Findings Of Fact 11. The factual allegations contained in the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 19, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 7, 2011, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17, 2012, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On May 19, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-164-1A to WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On May 19, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On June 2, 2011, the Department received an Election of Proceeding requesting administrative review (“Petition”) from WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 4. On June 7, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment amended the legal name of the employer to WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $43,256.29 against WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment includéd a Notice of Rights wherein WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 5. On June 23, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On July 13, 2011, the Department received an amended Election of Proceeding form (“Amended Petition”) from WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 11-6178. A copy of the Amended Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. Following issuance of subsequent Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment, on February 17, 2012, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $4,708.85 against WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 8. On April 5, 2012, the Department filed a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment with the Division of Administrative Hearings in DOAH Case No. 11-6178. A copy of the Department’s Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment together with the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. On April 18, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Granting Motion to Amend Penalty Assessment in DOAH Case No. 11-6178. The Order Granting Motion to Amend Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On April 30, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction due to Respondent’s failure to participate in discovery and appear at the scheduled formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 11-6178. A copy of the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact The facts as alleged in the Informations and supported by Exhibits 1 - 7, are that on April 12, 1972 Respondent Goodwin's office accepted a listing contract with the owners of this property and submitted same to the Multiple Listing Service of the Cape Coral Board of Realtors. A subsequent multiple listing dated June 12, 1972 was also submitted to the Multiple Listing Service of the Cape Coral Board of Realtors. Thereafter, on June 16, 1972 the property was leased to one Sommers for a period of one year. This lease made no provision for termination of the lease or vacation of the premises in the event the property was sold. Thereafter on August 18, 1972 Respondent Ketridge obtained an offer to purchase the property and submitted same to Respondent Goodwin. The contract provided inter alia that possession of the property go to buyer as of date of closing. This offer was subsequently accepted by the owners of the property. The Informations further contained allegations that the purchasers of the property were assured that their offer would be accepted; and that they returned to Minnesota, sold their home and moved their possessions to Cape Coral in anticipation of moving into the residence upon date of closing. In an amended answer to the information and interrogatories filed by Respondent Goodwin on December 8, 1975 Respondent Goodwin requested a continuance of this hearing in order to allow time to obtain an attorney. By order dated December 12, 1975 the hearing officer, without objection from Petitioner, granted the continuance. This order contained the following provision: "Inasmuch as the Goodwin case involves the same issues and circumstances as the Ketridge case, these cases have been set to be heard at a joint hearing and should continue to be heard jointly. Accordingly the request for continuance will be con- sidered applicable to both cases." Following the receipt into evidence of the exhibits, petitioner renewed its motion for a severance. As grounds therefor Petitioner stated that since two complaints had been filed by the Real Estate Commission under separate headings and with different case numbers, they were entitled to two separate hearings despite the fact that both cases involve the same factual situation. When his motion was again denied Petitioner announced that it would not proceed with the presentation of the evidence in a consolidated hearing. When Petitioner persisted in refusing to proceed after being advised that the ruling to consolidate would be reconsidered if difficulties in the presentation of either case arose, the hearing was adjourned.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Constance Grant Johnson, was licensed by the Department of Education for the State of Florida, Certificate No. 239817, and was employed by the Dade County School Board for sixteen years. On December 20, 1985, Respondent, after a jury trial, was found guilty of two felonies: possession of cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Respondent was sentenced to a prison term of four and one-half years and fined $25,000. Respondent served the sentence and the convictions are on appeal. On December 26, 1985, Respondent resigned her job as a visiting teacher (truant officer) "for personal reasons." On January 8 1986, the School Board of Dade County accepted Respondent's resignation but required: Formal notification to the Educational Practices Commission for licensure investigation; Prevention of any future employment in any capacity by the Dade County Public Schools; and Retention of the information regarding the dismissal action by the Superintendent of Schools as a matter of official record. There is no record to suggest Respondent contested the requirements of the Board's acceptance. On April 27, 1985, Respondent was visiting her cousin, Lola Thomas, in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent had traveled from Miami on April 26, 1985, and had checked into the Rodeway Inn, room 117, with her companion, Danielle Valdez Baro. Respondent registered as "Mr and Mrs. D. Johnson." Respondent had rented a car for the purpose of this trip. Sometime prior to noon on April 27, 1985, Lola Thomas arrived at the Rodeway Inn to pick Respondent up to go shopping for a family dinner to be prepared later in the day. The two cousins did not go grocery shopping. Instead, they traveled back to the Thomas home where they picked up Arthur Thomas, Lola's husband. The three then traveled to Yancy Park, an area a few blocks from a Pic N' Save store located on Soutel and Norfolk. An undercover sheriff's officer, R. A. Walsh, had met with one Joseph Mack at this Pic N' Save and had arranged to purchase two ounces of cocaine for $4000.00. Walsh then followed Joseph Mack to Yancy Park to complete the transaction. Walsh observed Mack walk to the vehicle wherein Respondent and the Thomases were seated and obtain a white bundle which Mack placed under his shirt. Mack and Arthur Thomas then walked back to Walsh's vehicle to receive payment. Respondent had handed the bundle, wrapped in a hand towel from the Rodeway, Inn, to Arthur Thomas who had, in turn, handed it to Mack. The bundle contained approximately two ounces of cocaine. Respondent's testimony that she did not know the bundle contained cocaine was not credible. Respondent's testimony that she merely passed the bundle at her cousin Lola's direction was not credible. Respondent and Lola Thomas were seated in the front seat of the Thomas' 1984 Pontiac Bonneville. Lola Thomas was in the driver's seat and her husband, Arthur, was seated directly behind her. Respondent admitted she had removed a hand towel from the Rodeway Inn and that the bundle had been wrapped in a similar towel. Respondent claimed Lola Thomas had also removed a second hand towel from the Rodeway Inn, but such second towel was not located and was not listed on the police reports of the incident. Respondent admitted that only one towel was utilized in the criminal proceedings which resulted in her convictions. Respondent's claim that Lola Thomas had taken a towel was not credible. Respondent's testimony that the Thomas vehicle was parked in a center shopping or strip mall and that she only discussed needed grocery items with Lola Thomas was not credible. The weight of credible evidence established the Thomases and Respondent were apprehended at Yancy Park. Dr. Gray, an expert in professional ethics and personnel management, testified that the proof of either Count I or Count II would warrant permanent revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the petitioner enter a Final Order permanently revoking Respondent's teacher's certificate. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Rejected as argument. However, point is addressed in conclusions of law 5. See also Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as argument. See relevant Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted but unnecessary and argument. See Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6, 9, and 10. But see Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Accepted to the extent addressed in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. See Findings of Fact 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed by the Petitioner to practice medicine in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a native of Cuba. He has been licensed as a physician in Florida since 1975, and has been practicing since then in Dade County. The Respondent has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Antonio Martos is a resident of Miami Beach. He is a native of Cuba, and does not speak English well. He testified at the hearing through an interpreter. Antonio Martos was a patient of the Respondent during 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. Among his complaints were that he had trouble sleeping. Antonio Martos did not see the Respondent at the Respondent's office, but rather saw him at his neighbor's house. Beginning in September, 1976, and once each month thereafter, through May, 1979, the Respondent issued prescriptions for forty- five 300 milligram Quaalude tablets for Antonio Rosario. Three specific prescriptions for these drugs were received into evidence, and the Respondent's medical records reflect the additional prescriptions. Quaalude is a brand name for Methaqualone, a "Schedule II" controlled substance under Section 893.03(2), Florida Statutes. Quaalude tends to induce dependency and tolerance. Long-term use of it is inappropriate because of the prospects for abuse. Prescriptions for Quaalude in the quantities and over the period of time for which they were prescribed by the Respondent for Antonio Martos are not in accord with community standards in Dade County, Florida, and are inappropriate and excessive and not in the best interest of the patient. The prescriptions are excessive to such a degree that they could not have been issued in good faith by the Respondent. The Respondent's records respecting Antonio Martos reflect that the Respondent saw him as a patient each month from September, 1976, through May, 1979. With the exception of five of the visits, the records reflect that all of them occurred on the first day of the month. Nearly all of the entries respecting Antonio Martos relate that he complained of insomnia and that his blood pressure was 120/80 and that his pulse rate was 80. It is not medically possible that an individual's pulse rate and blood pressure readings would be identical over such a long period of time on so many occasions. The Respondent fabricated these records to reflect visits that did not occur as indicated in the records. While no evidence was offered to establish with any definitiveness the purpose of the fabrications, it is apparent that the Respondent had a motivation to fabricate his records to reflect proper visits and prescriptions to the patient. Antonio Rosario and his wife testified that he had not been a patient of the Respondent's. This testimony has not been credited. The Martoses' testimony was false with respect to the nature of their relationship with their neighbor, in whose home they visited the Respondent. They were both actually seen to visit the Respondent in a patient relationship at their neighbor's home. It does not appear that the Martoses fabricated their testimony for any malicious reason. They were confronted by police, they clearly did not understand the nature of the confrontation, and it is logical to assume that they were fearful, and that they sought to absolve themselves from any difficulties. Rosario Martos is a resident of Miami Beach, and a native of Cuba. She is married to Antonio Martos. Rosario Martos does not speak English well, and she testified at the hearing through a translator. Rosario Martos was a patient of the Respondent during 1977, 1978, and 1979. She complained primarily of insomnia and high blood pressure. She did not visit the Respondent in his office, but rather saw him at her neighbor's house. Commencing in January, 1977, and each month thereafter through August, 1979, the Respondent issued prescriptions for forty-five 300 milligram Quaalude tablets for Rosario Martos. Eight of these prescriptions were received into evidence at the final hearing, and the remainder are reflected in the Respondent's medical records. Prescriptions for Quaalude in these quantities over this period of time is not in accord with community standards in Dade County, Florida. Such prescriptions are inappropriate and excessive, and not in the best interest of the patient. The prescriptions are so excessive as not to have been issued in good faith. The Respondent's records reflecting Rosario Martos reflect that he visited her once each month from January, 1977, through January, 1979. With a few exceptions, the records reflect that he visited her on the first day of each month. The records reflect that her complaint was always the same, high blood pressure and insomnia. Except for a few occasions, her blood pressure and pulse were 120/80 and 80, respectively. These records were fabricated. It is not medically possible that a patient's pulse and blood pressure could be so consistent on so many occasions over such a long period of time. It is apparent that the records were developed in order to reflect visits which either did not occur, or did not occur in the manner reflected in the records. Rosario Martos testified that she was never a patient of the Respondent, and that she did not receive the prescriptions. Her testimony has not been credited for the reasons set out in paragraph 2 above. Enrique Nebot was a patient of the Respondent's during 1976 through 1979. The Respondent issued prescriptions for forty-five 300 milligram Quaalude tablets to Enrique Nebot once each month beginning in October, 1976, and continuing through June, 1979. Four of these prescriptions were received into evidence at the final hearing, and the rest are reflected in the Respondent's medical records. The Respondent's records reflect only that Enrique Nebot complained of insomnia. Prescriptions of Quaalude in these quantities over this period of time are not in accord with community standards in Dade County, Florida. Such prescriptions are inappropriate and excessive and not in the best interest of the patient. The prescriptions are so excessive that they could not have been issued in good faith. The Respondent's records reflect that Enrique Nebot visited him generally on the fifteenth day of each month beginning in October, 1976, and continuing through June, 1979. The records reflect the same complaints, and a pulse rate of 80 and a blood pressure of 120/80 on each visit. It is not possible that a patient could have the same pulse and blood pressure readings on so many occasions over such a long period of time. The records were fabricated to reflect visits either that did not occur, or that did not occur in the manner described in the records. Gerardo Montes was a patient of the Respondent during 1977 through 1979. The Respondent's records reflect that Gerardo Montes complained of insomnia. Once each month beginning in September, 1977, and continuing through August, 1979, the Respondent issued a prescription to Gerardo Montes for forty- five 300 milligram Quaalude tablets. Seven of these prescriptions were received into evidence at the final hearing. The remainder of them are reflected in the Respondent's medical records. Prescriptions for Quaaludes in these quantities over this period of time are not in accord with community standards in Dade County, Florida. The prescriptions are inappropriate and excessive, and not in the best interest of the patient. The prescriptions are so excessive that they could not have been issued in good faith. The Respondent falsified medical records respecting Gerardo Montes. Records were created to reflect visits once each month commencing in September, 1977, and continuing through August, 1979. The records were written all at one time, rather than in response to individual appointments or visits. Lidia Tabio is a resident of Dade County, Florida, and a native of Cuba. She was a patient of the Respondent during 1976 through 1979. Her complaints were generally hypertension and insomnia. She visited the Respondent either in his office or at home in response to her symptoms. Once each month commencing in September, 1976, and continuing through July, 1979, the Respondent issued prescriptions for forty-five 300 milligram Quaalude tablets to Lidia Tabio. Five of these prescriptions were received into evidence at the final hearing, and the remainder are reflected in the Respondent's records. Prescriptions for Quaaludes in these quantities over this period of time are not in accord with community standards in Dade County, Florida. The prescriptions are inappropriate and excessive and not in the best interest of the patient. The prescriptions are so excessive that they could not have been issued in good faith. The Respondent's records respecting Lidia Tabio reflect that he saw her once each month commencing in September, 1976, and continuing through July, 1979. The visits are reflected to be on the second day of each month. On each occasion the patient's blood pressure reading was related as 120/80, and her pulse reading was reflected, commencing at least in May, 1977, as 77. It is not possible that a patient would reflect such constant blood pressure and pulse readings over such a long period of time. The patient herself testified that she visited the Respondent only in response to symptoms, and not on the second day of each month as reflected in the records. The Respondent fabricated Lidia Tabio's records. Juan Morales Tabio is a resident of Dade County, Florida, and a native of Cuba. Juan Tabio was a patient of the Respondent during 1976 through 1979. His complaints were generally hypertension and insomnia. He visited the Respondent generally in the Respondent's office. The Respondent issued prescriptions for forty-five 300 milligram Quaalude tablets for Juan Tabio once each month commencing in September, 1976, and continuing through August, 1979. One of these prescriptions was received into evidence at the hearing, and the remainder are determined from the Respondent's records. Prescriptions for Quaaludes in these quantities over this period of time are not in accord with community standards in Dade County, Florida. The prescriptions are inappropriate and excessive and not in the best interest of the patient. The prescriptions are so excessive that they could not have been issued in good faith. The Respondent's records respecting Juan Tabio reflect that he visited the Respondent once each month commencing in September, 1976, and continuing through August, 1979. On each occasion the patient's pulse is indicated as having been 80, and blood pressure as 120/80. Such consistent blood pressure and pulse readings over such a long period of time are not possible. These portions of the records are fabricated. Ramon Gonzalez is a resident of Dade County, Florida. He was a patient of the Respondent's during 1976 through 1979. His complaints generally were nervousness and that he could not sleep well. Once each month commencing in March, 1976, and continuing through July, 1979, the Respondent issued prescriptions for forty-five 300 milligram Quaalude tablets for Ramon Gonzalez. One of the prescriptions was received into evidence at the hearing, and the remainder are reflected in the Respondent's medical records. Prescriptions for Quaalude in these quantities over this period of time are not in accord with community standards in Dade County, Florida. The prescriptions are inappropriate and excessive and not in the best interest of the patient. The prescriptions are so excessive that they could not have been issued in good faith. The evidence does not establish that the Respondent's records respecting Ramon Gonzalez were fabricated. Counts XXIX through XXXII of the Administrative Complaint relate to Susan Waxman, an alleged patient of the Respondent. The evidence does not establish that inappropriate prescriptions were issued to Susan Waxman nor that her medical records were in any way fabricated or altered. Counts XXXIII through XXXVI of the Administrative Complaint relate to a person named Lueinea Gonzalez. No evidence was offered with respect to the allegations set out in Counts XXXIII through XXXVI of the Complaint. There was no evidence from which it could be concluded that any of the prescriptions for Quaalude that the Respondent issued were used either by himself, or by persons other than those for whom the prescriptions were issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medical Examiners enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the charges enumerated in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Conclusions of Law above; suspending the Respondent's license to practice as a physician in the State of Florida for a period of two years; imposing an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $2,000; and permanently restricting the Respondent's practice so that after the period of his suspension, the Respondent is not permitted to prescribe, dispense, administer, mix, or otherwise prepare any controlled substance. That the Board of Medical Examiners enter a final order dismissing Counts IV, VIII, XII, XVI, XX, XXIV, and XXVII through XXXVI of the Amended Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah J. Miller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice M. Diliberto, Esquire Suite 800, Ainsley Building 14 Northeast First Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-192 RUSQUIN DUANY GONZALEZ, M. D., Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, adopted revised rules of practice and procedure which became effective on September 10, 1981. Among these is Rule 23-21.09, Florida Administrative Code, which establishes "matrix time ranges" that are used in determining presumptive parole release dates for persons who are serving prison terms. In determining presumptive parole release dates, the Respondent's rules require that a "salient factor score" be determined based upon such factors as the number of prior criminal convictions, the number of prior incarcerations, total time served in prisons, the inmate's age at the time of the offense which led to the first incarceration, the number of probation or parole revocations, the number of prior escape convictions, and whether burglary or breaking and entering is the present offense of conviction. The degree or severity of the present offense of conviction is then determined. The Respondent's Rule 23-21.09 sets guidelines for time ranges for presumptive parole release dates depending upon the severity of the present offense of conviction and the salient factor score. The more severe the present offense of conviction, the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. Similarly, given the severity of the offense, the higher the salient factor score the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. The rule replaced a rule which set different matrix time ranges. The new rule generally sets longer time ranges, but this is not uniformly true. The Petitioner, Seimore Keith, is an inmate presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner Keith was convicted of grand theft in July, 1980, and was sentenced to serve five years in prison. The conviction was the result of a guilty plea which was entered in accordance with a plea bargain. During plea negotiations, Petitioner Keith was advised that his presumptive parole release date under Florida Parole and Probation Commission rules would require that he serve no more than 25 months in prison. At the time that Petitioner Keith's presumptive parole release date was set by the Respondent, the new Rule 23-21.09 had come into effect, and the Petitioner's presumptive parole release date was set to require that he serve 32 months in prison. The Petitioner, Ronnie McKane, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted of the offense of armed robbery in February, 1981. Under rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Petitioner McKane's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by Respondent in setting McKane's presumptive parole release date. The Petitioner, Daniel P. Hull, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted in September, 1971, of the offense of robbery and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. He was paroled in 1974, but was reincarcerated as a result of a parole violation in 1976. In 1977 he escaped, and was recaptured in January, 1981. On June 1, 1961, Petitioner Hull was convicted of the offense of escape and sentenced to serve nine months. Under the rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Hull's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rules were applied by Respondent in setting Hull's presumptive parole release date, and it has been set subsequent to the expiration of his sentence. Hull will therefore be released when his sentence expires in March, 1982. The Petitioner, Douglas L. Adams, was convicted of the offenses of possession of marijuana and uttering a forged instrument, and sentenced in February, 1981, to two consecutive five-year sentences. Under the rules in effect when Adams was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23- 21.09, Adams' presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by the Respondent in setting Adams' presumptive parole release date. During 1980, the Respondent directed its staff to begin considering proposed changes to its rules of practice and procedure. Various proposals were considered, and by September, 1980, a proposed rule package had been developed. The Respondent directed its staff to submit the proposed rule package to the Governor and members of the Cabinet, various pertinent legislators, county and circuit judges, prosecutors and public defenders, superintendents of each prison in the State, and to members of the Supreme Court and the district courts. The Commission opted to conduct various workshops throughout the State, and to invite all interested persons to share their input. Notices of the workshops were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The workshops were conducted, and the Commission commenced formal rule-making proceedings. Notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and hearings were scheduled. Notice of the formal rulemaking proceedings was also published in the St. Petersburg Times, the Pensacola Journal, the Tallahassee Democrat, the Orlando Sentinel-Star, and the Florida Times-Union. Persons who had requested specific notification were provided it. In response to this notice, the Respondent received considerable written input, and oral presentations were made at hearings that were conducted. The final hearing in the rule-making proceeding was conducted on June 19, 1981, and the rules, including Rule 23- 21.09, were thereafter adopted effective September 10, 1981. Notice of the proposed rule changes and of the formal rulemaking proceeding was not specifically disseminated to inmates at Florida's prisons. The proposed rules were for- warded to the superintendent of each facility. At some of the institutions the proposed rules were apparently posted. All persons who requested copies of the proposed rules from the Florida Parole and Probation Commission were provided them. Numerous prisoners and organizations that represent prisoners made input during the various states of the rulemaking proceeding. None of the Petitioners in this matter were specifically noticed of the rulemaking proceeding. One of the Petitioners had heard that rules were being proposed, and requested copies of them from members of the Legislature or from Department of Corrections personnel. None of the Petitioners requested copies of the proposed rules from the Respondent or anyone connected with the Respondent.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether there is a disputed issue of material fact to be resolved by an administrative hearing.
Findings Of Fact On October 30, 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, issued an administrative complaint against Marilyn Mirus, the Petitioner herein. [Administrative complaint attached to motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibit A, not disputed by Petitioner] The administrative complaint alleged three violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes: having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime in violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes; having been found guilty of a course of conduct which shows dishonesty in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes; and having failed to inform the FREC of having pled nolo contendere or having been convicted of a felony within thirty days of such conduct in violation of Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes. [Exhibit A to the motion, not disputed by Petitioner] The allegations arose as a result of a criminal case in Broward County, Florida (Case no. 91-4894CF) wherein the Petitioner was charged with 31 counts of grand theft. In connection with those charges, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere and received a five year probation. Additionally, the court withheld adjudication of guilt for all counts. [Exhibit A to the motion, not disputed by Petitioner] As an additional condition of the sentence, Petitioner was required to make restitution in the amount of $69,834.50 to the alleged victim. [Exhibit A to the motion, not disputed by Petitioner] To resolve the charges of the administrative complaint, Petitioner entered into a stipulation attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibit B. [Not disputed by Petitioner] The stipulation provided, in pertinent part: Respondent [Petitioner herein] neither admits nor denies all the allegations of essential fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent admits that the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, if true, support a finding of a violation of the Real Estate Practice Act. There is currently pending in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal an appeal (hereafter, "the Appeal") of the Order dated March 2, 1992 (hereafter, "the Order"), denying the Respondent's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Plea in Case No. 91-4894, Division FM, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. STIPULATED DISPOSITION * * * 8. The Respondent's license shall be suspended beginning on the filing date of the Final Order approving this Stipulation. Thereafter, the suspension shall remain in effect during the pendency of the Appeal. Immediately upon the conclusion of the Appeal, the Respondent's license shall be automatically and permanently revoked unless the Order is reversed as the direct and immediate result of the Appeal. In the event of such reversal, the suspension shall be lifted. * * * 13. The Respondent expressly waives all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity and enforcement of this Stipulation and resulting Final Order of the Commission adopting and incorporating this Stipulation. [Emphasis added.] A final order accepting the stipulation entered into by the parties was adopted on May 19, 1992. [Attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibit C, not disputed by Petitioner] The District Court of Appeal rendered a decision on April 21, 1993, which denied Petitioner's request to set aside the nolo contendere plea. Her requests for a rehearing on that decision were also denied. [Attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibits D and E, not disputed by Petitioner] Petitioner maintains [Response to order issued by Hearing Officer on November 29, 1995] she should be able to challenge the denial of licensure because of the following disputed matters: Did Petitioner commit the crimes of which she was accused, and to which she plead nolo contendere? The Courts have held that when there is a plea of nolo contendere filed, it raises the presumption that a crime had been [sic] convicted. However, the Courts have held that the Licensee has the opportunity to rebut this presumption and assert his or her innocence of the underlying criminal charges together with what the reasons and circumstances were to show why the plea of nolo contendere was raised. See Ayala v. Department of Professional Regulations, 478 So.2d 116 (1st DCA Fla. 1985) and Son v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, 608 So.2d 75 (3rd DCA Fla. 1992). Was the Petitioner advised as to what the effect of her plea of nolo contendere would have as the same relates to the revocation of her license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulations? What was the effect of revocation of one's Real Estate License on April 7, 1992, at the time the stipulation was entered into by Petitioner? Has the effect of a revocation on a license changed from April 7, 1992 [to] today, if so, was her (sic) advise proper to enter into the Stipulation had she known what the law was today as it relates to the law of 1992? (It wasn't until October 1, 1992 that revocation became permanent. Prior to that date the laws of Florida were silent as to the term of a revocation. Section 455.227(4) F.S. 1992.) Was the adjudication withheld and was the file sealed as it relates to the criminal charges which were the subject of the original complaint against Marilyn Mirus? Is the Petitioner now held accountable for a crime that under the Florida law for all intents and purposes she did not commit nor was she even charged with such a crime? Petitioner has not challenged the authenticity or accuracy of the documents attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the request for hearing filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 8th day of January, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver Assistant Attorney General Suite 107 South Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 William J. Haley, Esquire BRANNON, BROWN, HALEY, ROBINSON & BULLOCK, P.A. 10 North Columbia Street Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Henry Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent engaged in conduct unbecoming a public servant in violation of Chapter 89-404, Section 8, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 90-395, Section 8, Laws of Florida (the "Civil Service Act") and Rules 3-1.1 and 3-1.3 of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office ("Rules 3-1.1 and 3-1.3").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a constitutional officer of the State of Florida who is responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within Pinellas County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner. On September 6, 1999, Respondent responded as backup deputy sheriff to the apartment of Mr. Cornell Cunningham and Ms. Karen Stewart. The purpose of the response was to arrest Mr. Cunningham on a civil warrant for failure to pay child support. Deputy Ward Snyder was the primary deputy on the call. Deputy Snyder is also employed by Respondent. It was raining outside when the two deputies arrived at Mr. Cunningham's residence. Mr. Cunningham invited both deputies inside. Once inside, Deputy Snyder talked to Mr. Cunningham and advised him of the civil arrest warrant. Deputy Snyder also contacted the Sheriff's Office to confirm that the warrant was still valid. While Deputy Snyder was talking to Mr. Cunningham and the Sheriff's Office, Respondent conducted a security search of the residence to confirm that no one else was present in Mr. Cunningham's apartment. By the time Respondent completed the security search, Deputy Snyder had finished his telephone call. Respondent concluded his search of the residence in the kitchen. While standing in the kitchen, Respondent stood adjacent to and viewed a countertop that separated the kitchen from the dining area. The kitchen and counter top were well lit with florescent lighting. Respondent observed a marijuana seed on the countertop. Respondent picked the seed up from the countertop and held it up for Deputy Snyder to see. Respondent said, "We got a problem here." Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham were standing in the dining room adjacent to the countertop that separated the kitchen from the dining room. Deputy Snyder had a clear and unobstructed view of the countertop. A Nike shoebox was on the countertop inside the kitchen. The shoebox contained a hinged top that opened from one side and also contained circular holes in the sides. Respondent, Deputy Snyder, and Mr. Cunningham were within two or three feet of the shoebox. The top on the shoebox was closed. There was no other access into the shoebox other than through the top of the shoebox. Respondent removed his flashlight from his belt, turned it on, shined the light into the holes in the side of the shoebox, and observed the contents of the shoebox. Respondent then opened the shoebox and looked inside the shoebox. Respondent observed a small bag of marijuana and a small scale inside the box. Respondent then told Deputy Snyder that there was "a problem." Respondent then showed Deputy Snyder the contents of the box. Mr. Cunningham denied ownership of the shoebox as well as any knowledge of its contents. The deputies arrested Mr. Cunningham based on the civil warrant for failure to pay child support. Mr. Cunningham protested his arrest and asserted that the matter had been taken care of. However, he did not physically resist, did not threaten either deputy, and did not display any intent to flee. Neither deputy charged or arrested Mr. Cunningham at the time with any offense related to the marijuana or the scale. Deputy Snyder transported Mr. Cunningham to the Pinellas County Jail on the original civil warrant. While Deputy Snyder was transporting Mr. Cunningham to jail, Respondent contacted Deputy Snyder by radio. Respondent told Deputy Snyder that Respondent was going to charge Ms. Stewart with criminal offenses related to the possession of marijuana and the scale. Mr. Cunningham overheard the radio conversation between the two deputies and stated that he would claim ownership of the marijuana and scale. Upon hearing this, Deputy Snyder advised Mr. Cunningham of his rights. Mr. Cunningham then denied ownership of the contraband. While Deputy Snyder transported Mr. Cunningham to jail, Respondent remained at Mr. Cunningham's residence and awaited the arrival of Ms. Stewart. With the consent of Ms. Stewart, Respondent conducted a further search of the residence. The further search revealed additional marijuana in a drawer located in the kitchen where the shoebox was located. Respondent combined the marijuana found in the drawer with the seed on the countertop and the marijuana previously found in the shoebox. Respondent then seized the contraband and proceeded to the jail where he charged Mr. Cunningham with felony possession of marijuana and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Respondent prepared an arrest report stating that Respondent had observed marijuana "scattered" on top of the kitchen counter. Respondent also stated in the report that, "Laying next to the scattered marijuana in a partially opened Nike shoebox, was a clear plastic baggie filled with marijuana and also laying next to that baggie was a silver hand-held weight scale." Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Robert Helmick, approved the report on the same day that Respondent prepared the report. On the following day, September 7, 1999, Deputy Snyder prepared his supplemental report of the events occurring at the Cunningham residence. In his report, Deputy Snyder stated that Respondent "pointed out a seed on the kitchen countertop. There was a Nike shoebox also on the countertop. Deputy Broome used his flashlight to illuminate the inside of the box by shining the light through a hole in the box. Deputy Broome then opened the box and displayed a bag of what appeared to be marijuana and a small balance scale." Deputy Snyder’s report also recited the events occurring in his vehicle as he transported Mr. Cunningham to jail. Sergeant Helmick, who was off duty that day, did not review or approve Deputy Snyder's report. Rather, Corporal Larry Weiland approved Deputy Snyder's report. Sergeant Helmick did not see Deputy Snyder’s report until much later. Three days later, on September 10, 1999, Respondent participated in a pre-filing investigation conducted at the office of the State Attorney for Pinellas County. Assistant State Attorney Patricia Cope conducted the investigation. As part of the investigation, Ms. Cope took the sworn testimony of Respondent. In his testimony to Ms. Cope, Respondent repeated the same version of events found in his report. Respondent testified to Ms. Cope that he had observed marijuana scattered on the countertop and that the top of the shoebox on the countertop was ajar. Respondent further testified that he was able to see the marijuana and the scale inside the shoebox through the space created by the partially open top of the shoebox. Ms. Cope specifically asked Respondent whether the shoebox was open or closed in order to confirm that Respondent's search was within the scope of the plain view doctrine. Respondent testified that the shoebox was open. Ms. Cope did not speak with Deputy Snyder or review his report. As a result of the investigation and the information provided by Respondent, Mr. Cunningham was charged with felony possession of marijuana and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Sometime after Ms. Cope's conversation with Respondent, Deputy Snyder spoke with Sergeant Helmick concerning the discrepancies between the two reports filed by Deputy Snyder and Respondent. Sergeant Helmick advised Deputy Snyder to allow the discrepancies to be worked out by the state attorney’s office and to allow the criminal process to run its course. Sergeant Helmick did not report the discrepancies to the state attorney’s office, to his supervisors, or to anyone else. At the time, Sergeant Helmick did not initiate any complaint or investigation against either Respondent or Deputy Snyder. In June 2000, depositions were set in the criminal prosecution of Mr. Cunningham. Ms. Cope contacted Deputy Snyder to inquire about the possibility of having the shoebox tested for fingerprints. At that time, Deputy Snyder directed Ms. Cope's attention to the discrepancies in the respective reports prepared by Deputy Snyder and Respondent. Ms. Cope reviewed the reports and the discrepancies between the two reports. Ms. Cope concluded that the discrepancies would create a problem in the criminal prosecution of Mr. Cunningham. The discrepancies between the accounts by Respondent and Deputy Snyder created the possibility that Respondent had conducted an illegal search of the shoebox that would render the evidence seized as a part of that search inadmissible. The plain view doctrine applicable to the law of search and seizure would allow the search of the shoebox if the top had been ajar and the contents of the shoebox could be observed. However, the search would not be lawful if the shoebox top was closed and observation of the contents could have only been accomplished by shining a light through the holes in the box. The differing statements in the reports of the two deputies placed the credibility of Respondent in question. No independent evidence was available, including the testimony of Mr. Cunningham, from which it could be ascertained which deputy was being truthful. The State Attorney’s Office deemed it unfair to the defendant, the court, and the witnesses to proceed on a case where the prosecution could not be certain if the evidence was properly seized. Ms. Cope referred the matter to Mr. Robert Lewis, her supervisor. Mr. Lewis reviewed the reports of the two deputies and agreed with Ms. Cope's assessment that the discrepancies precluded any further criminal prosecution of Mr. Cunningham. Ms. Cope cancelled the depositions set in the Cunningham case on the grounds that Respondent had been accused of lying and that the two investigating police officers recalled two inconsistent views of the events that occurred at Mr. Cunningham's residence. Mr. Lewis then instructed Ms. Cope to enter a nolle prosequi of the charges against Mr. Cunningham. After the State Attorney's Office filed the nolle prosequi, the State Attorney’s Office referred the matter to the Sheriff's Office. The matter was brought to the attention of Major Samuel F. Lynn, the commander of the road patrol division. Major Lynn prepared an administrative inquiry form that disclosed the allegations communicated to him by the State Attorney’s Office. Thereafter, the Administrative Investigation Division of the Sheriff’s Office ("AID") initiated an investigation. During the investigation, Respondent and Deputy Snyder each provided a sworn statement to the investigators. The investigators also obtained a sworn statement from Ms. Cope and a letter from Mr. Lewis. The investigators were unable to locate Mr. Cunningham and therefore did not interview him or ascertain his account of the matters at issue in this proceeding. During the investigation, Respondent had the opportunity to offer additional information or comments. Respondent’s attorney placed a statement on the record at the conclusion of Respondent’s sworn statement. Respondent did not offer any witnesses on his behalf or provide the investigators with any information pertaining to the location of Mr. Cunningham. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Board conducted a hearing concerning the charges against Respondent. The charges were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the office of the Sheriff; Violation of Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 006, relating to untruthfulness by being untruthful in relation to the seizure of narcotics at the Cunningham residence. Violation of Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 060, relating to standards of conduct by bringing discredit upon the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office by being untruthful and by inaccurately documenting facts and circumstances submitted to the State Attorney’s Office. Respondent was present at the hearing, had an opportunity to offer a statement, responded to questions, and presented additional evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board determined that Respondent violated the Civil Service Act and Rules 3-1.1 and 3-1.3. The violations resulted in a cumulative point total of 65 points under the progressive discipline policy of the Sheriff's office. The 65 points were added to 23 discipline points that the Sheriff's Office had previously assessed against Respondent for a total of 88 progressive discipline points. When a deputy has 88 progressive discipline points, Petitioner's progressive discipline policy authorizes discipline that ranges from a ten-day suspension to termination. Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment. Respondent violated relevant portions of the Civil Service Act and Rule 3-1.1 by being untruthful in relation to the seizure of narcotics at the Cunningham residence. Respondent conducted an improper search at the residence of Mr. Cunningham. Respondent then charged Mr. Cunningham with a felony and misdemeanor offense related to the fruits of that search. Respondent then prepared a false report relating the events occurring at Mr. Cunningham's residence and then provided false testimony under oath to the State Attorney’s Office. Respondent violated relevant portions of the Civil Service Act Rule 3-1.3 and by bringing discredit upon the Sheriff's Office. Respondent was untruthful by inaccurately documenting facts and circumstances submitted to the State Attorney’s Office. Respondent's conduct discredited the Sheriff's Office by encouraging mistrust of law enforcement officers and by creating the appearance that persons in law enforcement engage in improper tactics to effectuate an arrest. Respondent's untruthfulness resulted in the improper arrest and prosecution of an individual. Truthfulness on the part of a deputy sheriff is an important part of the job. It is necessary in order to maintain discipline and to preserve the integrity of the agency and the functions performed. Respondent's untruthfulness violated those essential elements and exposed the Sheriff's Office to the potential for civil liability for an improper arrest. Although much of Respondent's testimony was credible and persuasive, there were significant parts of Respondent's testimony that were neither credible nor persuasive. The flawed part of Respondent's testimony was inconsistent with prior statements by Respondent and with the testimony of Deputy Snyder. For the most part, no one inconsistency in Respondent's testimony, standing alone, would be sufficient to adversely affect Respondent's credibility. However, the cumulative effect of all of the inconsistencies deprives Respondent's testimony of credibility and persuasiveness concerning material issues in this case. In an earlier sworn statement to AID, Respondent testified that he found marijuana on the countertop in Mr. Cunningham's apartment, showed the seed to Deputy Snyder, and then looked inside the shoebox. At the final hearing, however, Respondent testified that he found the marijuana seed on the countertop, saw the marijuana in the shoebox, and then walked over to Deputy Snyder to show him the marijuana seed. Respondent further testified at the final hearing that he could not recall whether he picked up the seed first or saw the marijuana in the shoebox first. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the location of Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham at the time that Respondent found the seed and searched the shoebox. At the final hearing, Respondent insisted that Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham never got within ten to fourteen feet of the shoebox. In an earlier sworn statement to AID, however, Respondent indicated that Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham were two to three feet from the shoebox. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the position of the top of the shoebox at the time that Respondent found the seed and searched the shoebox. Respondent testified at final hearing that the shoebox was open between 1.5 and 2.0 inches. In a sworn statement to AID, however, Respondent testified that the top of the shoebox was open less than one inch. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the manner in which he shined light from his flashlight into the shoebox. At final hearing, Respondent testified that he shined light into the holes on the side of the shoebox. In an earlier deposition, however, Respondent testified that he shined the light in the top of the shoebox where the top was open and could not remember if the shoebox had holes. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the location of the marijuana on the countertop. At the final hearing, Respondent indicated that the marijuana was spread out into the center of the dark countertop where there was a white paint spot, as shown in one of the photographs in evidence. However, the drawing provided during the course of Respondent's earlier deposition did not indicate that marijuana was spread into the center of the dark countertop where the white paint spot was located. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the location of the shoebox. Respondent placed the shoebox close to the wall where it may have been more difficult for Deputy Snyder to view the box. Deputy Snyder placed the shoebox in the middle of the countertop where it was more easily seen. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the vantage points of Respondent and Deputy Snyder. Respondent placed Deputy Snyder ten to fourteen feet from the shoebox and stated that Deputy Snyder could not see the shoebox or the marijuana from that vantage point. Deputy Snyder placed himself within two to three feet of the shoebox and stated that he had an unobstructed and clear view of the countertop and the shoebox. Deputy Snyder's testimony was consistent with an earlier sworn statement to AID by Respondent indicating that Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham were two to three feet from the shoebox. See Finding of Fact 43. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the amount of marijuana on the countertop. Respondent stated there was a considerable amount or marijuana on the countertop. Deputy Snyder stated there was no marijuana on the countertop except the seed displayed to him by Respondent. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the actions taken by Respondent in looking into the shoebox. Respondent testified that he identified the debris, saw the marijuana in the shoebox, showed the seed to Snyder, and then looked into the shoebox. Deputy Snyder testified that Respondent showed him a seed, shined his light into a hole in the shoebox, and then opened the shoebox. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the actions of Respondent after discovering the marijuana and the shoebox. Respondent claimed he walked from the kitchen into the living and dining area to display the seed to Deputy Snyder. Deputy Snyder testified that Respondent remained in the kitchen and displayed the seed across the countertop. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the issue of whether Respondent had his flashlight out before he looked into the shoebox or removed it in order to look inside the shoebox. Respondent testified he had the flashlight out the entire time he was in the residence. Deputy Snyder stated that Respondent removed the flashlight from his belt in order to look into the shoebox. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the issue of whether Deputy Snyder was on the telephone when Respondent observed the marijuana and shoebox and pointed these items out to Deputy Snyder. Respondent stated that Deputy Snyder was on the telephone when these events occurred. Deputy Snyder testified that he had completed his call by the time Respondent arrived in the kitchen. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the ability of Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham to be in the dining room and close to the countertop. Respondent claimed that the dining room table and chairs did not allow sufficient room for Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham to be within two or three feet of the countertop in the dining room. Deputy Snyder and other testimony by Respondent concerning the dimensions of the dining room and table and chairs indicated there was sufficient room for Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham to stand in the dining room within two or three feet of the shoebox. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding Respondent's testimony that he searched the shoebox, in part, because he was concerned over the existence of booby traps in the shoebox. Deputy Snyder saw no such concern indicated in Respondent’s actions. Respondent's testimony that he was concerned the shoebox contained booby traps is neither credible nor persuasive. Respondent testified that the room was sufficiently well lit to allow him to clearly see the marijuana inside the partially open shoebox without shining his flashlight into the shoebox before opening it. Respondent attempted to explain why he used his flashlight in a well-lit kitchen by expressing concern that the shoebox may have contained booby traps. Regarding the discrepancies between the testimony of Respondent and Deputy Snyder, there is no apparent motive for Deputy Snyder to fabricate his version of the events or to attempt to create any form of disciplinary problem for Respondent. Respondent had no prior experience with Deputy Snyder that would create a reason for Deputy Snyder to be untruthful. Respondent suggested that Deputy Snyder fabricated his report and testimony in exchange for a transfer to a position as a detective. That testimony is neither credible nor persuasive. Deputy Snyder’s transfer occurred months before any concerns arose pertaining to Respondent. There is no evidence that Deputy Snyder played any role in the initiation of the investigation. Deputy Snyder's initial disclosure to his supervisor did not result in any investigation or action against Respondent. The transfer to the detective unit was a lateral transfer without any increase in rank, pay, or benefits. The evaluation system in effect at the Sheriff's Office provided a specific component for self-initiated arrests. The arrest of Mr. Cunningham in this case falls into the category of self-initiated arrests and could have resulted in a positive evaluation component for Respondent, who already had 23 disciplinary points against him. Respondent has a prior disciplinary history. In June 1999, Respondent received a one-day suspension and five disciplinary points for violating rules that are not relevant to this proceeding. In January 2000, Respondent received a three- day suspension and 15 disciplinary points for violating rules that are not relevant to this proceeding. The two violations resulted in 20 progressive points with a range of discipline from reprimand to a three-day suspension. In August 2000, Respondent received a seven-day suspension for violating rules that are not relevant to this proceeding. The violations consisted of three level three violations resulting in the assignment of 40 disciplinary points. The 40 points were combined with ten "modified points" from the prior violations and resulted in a total of 50 progressive points with a range of discipline from a five-day suspension to termination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of conduct unbecoming a public servant and terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 1st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard C. Millian, Esquire Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire Tew, Zinober, & Barnes, L.L.P. 2655 McCormick Drive, Prestige Professional Park Clearwater, Florida 33759 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
Recommendation That the certificate of registration issued to respondent Robert T. Sharkey be suspended for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 John A. Friedman, Esquire 634 N.E. Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An agency of the state of Florida, Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3196 BROWARD COUNTY vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-854 ROBERT T. SHARKEY, Defendant. /
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Review was filed on August 22, 1991. The Petition was signed by Donald Eugene Halpin and Jeffery Lynn Fowler. The Petition, which was purportedly also filed by Richard Edward Jackson, was not signed by Mr. Jackson. In the Petition Mr. Halpin and Mr. Fowler challenged Rule 33-3.04(9), Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rule provides, in pertinent part: . . . The return address of all outgoing mail must contain the inmate's committed name, identification number and institutional address. The institutional name in the return address must be spelled out completely with no abbreviations. It was alleged in the Petition that the Challenged Rule is "arbitrary or capricious in its application." The Petition also contained an allegation that the Challenged Rule provides "no legitimate or compelling purpose when weighed against its adverse effect on Petitioners and their family and friends." Throughout the Petition it was alleged that there are "less restrictive forms the Respondent could employ to accomplish [its] goal . . . ." In this regard, the Petition contains the following allegation: 11. Petitioners have no qualms with the Respondent informing those individuals they write that they are state correctional inmates. However, Petitioners do object to the manner in which Respondent implements this restrictive measure. There is a much less restrictive means to accomplish the same objective, i.e., letting individuals know they are receiving letters from state correctional inmates. As the rule stands now, it is arbitrary or capricious as applied to the Petitioners. No facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rule is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. Finally, the following relief was requested and the following statement was made in closing: WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully move the Division of Administrative Hearings to declare Chapter 33-3.04 to be arbitrary or capricious in its application. Furthermore, Petitioners reserve the right to proffer First and Fourteenth Amendment violations during any administrative hearings [sic] or motions for rehearing for appellate purposes. On November 1, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend was entered. On December 2, 1991, a pleading titled "Amended Petition for Administrative Review" was filed by Mr. Halpin and Blanche Moseley with the case number of this case identified as the case that the pleading was being filed in. Through the Amended Petition Mr. Halpin and Ms. Moseley attempted to initiate the following challenge: Petitioners, Donald E. Halpin and Blanche Moseley, file their Amended Petition for Administrative Review, pursuant to Chapter [sic] 120.52(8)(d)(e), 120.56 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge Rule 33-3.004, Florida Administrative Code . . . . . . . . 4. Petitioners file this action pursuant to Chapter [sic] 120.52(8)(d)(e), 120.56 (Halpin being a State Prisoner must utilize Section 120.56) and 120.57 (Ms. Moseley being a free citizen will utilize Section 120.57), Florida Statutes. Petitioners will allege Chapter [sic] 33-3.04, F.A.C., is vague, vest unbridled discretion in the agency, and is arbitrary or capricious in its application. Furthermore, Petitioner Moseley would allege Chapter [sic] 33-3.04, F.A.C., violates the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to the United States Constitution. It is further alleged under the "Conclusion" section of the Amended Petition that Ms. Moseley's challenge is based upon Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, although no proposed rule or rule amendment has been challenged in the Petition or Amended Petition. In support of the allegation that the Challenged Rule is vague, it is alleged in the Amended Petition that the Challenged Rule "does not set forth why the public must be protected, e.g., the types of crimes committed by inmates, the number of inmates who violated U.S. Mail regulations, and how other crimes were committed by inmates through U.S. Mail." In support of the allegation that the Challenged Rule vests unbridled discretion in the Respondent, it has been alleged in the Amended Petition that the Challenged Rule is only intended as punishment--by informing those who come in conduct with an inmate's mail that the mail is from someone who is in prison. Several allegations are also included in the Amended Petition concerning how Ms. Moseley's constitutional rights are being violated by the Challenged Rule. The Amended Petition is devoid of any alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule is invalid under Sections 120.54 or 120.56, Florida Statutes. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Fowler did not file an amended petition.
