Findings Of Fact Petitioner made application to the Respondent for the grant of a Class "M" license related to service as an office manager. Consideration of this application was in accordance with Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Having reviewed the application, Respondent decided to deny the request. The stated authority for denial included Section 493.319(1)(f), Florida Statutes, through the contention that the Petitioner was guilty of fraud or deceit, or of negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of his business for which a license was held. Further, the decision to deny was based upon an alleged problem with Section 493.306(2)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Petitioner was said to be lacking in good moral character, on the belief that there was a substantial connection between the reputed lack of good moral character and the business for which the license was being sought and based upon the opinion that the denial for reasons of lack of good moral character was supported by clear and convincing evidence. In particular, the alleged factual basis for this denial was: The records of the Respondent indicated that Petitioner had an outstanding debt, an administrative fine which was owed to the Department in the claimed amount of $1,600. The Petitioner's Class "A" and "B" agencies, Ross Detective Agency and Ross Security Patrol Agency, respectively, had been closed by the Internal Revenue Service and the Florida Workman's Compensation agency and the Internal Revenue Service had filed liens against the applicant's bank account and/or assets. Petitioner did not accept the denial and requested a formal 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The matter was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and a hearing officer was assigned. On February 4, 1986, the formal hearing was conducted to consider the dispute between the parties. While Respondent held Class "A," "B" and "C" licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, an administrative complaint was brought against him by the Respondent. The allegations of the complaint dealt with alleged conduct on the part of employees of the Respondent in the licensed business, having to do with being on duty without possession of identification cards within the meaning of Section 493.311(4), Florida Statutes; the failure of certain security guards employed by the Respondent to possess Class "G" licenses while on duty; certain security guards being employed by the Respondent not having possession of Class "D" licenses while on duty; and the failure of the Respondent to have a disclosure notice posted in a conspicuous place in his principal place of business. In the face of this complaint, Respondent requested an informal hearing by completion of an election of rights form on February 24, 1984. This request was in accordance with the terms of Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. The informal hearing was held on July 6, 1984, in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent was represented by counsel in that matter. Following the conduct of the informal hearing, a final order was entered by the Respondent in this cause fining the Petitioner in this action $2,200 for the several violations found. That final order dates from February 22, 1985. A copy of the final order may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. Prior counsel to the Petitioner in this cause was provided a copy of the February 22, 1985 final order. Although Petitioner is aware that he fines are outstanding, he has yet to pay the fines. Having not received payment of the fines, the Respondent in this action brought a case against the present Petitioner related to Petitioner's Class "A," "B," "C" and "G" licenses seeking the suspension of those licenses pending the payment of the $2,200 in fines which had been imposed. The date of this complaint is April 5, 1985. A copy of the complaint is found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Petitioner requested a formal hearing in the matter of the suspension case of April 5, 1985. The Respondent agency being of the opinion that the present Petitioner had not made a timely request for hearing, on April 30, 1985, it entered a final order suspending the various categories of licenses held by the Petitioner pending the payment of the outstanding $2,200 in fines. That suspension would end upon the expiration of the present Petitioner's license terms, provided the payment of the fines had not occurred in the interim. A copy of this final order may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. Effective February 22, 1985, the present Petitioner owed the Respondent $2,200 in fines. No appeal was taken from that final order and the fines remain in force and effect. Whether the present Petitioner made a timely request for formal hearing in the action seeking his suspension for nonpayment of the fines and whether the suspension should have been imposed by final order are not relevant to the questions raised by the present application for Class "M" license. It is the failure to render payment for the fines that forms the basis of denial of the application, not the idea of suspension. The imposition of the fines relates to Petitioner's conduct in the practice of his business associated with the licenses he held under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. The violations for which he was fined shows the Petitioner to be lacking in good moral character and this lack of good moral character continues with the nonpayment of the administrative fines. Petitioner's Class "B" license has been voluntarily placed in an inactive status pending the collection of taxes by the Internal Revenue Service. The exact status of the Class "A" license is not apparent. Petitioner at present works for the New Dawn security agency, a Class "B" agency. He has worked there since bay 1985 dealing with contractual matters of that agency and going to job sites, coordinating and supervising and filling in for security guards. New Dawn is an agency owned by the Petitioner's son. The evidence does not reveal that the Internal Revenue Service has closed down the Ross Detective Agency and Ross Security Patrol Agency related to the Petitioner's Class "A" and "8" licenses. Petitioner has made an arrangement with the Internal Revenue Service to use funds which his various businesses had earned in government jobs, totaling some $106,000, to satisfy obligations which the Petitioner has with the Internal Revenue Service. The amount of money owed to the Internal Revenue Service is $48,000. Some of that obligation has been satisfied. This collection process may have been instituted following the placement of a lien, but that is not clear from the facts in this record. The record does not reveal that the Petitioner had liens placed against his businesses by the Florida Workman's Compensation agency. In his testimony, Petitioner indicated that he did not owe the Workman's Compensation agency any money. Petitioner's involvement with the Internal Revenue Service and Florida Workman's Compensation agency has not been proven to constitute any form of fraud or deceit, negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of his business or does not reveal lack of good moral character, based upon the hearing record in this case. Petitioner had otherwise qualified to gain licensure, but for the concerns expressed in the statement of denial.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and (c),2 by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7) for good moral character; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 139869 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department (the "Department"). On January 23, 1994, Deputy J. W. Strickland observed Respondent in a parked vehicle in a vacant lot in an area of town known to the deputy as an area of drugs and prostitution. A white female was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Deputy Strickland approached the vehicle and asked Respondent what he was doing in the area. Respondent identified himself as a correctional officer. Deputy Strickland recognized the female as Ms. Sherry Reinstzell. Ms. Reinstzell has a criminal history of prostitution. Deputy Strickland completed a field investigation report. Respondent and Ms. Reinstzell drove away. Deputy Strickland filed the field investigation report with the appropriate Department office. Sgt. Donald Retzer, Internal Affairs, received a copy of the field investigation report. He opened an internal affairs investigation concerning Respondent's conduct. Sgt. Retzer obtained a sworn statement from Respondent on January 28, 1994. Respondent stated under oath that he was just giving Ms. Reinstzell a ride to see a friend and did not know she was a prostitute. He denied any sexual activity with Ms. Reinstzell. Later in the same interview on January 28, 1994, Sgt. Retzer confronted Respondent with additional evidence previously gathered by Sgt. Retzer, including a sworn statement by Ms. Reinstzell. Respondent admitted that he picked Ms. Reinstzell up on Lane Avenue and negotiated a monetary arrangement for sex. Respondent then drove to an abandoned warehouse where Ms. Reinstzell performed fellatio on Respondent. Respondent paid Ms. Reinstzell $20 for the oral sex. He then drove her to a house where she used the $20 as part of the purchase price for illegal drugs with Respondent's knowledge.
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 violating Section 943.1395(6), guilty of violating Section 943.1395(7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and suspending Respondent's certificate for two years, including the period, if any, that Respondent has been unemployed by the Department prior to the date of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 28th day of April, 1997.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly denied Respondent's application for licensure as a community association manager for failure to establish good moral character as required by section 468.433(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-20.001(5)(b)3.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of community association management pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 468, Part VIII, Florida Statutes. In February of 2011, Respondent, Carl Allen Quesinberry, submitted an application for licensure as a community association manager to the Department. In May of 2011, the Department notified Respondent that it intended to deny his application on the ground that he had failed to demonstrate good moral character. Specifically, the Department indicated Respondent has exhibited a pattern of unlawful behavior which would indicate Respondent has little regard for the law, the rules of society, or the rights of others, and used the term "habitual offender" to describe him. A review of Respondent's criminal history discloses a series of 12 criminal convictions during the time period beginning May 5, 1985, through November 14, 2007. Specifically, Respondent was found guilty of the following criminal law violations on the following dates: Reckless Driving, May 3, 1985; Driving Under the Influence, April 4, 1996; Battery, September 27, 1996; Battery, August 15, 2001; Misdemeanor conviction, December 8, 2003; Two convictions for Battery, March 31, 2006; Revocation of Probation, March 29, 2007; Two convictions for Trespass of an Occupied Dwelling, June 29, 2007; Revocation of Probation, November 14, 2007; and Violation of Domestic Violence Injunction, November 14, 2007. A review of the criminal history for Respondent shows that he has not had any arrests, pleas, or convictions since November of 2007. At the time of Respondent's application for licensure as a community association manager in February of 2011, it would have been over three years since Respondent had encountered any legal difficulties. Respondent presented the testimony of Michael Gerrity, the CEO of the World Property Channel in Miami, Florida, as a factual witness in this matter. Mr. Gerrity runs one of the largest real estate global news networks in the country. His company covers residential and commercial real estate news and trends. Mr. Gerrity testified he has known Respondent since ninth or tenth grade from attending the same high school, Lyman High School, in Longwood, Florida. He testified that he has known Respondent to be an honest and trustworthy individual in his real estate dealings and transactions. He believes Respondent has respect for others and the law, and that Respondent's criminal troubles have never affected his business dealings or those of his clients. Respondent has represented a wide variety of real estate clients, from those investing in property to those leasing space for their businesses. Respondent has represented Fortune 500 Companies as well as smaller local companies in his real estate dealings. Mr. Gerrity, Anthony VanDerworp, and Michael LaFay (Respondent's criminal defense attorney) testified that the bulk of Respondent's criminal matters stemmed from Respondent's dysfunctional relationship, which involved both individuals drinking. Messrs Gerrity, VanDerworp, and LaFay all believe Respondent has changed his life and his focus in the last three or four years. Respondent has undergone substance abuse counseling and his testifying witnesses all believe he has overcome his addiction and will continue to serve his real estate clients well in the future. Respondent did not offer any testimony or evidence from his counselors or physicians that he has overcome or controlled his prior substance abuse addition, so the evidence supporting his changed life is based upon his testimony and the anecdotal testimony of his friends, Messrs Gerrity, VanDerworp, and LaFay. Respondent testified that he has received counseling, moved to Kentucky, gotten married, had a child, received real estate licenses in both Kentucky and Alabama, and turned his life around. Respondent has been licensed in Florida for more than 25 years as a real estate broker. During that time, he has not been disciplined by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order denying Respondent's application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Erica White, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl Allen Quesinberry 329 South Garcon Point Road Milton, Florida 32583 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Division of Professions Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner on August 11, 1986, and was issued certificate number 35-86-002-03. From the time of his certification until approximately the end of August, 1987, the Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Tampa Police Department. During an interview with Captain Benny Holder on July 31, 1987, Respondent admitted that he had been using a motor vehicle which he knew was stolen, and that he had failed to report the recovery of this stolen vehicle or take any action to return it to its owner. Additionally, Respondent had lied to his supervisors when he had previously denied any knowledge or use of a stolen vehicle. Respondent lived with his cousin, Christopher Brown, and he allowed Brown to use the vehicle which he knew had been stolen. Debra Flowers also lived with Respondent and Brown, and Flowers reported to Officer Carl Anderson that Respondent had driven the stolen vehicle numerous times. Between approximately September, 1986, and July, 1987, Respondent used, and allowed his cousin to also use, a motor vehicle which he knew had been reported stolen. Respondent took no action to report the recovery of this stolen vehicle. Respondent was terminated from the Tampa Police Department based upon his failure to report the recovery of this stolen vehicle, his use of the stolen vehicle, and his failure to truthfully answer questions about these matters when initially confronted by his supervisors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking the certification of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gregory E. Harvin 5707 Society Park Boulevard, #A Tampa, FL 33617 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Daryl McLaughlin Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the Respondent demonstrated lack of good moral character and made a false representation on an application for employment with the City of Tampa Police Department when he failed to disclose several prior places of employment. By an amended notice of hearing, dated September 15, 1983, Respondent was given due notice of the formal hearing held on October 28, 1983. By a pleading addressed to the undersigned Hearing Officer and dated October 22, 1983, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the notice of hearing and stated that he would not be attending the hearing. Respondent stated no proper grounds for the granting of a continuance and no continuance was requested in accordance with the Model Rules of Procedure. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Carl A. Kaluhiokalani, R. S. Noblitt, Kenneth H. Taylor, Oscar Crosby, Curtis Lane, Elmer Barry, Sue Campbell. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. The Respondent did not appear and did not present evidence on his behalf.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has held law enforcement officer certificate No. 02-026704. This certificate has been in an inactive status since May 14, 1981. On June 11, 1980, the Respondent applied for employment with the Tampa Police Department. On September 15, 1980, the Respondent became employed by the Tampa Police Department. On May 14, 1981, The Respondent was terminated for failure to disclose material information on his employment application. The Respondent had previously worked at the Central Garage, City of Tampa, for a short period of time in 1973. He was terminated because of being lazy and uncooperative and because he was found sleeping in the back of a police car while on duty. This employment was not disclosed on his June 11, 1980, application to the Tampa Police Department. In 1974, the Respondent had first applied for employment with the Tampa Police Department and was not hired because of information that he had previously been terminated from another city department because of being lazy and uncooperative. The Respondent was employed by Barry Investigations in April 1979, and was employed by J. C. Penney from September 12, 1978, through January 28, 1979. Neither of these employers was disclosed on the employment application of June 11, 1980. The application form requests the applicant's entire employment record. The application form asks for the applicant's employment record without limitation as to the time period covered. The form states that the applicant is to "REQUEST ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NEEDED," to list more than the five employers for which space is provided on the standard form.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 943.145(3)(b), Florida Statutes and suspending his law enforcement officer certificate for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED this 5 day of June 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Franklin P. Taylor Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director P.O. Box 2136 Department of Law Enforcement Lutz, Florida 33549 Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate should be granted or should be denied on the grounds itemized in the Notice of Reasons dated February 25, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Scott William Katz, has applied for a Florida educator's certificate. His application is dated December 14, 1989, but it was not filed until July 25, 1990. The Petitioner filed an earlier application for a Florida educator's certificate during 1986. The Petitioner's 1986 application was denied by Final Order issued on September 3, 1987. That Final Order also provided: dditionally, the panel ORDERS that Petitioner may not apply for a teaching certificate for a period of three (3) years from entry of this order. As basis for the enhancement, the panel cites the conduct described in paragraphs three through twenty- one of the Notice of Reasons. The factual basis for the September 3, 1987, denial of the Petitioner's prior application is set forth in a Notice of Reasons document, which was served on the Petitioner on January 27, 1987. The relevant paragraphs of the January 27, 1987, Notice of Reasons read as follows: 1/ In 1980 the applicant was admitted to the Florida Bar as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. On or before September 1984, the applicant threatened an opposing party in a civil law suit with criminal prosecution in order to gain an advantage in the civil matter. In September 1984, the Florida Supreme Court issued a private reprimand to the applicant for threatening criminal prosecution in order to gain an advantage in a civil matter. On or about February 1981, the applicant was retained to represent a wife in a dissolution of marriage action. He obtained a Final Judgment on her behalf which required the husband to pay child support and provided other relief. After obtaining the Final Judgment, the applicant continued to represent the wife, filing a motion to modify the Final Judgment and a Motion for Contempt against her ex-husband to obtain payment of past due child support on her behalf. Approximately two years later, however, applicant commenced proceedings against his former client on behalf of her ex-husband, seeking a reduction in child support payments. On or about October 1983, the applicant misrepresented material facts in a sworn pleading which the applicant filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On or about December 1983, the applicant coerced an agreement from a former client to pay him money for a claim which had no legal basis. Based upon the misconduct set forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, the Florida Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. On June 26, 1986, the Florida Supreme Court found the applicant committed the misconduct alleged and found the applicant guilty of numerous violations of the Florida Bar Integration Rule and Disciplinary Rules. The Supreme Court issued an order on said date in which it disbarred the applicant and assessed costs against him in the amount of $4,086.45. On or about May 20, 1986, the applicant submitted a false and fraudulent affidavit in support of his request to the Palm Beach County Court for an award of attorney's fees. On or about May 27, 1986, the Palm Beach County Court held the applicant in direct criminal contempt of court for filing said false and fraudulent affidavit. The Court sentenced the applicant to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00 On or about July 22, 1986, the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, entered an order disbarring the applicant based upon his submission of the false and fraudulent affidavit to the Palm Beach County Court on May 20, 1986. Said disbarment was ordered to run consecutive to the Supreme Court's disbarment order entered on June 26, 1986. Between July 26, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to John Robert Harr. Between July 26, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did knowingly obtain or endeavor to obtain a sum of money in the amount of $300.00 or more from John Robert Harr with the intent to deprive John Robert Harr of said funds. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offenses of practice of law while disbarred or suspended and grand theft, based upon the conduct described in paragraph 12. Between July 26, 1986, and August 26, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Michael D. Jones and/or Judith Jones and/or Tanya Jones. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 14. On or about August 25, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Zell Altman and the Clerk of the Palm Beach County Court. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 16. Between July 26, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Barbara Curtis. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 18. Between July 16, 1986, and August 1, 1986, the applicant did, while having been disbarred, engage in the practice of law or hold himself out as an attorney at law or qualified to practice law to Olive Labbadia. On or about October 30, 1986, the applicant was charged in the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, with the criminal offense of practice of law while disbarred or suspended based upon the conduct described in paragraph 20. In addition to the conduct described above in the January 27, 1987, Notice of Reasons, on May 12, 1987, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of practice of law while disbarred and the court withheld adjudication of the charge. The Petitioner was placed on probation for twelve months and ordered to pay $25.00 each month toward the cost of supervision. On March 15, 1988, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of resisting arrest without violence and the court withheld adjudication of the charge. The Petitioner was placed on one year probation and ordered to pay $25.00 each month for the cost of supervision. The Petitioner remains disbarred from the state bar in the State of Florida. He has also been disbarred in the State of Oklahoma and in several federal courts as a result of his Florida disbarment. Since the September 3, 1987, denial of the Petitioner's prior application for a Florida teaching certificate, the Petitioner has invested a great deal of time and effort in the pursuit of higher education. His studies have been in the fields of Law and Education. By pursuing further studies in the field of Education, the Petitioner hopes to be better prepared to be a teacher. The Petitioner has done well in his studies since 1987. The facts which form the basis for the September 3, 1987, denial of the Petitioner's prior application demonstrate that at that time the Petitioner lacked good moral character. The additional facts set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5, above, demonstrate that as of the early part of 1988, the Petitioner lacked good moral character. The record in this case does not reveal any specific examples of conduct by the Petitioner since March of 1988 that are indicative of a lack of good moral character, but neither is there any persuasive evidence of the Petitioner's rehabilitation since March of 1988. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner is presently of good moral character.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate because of the failure of the Petitioner to establish his rehabilitation and present good moral character, such denial to be without prejudice to the refiling of a future application at such time as the Petitioner believes he can prove his rehabilitation and good moral character. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of July 1991. 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 31st day of July 1991.
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, John Hawks (Hawks), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hawks. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hawks had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hawks and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly cultivated and delivered cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hawks filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hawks denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hawks on January 25, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had, three years previously, grown four marijuana plants which he had given away, and that he had on another occasion, three years previously, delivered one ounce of marijuana to a friend. The circumstances surrounding these incidents were further developed at hearing. There, the proof demonstrated that in or about 1982, Hawks was employed by the Metro-Dade Water and Sewer Authority on a survey crew. While working in the field, Hawks stumbled upon a marijuana plant, which was identified to him by a coworker. Having never seen a marijuana plant before, Hawks took 3-4 seeds back to his home and planted them to see what they would do. What they did, following his fertilization, was die when they had matured to the stature of approximately one inch. Following their death, Hawks permitted a coworker to take the plants. Regarding his delivery of one ounce of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that in or about 1982, Hawks was about to go to Broward County to visit a friend when another friend, aware of the pending visit, asked him to deliver a package to the same friend. Hawks did so, and after delivering the package learned for the first time that it contained one ounce of marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hawks' background, that Hawks possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidences. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hawks, born November 13, 1957, delivered a package which contained, unbeknownst to him, one ounce of marijuana and grew four marijuana plans to a stature of approximately one inch approximately 7 years ago. Considering the nature of such acts, their isolation and lack of timeliness to the pending application, and Hawks' age at the time, they are hardly persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Hawks has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hawks has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, John Hawks, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the CJSTC. On March 29, 1987, He was employed by the City of Clearwater in the uniform patrol division. Respondent graduated from the police academy in 1985, and served one and one-half years with the Belleair Police Department before being hired by the Clearwater Police Department. On the morning of March 29, 1987, while on patrol in a City of Clearwater police car, Respondent drove into the driveway of Lisa Scholl, a young woman occupying that residence. Ms. Scholl heard the engine of a car running in her driveway and came out of the house to inquire why the police car was there. At about the same time, Respondent received a call to investigate a complaint. He told Ms. Scholl he had stopped because her front door was open and that he had to leave to answer the call received on his radio. As a matter of fact, Respondent, who was having marital problems at the time, was intending to ask Ms. Scholl for a date. Respondent had never met Ms. Scholl but had accompanied another police officer to Ms. Scholl's residence some months earlier and was aware of who she was and where she lived. Ms. Scholl surmised Respondent intended to ask her for a date before he received the call on his radio and departed. Shortly thereafter it started raining rather hard. Ms. Scholl glimpsed a man in a yellow slicker crossing the woods alongside her house and became concerned that some criminal activity was happening in her vicinity. She then walked into her bathroom where she saw the face of a man peering through the jaloused window of her bathroom. She screamed, and the man wearing a yellow raincoat ran through the woods toward a police car parked down from her house. Ms. Scholl then called her cousin to come over to her house and she called the police who sent an officer to investigate. During the course of the investigation, Ms. Scholl identified Respondent as the individual she initially spoke to while parked in her driveway and the man she observed peering through her bathroom window. When questioned, Respondent ultimately admitted that he had looked through the window to Ms. Scholl's bathroom but did so only for the purpose of seeing if there was another person in the house. Respondent acknowledged that he had done a stupid thing in looking through a window into Ms. Scholl's home, but contended that no immoral conduct was intended by this act and that his sole purpose was to attempt to learn if some other man was in the house with Ms. Scholl. Respondent's denial of any attempt at voyeurism is supported by Exhibit 2, a psychological evaluation of Respondent. This evaluation found Respondent to be psychologically competent in all respects; a conscientious, hard working individual with a high sense of responsibility and loyalty; with none of the criteria for voyeurism; and highly unlikely to be involved in similar situations in the future.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 198, 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, Hattie Moore (Moore), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 18, 1987, 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 Moore. 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 Moore had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Moore and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Moore filed a timely request for a formal bearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Moore denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Moore on October 15,1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, with the last time being in 1977, and that she had been arrested in 1977 for possession of cocaine. Regarding her use of marijuana and cocaine, the proof demonstrates that any such use ceased in 1977, and that, while Moore cannot remember with exactitude the number of times she used either substance, she most probably used such substances no more than 3-5 times each. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that on February 3, 1977, when she was arrested, Moore had in her possession less than one gram of cocaine. The state chose not to file a criminal information, and her arrest record was expunged on February 3, 1986. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Moore's background, that Moore possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her use or possession of marijuana and cocaine over 12 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Moore, born September 3, 1958, used or possessed marijuana and cocaine infrequently, the last time being over 12 years ago when she was 18 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Moore has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over two years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Currently, Moore is married and the mother of two children, ages 11 and 9. She is a homeowner, and also attends Miami Dade Community College where she has amassed 73 credit hours to date. Overall, Moore has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Hattie Moore, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission deny this application of William J. Paschette for a temporary one year teacher's certificate. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward J. O'Donnell, Esquire 2915 S.W. 27th Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33133 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esc. 616 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
