Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent holds a Class "D", unarmed security guard license, No. GD-0106713, which was most recently renewed on July 3, 1983. The Respondent also holds a Class "G", statewide gun permit (armed security guard license) , No. GG-0025231, which was issued on July 3, 1983. The Division of Licensing of the Department of State did not approve or deny the Respondent's application for a Class "G" license within a 90-day period from the date of receipt of the application and, accordingly, by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division was required to, and in fact did, issue a Class "G" license to the Respondent. Except for the operation of the 90-day provision in Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division of Licensing would not have issued the Respondent a statewide gun permit because of the Respondent's criminal record. For the same reason, it was a mistake for the Division of Licensing to renew the Respondent's Class "D" license in 1983. On February 28, 1977, the Respondent was arrested on the roof of a department-store and charged with burglary, to which he entered a plea of nolo contendre. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for 5 years. During the summer of 1980, the Respondent and two of his friends apprehended two thieves who had stolen some personal property from a vehicle. Later, the Respondent appeared in court to testify against the two thieves. On April 15, 1981, the Respondent was arrested for grand larceny. On November 9, 1981, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to a larceny charge of failing to redeliver a hired motor vehicle. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the De- partment of State issue a Final Order which (a) Would revoke Respondent's Class "D" and Class "G" licenses and (b) would order Respondent to forthwith return such licenses to the Department of State. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1984 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Stuart Phillip Coon 12824 Southwest 114 Terrace Miami, Florida 33183
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether A-1 Security and Detective Agency’s Class B security agency license, and Mr. Rozzi’s Class MB security agency manager license should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, between May 5 and August 4, 1997, the Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division) was the state agency responsible for the licensing of security agencies and security agency managers in Florida. Respondent, A-1 Security and Detective Agency, Incorporated (A-1) held a Class “B” security agency license number B89-0115; and Respondent, Stephen V. Rozzi, held a Class “MB” security agency manager’s license number MB89-00186. Respondent Rozzi was President and operating manager of A-1. At some point during the period in issue, Gary Q. Floyd, an investigator with the Division, received a call from the owner of another security agency who reported a potential problem. At the time, Mr. Floyd was nearby and responded immediately to the apartment complex which belonged to a client of the individual who had called in. His review of the security logs revealed abnormal entries. Returning to the Division office, Floyd checked on the license status of the guard in question who had made the questionable entries and found that this guard was not licensed. The guard, Carmen Santiago, had applied for a class “D” license as a security guard, but because of a prior disciplinary problem out-of-state, the Division had indicated its intent to deny the license. Santiago was employed by Respondent, A-1. Coincidentally, the following morning, Respondent Rozzi came to the Division office on another matter and Floyd showed him the questioned logs. Respondent agreed that the entry was unusual, but said he had terminated Santiago from employment with A-1 as a guard on July 30, 1997, before the date of the questioned entry. Floyd asked Rozzi which guard had worked on the site on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, and on Thursday, July 31, 1997, after Santiago had been terminated. Respondent indicated the replacement guard was a Mr. Michelin. The log entries in question, which got the interest of Floyd, indicated that Santiago, who was not properly licensed as a Class “D” security guard, had served as such at the Whisper Woods Apartments. By pre-hearing stipulation dated June 10, 1998, Rozzi agreed that he had employed Santiago at Whisper Woods Apartments during the period July 30 to July 31, 1997, and that Santiago did not have the proper license at the time. Rozzi indicated at hearing that he received notice from the Division to the effect that Santiago’s application for licensure as a security guard was being denied, but claims he did not receive the notice until he picked up his mail at about 9:00 p.m., on July 31, 1997. As soon as he got that word, Rozzi claims, he called Santiago at home but was unable to reach him. Nonetheless, he left word on Santiago’s answering machine for him not to report for work that evening. In his report to the Division made previously, he indicated he had fired Santiago on July 30, 1997. At hearing Rozzi claimed he back-dated the firing to the date he received the information on the denial, which would have been July 30, not July 31, 1997. However, Rozzi had already indicated he had notified Mr. Michelin, who was scheduled to work on July 30 and 31 at Fletcher Woods Apartments, to go instead to Whisper Wood Apartments to relieve Santiago. Mr. Carter, another employee, was to take Michelin’s place at Fletcher Wood Apartments. When asked to asked to explain the inconsistencies, he could not do so. Carter, when interviewed by Floyd on August 5, 1997, as a part of the investigation, stated he did not work at Fletcher Woods Apartments that night nor has he ever worked there. Carter also indicated that when he was contacted by Rozzi shortly before August 5, 1997, Rozzi told Carter, to say, if he were asked, that he had worked at Fletcher Woods on the night of July 31, 1997. When Floyd advised Rozzi of Carter’s story, Rozzi still declined to change his version. Santiago is disqualified from licensure as a security guard in Florida because of his conviction of a felony in another state. Nonetheless, he applied for a security guard license in Florida in April or May 1997. At the time he applied, he received a temporary Class “D” license which allowed him to work pending action on the permanent license application, and he started work at A-1 as a security guard at different locations wherever he was posted. From time to time, including on July 30 and 31, 1997, he worked at Whisper Woods Apartments. On July 30, 1997, Santiago went to work at 4:00 p.m., intending to stay until relieved at the end of his shift, at 1:00 a.m., on July 31, 1997. At the time he went to work, he did not know that his application for licensure had been denied, nor did he know of the denial when he went to work on July 31, 1997. He claims he did not go home after work on either July 31 or early on August 1, 1997. Santiago claims he first learned of the denial when he got home later in the day on Friday, August 1, 1997, to find Floyd at his door. During the conversation he had with Floyd which followed, Floyd advised him that his license had been denied. This was the first he had heard of the denial, he claims. Santiago indicates that as soon as Floyd told him that, he left Floyd in his apartment and immediately went to his mailbox where he found the denial letter from the Division. There is some evidence to indicate that Santiago told Floyd in another interview prior to the hearing, that he had received the letter informing him of the denial on either July 30 or July 31, 1997. At hearing he claims that he was referring to a letter from the Division soliciting more information. This contention is rejected, however, since it is considered unlikely the Division would seek additional information and reject the application almost concurrently with the request. After Floyd left Santiago on August 1, 1997, Santiago immediately called Rozzi to tell him he could no longer work. Santiago claims Rozzi was upset with him when he called, claiming that he, Rozzi had tried to call Santiago a few days earlier to tell him not to go to work, but Santiago had not received the message or called him back. However, Santiago was at work at Whisper Woods Apartments from 4:00 p.m., on July 30, 1997, until 1:00 a.m., on July 31, 1997, and again that evening, and no one came to the job site either evening to talk with him about his status. This was, he claims, even after he told Rozzi that he, Rozzi, was going to get a letter indicating Santiago’s license was denied. Santiago claims that at no time after that notice did Rozzi terminate him or advise him he would be terminated when the letter came in. Rozzi contended at hearing that the first time he heard anything about the problem with Santiago working was on August 1, 1997, when he was in the Division office on a probation matter. It was at that time that Floyd showed him the logs from Whisper Woods Apartments and asked him about what appeared to be differences in the handwriting on them. Floyd also asked him at that time if he knew Santiago’s license was going to be denied. Rozzi said then that he had first learned of the problem on July 31, 1997. That same day, Rozzi claims, he made arrangements for someone else to cover that post so that Santiago would not be on duty, and Rozzi insists he did not know that this had not happened until the next day. Analysis of and comparison of the varied stories told by Rozzi regarding when he found out that Santiago’s license was being denied results in the conclusion that Rozzi found out on July 30, 1997. Had he not known, he would have had no reason to contact Michelin and tell him to switch duty assignments or to call Santiago and leave the message not to go to work any more. However, Michelin did not testify at the hearing, and the evidence of what he told Floyd regarding this is hearsay evidence. Even if Rozzi received the notice on July 30, 1997, as it appears, by his own admission he did not receive it until mid- evening, at a time when Santiago would have already been at work on the 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. There is no way he could have reached Santiago that evening. Knowing this, Rozzi still did not make any effort to contact Santiago by going to the work site and relieving him by taking a relief guard with him. Consequently, it is found that regardless of which day Rozzi found out about Santiago’s disqualification, he did nothing to ensure that Santiago did not serve as a security guard without a license. Merely calling Santiago and leaving a message on the answering machine is not enough. At the least, he should have gone to the site to insure Santiago was not on duty. At this initial interview, Floyd also showed Rozzi a copy of one of A-1’s invoice forms which reflected at the bottom that the firm was available to perform certain tasks which were limited to a licensed detective agency and not permitted to a security agency. Rozzi indicated that he had copied the information from an advertisement of another agency, but assured Floyd that A-1 was not doing the unauthorized work. No evidence was introduced to indicate it was, and it is so found. Rozzi agreed to remove the inappropriate language from any form or communication used by the firm immediately. He did so. On December 31, 1996, the Director of the Division of Licensing entered a Final Order in Case No. C96-00855 relating to the two Respondents herein, adopting and incorporating the terms of a Stipulation and Settlement entered into between the division and the Respondents in that case. None of the documentation submitted in connection with that case indicates what offenses were alleged to have been committed by either Respondent. The terms of the Stipulation and Settlement called for the Respondents’ licenses to be placed on probation for a period of two years, and for Respondents to pay an administrative fine of four thousand dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of employing an unlicensed employee to perform services which require the possession of a license; of advertising the business of a private investigative agency without possessing the proper license; of failing to respond truthfully to questions asked by an authorized investigator during an official investigation; and of violating the terms of probation by committing violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondents’ class “B” and Class “ MB” licenses as a security agency and security agency manager respectively, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Rayford H. Taylor, Esquire Stiles, Taylor, Grace & Smith, P.A. Post office Box 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Recommendation Based on the foregoing stipulation, it is RECOMMENDED that the stipulation of the parties be accepted. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Audis Ferrell 781 West Oakland Park Blvd. Box 124 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 James Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Don Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Christopher Hargraves, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his Class "B" Security Agency License, Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit, and Class "MB" Manager of Security Agency License.
Findings Of Fact At all timed pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher W. Hargraves (Respondent/Mr.Hargraves), was the holder of Class "B" Security Agency License No. B87-00007, Class "MB" Security Agency Manager License No. MB 90-000019, and Class "G" Statewide Firearms License No. G91-00245. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Hargraves was president of Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention Associated, Inc. (Protection Unlimited), a company which provided security services in the Tampa Bay area. The address of record for Protection Unlimited is 1511 Clement Road, Lutz, Florida 33549. Mack Cummings began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in early 1996 and worked there until late 1996. At the time Mr. Cummings was employed to work as a security guard for Protection Unlimited, he was also employed by Providence Security. As a security officer for Providence Security, Mr. Cummings' assigned posts were three Checkers Restaurants located in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Cummings' shift at Checkers began at 8:00 p.m. and ended between 1:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. The variation in the time Mr. Cummings' shift ended was due to and coincided with the time the particular Checkers' manager completed the restaurant's closing. When Mr. Cummings was employed by Protection Unlimited, he was assigned to work at Channel 13, a television facility located in Tampa, Florida. When he was being considered for the position of security officer, Mr. Cummings told Respondent about his assignment with Providence Security and advised Respondent that he would be unable to report to Channel 13 until after midnight. Nonetheless, Mr. Cummings was scheduled to begin his shift at Channel 13 at midnight. As a result of his employment at Providence Security, Mr. Cummings usually did not report for duty at Channel 13 until after midnight. Respondent was aware that on many nights Mr. Cummings was not reporting to Channel 13 until much later than midnight. Steven Cox worked for Protection Unlimited as a security officer during most of 1995. As a security guard for Protection Unlimited, Mr. Cox' assigned posts were Channel 13 and a yacht, the Claire T. While working at Channel 13, Mr. Cox performed security duties in plain clothes. At the time Mr. Cox was employed by Protection Unlimited, no uniforms were issued to him. Mr. Hargraves issued uniforms to Mr. Cox approximately two months after Mr. Cox began working for Protection Unlimited. David Gilbert was hired as a security officer with Protection Unlimited on or about July 10, 1995. Mr. Gilbert often worked with Steven Cox while both were employed with Protection Unlimited. During this time, Mr. Cox often observed Gilbert performing security duties in civilian clothes, rather than in a uniform. Michael Munger began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in late 1994 and worked for that agency for approximately nine months. As an employee of Protection Unlimited, Mr. Munger was assigned to Channel 13. Although Mr. Munger performed security duties at Channel 13, he was never provided with a uniform and thus, performed these duties in plain clothes. Willie Lee began his employment as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in June 1995 and worked for the agency until January 1996. Mr. Lee's assigned post was Channel 13. When Mr. Lee was initially employed by Protection Unlimited, he was not issued an agency identification card. A month or two after Mr. Lee was employed by Protection Unlimited, Respondent gave him a card which Respondent referred to as an agency identification card. The only information contained on the card was "Protection Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc.," the typewritten name "Willie Lee," and Mr. Lee's signature. Also, the "agency card" had spaces designated "photo" and "agency representative," although the card contained neither a photo of Mr. Lee nor the signature or name of the agency representative. Barbara Norman was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited for several weeks in 1995. Respondent never provided Ms. Norman with uniforms to wear while she was performing security duties. Moreover, Ms. Norman had only a Class "D" license and therefore was not authorized to work as an "armed guard." Consistent with this Class "D" license, Protection Unlimited did not provide Ms. Norman with a firearm while she worked at Channel 13. However, she was told to wear an empty holster. Glen Davis was employed as a security officer with Protection Unlimited in 1996. Mr. Davis was assigned to the Claire T yacht. Mr. Davis was not issued uniforms to wear while conducting security duties for Protection Unlimited. On April 8, 1996, Gary Floyd and Gene Blicth, investigator for the Department, performed a proactive inspection of the Claire T while Mr. Davis was on duty and observed that Mr. Davis was not wearing a uniform. William Scott was employed with Protection Unlimited in February 1996 and continued working for the agency until July 1996. While employed with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott worked as a both a security guard and as acting supervisor for the agency. During the time that Mr. Scott worked for Protection Unlimited, he usually relieved by Mack Cummings or Steve Pritchard, also employees of Protection Unlimited. One night Mr. Pritchard did not report to work and no guard was or came on duty when Mr. Scott's assigned shift ended. Several times during his employment with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott needed to leave Channel 13 before the end of his shift. In these instances, and before leaving his post early, Mr. Scott gave prior notice to Respondent. Upon being so informed, Respondent told Mr. Scott that he should not indicate on the log that he had left his post early. As acting supervisor with Protection Unlimited, Mr. Scott was aware that Respondent routinely generated scheduling documents, time sheets, and payment schedules related to the operations of Protection Unlimited. Mr. Scott observed Respondent throw away many of these documents. The documents that Respondent discarded were less than two years old. On or about March 8, 1996, Investigator Floyd performed a proactive inspection of the yacht, the Claire T. At the site, he spoke with a man who identified himself as Rocky Cocozza. Mr. Cocozza was working as a security guard on the vessel and produced an agency identification card from Protection Unlimited. During this inspection, Mr. Cocozza was wearing black trousers and a black jacket. Under the jacket, Mr. Cocozza was wearing a blue short-sleeve shirt which contained an emblem identifying the employing agency; the emblem was on the left side of the shirt, just above the pocket. However, the emblem on the shirt could not necessarily be seen when Mr. Cocozza was wearing the black jacket. On March 18, 1996, Investigator Floyd was on the premises of Channel 13. As he was leaving that facility, Investigator Floyd observed Respondent performing security duties in the reception area. Investigator Floyd then approached Respondent and asked to see his agency identification card. Respondent did not produce a current agency identification card. On or about May 3, 1996, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's address of record to inquire about matters related to Protection Unlimited. After determining that no one was on the premises, Investigator Floyd left one of his business cards on the door of Respondent's address of record. On the card, Investigator Floyd wrote, "Chris, please call." The note on the card was directed to Respondent, whose first name is Christopher. Later that same day, Investigator Floyd went to Respondent's residence. After Respondent's wife told Investigator Floyd that Respondent was not at home, Investigator Floyd gave one of his business cards to Respondent's wife and requested that she give it to Respondent. On the card given to Respondent's wife, Investigator Floyd also wrote a note requesting that Respondent call him. After waiting two months and receiving no response from Respondent, Investigator Floyd left several telephone messages for Respondent between July 10 and July 29, 1996. The telephone messages were left with Respondent's answering service and requested that Respondent return Investigator Floyd's calls. Although Respondent's answering service confirmed to Investigator Floyd that all of his messages had been conveyed to Respondent, Respondent never returned Investigator Floyd's telephone calls. On August 20, 1996, Investigator Floyd reached Respondent by telephone and scheduled a meeting with Respondent for August 22, 1996. On the day of the scheduled meeting, Respondent called Investigator Floyd and canceled the meeting. The following day, August 23, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent at the Channel 13 security desk and, again, attempted to schedule a meeting with Respondent. Respondent indicated that he would call Investigator Floyd the following Monday, August 26, 1996, to schedule a meeting. After he had not heard from Respondent by 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 1996, Investigator Floyd called Respondent to schedule a meeting. During the August 26, 1996 telephone conversation, Respondent refused to set a date to meet with Investigator Floyd, indicating that he was too busy. However, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he would call him the next week to schedule a meeting. Because he previously had been unsuccessful in scheduling a meeting with Respondent, after speaking with Respondent by telephone on August 26, 1998, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 and served Respondent with a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena required Respondent to produce and provide the Department with various records maintained and related to the business operations of Protection Unlimited. The documents requested by the subpoena included the following: weekly assignment schedules; daily guard logs; time sheets; payroll records; personnel records of specified employees; and Employee Action Reports from January 1995 through March 1995, December 1995 through February 1996, and January 1996 through August 1996. Respondent failed to provide all of the documents requested in the subpoena. Respondent provided several of the requested documents but many of them appeared to have some of the information on them obliterated with "white out." With regard to several of the requested documents, Mr. Hargraves noted on the subpoena that the records could not be located. On or about September 3, 1996, after receiving some of the documents Respondent had provided pursuant to the subpoena, Investigator Floyd went to Channel 13 to speak with Respondent about the documents that had been requested. Upon arrival at Channel 13, Investigator Floyd told Respondent that he had a tape recorder and was recording the conversation. Respondent then refused to speak with Investigator Floyd and ejected him from the Channel 13 premises. Once Respondent ejected Investigator Floyd, Respondent went inside the Channel 13 building and locked the door. Investigator Floyd met with Respondent and his attorney on September 6, 1996, at the address of record for Protection Unlimited. During the meeting, Investigator Floyd discussed several areas of concern with Protection Unlimited, including the following: (1) general record keeping and record retention procedures; (2) filing of hiring and termination notices with Petitioner; (3) occupational license; (4) branch offices; and (5) general liability insurance. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, with regard to record keeping, Respondent acknowledged that he was a poor record keeper and that he routinely threw away records that he believed were no longer of use to him. Moreover, during this meeting, Respondent stated that he did not always file hiring and termination notices with Petitioner. During the course of his investigation, Investigator Floyd determined that Channel 13 permitted Respondent to bill for security guard services two weeks in advance. Based on a review of invoices from mid-December 1995 to August 1996, to Channel 13 from Respondent, Investigator Floyd found that Respondent had billed Channel 13 for his agency's services two weeks in advance. However, Respondent failed to make adjustments on subsequent invoices, to reflect a reduction in the actual number of hours worked by some security officers. For example, in July 1996, Respondent's invoices do not reflect the approximately nineteen hours that Mark Cummings was not actually at Channel 13. An investigation by Petitioner substantiated Respondent's admission that he did not always file hiring and termination notices. Among employees hired by Protection Unlimited, but for whom notices of hiring were not filed, were Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, William Scott, and Willie Lee. Furthermore, the Department's investigation found that Respondent failed to file termination notices for several of his employees, including William Scott, Barbara Norman, Steven Cox, and Willie Lee. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Respondent showed Investigator Floyd a Hillsborough County occupational license for Protection Unlimited. The license was dated September 5, 1996, and indicated that it was an initial issue, although Protection Unlimited had been in business since at least 1994. During the course of that meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his agency did not have an occupational license prior to the one dated September 5, 1996. Investigator Floyd discussed the issue of branch offices with Respondent during the September 6, 1996 meeting. At that time, Respondent acknowledged that he had no branch office license. This admission by Respondent is confirmed by Petitioner's records which revealed that Respondent had no branch office license for any location, including 3213 West Kennedy, Tampa, Florida, the location of Channel 13. Despite not having a branch office license which authorized him to carry on business activities such as interviewing potential employees at a location other than his address of record, Respondent routinely conducted such activities at Channel 13, located 3213 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Newspaper advertisements by Protection Unlimited, included a Channel 13 telephone number. When individuals called that number to inquire about available security officer positions, prospective job applicants were directed to come to Channel 13 for their job interview. During the time relevant to this proceeding, numerous job interviews to fill security officer positions for Protection Unlimited were routinely conducted at Channel 13. During the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees when they were hired. Respondent answered affirmatively and indicated that he issued agency identification cards to each of his employees before "they ever set foot" on their assigned post. The statement by Respondent that he always provided agency identification cards to employees upon hiring them is false in light of the credible testimony of Willie Lee that he performed his security duties for Protection Unlimited for at least a month before receiving his agency identification card. During the September 6, 1996, meeting between Investigator Floyd and Respondent, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent whether he either permitted or had knowledge of his employees working in plain clothes while performing security duties. In response to this inquiry, Respondent told Investigator Floyd that he neither permitted nor had knowledge that employees wore plain clothes while performing security duties for his company. The statement made by Respondent to Investigator Floyd was a false statement. The credible testimony of Barbara Norman and Glenn Davis, both employees of Protection Unlimited, was that Respondent never issued them uniforms in which to perform their security duties and, as a result thereof, they performed their duties in plain clothes. Furthermore, the credible testimony of Michael Munger and Steve Cox was that as employees of Protection Unlimited, they performed security duties in plain clothes. Despite his testimony to the contrary, Respondent was at the Channel 13 and observed that many times these employees were performing security duties while not in uniforms. Another issue addressed by Investigator Floyd during the September 6, 1996, meeting with Respondent concerned the required reporting of individuals who had been employed by Protection Unlimited. When asked by Investigator Floyd whether he had ever employed Barbara Norman and Michael Munger as security guards for Protection Unlimited, Respondent answered in the negative. This statement by Respondent is false in light of the credible testimony of Barabara Norman and Michael Munger. Ms. Norman and Mr. Munger were employed by and worked for Protection Unlimited in 1995. During the September 6, 1996, meeting, Investigator Floyd asked Respondent to provide proof of the required general liability insurance for Respondent's agency. Respondent implied that he had the required insurance coverage, but at that time had no proof of such coverage. However, Mr. Hargraves told Investigator Floyd that he would have his insurance company fax documentary evidence that Protection Unlimited had the required insurance. Although Mr. Hargraves indicated that he would request that the insurance company fax the information to Investigator Floyd that same day, no such proof of insurance was ever provided to Investigator Floyd. Respondent routinely performed duties as a security officer at Channel 13 during the period between March 1996 and August 1996, inclusive, although he did not have a Class "D" Security Officer License. Respondent routinely carried a concealed firearm while on duty as a security officer during the time period April 1995 to July 1996. Respondent told Glenn Davis that if investigators from the Department came to the Claire T, Mr. Davis was not to allow them on the post. Respondent indicated to Mr. Davis that he would be fired if he cooperated with the Department. Respondent also told Mr. Scott that he was not to speak with Department investigators and that if the investigators came to his assigned post, Mr. Scott was to have the police remove the investigators from the premises. Respondent told Mr. Pritchard not to speak with any investigators from the Department and to call the police if they came to Channel 13. Mr. Pritchard was told that he would be terminated if he spoke to any Department investigators. On July 13, 1996, at about 8:30 p.m. and while on duty at Channel 13, Mr. Scott locked his master key to the facility in an office he had just checked. Immediately thereafter Mr. Scott attempted to call Respondent. When Mr. Scott could not reach Respondent directly, he left several messages with Respondent's answering service. Respondent never turned the calls. When Mr. Scott left at midnight, he still had not heard from Respondent. The next day when Mr. Scott spoke with Respondent, about the "key" incident that has occurred on July 13, 1996. Respondent then directed Mr. Scott to indicate on the log that Respondent had returned Mr. Scott's call on July 13, 1998, shortly after 8:30 p.m., the time Mr. Scott had initially placed the call to Respondent. Mr. Scott told Respondent that he would not falsify the log. Later Mr. Scott observed that Mr. Hargraves had added an addendum to the daily log that falsely indicated that Respondent had responded to Mr. Scott's call the previous night.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts IV through XXIV and Counts XXVI through XXVIII; (2) dismissing Counts I, II, III, and XXV; and (3) revoking Respondent's Class "B" license, Class "G" license, and Class "MB" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele L. Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Four Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher Hargraves 12515 Mondragon Tampa, Florida 33625 Laura Vaughn, Esquire 401 East Jackson Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed a license application with the Division of Licensing, Department of State for a Class "D" Unarmed Guard License on January 27, 1983. The Division of Licensing did not approve or deny the license application of Carlos Hernan Garcia within the 90-day period from the date of receipt of the application and, accordingly, by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, the Division issued to Respondent a Class "D" Unarmed Security Guard License which expires on May 14, 1983. But for the operation of the 90-day rule, the Division of Licensing would not have issued the Respondent an Unarmed Security Guard License. On July 17, 1983 the Division of Licensing issued an administrative complaint to revoke the license on grounds that the Respondent willfully misrepresented his criminal record in his application in violation of Section 495.319(1)(a), Florida Statutes, committed an assault and battery other than in self defense and committed criminal acts which directly relate to the business for which the license was sought in violation of Sections 493.319(1)(c) and (j), Florida Statutes. On May 19, 1979, the Respondent (while intoxicated) struck a police officer who was investigating a traffic accident in which the Respondent was involved. The Respondent was convicted of assault and battery upon a police officer and received six months probation and adjudication was withheld. On August 5, 1980, the Respondent was responsible for a fire which occurred in the bathroom of a restaurant during business hours for which he was convicted of criminal mischief. On or about October 29, 1982, the Respondent was carrying a concealed firearm, a 25-caliber pistol, without a license or permit required by Sections 790.05 and 790.06, Florida Statutes (1981). Following an argument which took place outside an apartment house, the Respondent shot and injured another person with the pistol. No criminal charges were brought and there was no prosecution as a result of this incident. The Respondent, who reads and writes English, failed to complete question number 13 on his security guard application, pertaining to past criminal arrests and convictions, by omitting any reference to the assault and battery and criminal mischief convictions, since the Respondent knew that he could be denied a license for having committed such crimes, and knowing that the omission, if discovered, would be grounds for denial of his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered revoking the Class "D" license of the Respondent Carlos Hernan Garcia. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/480-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15 day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos Hernan Garcia 9380 West Flagler Street, #120 Miami, Florida 33130 George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary Gast, Director Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The proceeding came on for hearing on the Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license. The Respondent, Department of State/Division of Licensing, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation of security guards. The Respondent, on February 15, 1982, served notice on the Petitioner that it intended to deny his application for license, the Petitioner requested a hearing and the cause was set for hearing as delineated in the notice. Upon timely convening the hearing at 2:00 p.m. on April 28, 1982, the Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned and the Respondent and the Respondent's witness remained in the hearing room for approximately one hour in hopes that the Petitioner might appear. The Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned entered on the record the fact of the Petitioner's default and the fact that all concerned remained in the hearing room awaiting the Petitioner's arrival for approximately one hour. Thereupon the hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Karl Harry Wilson be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Karl Harry Wilson Aquarius Restaurant Aquarius Condominium Route A1A 2751 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida 33019 Stephan Nall, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State Winchester Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 37 years old. In 1985 and 1986, he was employed as a security guard in Cocoa, Florida. On October 17, 1968, he was arrested in Brevard County, Florida, and charged with a felony -- breaking in and entering with an intent to commit the misdemeanor of petit larceny. Petitioner and a friend had broken into a laundromat with the intent to break into a soda machine. Petitioner pled guilty to the felony. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Shortly thereafter, the sentence was set aside, and Petitioner was placed on probation. Petitioner was arrested for separate violation of the terms of his probation on November 6, 1969; August 18, 1970; January 3, 1977; and January 17, 1977. He was also arrested on May 29, 1974, in Melbourne, Florida, and charged with disorderly conduct -- prowling. Shortly after the May, 1974, arrest, Petitioner was referred to Brevard County, Division of Mental Health, for treatment. He was committed to the state mental health facility at Chattahoochee, Florida for further treatment at that time. Respondent's civil rights have never been restored after the felony conviction in 1968. On July 17, 1986, Petitioner executed his Application for Unarmed Guard License, the denial of this application resulted in the present hearing. In response to Question No. 13, which requires that the applicant list all arrests, Petitioner listed only "Breakin & Enting" (sic) in December, 1966 (sic).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a Class "D" license as an unarmed guard under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3005S TREATMENT ACCORDED RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Findings 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are accepted. Findings 2 and 3 are rejected in part as not supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Grady Griffis, Jr. 255 West Lucas Road Apartment No. E-322 Merritt Island, Florida 32952
Findings Of Fact In his application for unarmed guard license, the Petitioner was requested to list all arrests and the dispositions thereof. In response to this inquiry the Petitioner recited that he was arrested in 1973 for discharging a firearm, and that he paid a fine. At the hearing it was established that the Petitioner had been arrested and found guilty on numerous occasions from 1942 through 1972 for drunkenness, profanity, burglary, and reckless display of a firearm. He spent time in jail on some of these charges, and time on probation. The Petitioner is a reformed alcoholic. He stopped drinking approximately five years ago, and is now married with two young children. He has had no difficulties with law enforcement agencies since he stopped drinking alcoholic beverages. The Petitioner has made a sincere effort to reform himself, and it appears that he is succeeding in accomplishing that. The Petitioner has been working as an unarmed guard for some months under a temporary permit, and there is no evidence to establish that he has not performed his duties satisfactorily. When the Petitioner was filling out his application for license, he asked a representative of his employer how he should respond. He told the representative that he had been arrested numerous times. This individual told the Petitioner that reflecting the single 1973 arrest was adequate. The Petitioner felt that the inquiry related only to Florida offenses, and most of his law enforcement problems have occurred in the State of Tennessee. It does not appear that the Petitioner willfully falsified the application, but rather that he was mistaken, partially as a result of information that was given him by a person he was entitled to believe would understand the question.
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the period of time specified in the Administrative Complaint, May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, 24-Hour Security held a Class "B" Security Agency License, number B91-00117. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Richard R. Cullen was president of 24-Hour Security and held, among other licenses, a Class "M" Manager License, number M86-00152. 24-Hour Security, whose only office is located at 1515 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, is in the business of providing security guards to businesses and condominiums. It employs licensed security guards and trains and supervises them to ensure that they adequately perform their duties and carry out the instructions of 24-Hour Security's clients. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Michelle T. Reilly was employed by 24-Hour Security and worked as assistant to Mr. Cullen. She began working for 24-Hour Security in September 1992 and has always been highly regarded as an employee by Mr. Cullen. He has trained her in all aspects of the private security service business in order for her to get the experience necessary to qualify for a chapter 493 manager's license. Prior to February 16, 1995, she had never held any type of license authorized by chapter 493 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cullen was aware that she was not licensed. Since the agency's inception, Mr. Cullen has designated himself manager of 24-Hour Security and has considered himself ultimately responsible for the operation of the agency. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Reilly's business cards identified her as "Branch Manager," and she was identified as such by licensed employees of 24-Hour Security. On one occasion during the Department's investigation, Ms. Reilly expressly identified herself to an investigator of the Department as manager of 24-Hour Security. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, in addition to performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties, Ms. Reilly assisted Mr. Cullen in (1) hiring and training licensed security guards; (2) preparing daily work schedules for the guards; (3) preparing post orders outlining the duties a guard is to carry out at a particular post, including the client's special instructions or requirements; (4) supervising the operation of the agency's dispatch center; (5) addressing clients' problems; (6) consulting with clients regarding proper security precautions; (7) conducting post inspections to ensure that the guards are at their posts, properly uniformed and carrying out their responsibilities; and (8) writing security proposals for clients and in developing new accounts. In assisting Mr. Cullen with these duties, Ms. Reilly at times was allowed by Mr. Cullen to direct and control the activities of licensed security officers and to operate the agency. When Mr. Cullen was advised by the Department that Ms. Reilly could not function as or be designated as "manager" of 24-Hour Security, he immediately removed her business cards from the office. Ms. Reilly applied for a Class "MB" manager's license on November 9, 1994. Her application was denied by the Department by letter dated January 17, 1995, because she had "not demonstrated the lawfully gained experience or appropriate training" required for licensure. Ms. Reilly was issued a Class "D" Security Officer license on February 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding 24-Hour Security, Incorporated, and Richard R. Cullen guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $500 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on petitioner_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 9: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 8. The following are my specific rulings on respondent_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 5. Paragraph 2: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact set out in the second portion of the first sentence and in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as merely summaries of testimony. The proposed finding of fact in the final sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 3: The proposed finding of fact in the first sentence was adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 6. The remaining proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. Paragraph 4: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as merely a summary of testimony; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as argument. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as unnecessary; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as legal argument. The proposed finding of fact in the last sentence is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 5. Paragraph 9: The proposed finding of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The proposed findings of fact in the last two sentences are rejected as argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 11: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Cullen, President 24-Hour Security, Incorporated 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 109 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0250 The Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact The facts as set forth in the Stipulation above are incorporated within the Findings of Fact in this hearing. The applicant is now employed by Central Security Patrol. His supervisor in his employment as an unarmed guard has known Croft for 15 months. His supervisor's primary association and knowledge of Croft is job-related. Croft's supervisor considers Croft dependable, a good worker, and well liked by those who come in contact with him. Croft has had no problems with absenteeism from his job. Croft's further advancement within the company with which he is now employed is dependent upon acquisition of a Class G, armed guard license. Croft's reputation in the community was testified to by two of his neighbors who had known Croft for three to four years. Croft's reputation in the neighborhood is good. The neighbors, who observed Croft daily, testified to Croft's habits. Croft does not drink and lives quietly with his wife of four years. Croft works in his yard and at his job. Croft testified in his own behalf. Croft had a series of arrests and convictions arising out of his heavy drinking between 1963 and 1969. Croft was then arrested for driving under the influence and a moving traffic violation in May of 1975. In October of 1975, he was arrested for homicide, assault to commit murder, and discharge of a firearm. These charges were dropped. Croft stated that these charges were an outgrowth of his heavy drinking. Croft was married approximately four years ago and has not drunk alcoholic beverages for the past two years. Although Croft does not admit to alcoholism, he recognizes that his drinking was the cause of his problems and has ceased drinking. Concerning the gap in his arrest record between 1969 and 1975, Croft stated that he had drunk heavily during that period but had not been arrested. Croft's supervisor testified concerning the company's policy concerning issuance and control of firearms. The company which employs Croft owns and controls all employee weapons to the extent that the company purchases any private weapon owned by an employee which the employee wishes to use on the job. Only weapons originally owned by an employee may be retained in the employee's possession and removed off a security post. All other weapons owned by the company must be retained on a security post and transferred from one guard shift to the next.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the applicant, James Robert Croft, be issued a Class G, armed guard license. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James R. Croft 3545 Marlboro Avenue Jacksonville, Florida
