Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
LAURENCE S. MIRVIS vs BETTY CASTOR, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, 90-004399 (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jul. 16, 1990 Number: 90-004399 Latest Update: Feb. 12, 1991

The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Mirvis is eligible to receive a Florida teacher's certificate.

Findings Of Fact Laurence Mirvis completed an application for a Florida teacher's certificate on January 23, 1989, which the Department received on January 27, 1989. In 1981, Mr. Mirvis was charged in the circuit court with carrying a concealed weapon by the state attorney in Martin County, Florida, in the case styled State of Florida v. Larry Mirvis, Case No. 80-751CF. The matter was refiled as a misdemeanor prosecution in the county court, as State of Florida v. Mirvis, Case No. 80-19232MM. Mr. Mirvis was found guilty by the county judge based upon plea of guilty he entered after discussing the matter with his attorney, was sentenced to 60 days in the county jail, one year of nonreporting probation conditioned upon leaving Martin County. A little over three years later, on January 22, 1984, Mr. Mirvis was arrested in Delray Beach, Florida for threatening an employee at a convenience store who had followed Mr. Mirvis into the parking lot because he believed Mr. Mirvis had taken items from the store without paying for them. In the parking lot Mr. Mirvis had pointed a handgun at the employee and then fled. On August 7, 1985, Mr. Mirvis was adjudged guilty of carrying a concealed firearm, a third degree felony, in violation of Section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes, upon entering a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to time served.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Commissioner of Education denying the application of Laurence Mirvis for a Florida teacher's certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 12th day of February, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Laurence Mirvis Post Office Box 6821 Delray Beach, Florida 33484 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, #301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 West Gaines Street, Room 352 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Florida Laws (2) 120.57790.01
# 1
JOHN HARRIS | J. H. vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 98-000039 (1998)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Quincy, Florida Jan. 07, 1998 Number: 98-000039 Latest Update: Aug. 10, 1998

The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, John Harris, should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John Harris, was employed at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, from October 1977 to January 15, 1998. The Florida State Hospital is a residential facility for mentally ill adults. Mr. Harris was employed as a Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Specialist. Mr. Harris was involved in the provision of direct care to residents of Florida State Hospital. During 1997 the Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, conducted background screening of employees involved in the provision of direct care to residents of Florida State Hospital. As a result of a background screening check of Mr. Harris, it was determined that Mr. Harris had pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, a felony pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in 1989. As a result of the determination that Mr. Harris had pled nolo contendere to a felony under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, Mr. Harris was notified by the Department that he was disqualified from employment in his position with Florida State Hospital. The following are the pertinent facts concerning the 1989 nolo contendere plea: During the afternoon of September 11, 1989, Mr. Harris was traveling by automobile from Tallahassee, Florida, where he had picked up the automobile from his wife, to Quincy, Florida, where he lived; Mr. Harris was traveling at a speed of 100mph while being chased by law enforcement. He was stopped by other law enforcement personnel waiting for him just outside Quincy; The automobile that Mr. Harris was driving was searched and cocaine was discovered; Mr. Harris was charged with possession of a controlled substance in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and reckless driving in violation of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes; Mr. Harris pled nolo contendere to the charge of possession of cocaine, a felony, and was adjudicated guilty of the offense on or about February 21, 1990; and Mr. Harris was sentenced to probation for a period of one year. Although not listed in the letter informing Mr. Harris of the results of his background screening, Mr. Harris also was charged and pled nolo contendere to the offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in 1981 and driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of cannabis in 1995. The following are the only pertinent facts concerning the 1981 offense offered at hearing: On or about May 24, 1982, Mr. Harris pled nolo contendere to possession with intent to sell cocaine in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, a second degree felony, as a result of an incident that took place in 1981; and Mr. Harris was adjudicated guilty and was sentenced to probation for a period of eight years. The following are the pertinent facts concerning the 1995 offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of cannabis: Mr. Harris was driving an automobile in or near Bainbridge, Georgia, when he was stopped by law enforcement; Mr. Harris was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of cannabis that was found in the glove compartment of the automobile; Mr. Harris was adjudicated guilty of both offenses; and Mr. Harris was sentenced to probation for a period of one year and a number of week-ends in jail. At the time of the formal hearing Mr. Harris was 44 years of age. Mr. Harris' immediate supervisor, Rollean Lloyd (Ms. Lloyd indicated at the hearing that her first name is spelled "Rollean") testified at the formal hearing in support of Mr. Harris' continued employment at Florida State Hospital. Ms. Lloyd also signed a letter (Ms. Lloyd's first name is spelled "Rollene" on the letter) supporting his continued employment at Florida State Hospital. Ms. Lloyd's supervisor also testified at the formal hearing and signed a letter supporting his continued employment at Florida State Hospital: I have known John Harris for approximately eight years as an employee of Unit 4, Florida State Hospital. I have observed Mr. Harris over this time and he had become a concientious [sic] worker who relates well to the residents and to the staff in Unit 4. His recent attendance record has been good and Mr. Harris performs his job to the best of his ability. Mr. Harris is cooperative with his supervisors and supportive of his co-workers. For the past eleven years Mr. Harris has been, and was at the time of the formal hearing, married to Ollie Harris. Mr. Harris has two sons, one twenty years of age and the other eighteen years of age.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying John Harris' request for an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Section 435, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Patterson and Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John Perry, Esquire District 2 Legal Office Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Florida Laws (5) 110.1127120.57435.04435.07435.11
# 2
DEMECIO H. ENRIQUEZ vs. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, 76-000174 (1976)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-000174 Latest Update: Jul. 09, 1976

The Issue Whether the suspension of Petitioner by Respondent F.S.U. was in compliance with Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22A-10, Florida Administrative Code.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a career service employee of Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, was informed on February 21, 1975 that he was being suspended because of charges of entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor and because of conduct unbecoming a public employee. Three days later he was sent a letter containing the same information; that letter was sent by certified mail with return receipt requested. On February 27, 1975, Mr. Enriquez appealed his suspension. Mr. Clarence Stephens Hooker, Jr., Chief Investigator for the Florida State University Police Department, received a phone call on February 20, 1975 from Corporal Hornicker of the Florida State University Police Department informing Mr. Hooker that a white female had reported that she had been approached by a Puerto Rican or a Cuban male in the School of Business and it was Corporal Hornicker's understanding that the man was working as a janitor and had offered to open a professor's office for the purpose of the student to copy an examination. A meeting was due to be held between the student and the janitor in the School of Business building at about 8:00 p.m. in Room 241. Officer John Stephens was stationed in a room directly across from Room 241 with a portable radio so that he could hear conversations in Room 241. Room 241 was entered by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stephens in which the student and the Petitioner were standing. The Petitioner was standing behind a desk and the student was standing to the left of the door as the officers entered. The Petitioner was arrested and was subsequently transported to the Leon County Jail. He was charged with the felony of entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: Petty larceny, the theft of the examination. Subsequently and pursuant to these events a judgment was entered with a charge of entering without breaking wherein the Petitioner was convicted of simple trespassing and sentence was to pay and forfeit to the State of Florida for the use and benefit of Leon County the sum of $100 or in lieu thereof be imprisoned by confinement in the Leon County Jail for one month. The fine was to be paid in one week under the judgment. The judgment was filed July 14, 1975, Minutes No. 96 by John A. Rudd, Circuit Judge, Case No. 75-179. Petitioner testified that he completed his sentence by serving time in the Leon County Jail. A statement was taken from the student involved, Marilyn Phillips, a white female. Said statement was taken by Captain Hooker and transcribed at his direction and was offered into evidence as the transcribed, signed and notarized statement of Miss Marilyn Phillips. Miss Phillips was not present in person and was not available as a witness for the Respondent. Miss Phillips, in her notarized statement, stated that she was studying for an exam in the School of Business on the evening of February 20, 1975. She stated the Petitioner, who was a university janitor, approached her sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. and said he would let her into her professor's room to see and copy the examination she was going to have the next day. She stated she said, "No." He then told her about another student that he had let in and that student had given him $50.00 to copy an examination. She stated that Mr. Enriquez then became personal with the student and offered her $20.00. She told him to get lost and he did. She then stated that she saw a professor she knew and discussed the incident with him. She stated the professor called the University Police and arranged a meeting between Mr. Enriquez and herself. She stated that the two met about 8:00 p.m. and Mr. Enriquez unlocked the door to the professor's office and began assisting her in looking for her examination. She stated that shortly thereafter the police arrived and arrested him for entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor. She further stated that Mr. Enriquez touched her body, tried to kiss her and asked her to go into a dark room and offered her money. The Petitioner testified that he was not guilty, that he had not offered a set of examination papers to anyone and that Miss Phillips, in fact, followed him into the room. He testified that he would not recognize an examination paper. The Petitioner is not fluent in the use of the English language and perhaps does not understand the English language well. He was employed as a janitor on the second story of the School of Business and he was employed to clean the offices including Room 241 in which he was arrested at the time of the incident and which the student was occupying at the same time. The university had issued him a key to the building and to the offices and his job was to clean the offices. No examination papers were found in his hands or in the hands of the student at the time of the arrest of the Petitioner. The Hearing Officer further finds: That although Petitioner may have been offering to sell examination papers to the student, Marilyn Phillips, and may have made improper advances toward her, no examination papers were found in his hands or in the hands of the student. The testimony of Office Clarence Stephens Hooker, Jr. was that Petitioner was offering the student different pieces of paper and ". . .what I had seen when I opened the door was, in fact, Mr. Enriquez in the drawer still attempting to locate the examination he was suppose to copy." This may have been an assumption on the part of the officer as to the actions of the Petitioner. There was no testimony of Officer Stephens that he actually heard an offer to sell examination papers or conversation involving personal advances of Petitioner toward the student from his station of surveillance in Room 241. The statement of the student that Petitioner attempted to sell her examination papers and seduce her is not sufficient inasmuch as she failed to appear in person to testify; there were no examination papers found in her possession nor in the possession of Petitioner; no substantiating testimony regarding Petitioner's misconduct was presented by anyone; and the Respondent agency had issued Petitioner keys to the floor and room in which he was found; Petitioner was employed as a janitor whose duties were to clean offices after hours. Petitioner, in person, denied that he attempted to sell examination papers to the student; he denied that he made improper advances; he stated that the student followed him into the room; he stated that he had keys to the floor and offices and that he, in fact, had a cart and clearing equipment with him and was attempting to dust the room as was his custom and that when he was apprehended he was in the place of his employment attempting to perform his job. As an outgrowth of the arrest of Petitioner, said Petitioner pled guilty to simple trespassing and served ten days in the Leon County Jail.

Recommendation Reverse the order of suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 30 day of April, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of April, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean K. Parker, Esquire Associate University Attorney Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Attorney for Respondent Demecio H. Enriquez 1701 Keith Street Tallahassee, Florida J. R. Robinson, Director University Personnel Relations Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

# 3
VERNON JACKSON vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 02-002672 (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Quincy, Florida Jul. 05, 2002 Number: 02-002672 Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2003

The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification for working in a position of trust with disabled adults and children pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.

Findings Of Fact Since 1979, Petitioner, Vernon Jackson (Petitioner), has been employed by the Department of Children and Family Services (Respondent) or its predecessor government agency, with the exception of a period in 1996-97. He is presently classified as a psychiatric aide. Petitioner worked in a unit of the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, which provides care to the patients of the facility, and he is a caregiver. It is in that capacity that he is subject to the employment screening requirements of Chapter 435 of the Florida Statutes. On August 23, 1980, Petitioner's girlfriend, Willie Thomas, got into an argument with a 17-year-old girl named Gwendolyn Arnold. When the argument between Thomas and Arnold escalated into a physical fight, Petitioner became involved in the fray. Arnold's 15-year-old brother also joined in the activity. As a result of the incident, Petitioner was charged with the misdemeanor offenses of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest without violence, and battery. Petitioner pled guilty to all three of the charged offenses. Adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court. Petitioner paid a fine of $50, plus costs, for the first two counts, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, and a fine of $100, plus costs, for the battery charge. In conjunction with the battery charge he was placed on probation for a period of one year. Petitioner's next criminal episode also involved Willie Thomas, his earlier girlfriend. On April 16, 1981, Petitioner was arrested and pled guilty to trespassing at Thomas’ home. He was required to pay a fine of $50. Although, adjudication was again withheld, he was placed on probation to run concurrently with his earlier probation sentence. Some months later, on November 19, 1981, Petitioner pled guilty to disorderly conduct involving a public brawl with two men. He paid a fine of $75 and adjudication of guilt was withheld. Employment screening at the Florida State Hospital was commenced in 1997 for positions of employment similar to that held by Petitioner. Petitioner's 1980 offense and 1981 plea was overlooked until this year. On or about April 20, 2002, after discovery of the battery offense, a decision was made to remove him from a caregiver position pending resolution of his request for an exemption. With a birth date of January 21, 1960, Petitioner was 20 years of age at the time of his first offense and 21 years of age when he last committed a criminal offense. Several supervisors of Petitioner testified that he was at all times a caring and diligent worker. Those supervisors included Karen Alford (“He was good.”); Freddie Culver (described Mr. Jackson as showing a lot of care and kindness); and Helen Conrad (“Excellent”). The parties stipulated that Julia Thomas and Barry Moore would testify to similar conclusion and opinions as to the quality of Petitioner's employment. Petitioner’s performance appraisals were at least satisfactory.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2002.

# 4
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION vs PAMELA D. MCCORMICK, 89-006413 (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Nov. 27, 1989 Number: 89-006413 Latest Update: May 01, 1990

Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission on February 17, 1988, and was issued certificate No. 03-87-502-08. On October 3, 1988, Metro-Dade Police Officer Jay Rogers was on duty and was dispatched to the Kendall Town and Country Mall to assist the Mall's security officers in clearing the parking lot after a night club closed. Officer Rogers walked up to a group of people, including the Respondent and asked them to finish saying good-bye and leave the parking lot. Officer Rogers then backed off and gave the remaining people in the lot about ten to fifteen minutes to finish saying good-bye. Officer Rogers again approached the group which included the Respondent, and asked that they leave. At that point, the Respondent replied to the officer's request with words to the effect of, "You wait, you can't make us leave, I'm looking for my keys." Officer Rogers asked the Respondent to find her keys, do whatever she needed to do, finish saying good-bye, and to please leave. The Respondent replied with words to the effect of, "I'll leave when I'm ready," and, "You're not telling me what to do." At about this point in the communication between Officer Rogers and the Respondent, an unidentified male approached the Respondent and said words to the effect of, "Come on, let's leave, the officer told us to leave, let's get out of here." The Respondent pushed the unidentified male away, and he got into a vehicle and left. Officer Rogers again asked the Respondent to leave. At some point in the interchange the Respondent replied, "What are you going to do, arrest me?" Eventually, Officer Rogers told the Respondent to leave or she would be arrested for trespassing after warning. The Respondent continued to say that she was not leaving. Officer Rogers thereupon advised the Respondent that she was under arrest for trespassing after warning and removed his handcuffs from his belt. At this point the Respondent became belligerent and hostile and told Officer Rogers, "You're not arresting me," and, "You'd better call for a lot of police, I'm not leaving." Officer Rogers requested backup units at this time. At about the same time, a man named Randall Rymes attempted to intervene between Officer Rogers and the Respondent. Officer Rogers told Mr. Rymes to leave and not interfere with the arrest. Mr. Rymes moved away and got into a two-door, black Isuzu automobile. As Officer Rogers attempted to place the handcuffs on the Respondent, she pulled her arm away and twisted her body. Officer Rogers continued with his efforts to arrest the Respondent and grabbed her left arm while asking her not to resist or struggle. The Respondent again pulled her left arm away and then struck Officer Rogers in the neck with her right fist. With Officer Rogers holding onto her arm, the Respondent pulled the officer towards the black Isuzu occupied by Mr. Rymes. Mr. Rymes drove the car beside the Respondent, opened the passenger door, and yelled to Respondent to get into the car. Mr. Rymes also grabbed the Respondent and attempted to help pull her into the car. At that point the Respondent kicked Officer Rogers in the left knee and as Officer Rogers continued to try to put the handcuffs on, the Respondent got partially into the car. Thereupon, Mr. Rymes started driving away with Officer Rogers running beside the automobile still holding onto the Respondent. Officer Rogers finally had to let go to avoid the risk of further injury. The vehicle driven by Mr. Rymes continued for several hundred feet until it was blocked by a vehicle driven by another law enforcement officer. Officer Rogers ran to the automobile driven by Mr. Rymes, removed the Respondent from the car, handcuffed her, and placed her in a police vehicle. Although Respondent had been drinking alcoholic beverages, she was not intoxicated at the time of the events described above. The Respondent has never been arrested or charged with a crime other than in the incident described above. /1

Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code, and imposing a penalty of probationary status for one year conditioned on the Respondent not engaging in any conduct during the probationary period which constitutes failure to maintain good moral character within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(4), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of May 1990. 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 1st of day of May 1990.

Florida Laws (5) 120.57784.03784.07943.13943.1395 Florida Administrative Code (1) 11B-27.0011
# 5
# 6
HARRY PAUL HETT vs. DIVISION OF LICENSING, 83-001970 (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 83-001970 Latest Update: Apr. 15, 1991

The Issue The two issues in this case are whether the Petitioner had been convicted of an offense involving assault, battery, or force on a person except in self- defense, and whether he concealed this on his application.

Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Harry Paul Hett, applied to the Department of State for licensure as an unarmed security guard. The Department denied Petitioner's application. The parties stipulated that, except for the grounds stated by the Department in its letter of denial which are at issue, the Petitioner is qualified for licensure. In 1977, Petitioner was arrested for rape. While awaiting trial, he entered a plea under the mentally disordered sex offender statute, was found guilty, and was sent to Florida State Hospital on August 29, 1977. Subsequently, he was released from Florida State Hospital upon a determination that he was competent. Because it was determined the Petitioner was not qualified as a mentally disordered sex offender and had been adjudicated guilty, on June 1, 1978, he was placed on 15 years probation. As part of his probation, Petitioner was ordered to continue outpatient care. On February 6, 1981, an affidavit of probation violation was filed against the Petitioner. He was arrested on March 9, 1981, and charged with lewd and lascivious conduct (child molestation) and probation violation. On March 26, 1981, Petitioner pled guilty to probation violation and was sentenced to five years in Florida State prison with credit for time previously served. The Petitioner was released early in 1983 and subsequently was employed as an unarmed security guard. Petitioner's application revealed his arrest for lewd and lascivious conduct, which was dealt with by the court as part of the Petitioner's probation violation. On September 25, 1981, while being held by the authorities in Hillsborough County, the Petitioner was held in contempt by the court in Pinellas County, Florida, for failure to appear. When the Petitioner must recall the events which surrounded his arrest for lewd and lascivious conduct, he becomes emotionally upset. At the hearing, this affected his recollection of those events surrounding his offenses. Because he has back problems, Petitioner cannot obtain employment as a laborer. While working as an unarmed security guard, the Petitioner was assigned to a variety of posts such as the local colosseum, malls, and shopping centers. Petitioner has a history of inappropriate sexual conduct associated with alcohol abuse. At the time of this hearing, the Petitioner was not attending any counseling sessions or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of State deny licensure as an unarmed security guard to the Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 7th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harry Paul Hett 7317 Las Palmas Court Tampa, Florida 33614 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION vs LORETTA L. SCOTT, 97-004250 (1997)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tampa, Florida Sep. 10, 1997 Number: 97-004250 Latest Update: Jul. 23, 1998

The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline or penalty is appropriate.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority pursuant to Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, to certify the employment of correctional officers. Respondent, Loretta L. Scott, is a certified correctional officer holding certificate number 157788 issued by the Commission. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed, and on duty as a correctional officer at the North Florida Reception Center (NFRC), a correctional facility of the DOC. On July 15, 1995, an incident of prisoner abuse occurred at NFRC involving the striking of an inmate, John Graham, by Corrections Captain Bailes during a formation of the inmates in the yard. The day of the incident was Respondent's first day on duty as an officer trainee at NFRC. Respondent was assigned to the team of officers on duty in the NFRC yard at the time of the incident. At some time prior to the incident, Respondent had left the yard for a short while to use the bathroom. After the incident, inmate Graham was escorted from the yard to the NFRC hospital by Captain Bailes and other correctional officers. Respondent was present and in the immediate area of the yard during the course of the incident, and assisted in escorting inmate Graham to the hospital. On or about July 27, 1995, Respondent was twice questioned under oath by Inspector Keith Adams concerning the incident of abuse of inmate Graham. The transcripts of the interviews were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Respondent denied witnessing the striking of inmate Graham by Captain Bailes, and initially denied accompanying inmate Graham to the NFRC hospital; however, during the afternoon interview on July 27, 1995, Respondent stated that she assisted in accompanying inmate Graham to the NFRC hospital. Respondent again testified at hearing that she was not present on the NFRC yard, and did not observe the incident of abuse of inmate Graham, but may have been one of the officers accompanying inmate Graham to the hospital. Establishing the witnesses to the incident of prisoner abuse was a material aspect of the investigation conducted by the DOC into this matter. Respondent was not candid and forthcoming in her interviews with Inspector Adams. Respondent was part of the team of officers on the NFRC yard at the time of the incident and was observed on the yard during the time of the incident by several witnesses. While Respondent may have been away from the NFRC yard for a short period of time on July 15, 1995, Respondent was clearly present and accompanied inmate Graham to the NFRC hospital where other matters significant to the internal investigation occurred. Respondent's disclaimer of any material knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the incident of abuse of inmate Graham is not consistent with the evidence of record, and constituted a material misrepresentation to the investigating officer. As indicated above, July 15, 1995, was Respondent's first day on duty in the yard. She had not completed her training and was inexperienced as a corrections officer. The incident of prisoner abuse, which occurred on July 15, 1995, involved a high-ranking corrections officer, and resulted in significant internal personnel ramifications at NFRC.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for a period not to exceed one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON 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 30th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark P. Brewer, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Loretta L. Scott, pro se 4360 Outrigger Lane Tampa, Florida 33615 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards & Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Florida Laws (3) 120.57943.13943.1395 Florida Administrative Code (2) 11B-27.001111B-27.005
# 8
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs CHRISTIAN SIMMONS-COOPER, 13-000114PL (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida Jan. 10, 2013 Number: 13-000114PL Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 9
JOSEPH REDMAN, DOUGLAS L. ADAMS, AND JOE LEWIS HOLLAND vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 84-000598RX (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-000598RX Latest Update: Apr. 18, 1984

Findings Of Fact Respondent stipulated that petitioners are substantially affected by the proposed rule. The evidence showed that its provisions would apply to them. PFB Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is a chronic condition afflicting 45 to 50 percent of black men. PFB occurs when facial hair grows back into the skin. It is by no means a medical emergency, but complicating infections do occur. Once the beard hairs grow out a centimeter or more there is little or no likelihood that they will curl back and bury themselves in the facial skin. The accepted treatment is to let the beard grow. 1/ v EXISTING PRACTICE Until recently, prisoners with PFB were given prescriptions authorizing them to grow their beards no longer than one quarter inch. Dr. Julian Avilas, a physician at Union Correctional Institution, now routinely prescribes letting the beard grow at least 10 millimeters. David E. Watson, an assistant superintendent at Florida State Prison, testified that the practices in place at Union Correctional Institution were the same as would be required under the proposed rule. He originally testified that "closely trimmed" meant clean shaven. He was clean shaven at the hearing, and testified that to trim a beard closely was to sieve as closely as he had the morning of the hearing. Under skillful examination on redirect, however, he said that closely trimmed meant only as long as medically necessary. On December 1, 1983, Josh Green was given a prescription permitting him to grow his beard, but no longer than one quarter inch. He gets "bumps" whether he shaves with a razor or trims with clippers, which are preset to trim close enough to the skin to make the length of the beard less than one quarter inch. Generally speaking, the inmates do not have access to scissors. Two weeks before the hearing, he was required to shave cleanly, even though he showed the prescription to the guard who required this. Prisoners call these prescriptions "passes" and many keep them on their persons. Prison medical personnel gave Joseph Redman a prescription directing him to grow his beard no longer than one quarter inch, some time before December 19, 1983, the day a guard told him to trim his beard. He refused, believing his beard to be less than a quarter inch, and was sentenced to 30 days disciplinary confinement as a result. No measurements were ever taken. Herman L. Bentley's prescription also specifies that he is not to grow his beard longer than one quarter inch. Since the prescription was written on November 22,, 1983, however, guards have required him to shave cleanly seven or eight times, the prescription notwithstanding. Jerome Henry Carter was given a prescription for an indefinite period directing him to grow his beard, but no longer than a quarter inch, in December of 1983. Officer Smith nevertheless required him to shave in February of 1984, even though he was told of the prescription. Gary Reed has also had the experience of being required to shave "all the way" even though prison medical authorities had written a prescription directing him to let his beard grow, to a length less than one quarter inch. Joe Lewis Holland's prescription directed that he be allowed to grow his beard to a length of at least 10 millimeters. After the prescription was written in January of 1984, he and a guard had a disagreement about the length of his beard. HAIRCUTS Joe Lewis Holland also got into a dispute with a guard about whether his haircut was in good taste. He was wearing a neat, clean "moderate Afro" before the barber cut his hair close to the scalp, at the guard's direction. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The barber gave him one haircut, then another, then a third, before enough hair had been cut to suit the guard. Hennard Harris' hair was "tight, in a ball," off his neck and ears. When he declined a guard's request that he comb it out so the guard could see how long it was, the guard ordered that it all be cut off. RULE RATIONALE Mr. Watson explained the considerations behind forbidding full beards and requiring short haircuts. According to his uncontroverted testimony, uniformity of prisoners' appearance is a desideratum in and of itself. There are health and sanitation problems with longer hair. Many inmates are involved in food preparation. The prison issues toothpaste, but not shampoo. In a fight, long hair can be pulled more readily than short hair. Some inmates work in close proximity to machinery. Although some visitors to the prison have short hair and do not wear beards, it is easier, in general, to distinguish inmates from visitors if the former are all close shaven. (Prison uniforms also help in this regard.) Escapees would be able to alter their appearance more rapidly if they had long hair (by cutting it off) or a beard (by shaving) than if they were put to the trouble of acquiring a wig or a false beard. The policy of requiring prisoners to forego beards and keep their hair short is not uniformly observed in the United States. Nevada and Nebraska have different policies in their prisons. Both petitioners and respondent filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have been considered in preparation of the final order. To the extent findings of fact have not been adopted, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.

Florida Laws (3) 120.54120.57944.09
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer