Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On August 28, 1987, Respondent was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 19-87-002-04. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a law enforcement officer with the City of Miami Police Department. Respondent was born in Marianna, Florida, but was reared in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent has lived and worked in the Liberty City and Overtown areas of Miami for many years. Prior to becoming employed with the City of Miami Police Department, Respondent was graduated from Florida A & M University with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. Additionally, he had completed police academy training and had served as a reservist in the U.S. Navy. According to Respondent, he is a natural leader and has acquired discipline from his military experiences. During the early morning hour of September 18, 1988, Respondent was on duty in a marked police vehicle patrolling an area of Miami in the vicinity of 22nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard. Respondent was armed, dressed in his police uniform, and accompanied by another uniformed officer, Efrain Grillo. At approximately 12:00 a.m. on that date, Respondent observed a white female standing in the curb area along Biscayne Boulevard. The Respondent later learned that the female's name was Linda MacArthur. At that time, however, he recognized her from a prior encounter he had had with her in the Overtown area approximately a month before. At that time, Respondent believed Ms. MacArthur to be a prostitute. Officer Grillo pulled the police car over to the curb where Ms. MacArthur was standing. Respondent directed her to enter the back seat of the vehicle and she complied. Prior to being directed to enter the vehicle, Ms. MacArthur was not placed under arrest, was not advised that she was being transported for questioning, and had not committed a criminal offense in the officers' presence. Neither Respondent nor Officer Grillo notified police dispatch that they were transporting a female passenger. Such notification is required by police policy. After Ms. MacArthur entered the police vehicle, the Respondent and Officer Grillo took her to a dead end street located at approximately 23rd Street and 2nd Avenue. Once there, the three individuals exited the police car and walked over to a dumpster that blocked the end of the paved street. After exiting the vehicle, Respondent obtained Ms. MacArthur's purse and went through it. Among the items enclosed in the purse were condoms and a small bottle of perfume. Officer Grillo took the perfume bottle and emptied it over Ms. MacArthur's upper torso. Next, Respondent asked Ms. MacArthur how she used the condoms. While the police officers observed, Ms. MacArthur opened the condom package, placed the condom in her mouth and began a sucking action. After a few seconds, she threw the condom down on the ground. While Officer Grillo spoke with Ms. MacArthur, the Respondent went to the police car and retrieved his flashlight. Officer Grillo asked Ms. MacArthur if she had underwear on. When she replied she did not, Respondent asked her if they (the officers) could see. Ms. MacArthur pulled her pants down to reveal her naked backside. When he returned from the car with the light, Respondent attempted to illuminate Ms. MacArthur's lower body but was unable to do so since the batteries in the flashlight failed. Officer Grillo then went to the police car and obtained a surgical glove which he placed on his hand. With Respondent present, Officer Grillo placed his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas. Respondent observed Officer Grillo rub his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas and saw her fidget at one point. Officer Grillo inserted his finger into Ms. MacArthur's vagina and rectum without her consent. The touching that is described in paragraph 10 was not done to effect a cavity search of someone under arrest nor was it performed for a bona fide medical purpose. Following the acts described above, the Respondent and Officer Grillo placed the Respondent into the police car and transported her back to the vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. MacArthur then located an undercover police officer and disclosed the activities which had taken place. As part of the follow up investigation performed by the police, the perfume bottle and condom were retrieved from the site. Also in connection with the investigation of the allegation, an investigator went to the location of Respondent's day job and asked him to return to the police station for questioning. Respondent drove himself to the sexual battery office and spoke with Detective Mahon and Sgt. Sparrow. Prior to giving a statement, Respondent was advised of his rights by the officers. Respondent executed a written Miranda warning form. Respondent then gave an account of the activities which had occurred with Ms. MacArthur and Officer Grillo. This statement was given at approximately 3:21 p.m., September 18, 1988. Respondent gave a second statement to an assistant state attorney and Detective Mahon at approximately 5:41 p.m., September 18, 1988. That statement was made under oath and mirrored the one previously given by him. While Respondent did not see penetration of Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas by Officer Grillo's hand, it is undisputed that he observed the gloved hand being placed in those specific areas as described above. The police did not coerce Respondent into making the statements given on September 18, 1988. Respondent was not placed under arrest, was not charged with a criminal offense, and has not been prosecuted for any alleged wrongdoing. Further, there is no evidence that Respondent is likely to be prosecuted for any alleged criminal act. In contrast, Officer Grillo was charged with criminal offenses related to the incident with Ms. MacArthur. Subsequent to the incident described above, Respondent resigned his employment with the City of Miami Police Department. Prior to that action, he had received several commendations for specific acts of excellent service, and had obtained satisfactory or very good performance evaluations for his work as a police officer. All acts which gave rise to the allegations of this case occurred during Respondent's rookie year as a police officer. Prior to being asked to return to the police station to give a statement regarding the allegations of this case, Respondent had not disclosed the acts perpetrated by Officer Grillo to another police officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certification. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-0919 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 3 are accepted; the balance is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that the Respondent and his partner intimidated the victim, Linda MacArthur and that she was fearful of being arrested. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The victim complied with Respondent's directive to enter the police vehicle. Paragraphs 8 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is accepted that Respondent asked the victim as to how she normally used the condom; it is not accepted that he made her suck it. See finding of fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent did, however, make the request described at a later time (prior to releasing the victim). The second sentence of paragraph 15 is accepted. The balance of that paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 22 is accepted; the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent's account (that he did not touch the victim) is accepted. If the flashlight was pressed against the victim, the inference that Officer Grillo did that also is more credible. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See, however, finding of fact paragraphs 10 and 17. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 32 are accepted. Paragraphs 33 through 36 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. Respondent submitted a written closing argument. Copies to: Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rashad El-Amin Attorney at Law 4300 S.W. 92 Davie, Florida 33328
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating persons certified as fire fighters and fire safety inspectors. Respondent is certified in the state as a fire fighter and fire safety inspector. She is currently employed by Volusia County Fire Services as an Emergency Medical Technician. On or about October 16, 1980, Respondent was charged in circuit court with vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence of alcohol. Vehicular manslaughter is a felony under Sections 860.01(1)and (2), Florida Statutes. 1/ Driving under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor under Section 316.193. On or about April 15, 1981, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of "Manslaughter by Operation of a Motor Vehicle while Intoxicated or Deprived of Full Possession of Normal Faculties." The court withheld adjudication, placed Respondent on probation for two years, and restricted her driver's license to business purposes for the first three months of her probation. Respondent successfully completed her probation on April 15, 1983. On or about September 15, 1992, Respondent completed an application for certification as a fire fighter. The application asked, "Do you have a record of conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor?" Respondent answered, "No." Respondent did not answer the foregoing questions untruthfully. Respondent was advised by counsel that there had never been an adjudication of guilt and that she should state that she had never been convicted of the charges in 1981. On or about September 10, 1993, Respondent completed an application for certification as a fire safety inspector. The application asked, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude?" Respondent answered, "No." Respondent believed that she had never been convicted of such an offense because adjudication of guilt had been withheld, and she had successfully completed her probation. Petitioner certified Respondent as a fire fighter and as a fire safety inspector. Petitioner relied, in part, upon Respondent's answers to the questions quoted in the preceding paragraphs. Respondent did not intentionally misrepresent her criminal history to Petitioner on either application. Respondent relied on advice of counsel and a good faith belief in the truthfulness and correctness of her responses. Respondent is actively employed as a fire fighter. She is seeking certification as a fire safety inspector to further her career and to obtain employment closer to her residence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of all of the charges in the Administrative Complaint except the charge of pleading nolo contendere to a felony within the meaning of Section 633.081(6)(d). It is further recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order authorizing the issuance of a written reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. 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 9th day of January, 1995.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, who holds a Florida teaching certificate, on the basis of allegations regarding the Respondent's purchase of crack cocaine.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Wayne Thurston, holds Florida teaching certificate number 479646, covering the area of physical education, which is valid through June 30, 1995. During the period from April 1991 to July 1991, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at James H. Bright Elementary School, in the Dade County School District. On April 5, 1991, Detective Laurick Ingram was working as an undercover police officer with the Metro-Dade Police Department, assigned to a tactical narcotics team detail. As part of his assignment, Detective Ingram was posing as a seller of cocaine in what is termed a "reverse sting" operation. It was an operation in which several undercover police officers posed as sellers of crack cocaine at premises which were previously know by the police to be the location of frequent drug sales. The reverse sting operation in question took place in the front yard of a house located at 2520 N.W. 159th Street, Miami, Florida. At approximately 8:00p.m. on the evening of April 5, 1991, the Respondent approached Detective Ingram at the location described above and asked the Detective for $20.00 worth of cocaine. Detective Ingram gave the Respondent two rocks of crack cocaine and in exchange the Respondent gave Detective Ingram $20.00. Detective Ingram did not conduct any tests on the substance sold to the Respondent to verify that it was, in fact, cocaine. However, it is the regular and consistent practice of the Metro-Dade Police Department, in conjunction with reverse sting operations, to use genuine cocaine. Detective Ingram then gave a signal to one of the other police officers and one of the other police officers then arrested the Respondent. The Respondent was processed and was subsequently charged by information in the Circuit Court for Dade County with one count of purchasing cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. On or about July 11, 1991, the Respondent was accepted into the Dade County Drug Treatment Pretrial Release Program. During the period from February 27, 1992, to May 7, 1992, the Respondent was subjected to urinalysis examinations on eighteen occasions and on each occasion the results were negative for use of drugs. Ms. Joanne Goberna Molina has been the principal of James H. Bright Elementary School since January 23, 1992. During the year that she has been the principal at that school, the Respondent's performance as a teacher has been acceptable. During that period the Respondent has not been tardy. The fact that the Respondent was arrested has received very little notoriety among the faculty, staff, students, or parents of the school where he works.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of a three year period of probation, which probation shall include the requirements that the Respondent: Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with quarterly reports of his performance, including, but not limited to, compliance with school rules and school district regulations and any disciplinary actions imposed upon the Respondent; Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with a true and accurate copy of each written performance evaluation prepared by his supervisor, within ten days of its issuance; Shall satisfactorily perform his assigned duties in a competent professional manner; Shall violate no law and shall fully comply with all district and school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006; and Participate fully and to its completion in a substance abuse program and submit to random drug testing as directed by his employer or the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-7063 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as constituting primarily argument about conflicting testimony, rather than specific proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 11: First sentence rejected as unnecessary procedural details. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Rejected as based on speculation or conjecture, rather than on reliable evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1: This paragraph is rejected because as stated it is nothing more than an unnecessary summary of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made to the effect that the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint have been proved.) Paragraphs 2 and 3: These paragraphs are rejected as constituting summaries of testimony, rather than statements of specific proposed findings of fact. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made consistent with the testimony summarized in these two paragraphs.) Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 5: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony, rather than a statement of a specific proposed fact. Also rejected for the reason that the exculpatory explanation offered by the Respondent has not been credited. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 7: The first line is rejected as not supported by persuasive, credible evidence. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12: Accepted in whole or in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Jackson, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the 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: At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, Respondent has been certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer, certificate No. 02- 34512. In April, 1987, Respondent was employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) in Dade County, Florida. On the morning of April 9, 1987, at approximately 7:00 a.m., while dressed in his FHP uniform, Respondent went to the home of his girl friend, Connie Hawkins. Unable to waken Ms. Hawkins by knocking at the door, Respondent went around to her bedroom, began to bang on the glass, and attempted to pry open the window. As a result, the window broke and Ms. Hawkins was awakened by the noise. Respondent then demanded that Ms. Hawkins open the door since he had cut his left arm on the broken window. When Ms. Hawkins opened the door, Respondent began to strike her about the face and arm. Apparently, Respondent was angry that Ms. Hawkins had not opened the door earlier and felt she had caused the injury to his arm. This injury, a two inch cut on the left arm, was bleeding rather badly. Respondent went to Ms. Hawkins' bathroom and wrapped a hand towel around the wound in order to apply pressure and stop the bleeding. Subsequently, Respondent left the Hawkins' home in his FHP vehicle. After she was sure Respondent was gone, Ms. Hawkins telephoned the Metro-Dade police to report the incident. She did not want to have the Respondent criminally prosecuted, but she did want to take measures to assure he would not attack her again. After giving a statement to the police, Ms. Hawkins went to an area hospital for examination and treatment of her swollen face and bruised arm. She was required to wear a sling on the injured arm for a couple of days. The Metro-Dade police notified the FHP that one of its employees, Respondent, had been named in connection with a domestic disturbance. The report of the incident was given to Lt. Miller, the FHP supervisor on duty the morning of April 9, 1987. Coincidentally, that same morning at approximately 7:30 am., Lt. Miller had observed a cut on Respondent's left arm and had ordered him to a hospital for stitches. According to the story Respondent gave Lt. Miller, the injury had been caused by the FHP car door when Respondent was entering it after a routine highway stop. A sharp piece of the window framing had allegedly snagged Respondent's arm causing the cut. According to the Respondent, the piece of metal framing may have fallen off the car since the area was later found to be smooth.- Following treatment for the cut, Respondent signed a Notice of Injury form which is required by the Division of Workers' Compensation for all work- related injuries. This form alleged the injury had been sustained as described in paragraph 8. Subsequently, an investigation conducted by the FHP raised questions regarding the incident with Ms. Hawkins and the "work-related" cut on Respondent's arm. Lt. Baker attempted to interview Respondent regarding this investigation. Respondent declined to be interviewed and resigned from the FHP. Later, Respondent obtained a job as a security officer with the Dade County School District. Prior to his resignation from the FHP, Respondent did not claim he had cut or injured both arms on the morning of April 9, 1987. Lt. Miller did not observe a cut on Respondent's right arm on April 9, 1987. Neither Lt. Miller nor Trooper Allen, a trained traffic homicide investigator, could discover any trace evidence on Respondent's FHP vehicle to substantiate Respondent's claim regarding the cut. There were no breaks in the metal or paint along Respondent's door in the area he identified as the point of injury. There were no rough or jagged edges. The Notice of Injury signed by Respondent contained information which was false or misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the certification for a law enforcement officer held by Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 19th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. Paragraph 40 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. Respondent's testimony and that of Mr. Black relating to the alleged wound to the right arm was not credible. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. See comment p. 3 above. Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. See comment p. 3 above. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1-5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, to the extent that it relates Respondent's testimony it is correct, however, the fact it not. That is, it is found that Respondent injured his left arm at the Hawkins' home; consequently, Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Respondent's account was not credible. Paragraph 7 is accepted to the extent that it relates the story given by Respondent; such story being deemed incredible and therefore, rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is accepted to the extent that it relates the testimony of the troopers; however, the conclusion reached is speculative and unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted; however the facts related in that form were false or misleading. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, or unsupported by the credible evidence in this cause. Paragraph 12 is rejected as argument, or unsupported by the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Denis Dean, Esquire Dean & Hartman, P.A. 10680 N. W. 25 Street Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33172 Daryl McLaughlin Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Sonny's Italian Restaurant and Pizzeria, Inc., d/b/a Sonny's Italian Restaurant, at 247 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida, Respondent or Sonny's, holds Beverage License No. 23-2197 Series 4-COP. Acting upon the request of, and in concert with, the Miami Peach Police Department, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco instituted an investigation of Sonny's during the period of April 25, 1981 through May 13, 1981. Much of the investigation was conducted by beverage officers performing undercover surveillance. On April 25, 1981, while operating undercover, Beverage Officer Luis J. Terminello, while in the lounge area at Sonny's, was offered oral sex by a patron known as "Wallflower" for $45. On April 26 Terminello engaged in a conversation in Sonny's lounge with a black female patron known as "Sherrill" who offered to commit oral sex for $25. On April 29 he again was approached in Sonny's by "Sherrill" who offered oral sex for $25. Later that same evening he engaged in conversation with a female patron known as "Lisa," who offered oral sex for $40. On the same evening, while engaged in conversation with a patron known as "Annette," he was offered oral sex for $50. On April 30, 1981, Terminello engaged in conversation with "Sherrill" in Sonny's lounge and was offered oral sex for $30. On May 2 Terminello engaged a patron known as "Maxine" in conversation and was offered oral sex for $20. He later learned Maxine is a male. On May 3, 1981 in Sonny's lounge Terminello engaged in conversation with Annette who offered him sexual intercourse for $50. All these conversations took place at the bar or in the vicinity thereof while the lounge and bar area were crowded with customers. These acts of prostitution were offered to be committed in Terminello's automobile or in the restroom at Sonny's. While Terminello was in Sonny's lounge during the investigation period he observed the females who had solicited him talking with other male patrons. He also saw them leave the lounge with male patrons and return some 45 minutes later. On the April 25 visit Terminello observed the barmaid, Susan, snorting a white power from a spoon, and, on at least three other occasions, he observed patrons at the dark part of the bar snorting a white powder. At other times he noticed what was recognized by him as marijuana smoke in the bar, lounge and restrooms and saw patrons smoking what appeared to him to be marijuana cigarettes. During the period of the investigation Terminello became known in Sonny's as a purchaser of controlled substances. On April 30 Robert Jones, a beverage officer, and Terminello purchased a substance they thought to be cocaine from a patron known as "Ice Cream." The transaction occurred in the men's room in the restaurant side of Sonny's and, following the transaction, "Ice Cream" lit a marijuana cigarette and passed it around to Terminello and Jones. Subsequent lab reports confirmed the cigarette to be marijuana but the substance bought was not cocaine. On 2 Hay, while in the bar area at Sonny's, Terminello was offered Quaaludes and he purchased six of them from a patron known as Don. On May 3, while engaged in conversation with Annette at the bar, Terminello said he was interested in getting cocaine. Annette told him she could get some from Susan, the barmaid, for $70 a gram. After he agreed on the price Annette went behind the bar, talked quietly to Susan, and both girls left the bar and went into the ladies' restroom. Terminello followed them to the door of the ladies' room and caught a glimpse of a package being handed by Susan to Annette. Terminello returned to the bar, where he was shortly joined by Annette, who delivered one gram of cocaine in exchange for $70. About an hour later, Terminello returned to Sonny's and arranged for another purchase of cocaine from Susan by Annette. After this transaction was completed Terminello, while sitting at the bar, called Susan over to order a beer and say "Thanks." She replied that she wasn't "holding" all the time but when she was he was welcome. Later the same evening in Sonny's, Terminello made two purchases of what he thought was cocaine from patrons "Charles" and "Ice Cream." Subsequent lab analysis of these purchases disclosed they were not cocaine. During the same investigative period Beverage Officer Carmen Gonzalez and Miami Beach Police Officer Joan Donnelly visited Sonny's on several occasions as undercover agents. On April 27, 1981, while seated at the bar Gonzalez and Donnelly negotiated a purchase of marijuana from bartender Gerald (Jerry) Hamburger. He told them he could provide marijuana at $30 an ounce. When they agreed he left the bar and walked toward the restaurant from where he shortly returned saying he would have to send out for it. Thirty to forty-five minutes later Jerry delivered the marijuana at the agreed price. Gonzalez and Donnelly returned to Sonny's on April 30 and told Jerry they would like to purchase marijuana and he introduced them to the pizza delivery man, "Bobby." When Bobby asked if they wanted anything, Gonzalez told him she was interested in purchasing marijuana. Bobby replied that he would have to go out and get it. He returned some thirty minutes later and motioned for the officers to accompany him to the lounge in the ladies' restroom. There he removed a packet of marijuana from his sock and gave it to Gonzalez who paid him $30. On May 1 Gonzalez and Donnelly returned to Sonny's. Jerry wasn't working so they asked the bartender, "Ray", where they could find Bobby. When told he was on the restaurant side of Sonny's, they proceeded to the restaurant area, where they were seen and greeted by Bobby. When Gonzalez asked if they could get marijuana, Bobby replied yes but he would have to go out for it. Some thirty minutes later Bobby took Gonzalez and Donnelly into the ladies' restroom in the lounge area where he delivered one ounce of marijuana and Gonzalez paid him $30. Gonzalez and Donnelly also became acquainted with two band members working in Sonny's called Waco and Termine. On May 3, Termine told them he could got good coke for them; and, when they agreed, he walked to the back of the restaurant and came out with another man. The other man couldn't provide a full gram but could provide three "dimes" for $10 each. He removed these foil- wrapped packets of cocaine from his pocket and handed them to Gonzalez, who paid him $30. On April 30, Gonzalez and Donnelly purchased a white powder, believed to be cocaine, from "Ice Cream." This transaction took place in the ladies' restroom in the lounge; and, following the sale, "Ice Cream" lit a marijuana cigarette and passed it around. While they were in the restroom "Diane" knocked on the door, came in and lit a second marijuana cigarette. The substance purchased from "Ice Cream," when tested, was found not to be cocaine. During the investigation, several patrons at Sonny's approached Gonzalez and Donnelly to sell them controlled substances. Joseph Chierico holds all of the stock in Sonny's. His son, Robert, serves as manager. According to their testimony, both are present at the establishment nearly every evening. Sonny's is open from 4:30 p.m. until 5:00 a.m., with deliveries of food on Miami Beach until 3:30 a.m. Each spends most of his time in the restaurant area but Robert, as manager, walks through the lounge and bar area frequently. Robert spends less than one-half of his time in the lounge side. Each testified he never saw any drugs brought into the licensed premises and when a customer complains about solicitation by a prostitute he tells the prostitute to leave. Richard Chierico testified that on many occasions he escorted patrons off the restaurant premises for use or sale of narcotics. If they hear about someone attempting to sell narcotics on the premises, they tell them to leave and not come back. Both Chiericos testified that they did not know Wallflower, Sherrill, Annette or Maxine; however, they did know a transsexual named Lisa who was not allowed on the premises because of suspicion of solicitation. Joseph Chierico testified he hired a band leader on a contract basis for a specified number of players and had nothing to do with the individual members of the band. Exhibits 5 and 6 were admitted into evidence as business records purporting to show the employees of Sonny' a each week. No hours worked are shown on these exhibits, and Joseph Chierico, through whom the exhibits were offered, could not explain them. These records are maintained by the bookkeeper who did not testify. He prepares the payroll from which Chierico writes the employee's checks on Sunday nights. These exhibits indicate that Jerry was on duty only one day during the week ending 2 May 1981; but, without a witness to verify the accuracy of this record, they are insufficient to rebut the testimony of Gonzalez and Donnelly that Jerry was on duty as bartender on at least two nights when marijuana was purchased. Joseph Chierico became the sole shareholder of Sonny's on 30 October 1980 and executed the Personal Questionnaire (Form UBR 710-L), (Exhibit 4), on 31 October. However, the Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership (Form DBR 759-L), (Exhibit 1), was not filed wish the petitioner until April 9, 1981. Joseph Chierico testified that he has been the operator of Sonny's off and on for the past 25 years; that if he suspects any employees of using or selling drugs he gets rid of the suspected employee; that he sees many patrons using drugs and when he does, he tells them to leave; and that he vaguely recalls an incident involving the license several years ago but nothing came out of it. On rebuttal, Exhibits 7 and 8 were introduced into evidence. In Exhibit 7, the licensee was charged with changing corporate officers in 1969 without notifying the Beverage Department and with failing to disclose that Joseph Chierico held an interest in the business. Exhibit 8 is a STIPULATION executed June 21, 1971 in which Barbara Chierico, President of licensee and estranged wife of Joseph Chierico, agreed to pay a $500 fine and submit a management contract to the Beverage Department for approval.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles E. Nelson, was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 23, 1990, and issued certificate number 99509. Based on what Officer Nelson told a fellow officer, he had previously worked in law enforcement for 20 years in Toledo, Ohio. On December 12, 1992, Sergeant Charles Anthony Wall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and Dale Wayne Vermillion, a reserve police officer, responded to a call, reporting that a man and a woman were fighting near a convenience store. Officer John Michael McKim also responded to the call, in a separate vehicle, to serve as Sergeant Wall's backup. Tommy Goode and Teresa Pickens were found in a wooded area near the convenience store and were arrested for disorderly intoxication. Because Goode and Pickens were arguing with each other, they were placed in separate police cars. Goode was handcuffed and locked in the back of Sergeant Wall's caged police car, while Pickens was placed in Officer McKim's car. While Sergeant Wall was sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle completing certain paperwork, including an arrest docket, Officer Nelson arrived in a third vehicle. From the back of Sergeant Wall's car, Goode was yelling offensive comments to all of the officers. After Officer Nelson, who is Black, approached the car, Goode included racial epithets, including the word "nigger," in his continuing offensive comments. Officer Nelson responded to Goode's taunting by saying words to the effect: "I'm not like the rest of these people, I don't need my job. I'll come back and get you." Officer Nelson unlocked the back door of Sergeant Wall's car, leaned in, grabbed, choked, and shook Goode. The reserve officer who could see Goode's face during the attack described it as follows: And when Officer Nelson went into the vehicle, I was standing looking in through the window, and Officer Nelson grabbed Mr. Goode around the neck with his hand and was choking him to a point that I had not seen a human's eyes extend out of their eye sockets so far, so he was choking him pretty hard and kind of shaking him back and forth. Transcript p. 24 Because of Officer Nelson's size and strength, Sergeant Wall needed the assistance of Officer McKim to pull him off Goode and out of the car. In the following excerpt of his testimony, Sergeant Wall described his response to Officer Nelson's actions: So I told him, you know, hey, "What are you doing, get off of him," something to that effect. And that didn't work, so I began to try to pull him off, me and Officer McKim. And it took great effort to get him off, and I don't know if I actually -- he let go, or the effort that it took to pull him off that got him off, I just remember that when he came out of the backseat, that he was like a wild man. I mean, I thought at one point he was going to jump on us. Transcript p. 10 Goode had red marks on his neck when Sergeant Wall transported him to jail. The Sheriff's Department initiated both criminal and administrative investigations of Officer Nelson's attack on Goode. Officer Nelson was first reassigned to a desk job and, ultimately, left the department. Officer Sandra M. Pike participated in the internal investigation of the incident by the Sheriff's Office. When she interviewed Officer Nelson, he told Officer Pike that he lost control and that he intended to shut Goode up. The force used by Officer Nelson was unnecessary. Goode was not posing a threat or trying to escape. The conduct of Officer Nelson constitutes a criminal offense and demonstrates a failure to maintain good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, revoke certificate number 99509, issued on February 23, 1990, to Charles E. Nelson. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Amy J. Bardill, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire 214 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue This cause concerns the issue of whether the Petitioner should impose disciplinary sanctions against the certification of the Respondent, Kenneth C. Green, as a law enforcement officer. Specifically the issues concern whether the Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring maintenance of good moral character by a certified law enforcement officer and, if he has not, what discipline is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the state of Florida charged with licensing (certification) of law enforcement officers and with enforcing the practice standards embodied in Chapter 943 Florida Statutes and pendent rules. It regulates the practice of law enforcement officers through the enactment of regulatory standards and enforcement of such standards by rulemaking, as well as by implementation of policy decisions. The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer on June 17, 1982. He was issued certificate number 02- 331-00. The Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Gainesville Police Department at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Early on the morning of January 2, 1988, the Respondent returned from a trip to Atlanta, Georgia, of several days duration. He returned directly to his residence at the Gardenia Apartments, an apartment complex in Gainesville, Florida. On that morning, Sergeant Louis Aceveda of the Gainesville Police Department responded to a call to investigate a complaint of loitering and a possible illicit drug transaction at the apartment complex. Sergeant Aceveda is a narcotics investigator for that police department. Shortly after his arrival at the Gardenia Apartments complex, Sergeant Aceveda coincidentally encountered the Respondent, a fellow police officer, when the Respondent was driving into the parking lot of the complex. They engaged in a brief conversation about Sergeant Aceveda's purpose at the site and the Sergeant asked the Respondent if he could use the restroom in the Respondent's apartment. The Respondent readily agreed. Upon entering the Respondent's apartment the Sergeant smelled an aroma of burnt marijuana. No one else was present in the apartment at that time other than Sergeant Aceveda and the Respondent. The Sergeant made his way to the only restroom in the apartment and closed the door. Once he was in the restroom he observed a partially-burned marijuana cigarette in an ashtray lying in plain view on the top of the toilet tank. He confiscated that cigarette remnant, placed it in his pocket, and left the Respondent's apartment without revealing his discovery to the Respondent. After leaving the apartment he reported the incident to his supervisors and fellow investigators. Later that same day, Detective Drayton McDaniel of the Gainesville Police Department Narcotics and Organized Crime Section executed a probable cause affidavit in support of a search warrant application in order to attempt a search of the Respondent's apartment. The affidavit was based on Sergeant Aceveda's observations made earlier that day. It was presented to a county judge who found probable cause and issued a search warrant for the Respondent's apartment. At approximately 7:50 p.m. on January 2, 1988 Detective McDaniel and several other officers met the Respondent outside his apartment. Detective McDaniel knew the Respondent as a fellow police officer. He read the search warrant to the Respondent and the Respondent exhibited no specific reaction, asked no questions and made no comments concerning the search. Detective McDaniel and the officers assisting him then entered the apartment and began the search. Detective McDaniel collected, packaged and placed identification on certain seized items found during the search. Sergeant A. W. Smith, the Respondent's former supervisor, assisted with the search. He found a metal can top which contained approximately one tenth of a gram of marijuana (cannabis) as well as "rolling papers" commonly used to roll marijuana cigarettes. This material was in plain view on top of the Respondent's dresser in his bedroom. The Respondent's police badge and identification had been placed almost in contact with the metal can top on top of the dresser also. Investigator Richard Brooks of the Alachua County Sheriff's office also assisted in the search. He found an ashtray in the Respondent's bedroom which contained three marijuana cigarettes. Inside a drawer in the dresser Detective McDaniel found a black ceramic smoking pipe containing the residue of cannabis in the bowl. Sergeant Smith found a closed, purple handbag in the same bedroom on top of a chest at the foot of the bed. Inside the handbag was the Respondent's service revolver, issued to him by the Gainesville Police Department, as well as a small bag containing 1.5 grams of cannabis. Detective McDaniel found two cannabis cigarettes in the Respondent's automobile after he had obtained the Respondent's consent to search it. Sergeant Smith found four partially smoked marijuana cigarettes weighing approximately a tenth of a gram which were in a metal tray on the top of a dresser in the Respondent's bedroom. These were in plain view. Sergeant Smith also found a round tray under the dresser in the Respondent's bedroom which contained .1 gram of cannabis. During this lengthy search the Respondent was present. Despite this he made no statements nor asked any questions of his fellow police officers, who were known to him, while they were searching his home and his vehicle. However when Detective McDaniel discovered a small bag of suspected cocaine in his vehicle the Respondent indicated to him that his fingerprints would not be found on the bag. Other than this he was heard to make no comment during the entire search. After the search was concluded Detective McDaniel told him that he would be arrested. Again he made no statement. On January 4, 1988 Investigator Raymond Griffin of the Gainesville Police Department Internal Affairs Unit conducted an administrative interview of the Respondent. The Respondent was asked to submit to a urinalysis to determine if he had used narcotics but refused to do so. On January 5, 1988 the Respondent resigned his position with the Gainesville Police Department after having worked in that capacity for five and one- half years. On May 31, 1988 he entered a plea of nolo contendere on the charge of possession of cannabis before the County Court, In And For Alachua County. The Respondent maintained in his testimony that he had been to Atlanta on a vacation trip for several days, during which time his brother and some of his friends had used his apartment, apparently as a place for temporary residence and to "party". The Respondent indicated that he felt that his brother or other persons occupying the premises temporarily, during his brother's possession of them, had left the marijuana cigarettes and remnants of them on the premises. The Respondent maintained that he was gathering these items to begin investigating their origin and who might be responsible for them and that this was why he had the marijuana in the purple handbag and on top of his dresser. He had no explanation for the marijuana cigarette remnants from the bathroom or under the dresser or from his vehicle, however. The same is true of the discovery of the cocaine in his vehicle. The Respondent maintained that he was unable to locate his brother to secure his testimony for this proceeding because at some point after the Respondent's arrest and resignation from the Gainesville Police Department, and before this hearing, the Respondent's brother was convicted of a felony, and sentenced and incarcerated in the state prison system. The Respondent professed not to know his whereabouts at the time of the hearing. The Respondent's version of events concerning his gathering the marijuana in his bedroom as evidence, for purposes of conducting an investigation concerning its origin is not accepted. It is not credible to believe that a police officer of five and one-half years experience would gather marijuana and place it on his dresser in a convenient location, in the belief that persons not normally using his apartment had left those items there, without conducting a thorough search of his apartment so that he would have discovered the other marijuana remnants and also gathered them into a central location for preservation as evidence. If he had really intended gathering the marijuana in his bedroom as evidence, he would certainly have discovered that which was found in the bathroom, under the dresser and the marijuana smoking pipe from the dresser drawer. The fact that these other items were discovered not gathered and preserved in one location for transmittal to the police department, and the origination of an investigation, belies the Respondent's story in this regard. In fact, it appears that the Respondent was simply in possession of an illegal substance, marijuana, in his apartment and the search was conducted and the discoveries made before he could dispose of it. His story is further belied by the fact that cocaine and marijuana cigarettes were found in his automobile, which does not fit his description of events concerning his gathering of evidence to investigate who might have left the marijuana lying around the apartment. He was in possession of his automobile during the Atlanta trip. Further, his possession of the marijuana in question in the apartment was shown by the fact that he was present at home in the residence when the search warrant was served and the marijuana was lying around, or most of it was, in plain view. It is, thus, difficult to believe that he was unaware of its presence and did not have dominion and control over it. The fact that the marijuana in his apartment was under his dominion and control and, therefore, his possession, is corroborated by the fact that marijuana was found, along with cocaine, in his vehicle, which points to the fact that all the illegal substances found were possessed by the Respondent with his knowledge. There was certainly no evidence that Respondent's brother or other unknown persons had used his vehicle and left marijuana and cocaine therein unbeknownst to the Respondent. In summary, the marijuana being in plain view in the apartment at several different locations indicates that it was in the Respondent's actual possession, that he knew of it, and that he simply was surprised before he could discard it or otherwise dispose of it.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revoking the certification of the Respondent, Kenneth C. Green, as a law enforcement officer. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: 1-28. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the subject matter, and not entirely supported by the clear and convincing evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted. 5-13. Accepted. 14. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive of the issues presented for adjudication. Copies furnished to: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Horace N. Moore, Sr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2146 Gainesville, FL 32602 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
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, Alfonso Morales (Morales), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Morales. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 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 Morales 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 7, 1988, the Commission notified Morales 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 carried a concealed firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Morales filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Morales 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 Morales on December 18, 1985, at which time he divulged that, as to arrests, he had been arrested one time in 1980 for carrying a concealed weapon and that, as to drug usage, he had used marijuana one time "many, years ago." Regarding the use of marijuana, the proof demonstrated that Morales had used it but once, and that was in 1976, when he was 17 years old and attending high school. Regarding his arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the proof demonstrates that in August 1980, Morales was stopped while driving in the City of Miami Beach for a "routine traffic offenses (unsafe equipment)." Following the stop, Morales volunteered to the officers that he had a .25 caliber automatic pistol under the driver's seat which, upon discovery by the officers, resulted in his arrest. No charges were filed, however, as a consequence of that arrest, and Morales' arrest record was expunged and sealed by court order in August 1985. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Morales' background, that Morales 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, Morales, born March 9, 1959, used marijuana one time, 13 years ago when he was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, can Morales' arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, considering what has occurred in his life since that time, be considered persuasive proof, if it ever was, of bad moral character. 4/ Morales graduated from high school in 1981, and entered the U.S. Army in 1982 where he served honorably for over three years. During his service he attained the rank of sergeant, enjoyed a top secret security clearance, garnered several commendations, and all drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the services, Morales was employed by the State of Florida, Job Services of Florida, until his employment by the County. To date, Morales has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Morales 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, Alfonso Morales, 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.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations and issues herein, Respondent was the holder of 2 COP alcoholic beverage license number 66-89, held since 1952, for his premises known as Eddie's Drive In, located at 1907 Avenue D., Ft. Pierce, Florida. Mr. Asbury has operated his establishment at that location under the above license since 1952 with only three former infractions of a very minor nature. In 1959, he was warned for a failure to have the fingerprints of an employee on file. In 1963 he was given a 15-day suspension when a minor was found in possession of whiskey as opposed to beer on his premises. In 1965 he was again given a 15-day suspension and, in addition, a $200.00 fine because gambling tickets were found in the premises. Until the instant case, these were the only derogatory incidents in Respondent's file. Respondent has been known to be very cooperative with the authorities and has always quickly corrected violations brought to his attention. In the latter part of 1982, based on a complaint from the Ft. Pierce police Department of numerous narcotics in the Avenue D area, Petitioner conducted an undercover investigation of several establishments in the area including that of the Respondent. Pursuant to that investigation, Beverage Officer Thompson, five year veteran with DABT, who has been given the normal police training in narcotics detection and identification as well as having attended various schools conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and who, based on this education and his experience in the field, is quite familiar with marijuana and its various forms and methods of use, in the company of another beverage investigator, Hamilton, on September 17, 1982, entered Respondent's premises at approximately 9:30 P.M. and observed both Respondent and his bar maid, Lois, on the premises. He took a seat at the bar across from Respondent and several feet off to the side of Lois. He saw Lois pull a cigarette from beneath the bar and start to smoke it. From the way she handled the cigarette and from the way it looked and smelled, he felt it was marijuana. While Lois was smoking this cigarette, she made no effort to hide it and was in full view of the Respondent all the time. Thompson saw Respondent look over in her direction while she was doing it but made no issue of it or even acknowledged it. Though there were other patrons in the bar at the time, Thompson saw nothing else that looked like marijuana use to him that evening. The following evening, September 18, both agents again entered the establishment and sat at the bar. This time the bar maid was Laverne. Thompson also saw a black female identified as Devonza at the counter with whom both he and the other investigator had a brief conversation. Later, Thompson saw another black female identified as Dot (Dorothy Battle), seated across the bar from Laverne, pull out and start smoking a cigarette he thought was marijuana. He also saw Dot pull small manila colored packages from a small pouch she carried and sell them for $5.00. These bags were similar in appearance to what he knew from his experience to be "nickle bags" of marijuana. He also saw Laverne smoking that evening and from the way she held the cigarette and from its odor and the way it was rolled and burning, he concluded it was marijuana. At this particular time, she was on duty behind the bar, but Respondent was not on the premises. No samples of the substance in question were taken either night. Both investigators went back to the premises on September 22 at about 8:30 P.M. There were few patrons in the bar at the time. Thompson went to the bar and sat talking to Laverne who was on duty. When Dot came up and sat at the bar, he asked her if she had any $5.00 bags and she said she did. She pulled out a small manila bag like he had seen her sell on September 18 and made no effort to hide the transaction. She made the transfer to him above the level of the bar. Thompson does not know if Laverne saw the sale or not, but Respondent was not on the premises at the time. The substance he purchased that night was later properly identified as marijuana. When he went back at about 10:00 P.M. on September 23, Thompson saw 10 or more patrons in the bar. He sat down at the bar across from Respondent and asked him if he knew where he could buy some "snow." Respondent indicated he did not, but that there was some around. Respondent's recollection of this conversation differs from that of Thompson. He says he thought Thompson was asking for snow, which is the nickname of a known drug dealer named Coleman, and he said he did hot know where he was but that he was around. Under either interpretation of the conversation, the result is the same. Thompson asked a question and got no assistance from Respondent's answer. There is nothing incriminating either in knowing that "snow" is available in the area (from all reports, drug use is rampant in this area), or in knowing that a known drug dealer, Snow, is around. Thompson had also been in the bar earlier in the day, about 3:00 P.M., when he saw both Laverne and Dot inside. After sitting at the bar for a while, he walked over to the video area where he saw black males rolling and smoking what he took to be marijuana cigarettes in a remote area of the club. While talking with Laverne at the bar, he saw her pass an empty 1/2 of a cardboard beer box to three black males sitting at a table. He saw these males use this box to hold large amounts of what appeared to be raw marijuana from which they were making small manila packages of the substances which they subsequently put into a brown paper bag under the table. During this same time, he saw Laverne smoking what he suspected to be a marijuana cigarette. At about 9:15 P.M. on October 8, Thompson again went back to the club and saw Laverne when he sat at the bar. Another black female, identified as Wanda, came to the bar and offered to sell him marijuana. She pulled out a small package of purported marijuana and laid it on the bar, offering to sell it for $5.00. She also offered to sell him a somewhat larger bag for $6.00. At this point, Thompson gave Laverne a $20.00 bill and asked for change which she gave him. She was standing right there and made no effort at all to stop this sale of marijuana. In fact, Thompson had asked her if Wanda's stuff was any good and she replied it was. While at the club that evening, he also saw other black males and females smoking what to him appeared to be marijuana at a remote area of the bar counter. He formed the opinion it was marijuana because of how the cigarettes were rolled, smoked, and passed around and from the distinctive smell it has. On October 9, 1982, Thompson again went into the place, this time with Hamilton. On this occasion, Laverne was on duty and he sat at the bar and propositioned her to buy him some marijuana. She said she had none then because she had smoked it all, and so he was unable to make a buy that evening, but he saw, while in there, other patrons at the bar and in the area smoking what he is convinced was marijuana. Again, he formed that opinion because of the way the substance was being smoked and handled. Thompson did not get back to Respondent's place until October 15, 1982, when he again went in with Hamilton. On this evening, Respondent was there and he could smell the heavy distinctive odor of marijuana in the premises. Thompson sat at the bar across from Respondent and observed a group of black males at a nearby table. While he was watching, he saw one black male inhale a large quantity of smoke and blow it into the nostrils of the other people at the table. When he saw this, he mentioned it to the Respondent who looked over and acknowledged it but made no effort to stop it or get these patrons out of his place. On this same occasion, the bar maid, Brenda, was smoking what appeared to be marijuana after Respondent left and Thompson was able to purchase marijuana from Dot, at the bar and in front of Brenda, who also made no effort to stop the transfer. Brenda also made no effort to stop other patrons who were rolling and smoking what he believed to be marijuana cigarettes right at the bar. Also on this same evening, Thompson observed Hamilton purchase what was subsequently identified as marijuana from Dot near the video games. The next afternoon, on October 16, 1982, at about 2:30 P.M., Thompson again went into the Respondent's establishment with Hamilton and sat at the bar. At this time, he saw the rolling and smoking of suspected marijuana cigarettes at nearby tables and at the bar by unidentified black males. The smell and packaging of the substance is what convinced him it was marijuana. Neither agent was in Respondent's establishment again until December 18, 1982, when both went in about 8:30 P.M. They sat at the bar where, on this evening, Beverly was the bar maid. While sitting there, Thompson saw various individuals smoking marijuana at different places on the premises and observed that Beverly made no effort to stop it. In fact, from the odor, the method of burning, and the way she smoked, he was convinced she was smoking it herself. Dorothy Lee Battle (Dot) denies ever having met Thompson before this hearing and indicates he is lying when he says he bought marijuana from her at Respondent's establishment. She admits that she was arrested for the sale and delivery of marijuana outside Respondent's place but absolutely denies ever having sold or transferred inside. Even though she refused to cooperate with the authorities who wanted to prosecute Respondent, she was placed on three years probation after being confined for almost 3 1/2 months. She indicates she has known the Respondent since she was a kid and knows that he is definitely opposed to the use of drugs and will not permit it to be sold in his establishment. In fact, he has told her that she was not to bring any marijuana into his place and if she had any he would call the police. She knows that Respondent is quite concerned about losing his license because she believes this is the only business he has. Because of that, there are a lot of signs warning against the smoking or selling of marijuana in there but notwithstanding, she has seen people smoking marijuana inside the bar. However, his patrons respect him and any marijuana smoking is done only when Respondent is not there and never when he is. These signs have also been seen by Mr. Daniel Cribbs, the supplier of Respondent's vending machines, whose family has dealt with him for 30 years or so. Mr. Cribbs has been in Respondent's establishment every two weeks for a long while and has seen these signs prohibiting the use of selling of marijuana up and down for several months or so. He gave no indication as to whether they were there two years or so ago when the incidents in question were alleged to have taken place. In any case, he has spoken with Respondent about marijuana in the past and recalls that Respondent has stated that he doesn't want it in there. These signs were also seen from time to time by Gary Coleman who, by deposition, indicated that they are the normal signs placed in all establishments where beer is sold. Coleman indicates he has also heard Respondent telling people who were smoking pot to leave his place. Coleman denies every smoking marijuana in Respondent's place or, for that matter ever doing anything unlawful there. He has lived in Ft. Pierce for about eight years and in all that time has only been in there about a dozen times or so. He is, however, by his own admission, on probation for selling narcotics. Therefore, neither his testimony or that of Ms. Battle are particularly credible and both Thompson and Young, who conducted the close out investigation of Respondent's premises indicate that on the times they were in there, neither ever saw any signs warning against the sale or smoking of marijuana. It is, therefore, most likely, that if any signs were posted, they were put up long after the incidents in question and were not there prior to official interest being shown. Respondent denies that Thompson ever saw Lois smoke marijuana in his premises. He also indicates that he discharged Laverne by telling her she need not come to work any more when he found out she was doing drugs. He contends he never had any idea people were doing drugs in his establishment. He has, he says, always been against that sort of conduct and has repeatedly told his employees to call either the police or him if they saw people smoking marijuana on his property. He has, on at least one occasion prior to the incidents in question here, called the police on people smoking marijuana in his bar. There is, he contends, only so much one can do about the problem short of that. Even on the occasion he called the police and they came and took the offenders outside, they were not arrested and, as he understood it, even after requesting the police to make these people stay out of his place, the police did not even take their names. Mr. Asbury had a schedule for his routine at the time these alleged incidents took place which had him arriving at his place about 6:00 P.M. to check out the bartender on duty and check the money. This took about 30 minutes. He would then leave and come back between 9:00 and 9:30 P.M. to check for a while, after which he would again leave and come back at 11:00 P.M. and stay for the rest of the evening. This would be his routine just about every night of the week. He has no knowledge of the things that are alleged to have taken place when he was there. As to the shot gunning incident (the blowing of the marijuana smoke into the others' nostrils) that Thompson said he observed, Respondent denies it ever happened. Respondent tries to hire only people he knows and trusts. He pays them in cash and keeps no employment records. During the period in question, he states he had two employees. One was named Vernel (he does not knew anyone named Laverne) and the other was named Lois. Since the incidents in question, Respondent checks on his establishment much more than he did before. He has added a new afternoon visit to his schedule and has hired new girls to tend bar. While prior to this time, no one ever warned him of the problems he was apparently having, even now he still has problems with people smoking marijuana in the place. When he learns of it, he tells them to get out and he is quite satisfied that law enforcement officials have not seen much selling and smoking of marijuana in his place recently.
