedspread. At the time, the furnishings that Respondent retained smelled so bad that he could not put them inside his trailer. As a result, he left them in his front yard for several days to allow them to air out. During that time, Respondent cleaned several of the items with household cleaner in order to remove the smell and dirt from them before moving them into his home. Ms. Mears, at formal hearing, set a value of the items recovered from Respondent’s home at approximately $500. However, this value is not credible given the property's condition and the heavily-used nature of the items that were taken. In fact, there was no credible evidence that the value of this used property exceeded $300.00. Unfortunately, Respondent had no knowledge that Ms. Mears had not given the property remaining in her apartment to Respondent's brother and was duped by his brother into removing some of Ms. Mears’ possessions from her apartment. In fact, Respondent's brother admitted lying to Respondent regarding the circumstances surrounding the removal of the furniture in Ms. Mears' apartment. Clearly, Respondent did not have the intent to deprive Ms. Mears of her property and reasonably believed the property he had retained belonged to him. Around January 23, 2012, the Blountstown Police Department was notified by Christina Mears, who had returned to town, that property belonging to her had been removed "without her knowledge" from her apartment by Respondent's brother. As a result of the complaint by Ms. Mears, an investigation was initiated by Captain Timothy Partridge, who at the time was a Lieutenant with the Blountstown Police Department. Utilizing the information supplied by Ms. Mears, Captain Partridge contacted the brother of Respondent. During questioning Respondent's brother admitted that he, with the help of Respondent, made two trips to Ms. Mears apartment and removed various items from her apartment. Respondent's brother also told the investigator that he was in possession of some of the items and Respondent was in possession of the remainder. After interviewing the brother, the investigator went to talk to Respondent at his mobile home. During the conversation, the investigator told Respondent that he was investigating a theft of property from Ms. Mears' apartment and showed Respondent a list of generically named items that had been reported by Ms. Mears as stolen. The items listed were: 1 mislaneous (sic) purple tub kitchen items, 1 mis (sic) purple tub, DVDs and PS-3 items, 1 bedspread, 1 dresser, 1 small dresser, 1 king-size bed set, 1 lamp, 1 misalanious (sic) green tub and 1 mirror. Captain Partridge told Respondent that his brother said these items were at Respondent's home. He also told Respondent that the items on the list were considered stolen. At this point, Respondent was very confused by the story Captain Partridge was telling him and the story his brother had told him when they went to pick up the property. He was not sure that the items on the list were the same items he had retained from Ms. Mears' apartment. Respondent wanted to find out what was going on and asked either for Ms. Mears' phone number or to be allowed to call Ms. Mears. Captain Partridge turned down Respondent's request. However, Respondent continued to want to talk to either Ms. Mears or his brother before anything else happened. Respondent told the investigator that he did not know the items were stolen and that the only thing he had ownership of which might have been questionable ("stolen") was a broken lamp. He indicated that the reason the ownership of the lamp was in question was that, while he thought the lamp had belonged to Ms. Mears, he did not know for sure that it was hers since it had been located on the common area shared by another apartment, but appeared associated with Ms. Mears' apartment. Respondent retrieved the lamp from inside his trailer and turned it over to Captain Partridge. However, Respondent refused to allow a search of his home for the remainder of the reported stolen items because he wanted to ask his brother and Ms. Mears what was going on since, as indicated, he was confused by what his brother had told him and what the investigator was telling him. Respondent did not have, and the evidence did not show that Respondent had, intent to steal or deprive Ms. Mears' of her property, but only wanted to resolve his confusion over its ownership. The investigator left a uniformed officer at Respondent's home and obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of the home. Thereafter, officers searched the home of Respondent and recovered various kitchen items, used DVDs, a dresser, small dresser, mirror, king-size bed, and bedspread identified by Ms. Mears as belonging to her. Respondent was arrested and eventually charged with theft. Based on the charges he lost his job at the local prison where he had been employed as a corrections officer. However, as indicated above, Respondent never intended to steal or deprive Ms. Mears of her property and was not guilty of theft. As such, the evidence did not show that Respondent failed to maintain good moral character and the Administrative Complaint charging such failure should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 lintoneason@fdle.state.fl.us Scott D. Grzegorczyk (address of record) Jennifer Cook Pritt, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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, Steven Albert (Albert), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 19, 1988, 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 Albert. 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 Albert 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 Albert 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, Albert filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Albert 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 Albert on July 23, 1987, at which time he admitted that during the course of his military service he had been involved with controlled substances. Here, the proof demonstrates that Albert joined the United States Air Force on March 31, 1975, at the age of 19, following his graduation from high school. During the course of such service, he experimented with cocaine, qualudes and "speed" a few times, the last time being in 1980 or 1981; used marijuana occasionally, the last time being in 1981; and sold or attempted to sell one ounce of marijuana on three separate occasions, the last being in 1981. On January 2, 1981, following his receipt of an Article 15, an administrative form of discipline, for possession of marijuana, Albert received a general discharge, under honorable conditions, from the military. Since that time, Albert has not used, bought or sold any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Albert's background, that Albert possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Albert used controlled substances, and sold or attempted to sell marijuana on 3 occasions, the last time being over 8 years ago when he was 26 years of age. Since that time he has had no contact with controlled substances. Under such circumstances, his prior contact with controlled substances is not proximate within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Albert has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. His performance has ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, he has received two commendations, 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, and of good moral character. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Albert was employed as a security guard for a private company, and was duly licensed by the State of Florida as an unarmed officer. Overall, Albert, now 34 years of age, 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, Steven Albert, 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 day of June, 1989.
