The Issue Whether Petitioner violated Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1(002), 3-1.3(066), and 3-1.3(067), and, if so, whether Petitioner should be terminated from his position with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office.
Findings Of Fact Based on a review of the case file, the Transcript of the final hearing, and the exhibits entered into evidence, the following Findings of Fact are found. On July 13, 2001, Dominguez was assigned to foot patrol at the K-Mart store in South Pasadena, Florida, as a community police officer. At that time he had been employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for approximately sixteen and one-half years. On the evening of July 13, 2001, Dominguez was standing outside K-Mart talking to an employee of K-Mart, Renee Herrington (Herrington). While talking to Herrington, Dominguez observed a white van and a black sport utility vehicle (SUV) parked in front of K-Mart next to a yellow curb. The area in which the vehicles were parked was marked by a faded “no Dominguez observed the vehicles for a time and when no one moved the vehicles, he decided to cite both vehicles for parking violations. He issued a citation to the white van and then proceeded to the black SUV. The SUV had been parked in front of K-Mart by Maryellen Ruvolo (Ruvolo) while she and her niece went into K-Mart to make a purchase. Ruvolo left the vehicle running, and her sister and two nephews remained in the vehicle. Dominguez went to the rear of the SUV and began writing the ticket. Ruvolo’s sister, Eugenia Quinn (Quinn), got out of the SUV and asked Dominguez to not issue the ticket and allow her to move the vehicle. Dominguez refused her requests and gave the ticket to Quinn. Dominguez started walking in the direction of Herrington, who was sitting on a bench approximately 30 yards away from the vehicles. When Ruvolo returned to the vehicle, Quinn gave her the ticket and told her that Dominguez would not let her move the SUV. Ruvolo turned in the direction of Dominguez and shouted, “Have a nice day, you fucking fat bastard.” Dominguez turned around and went back to where Ruvolo was standing. He wanted to confront her about her comment. Ruvulo started to yell after Dominguez went up to her. He arrested her, handcuffed her, and put her in his patrol car. The charge was disorderly conduct. During the confrontation between Dominguez and Ruvolo, none of the members of the public became involved in the dispute and Ruvolo did not incite any members of the public to participate in the dispute. She never physically or verbally threatened Dominguez. Ruvolo’s actions did not invade the right of others to pursue their lawful activities. Herrington went back inside K-Mart and other members of the public were not disrupted in their entering and leaving K-Mart. Quinn asked Dominquez why he was arresting her sister and he told her that he did not get paid enough to put up with what Ruvolo had said. While he was arresting Ruvolo, Dominguez had requested assistance from another deputy sheriff, Kelvin Franklin. When Deputy Franklin arrived on the scene the confrontation was over. Dominguez asked Franklin to go inside K-Mart and get the address of Herrington, who had witnessed the incident. Dominguez did not request Franklin to take a statement from Herrington. On the way to the jail, Ruvolo apologized to Dominguez, and he told her to shut up. Prior to reaching the jail, Ruvolo stopped for a few minutes in a parking lot and met with his supervisor to get some in-service papers. When they reached the jail, Dominguez was advised that there were six persons to be processed ahead of Ruvolo. Dominguez got out of the patrol car and turned off the ignition. He did some paperwork on the trunk of his patrol car while waiting. He left Ruvolo in the patrol car without air conditioning and the windows rolled up for approximately six or seven minutes. He returned to the vehicle and turned on the ignition and waited to be called to take Ruvolo inside the jailhouse. They waited approximately 20 minutes from the time they got to the jail until they entered it. Ruvolo spent approximately five hours in jail and was required to post bail before she could be released. After arresting Ruvolo, Dominguez prepared his incident/offense report and complaint/arrest affidavit. Dominguez admitted during his testimony that neither the arrest report nor the arrest affidavit set forth facts to establish the elements for the offense of disorderly conduct, the crime for which he arrested Ruvolo. Dominguez told the Administrative Review Board (ARB) that he felt that Herrington’s peace had been disturbed. Dominguez did not talk with Herrington between the time he heard Ruvolo make her remarks to him and the time he arrested Ruvolo. When asked why he had not included any statements from Herrington in his report, he replied, “Laziness.” During the ARB hearing, Dominguez stated that he had no excuse for not completing a thorough report and detailing the elements of the crime. He acknowledged the position that he placed the Sheriff's Office in when he did not do a complete and thorough report. Ruvolo and Quinn made complaints to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office about Dominguez’s actions. The complaints alleged that Dominguez was rude, intimidating, and unprofessional in his behavior during the July 13, 2001, incident. Ruvolo also alleged her arrest to be false. As a result of the complaints, Sergeant Tim Pelella (Pelella) of the Administrative Investigations Division of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office conducted preliminary interviews of Ruvolo and Quinn. During the course of the interview, Ruvolo recognized that she would have to pursue her false arrest claim through the courts. Pellella referred the matter to the commander of the road patrol division for investigation of the non-arrest components of the complaints. The complaints were referred to Sergeant Jay Morey (Morey), Dominguez’s immediate supervisor. Sergeant Morey talked to Dominguez and Herrington, but did not talk to either Ruvolo or Quinn. Morey concluded that he would not sustain the complaint, but his conclusion was never finalized or reduced to writing. The arrest for disorderly conduct was referred to the State Attorney’s Office for prosecution. The arrest report and arrest affidavit were reviewed by Assistant State Attorney Lydia Wardell, who concluded that neither the report nor the affidavit set forth sufficient facts to prosecute the case. As a result, a No Information was filed by the State Attorney’s Office disposing of the charges against Ruvolo, stating: “The facts and circumstances revealed do not warrant prosecution at this time.” As a result of the decision not to prosecute, the Administrative Investigation Division of the Sheriff’s Office retrieved the complaints from Morey and began its investigation of the false arrest complaint. It is the policy of the Sheriff’s Office not to investigate allegations of false arrest until such time as the State Attorney’s Office makes a decision on whether to prosecute. Dominguez was notified that an investigation was being initiated. Dominguez gave a sworn statement to the investigators assigned to the case. Ruvolo and other witnesses also gave sworn statements. After the investigation was completed, Dominguez was given an ARB hearing. In accord with General Order 10-2 of the Sheriff’s Office, at least one member of Dominguez’s chain of command sat on his ARB hearing. Prior to the hearing, the ARB members are given a copy of the investigation conducted by the Administrative Investigation Division. At the hearing Dominguez was permitted to offer a statement, to respond to questions, and to present additional evidence. The ARB made the following determination: On July 13, 2001, Manuel Dominguez, #52303, while on duty in Pinellas County, Florida; did violate the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Act Laws of Florida, 89-404 as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4, by violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five Violation), 002, relating to Loyalty, to wit: Members shall maintain their loyalty to the Sheriff's Office and it's [sic] members as is consistent with law and professional ethics as established in General Order 3-2. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you failed to abide by the PCSO Code of Ethics, to wit: You acted officiously or permitted personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence your decisions while in the performance of duty as a deputy sheriff. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 066, relating to Performance of Duty, to wit: All members will be efficient in their assigned duties. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you failed to accurately document an incident that resulted in the arrest of a citizen of this county. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 067, relating to Performance of Duty, to wit: All members will be effective in their assigned duties. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you effected an arrest which the State Attorney's Office could not prosecute because you were ineffective in your assigned duties. The violations resulted in a cumulative point total of 75 points. A Level Five violation is given a point value of 50 points. A Level Three violation is given a point value of 15 points. The ARB assigned a total of 25 points for the two Level Three violations and 50 points for the Level 5 violation. There were no previous discipline points added. The discipline range for 75 points is from a ten-day suspension to termination. The ARB recommended the maximum penalty of termination. General Order 10-2 of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office deals with disciplinary procedures. It provides that the termination procedure to be followed is the same as that of a member who is suspended without pay with certain additional procedures. Only the sheriff has the authority to terminate a member of the Sheriff’s Office. A member can only be terminated “subsequent to an Administrative Investigation Division investigation supported by findings and disciplinary action recommended by a Administrative Review Board, and at the instruction of the Sheriff” that the member be terminated. At the time that the ARB made its recommendation that Dominguez be terminated, Rice, the Pinellas County Sheriff, was out of the state. He had discussed Dominguez’s disciplinary case with Chief Deputy Coats (Coats) prior to leaving the state. Rice had specifically authorized Coats to impose discipline, including termination, upon Dominguez that was consistent with the ARB’s recommendations. Coats advised Rice of the findings and recommendations of the ARB. Rice told Coats that he had no problem with terminating Dominguez. Coats signed the inter- office memoranda for Rice, advising Dominquez of the findings and recommendations of the ARB and advising of the decision to terminate Dominguez from employment with the Sheriff's Office. Coats was instructed by Rice to terminate Dominguez. In his deposition, Rice stated that Dominguez should have been terminated and that it was his decision to approve Dominguez's termination. Dominguez did not know the elements of the offense of disorderly conduct when he arrested Ruvolo. He felt that he could arrest her for her inappropriate comments to him. At the final hearing, Dominguez admitted that based on his long career in law enforcement that he should have known what constituted disorderly conduct. Dominguez was insulted by Ruvolo's name-calling and felt that her words were a challenge to the uniform of a deputy sheriff. Dominguez allowed his personal feelings to influence his decision to arrest Ruvolo.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a Final Order finding Manuel R. Dominguez guilty of violating the Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as set forth in September 27, 2001, inter-office memorandum and upholding the termination of Manuel R. Dominguez from his employment as a deputy sheriff with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
The Issue Case Number 91-8116EC: Whether the Respondent, Fred Peel, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes: (1) by failing to have complaint review procedures in place in his office as required by Section 112.533(1), Florida Statutes; (2) by attempting to intimidate the complainant into leaving the Washington County Sheriff's offices without receiving a copy of his arrest report; and (3) by attempting to charge $5.00 for copy of the arrest report? Case Number 91-8323EC: Whether the Respondent, John Jenkins, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by attempting to intimidate the complainant into leaving the Washington County Sheriff's offices without receiving a copy of his arrest report?
Findings Of Fact The Respondents. The Respondent, Fred Peel, is the Sheriff of Washington County, Florida. (Stipulated Fact). Sheriff Peel has continuously served as the Sheriff of Washington County for the past fifteen years. (Stipulated Fact). Sheriff Peel is an elected official. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Sheriff Peel served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Respondent, John Jenkins, is a captain with the Washington County Sheriff's Department. (Stipulated Fact). Captain Jenkins has continuously served with the Sheriff's Department for ten years. (Stipulated Fact). Captain Jenkins was appointed by Sheriff Peel pursuant to Chapter 30, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Captain Jenkins served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Arrest of the Complainant. The complainant, Timothy Hinson, was arrested by a deputy of the Washington County Sheriff's Office on November 26, 1990. Mr. Hinson was charged with driving under the influence, driving while license suspended or revoked and refusal to sign citation. (Stipulated Fact). At the time of his arrest, Mr. Hinson was intoxicated. Mr. Hinson's speech was slurred, his appearance was disheveled and his ability to understand verbal communication was poor. After being arrested and transported to the Washington County jail, Mr. Hinson made profane and abusive threats addressed to the arresting deputy and the "Sheriff". Mr. Hinson threatened to have the "Sheriff" removed. Mr. Hinson did not know who the Sheriff was at the time. Mr. Hinson's actions, failed to prove, as suggested by the Respondents, that Mr. Hinson had a vendetta against the Respondents or law enforcement personnel in general. This evidence merely proved that Mr. Hinson was drunk. The parties stipulated that, prior to his arrest on November 26, 1990, Mr. Hinson had been arrested six times since 1983. This evidence failed to prove, however, the Respondents' contention that Mr. Hinson had a grudge or vendetta against the Respondents or law enforcement personnel in general. This evidence suggests that Mr. Hinson has a drinking problem. Mr. Hinson's Effort to Obtain a Copy of His Arrest Record. Just prior to noon on December 28, 1990, Mr. Hinson went to the Washington County Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson went to the Sheriff's offices with the intent to obtain a copy of the records related to his arrest on November 26, 1990. (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Hinson was met in the lobby of the Sheriff's offices by Sharon Bellamy, an employee of Sheriff Peel. Mr. Hinson informed Ms. Bellamy that he wanted a copy of his arrest record. Mr. Hinson informed Ms. Bellamy that he needed a copy of the documents for his defense. Ms. Bellamy retrieved Mr. Hinson's file from the office where records were kept and brought it to the lobby to make the copies requested at a copy machine located in the lobby. There were two documents in the file that Mr. Hinson requested: the complaint and the arresting report. As Ms. Bellamy began to make a copy of the documents Mr. Hinson had requested, she found a copy of another document that had been mailed to Mr. Hinson that he had not requested. The document was a notice to Mr. Hinson that his Florida drivers' license had been suspended for refusing to take a breath test. Ms. Bellamy began quizzing Mr. Hinson about whether he had received the document. Although Mr. Hinson had in fact received the notice Ms. Bellamy asked him about, he told her he had not and requested a copy of it. Ms. Bellamy continued to ask Mr. Hinson about the notice. The conversation between Mr. Hinson and Ms. Bellamy became more agitated, although the evidence failed to prove why. Pam Miner, the Sheriff's secretary, was in an office next to the lobby. The door opening into the lobby was open and Ms. Miner overheard Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel was sitting in his office, which adjoined Ms. Miner's office. The door opening into Ms. Miner's office was also open and he could also hear the discussion. At some time after Ms. Bellamy began discussing the notice concerning Mr. Hinson's driver's license with him, Ms. Miner went to the door of Sheriff Peel's office and gave him a look which she described as intended to convey to Sheriff Peel that "you need to do something". After Ms. Miner looked into Sheriff Peel's office, he went out into the lobby. Sheriff Peel initially watched what was going on. At some point shortly after Sheriff Peel went into the lobby he asked Mr. Hinson some questions about Mr. Hinson's driver's license. Mr. Hinson informed Sheriff Peel that he had a Maryland driver's license. At some point during the discussion between Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson, Mr. Hinson indicated that he was seeking a copy of the documents in his file for his attorney. Sheriff Peel suggested that Mr. Hinson have his attorney get the copies. The discussion between Mr. Hinson and Sheriff Peel became more heated and argumentative. Eventually Sheriff Peel told Ms. Bellamy to "charge him $5.00" and started to leave. Mr. Hinson perceived this comment to mean that he was to be charged $5.00 per page or document. Prior to coming to the Sheriff's office to obtain copies of the documents in his file, Mr. Hinson had telephoned the Sheriff's office and had been told that there was a $2.00 copying charge. Two dollars is, in fact, what the Sheriff's office normally charges for copying documents. Mr. Hinson believed, therefore, that he would be charged $2.00 per document or a total of $4.00 for the documents he had requested. When Mr. Hinson heard the Sheriff indicate that he was to be charged $5.00, he became angry because he believed that Sheriff Peel was suggesting that he be charged $5.00 per copy or $5.00 per page. Such a charge was inconsistent with what he had been previously told about copying charges. Mr. Hinson incorrectly believed that Sheriff Peel was going to charge him the higher rate for copying because he had a Maryland drivers' license and was, therefore, apparently not from Washington County. Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel by stating that he had been told that the copying charge was only $2.00 a copy. Sheriff Peel, if he had meant to charge Mr. Hinson a total of $5.00 as suggested during the final hearing, did not clarify that he was only going to charge him a total of $5.00 instead of $5.00 per copy as Mr. Hinson apparently believed. The failure to clarify what he meant, and the fact that Sheriff Peel did not know how many documents were actually involved, support the conclusion that Sheriff Peel did not intend that Ms. Bellamy merely charge Mr. Hinson a total of $5.00. Of greater importance, these facts explain Mr. Hinson's confusion and anger. He reasonably believed he was going to be overcharged. Some time after Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel about the $5.00 charge, Sheriff Peel told Ms. Bellamy not to give Mr. Hinson anything. Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel, although he did not know at the time that he was the Sheriff, and asked him "what's the problem." Mr. Hinson also asked for the person in charge of "internal affairs", stating that he wanted to file a complaint against Sheriff Peel. Sheriff Peel informed Mr. Hinson that the Sheriff's Office did not have an "internal affairs" department, that he was the Sheriff, and that he would not take a complaint against himself. The Washington County Sheriff's Office has no written policy for handling complaints against personnel. The Washington County Sheriff's Office has an informal, unwritten policy for handling complaints. Sheriff Peel makes the final decision concerning complaints. At some time shortly after Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson began to argue, Captain Jenkins came to the door opening to the lobby from the room that he had been in. Initially, Captain Jenkins stood watching the discussion. Because of the smallness of the room, Captain Jenkins was relatively close to Mr. Hinson. After Sheriff Peel informed Mr. Hinson that there was no internal affairs department and that he would not take a complaint against himself, Captain Jenkins stated "I'm internal affairs this week. What's the problem?" or a statement to that effect. Although Captain Jenkins testified that he made the comment to try to diffuse the situation by injecting some humor into the situation, the weight of the evidence does not support this explanation. The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the comment was made in a snide and sarcastic manner. Mr. Hinson was being rude and confrontational. Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson were engaged in a somewhat heated argument. Mr. Hinson was obviously angry. To make such a statement to a person in this type situation evidenced a failure to exercise good judgement. The statement was intended to rebuke and insult Mr. Hinson. Mr. Hinson demanded that Captain Jenkins identify himself, which he did. Mr. Hinson told Captain Jenkins that he wanted to file a complaint against Sheriff Peel. Captain Jenkins told him that he would not take a complaint against the Sheriff. Captain Jenkins told Mr. Hinson that it would be better if he left the office. It was apparent to Mr. Hinson that nothing more could come of the confrontation with Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins. Sheriff Peel had ordered that nothing be given to Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins had refused to take a complaint. It had been suggested that he leave. Mr. Hinson felt intimidated. Captain Jenkins is 6'1" and weighs approximately 225 pounds while Mr. Hinson is slightly built in comparison. There was nothing to be gained by continued argument and, therefore, Mr. Hinson left. Mr. Hinson was not intoxicated or taking medication at the time of his visit to the Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson's attitude and demeanor with Ms. Bellamy was defensive and confrontational. Mr. Hinson's displeasure over his arrest and his attitude were perceived as rudeness by Ms. Bellamy. Although Mr. Hinson did not yell or use profanity, as described by Ms. Bellamy, Mr. Hinson "had an attitude". These findings are based in large part upon the testimony of Ms. Bellamy, Pam Miner (the Sheriff's secretary) and David Corbin, the Director of Washington County Parks and Recreation. Mr. Corbin was in the lobby during the confrontation. Although Ms. Bellamy and Ms. Miner are employed by Sheriff Peel, and the fact that Ms. Bellamy was not totally candid in her testimony, the crucial elements of the testimony of the Respondents and these witnesses were consistent. It is difficult to categorize the degree of Mr. Hinson's rudeness. All of the witnesses agreed Mr. Hinson was rude and confrontational. His rudeness and attitude were not, however, so severe that Ms. Bellamy did not believe that she could handle Mr. Hinson. Nor did Ms. Bellamy ever feel threatened by Mr. Hinson. She did not request any assistance from Sheriff Peel or Captain Jenkins, both of whom were in adjoining offices. Nor was Mr. Hinson's attitude and treatment of Ms. Bellamy sufficiently troublesome to cause Captain Jenkins, who could hear the discussion between Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Hinson, to come out to assist Ms. Bellamy until after Sheriff Peel had intervened. Finally, Ms. Bellamy left the lobby during the confrontation to prepare to go to lunch, not something that would be expected of someone witnessing an overly serious confrontation. Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins did not yell at Mr. Hinson. Nor did they laugh at Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel did, however, become angry and argumentative with Mr. Hinson. The situation could have been ended by simply allowing Ms. Bellamy to provide the copies of the documents Mr. Hinson had requested, which had already been made. Captain Jenkins was sarcastic with Mr. Hinson and, to some degree, because of his size, intimidating to Mr. Hinson. Captain Jenkins' comment to Mr. Hinson, although sarcastic, was not threatening. Mr. Hinson, based upon 20-20 hindsight, was not a threat to anybody in the Sheriff's offices. This is not to say, however, that Mr. Hinson should have been taken lightly or that Mr. Hinson's conduct should have been totally accepted and tolerated by Sheriff Peel. Nor can it be concluded that Captain Jenkins should have totally ignored what was going on. Effort to Secure a Special Privilege, Benefit, or Exemption. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the failure to have a written complaint procedure in place in the Washington County Sheriff's Office was intended by Sheriff Peel to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. Mr. Hinson, after telephoning the Florida Sheriff's Association, was informed that he could pick up a copy of the documents he wanted at the Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson also could have obtained a copy of the documents he wanted by having someone else, including his attorney, pick them up or by requesting a copy of the documents from the clerk of court's office. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was attempting to intimidate Mr. Hinson into leaving the Sheriff's offices without obtaining a copy of the documents he had requested in order to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. Any funds collected for copying by the Sheriff's Office are funds of Washington County. Sheriff Peel has no control or direct use of those funds. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was attempting to charge $5.00 for the copies in an effort to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Captain Jenkins' actions were intended to intimidate Mr. Hinson into leaving the Sheriff's offices in order to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. At worst, the evidence proved that Sheriff Peel, arguably, could have exercised a little more patience and that Captain Jenkins made a smart remark at an inappropriate time. These actions, in light of Mr. Hinson's attitude and demeanor, do not support a conclusion that Sheriff Peel or Captain Jenkins were attempting to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption for themselves or others. The actions of all those involved in this situation were emotional reactions to the situation and were not calculated to achieve any particular result.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report dismissing Complaint No. 91-42 and Complaint No. 91-43. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection A. 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 5. 4 6. 5 7. B. 1 9. 2 10. C. 1 23. Hereby accepted. Conclusion of law. D. 1 28-30. 2 29. 3 30. E. 1 13. 2 36. 3 14 and 23. 4 14-15. 5 14. 6 17 and hereby accepted. 7 See 37. 8 See 37-38 and 40. Ms. Bellamy's relationship to the Respondents has been considered. While it is true that Ms. Bellamy was not totally candid, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Bellamy's testimony was materially flawed, especially in light of the testimony of other witnesses. 9-10 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 See 41. The evidence failed to prove that "no reasonable person could have perceived Mr. Hinson as posing such a danger." Such a conclusion can only be made with 20-20 hindsight. 11a-b 38. 11c 19. 11c 31 and 38. 12 20-21 13 21 and see 26. 14 27. 15 28. 16 Not relevant. 17 22. 18 22-24. 19 25. 20 See 31. 21-22 32. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 22 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 23 33. 24 34. 25 35. See 35. See 37-40. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 25. The Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 9. 2 See 11. 3 13-14. 4 15 and 17-19. 19, 21 and 37-38. The allegations concerning whether Mr. Hinson became "loud" are rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 27. The evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel "explained to Hinson that he had a small office" in an effort to explain why he did not have an internal affairs department. The Respondents' suggestion that Mr. Hinson was out of control is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 31 and 33. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Captain Jenkins suggested that Mr. Hinson go to the State Attorney's office if he wanted to file a complaint. See 22. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was aware of how many pages were to be copied, that Mr. Hinson left after being told that the charge was $5.00 or that Mr. Hinson was not told to leave. 23 and hereby accepted. 10 16, 18 and 23. 11 45. 12 28-30. See 31. Hereby accepted. See 47. The last two sentences are not relevant. 16 See 24-25, 38-39 and 48. 17 42. 18 See 12. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 19-24 Although portions of these proposed findings of fact are true, the ultimate findings of fact suggested by these proposed facts are not supported by the weight of the evidence. For example, although it is true that Mr. Hinson admitted that he had a bad memory, the essential elements of his testimony were credible. 25 41-47. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William E. Powers, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission On Ethics The Capitol Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Michael D. Ely, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and licensing law enforcement officers pursuant to Florida law. As such, the Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary actions against law enforcement officers. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer holding certificate number 1119822. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was employed by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office and worked as a deputy sheriff assigned to road patrol for a designated geographic area within the county. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was romantically involved with or was residing with an individual identified in this record as Greta Fernandez or Greta Brown. By his admission, the Respondent's relationship with Ms. Brown began around the first of August 2002. The Respondent met Ms. Brown while he was working an off duty job at Pensacola Beach. His romantic interest in her began in earnest a short while later after he bumped into her at a club known as "Coconuts." Shortly after beginning his association with Ms. Brown, the Respondent was verbally counseled by his superior officer regarding his choice of friends. Officers are warned not to socialize with and associate themselves with undesirable persons. Concerns over the Respondent's association with Ms. Brown continued and eventually led to a written report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) issued on September 21, 2002. According to the Respondent, an individual named Patty Clark verbally teased and tormented Ms. Brown's minor child as the student left the school bus en route home. While the child did not testify in this cause it is presumed for purposes of this record that the extent of the "teasing" included verbal comments and a hand gesture commonly referred to as "the finger." It was alleged that the child was very upset by the incident. At Ms. Brown's urging, on or about September 21, 2002, the Respondent contacted Ms. Clark by telephone and identified himself as a deputy sheriff. He further admonished Ms. Clark to cease her behavior regarding the minor child and issued a veiled comment regarding the status of Ms. Clark's driving privileges (suspended). The Respondent did not write up the incident, did not refer the matter to other law enforcement who might have jurisdiction over the matter (e.g. the Pensacola police department), or take any official action against Ms. Clark. Other than the telephone call that was intended to curb Ms. Clark's actions toward the child, the Respondent took no other official action against the alleged perpetrator. Because she did not appreciate the manner in which she had been contacted, Ms. Clark filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Sheriff's Office. That complaint led to the written counseling report noted in paragraph 6. It is not alleged that Ms. Clark's actions or comments to the minor child constituted any criminal behavior. Moreover, other than to pacify Ms. Brown and presumably her child, it is unknown why the Respondent would have used his official position as a deputy sheriff to pursue the matter. If Ms. Clark committed a crime or an actionable infraction, the Respondent's wiser course would have been to refer the matter/incident to an appropriate law enforcement authority. As it happened, the Respondent attempted to use his official position of authority to secure a benefit for himself, his girlfriend and/or her child, that is, to coerce the alleged perpetrator (Ms. Clark) and to thereby keep her from interacting with the minor again. Despite the counseling on September 21, 2002, and in contrast to his testimony in this cause on October 15, 2003 (that his relationship with Ms. Brown ended "like the second week of September of 2002"), the Respondent's relationship with Ms. Brown did not end in September 2002. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that the Respondent continued seeing Ms. Brown after the second week of September 2002 and knew or should have known that she associated with persons whose reputations were less than stellar. In fact, the Respondent admitted that he utilized resources available to him through the Sheriff's Office to run background checks on at least two of Ms. Brown's friends because he thought they were "no good." More telling, however, is the fact that the Respondent admitted receiving and delivering to Ms. Brown what he believed were narcotic pills (from Dan Faircloth). The Respondent admitted that Ms. Brown did not go to physicians or doctors on a regular basis for treatment. He also knew that Mr. Faircloth was neither a doctor nor a pharmacist. Finally, the Respondent knew that Ms. Brown continued to receive and take pills for her alleged pain. How the Respondent could have imagined it appropriate for Mr. Faircloth to supply drugs to Ms. Brown is not explained in this record. Whether or not the pills actually were a controlled substance is unknown. It is certain the Respondent believed them to be. Eventually, the Respondent admitted to his superior that he found a crack pipe in his apartment (presumably owned by Ms. Brown). When the incident of the pipe came out, the Respondent was again instructed to break off his relationship with Ms. Brown. As late as November 2002 the Respondent continued to be in contact with Ms. Brown. The Sheriff's Office was by that time so concerned regarding the Respondent's poor judgment in his selection of associates that Lt. Spears felt compelled to write a memorandum to her superior regarding various allegations. One of the incidents that triggered an internal affairs investigation was the Respondent's disclosure to Ms. Brown that the Sheriff's Office was looking for one of her former friends. Ms. Brown tipped the person (for whom an arrest warrant had been issued) off that deputies were looking for her. Based upon the warning of her impending arrest, the suspect fled the jurisdiction. Ultimately, the suspect's arrest was delayed due to the Respondent's disclosure of the warrant information to Ms. Brown. At some point a reasonable person, and certainly a trained law enforcement officer, should have known that Ms. Brown and her associates were not appropriate persons with whom to socialize. In fact, when the Respondent elected to run a background check on Ms. Brown (presumably to check the status of her driving privileges) because he did not want her to drive his vehicle without a valid license, he should have questioned whether or not he should associate with someone he might not be able to trust. When two of her friends were arrested as a result of his checks on them, he should have clearly known to disassociate from Ms. Brown. That he remained in the relationship for as long as he did is incomprehensible. The Respondent offered no rational explanation for his behavior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding the Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as required by law and that the Respondent's certification be revoked based upon the severity of the conduct, the number of violations established by this record, and the lack of mitigating circumstances to support a lesser penalty. S DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9675 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Roy M. Kinsey, Jr., Esquire Kinsey, Troxel, Johnson & Walborsky, P.A. 438 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32502
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; (2) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff rule relating to effectiveness in assigned duties; and (3) if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a detention deputy and has been so employed for more than 11 years. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was assigned to the Pinellas County Detention Center (Jail). Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Respondent is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On April 26, 1999, Respondent was assigned to the third shift, Special Operations Division, and was a corporal supervising the booking area. In connection with that assignment, Respondent's job responsibilities included booking inmates into the Jail. One part of the booking process required that detention deputies obtain certain information from individuals taken into custody in order to complete the necessary paperwork. While the information was being obtained, inmates are instructed to stand behind a blue line on the floor. As part of the booking process, detention deputies inventory the property in the possession of an inmate and make a written record of that property and "pat down" the inmate. Following these procedures, the inmate is seen by a nurse. However, if the nurse is unavailable, the inmate is told to wait in Pre-booking Cell 4 (Cell 4). Detention Deputy Robert McQuire was also assigned to work the third shift in the booking area of the Special Operations Division on April 26, 1999. On April 26, 1999, during the third shift, Jay McMillen (McMillen) was booked into custody at the Jail on the charge of driving without a valid driver’s license. Upon arrival at the Jail, he was taken to the booking area, instructed to stand behind the blue line on the floor near the counter in the booking area, and asked for information required to complete the inmate property form. Both Respondent and McGuire participated in booking McMillen but McGuire asked the inmate most of the questions. During the booking process, McMillen cooperated with Respondent and McGuire and provided the information required to complete the booking form. Moreover, McMillen complied with orders given to him by the detention deputies. Although McMillen occasionally wandered a few feet away from the booking counter, he would immediately return to the area behind the blue line when so instructed. While being booked, McMillen never threatened either Respondent or McGuire. Furthermore, McMillen never physically resisted the actions of the detention deputies or exhibited physical violence. During the course of the booking process, Respondent undertook a routine pat down search of McMillen. As a part of that process, McMillen again complied with Respondent’s instructions to assume the appropriate position. While engaging in the pat down, some slight movement of McMillen’s leg occurred. However, at the time of this movement by McMillen, Respondent took no action to restrain McMillen. After the pat down was completed, McMillen was then told to sit on the bench in the booking area and to remove his shoes for inspection. McMillen immediately complied with this instruction. After Respondent completed the search of the shoes, he then ordered McMillen to have a seat in Cell 4. When Respondent ordered McMillen to Cell 4 to await nurse screening, McMillen complied with that order. While McMillen was walking toward Cell 4, McMillen made a single verbal statement to Respondent. The statement by McMillen was inappropriate and unnecessary. In the statement, McMillen referred to Respondent as "bitch." In response to McMillen's statement, Respondent turned from his original direction of returning to the booking counter and followed McMillen into Cell 4. It was Respondent’s intent at that time to remove McMillen from Cell 4 and to transport him to C Wing, an area used for inmates who were agitated or upset and needed a "cooling down" period. Respondent’s decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4 to the C Wing was based solely upon the tone of McMillen’s voice and was not the result of any aggressive physical act taken by McMillen or a verbal threat made by McMillen. Respondent followed McMillen into Cell 4 without the benefit of assistance from another detention deputy. In fact, prior to acting upon his decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4, Respondent did not advise McGuire or any other detention deputy of his intent or ask for assistance. Although Respondent did not advise any detention deputy that he was going into Cell 4, McGuire apparently observed Respondent proceeding toward Cell 4, and within approximately nine seconds, followed Respondent into the cell. At the time Respondent entered Cell 4 there was another inmate in the cell. Once in Cell 4, McMillen complied with Respondent’s instruction to face the wall and place his hands behind his back. However, while Respondent was handcuffing McMillen, McMillen exhibited an aggressive move toward him. As a result of McMillen's aggressive move, Respondent exercised force in restraining McMillen, engaging in an arm hold and forcing McMillen to the ground. Once on the ground, McMillen did not resist further and cooperated in the efforts of Respondent and McGuire to return him to his feet. During the process of Respondent's utilizing this force, McMillen suffered a cut over his right eye that required medical attention. McGuire then assisted Respondent in the handcuffing and transporting of McMillen. McMillen was then transported to C Wing where he was seen by a nurse, his restraints were removed, and he was left in a cell. McMillen did not resist further at that time and complied with the instructions of Respondent. Following the incident described in paragraph 16, Respondent and McGuire reported the incident as a use of force. Their incident reports were reviewed by Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Richard Leach, who approved the use of force and completed his own report. Prior to completing his report, Sergeant Leach attempted to speak with McMillen, but McMillen refused to discuss the matter with him. Sergeant Leach discussed the incident with Respondent and McGuire, but did not review the videotapes of the pre-booking area for the time period during which the incident occurred. It was later that Sergeant Leach was advised there was a problem with regard to the use of force. After reports were completed and submitted, the videotapes made in the pre-booking area of the incident were reviewed by Lieutenant Alan Harmer, pursuant to the procedures utilized at the Jail. Lieutenant Harmer also reviewed the incident reports prepared by Respondent and McGuire and the use- of-force report prepared by Sergeant Leach. Upon reviewing the tapes, Lieutenant Harmer determined that the events leading up to the use of force and the use of force itself violated Sheriff’s Office rules. As a result of Lieutenant Harmer's preliminary determination, an internal investigation was conducted by the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) of the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the referral by Lieutenant Harmer. Sworn statements were taken by investigators, including statements of Respondent, McGuire, and the inmate in Cell 4 at the time of the altercation. In his sworn statement, Respondent alleged that McMillen was verbally abusive during the course of the booking process and that he further was uncooperative and had initiated an act of possible physical resistance by moving his leg in a manner possibly designed to strike Respondent. After completing its investigation, the AID presented its entire investigative file to the Administrative Review Board (Board) without conclusion or recommendation. Sergeant Leach was among the officers sitting on the Board. Although Sergeant Leach had initially approved the use of force when he reviewed the reports of Respondent and McGuire, he voted to discipline Respondent based upon his observations from the videotapes of the incident. The Board met and after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Respondent the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 067, relating to a member’s effectiveness in their assigned duties. On April 26, 1999, you unnecessarily caused a use of force by entering a cell and confronting an inmate. Further, you exposed yourself to undue risk by entering the cell without appropriate back-up. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of one Level Three violation is the basis for assigning 15 disciplinary points. As a result, Respondent was assessed 15 disciplinary points. Sheriff’s Office General Order 10-2 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point assessment of 15 points to be a minimum discipline of a written reprimand and a maximum discipline of a three-day suspension. In the instant case, Respondent was assessed the maximum discipline, a three-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Respondent in following McMillen into Cell 4 and then engaging in a physical altercation with McMillen based solely upon a single comment by McMillen, regardless of the extent to which the comment constituted a vulgar insult directed toward Respondent, did not constitute a good correctional practice. Moreover, such conduct is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of correctional officers in a volatile situation is to calm the situation and to maintain control, not to act to aggravate or to escalate the dispute or to allow the inmate to control the situation via verbal comments. Proper correctional practice would have been to allow McMillen to remain in Cell 4 for sufficient time to cool off and calm down before initiating further contact with him. Similarly, the actions of Respondent in following McMillen into the cell by himself rather than obtaining assistance prior to entering the cell, are also contrary to good correctional practice. Again, this conduct by Respondent served only to potentially escalate and aggravate the confrontation, rather than to calm the situation. Moreover, it is also good correctional practice to have two detention deputies transport an inmate. This is particularly so considering the presence of another inmate in Cell 4 at the time Respondent entered the cell. There was no need for Respondent to enter the cell with McMillen or to initiate physical contact with McMillen, and his actions are contrary to Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure File Index No. DCB 9.29 that requires that detention deputies refrain from one-on-one confrontations with inmates that may lead to physical confrontations. The actions of Respondent created a situation that led to a use of force and injury to McMillen that could have been avoided had Respondent effectively performed his duties as a detention deputy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document and upholding Respondent’s suspension for three days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2000, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses of malicious harassment, unlawful battery (two counts), and unlawful entry of a structure (two counts) as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 17, 1997. Whether Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his correctional officer's certification.
Findings Of Fact Christopher Horne (Respondent), was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 29, 1989, as a correctional officer, and was issued Correctional Certificate Number 70581. Respondent was employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office, Department of Corrections, as a correctional officer during the period of October 1, 1990, until his termination on November 14, 1997. Patricia Johnson is currently employed with the Orange County Sheriff's Department of Corrections as a correctional officer and has been employed as such for the past twelve years. She is certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer. Johnson first met Respondent in the summer of 1993 at work. They became friends and eventually began dating each other in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. This relationship continued for approximately two and a half years, until Johnson made the decision to end it. Johnson told Respondent on New Year's Eve 1995 that their relationship was over. Johnson began dating another man. When Respondent found out that she was dating someone else, he began calling her repeatedly at work and at home. Respondent continued to harass Johnson by calling her late at night and by driving repeatedly past her home at night. This behavior began in January 1996 and continued through August 1996. The Respondent used abusive language when speaking with Johnson. He threatened harm to her date, if he found her with someone. Johnson was afraid of Respondent and was afraid that he might harm her. On July 21, 1996, Respondent went to Johnson's home unannounced and knocked on her door. When Johnson opened the door and saw who it was, she told Respondent to leave. He did not; instead he pushed his way into her home, physically struggled with her, and eventually pushed her onto her bed. Respondent pinned her down with his knees and threatened her. Johnson repeatedly told him to leave her home. Respondent eventually left the house. Johnson reported Respondent's actions to the police. They documented the incident in a report. She told the police that she did not want to press charges against Respondent, but did want someone to talk to him about his actions. The police contacted Respondent and discussed the incident with him, but did not arrest him. On November 10, 1996, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Johnson received a phone call at her house from a person she believed to be her brother. The person told her that he had forgot his keys and asked to be let into the house. A short time later, there was a knock at the door. When Johnson opened the door, Respondent was standing there. He said, "Bitch let me in" and proceeded to push his way into her home. He then grabbed her hair and hit her head against the wall several times. He continued to pull her hair and push her up against the wall. She begged him to leave and told him to stop hitting her. She broke free and ran to her brother's room and started banging on the door. Her bother, Bobby Hunter, came out. Johnson told him that she wanted Respondent out of her house. Her brother asked Respondent to leave. Eventually, Respondent did leave without further physical confrontation. Johnson reported the incident to the police. After investigating the incident, the police completed a report and arrested the Respondent. Respondent was charged with burglary, battery, and aggravated stalking. Respondent pled in circuit court to the misdemeanor charge of trespass to an occupied dwelling and was placed on one- year probation. Respondent was suspended for 10 days from his employment with the Orange County Sheriff's Department of Corrections as a result of his actions involving Johnson. He was later terminated from his employment on November 14, 1997. Respondent is currently not employed as a correctional officer. Respondent's description of the events from January 1996 through August 1996 and on the night of November 10, 1996 is not credible. On December 11, 1992, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issued an official Letter of Guidance to the Respondent. This prior action by the Commission is an aggravating factor in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission find Respondent guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and it is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Warren Turner, Esquire 609 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32802 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a police officer, violated section 951.22(1), Florida Statutes, by conspiring to introduce, take, or attempt to take contraband into the Hamilton County Jail for an inmate of the jail, so as to result in a finding that Respondent has not maintained good moral character; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement responsible for the execution, administration, implementation, and evaluation of the powers, duties, and functions established under sections 943.085 through 943.255, Florida Statutes, and is charged with certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. § 943.12, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to section 943.1395, Petitioner is authorized to investigate incidents in which certified law enforcement officers are alleged to have failed to maintain compliance with the minimum qualifications for certification, and to take disciplinary action against law enforcement officers found to have failed to maintain those qualifications. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer, and holds Law Enforcement Certification Number 313297. She was initially certified on January 8, 2014. On March 11, 2019, Respondent served responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Requests for Admission. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that her responses were accurate. As discussed at the final hearing, and as reflected in the preliminary statement, Requests for Admissions 1 through 17 were accepted. Respondent has not previously been the subject of any disciplinary action. On February 28, 2017, Respondent was employed as an officer with the City of Jasper Police Department. On that date, Respondent was in a romantic relationship with Derrick Harris. On the morning of February 28, 2017, Mr. Harris turned himself in on an active warrant for what was apparently a misdemeanor offense in Duval County, and held in the Hamilton County Jail in Jasper, Florida. On February 28, 2017, from roughly 10:00 a.m. to roughly 4:35 p.m., Respondent and Mr. Harris spoke by telephone on nine separate occasions, for a total of roughly one hour and 50 minutes.2/ In addition, Respondent visited Mr. Harris in the jail visitation area, separated by glass and using a telephone handset, from 10:23 a.m. until 10:53 a.m. Thus, during the day, Respondent and Mr. Harris spoke for about two hours and 20 minutes. Much of the discussion between Respondent and Mr. Harris centered on how he would be able to come up with a $3,500 cash bond to get him released, and getting money put on the phone so he could make calls from the jail. During telephone call 713077714, which started at 2:17:32 p.m. on February 28, 2017, Respondent was upset that Mr. Harris’s mug shot had appeared on an unofficial website. She was also upset that a rumor was going around that she was responsible for Mr. Harris’s arrest. The tone of her voice ranged from angry to upset to tearful. During the call, Mr. Harris complained of being hungry. It was not the first time he made that complaint. He also stated, “I wish I had a cell phone -- if I had a cell phone I’d talk to you all night.” After a brief discussion, initiated by Mr. Harris, of how Respondent could slip a sack of Arby’s and a phone in her police vest, the idea was quickly shot down, with Mr. Harris stating that “I don’t want you to do nothing to jeopardize your job.” The entirety of the discussion lasted scarcely more than 90 seconds, and quickly reverted to a continuation of the discussion of how to raise bond money. Neither Arby’s nor a cell phone was brought up again. Respondent testified convincingly that “I didn’t -- I really didn’t plan on actually taking [anything in] -- I was just explaining over the phone because I was upset.” Her testimony is accepted. Idle chatter does not manifest intent to commit a crime, nor does it evince an agreement to do so. The evidence in this case establishes clearly, and it is found that Respondent had no actual intent to bring Arby’s or a cell phone, to Mr. Harris at the jail, that Respondent and Mr. Harris made no agreement to do so, and that she did not attempt to do so. Captain Bennett established that the Hamilton County Jail has: standing policy as per the Sheriff. When we come -- when an inmate comes into the jail facility, and they are indigent and don't have any money on them at the time, or they come in before commissary has arrived, he allows for a one-time initial issue, if there is someone that can bring underwear, socks, T-shirts, boxers, soap, deodorant, and basically hygiene items as for someone to, you know, be able to survive in the jail setting for -- you know, until they can get money there. Because everything else after that is usually purchased off of commissary, sir. Mr. Harris was new to the jail. He stated on several occasions during his conversations with Respondent that he did not have any “canteen.” Thus, despite the fact that “clothing” is listed as an item of contraband in section 951.22(1), and that Petitioner pled Respondent’s conspiracy to introduce clothing as an element of the second Amended Administrative Complaint, the evidence firmly establishes that Respondent’s delivery of underwear, t-shirts, socks, and hygiene items to the jail for the benefit of Mr. Harris was done through regular channels as duly authorized by the Sheriff or officer in charge. During the course of telephone call 71307815, which started at 3:15:45 p.m. on February 28, 2017, Mr. Harris can be clearly heard, on more than one occasion, asking jail staff what could be brought to him. The replies of jail staff were indistinct. However, Mr. Harris told Respondent that he could have socks, a t-shirt, deodorant, and the like. It was reasonable, based on Mr. Harris’s recitation, for Respondent to (correctly) understand that clothing, including socks and a t- shirt, were authorized by the correctional officer in charge. Mr. Harris stated that the correctional officer “didn’t say nothing about food.” He suggested that Respondent bring a couple of packs of ramen noodles and “see if they’ll let you give them to me.” Later during that call, Mr. Harris stated that Respondent would have “to ask them could I get the noodles.” It is clear that Mr. Harris wanted some ramen noodles, and that Respondent was willing to bring them. It is equally clear from the evidence as a whole that neither Respondent nor Mr. Harris intended to introduce the ramen noodles, or any other item, into the jail without permission from the correctional officer in charge. In order to avoid bringing anything improper into the jail, Respondent decided, “I’m going to message Captain Bennett over the Facebook because I was friend with him on Facebook. And I asked him what was allowed to be brought in.” At 4:07 p.m. on the afternoon of February 28, 2017, Respondent sent a direct message to Captain Bennett asking (verbatim): Would i be able to bring him some soap and deodorant and something to eat in there If they gonna pick him up for transport will i be able to see him before he go? Captain Bennett responded that “You can take him some soap and deodorant. I’m sure they will if the bond isn’t posted. Will have to see what’s going on about a visit.” The first and third sentences of the response are fairly straightforward, and directed towards Respondent’s first request (soap and deodorant), and her last request (a visit). The second sentence is ambivalent if not confusing, and could reasonably be understood to her second request, and to mean that jail staff would allow Respondent to bring Mr. Harris some food “if the bond isn’t posted.” In the context of the questions asked by Respondent, that is the most logical meaning, since soap and deodorant and a possible visit were already specifically addressed. Respondent gathered some items, including boxers, t-shirts, socks, body wash, deodorant, and the like, and placed them in a plastic bag with several packages of ramen noodles. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to conceal the noodles. Respondent took the plastic bag to the jail. She drove her personal vehicle and was not in uniform. She tapped on the glass behind, which the correctional officer on-duty sat, and asked the correctional officer if the items could be taken to Mr. Harris. Respondent did not ask to take the bag to Mr. Harris herself. A correctional officer came from within the secured area, “and took out of the bag what was allowed in there.” There was no testimony as to which of the items, including the ramen noodles, made their way to Mr. Harris, and which, if any, were returned to Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent was not trying to, and did not attempt to introduce contraband into the jail outside of regular channels and without the actual knowledge and authorization of the correctional officer in charge.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2019.
The Issue Whether the actions charged in the Administrative Complaint in the case of Respondent Kenneth Manderville, (Mr. Manderville), demonstrate that he does not have the moral character to qualify as a correctional and law enforcement officer as provided in Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Manderville holds correctional and law enforcement certificates issued by the Commission pursuant to the power vested in the Commission by Section 943.12(3). Mr. Manderville was employed as a deputy with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office for eight years, achieving the rank of sergeant. He was terminated for cause on October 11, 2000. Pursuant to Section 943.12(3), the Commission is empowered to certify and to revoke the certification of officers. Betty Prevatt (Mrs. Prevatt) is a resident of Palatka, Florida. On or about June 25, 2000, Mrs. Prevatt and her husband were involved in a domestic dispute. During the course of this dispute, her husband reached for his shotgun. As a result, Mrs. Prevatt fled her residence and ran down the adjacent highway. A helpful citizen rescued her by providing her with an automobile ride to the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Later in the evening of June 25, 2000, at the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, Mrs. Prevatt came into contact with Sergeant Manderville, during the course of filing a domestic violence complaint with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. Subsequently, Sergeant Manderville caused the arrest and incarceration of Mr. Prevatt. Thereafter, Sergeant Manderville gave Mrs. Prevatt a ride in his patrol car to her home. While at the Prevatt home, Mrs. Prevatt told Sergeant Manderville that she did not wish to spend the night in her home so he told her to return to the Sheriff's Department in her automobile. Mrs. Prevatt came to the Sheriff's Department, as instructed by Mr. Manderville, around 11:30 P.M. Mr. Manderville told her to follow him in her car. He led her to a house owned by Mr. Manderville's parents. They entered the house. Mr. Manderville was in uniform and on duty. Subsequently he removed his uniform and engaged in sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt. Thereafter, he telephoned a woman's shelter and Mrs. Prevatt spent the night there. Subsequently Mrs. Prevatt called Mr. Manderville, on more than one occasion during the course of the next few days, and inquired as to the process required to extract her husband from the Putnam County Jail. Eventually Mr. Manderville told her that he would help her win the release of her husband, and ostensibly to facilitate that purpose, instructed her to meet him at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant after sunset. She did as requested and he told her to return to his parents' house. She complied with his direction. Upon entering his parents' house, he insisted on having sexual intercourse again. She submitted. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Afterwards, she returned to the shelter in which she was then residing, which was located in St. Augustine. On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Manderville asked Mrs. Prevatt to meet him at the Sheriff's Department, allegedly for the purpose of finishing paperwork regarding Mr. Prevatt. In response, she met him as requested. Thereafter, he took her to an interview room, had sexual intercourse with her, withdrew, and ejaculated on the carpet. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Mrs. Prevatt's husband was released from jail a few days after his arrest but Mrs. Prevatt continued to live in the shelter. After a period of about two months, she went to the sheriff's office to retrieve her husband's shotgun. During a conversation at the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Manderville asked her to meet him after dark at the post office in Palatka. She did as asked. Mr. Manderville asked her to get in his patrol car and he then took her to his house in Mannville. After arriving at Mr. Manderville's house in Mannville, he required her to disrobe, had intercourse with her twice, and took pictures of her bent over the hood of his patrol car, while nude. All of this occurred while he was on duty and, except during the sexual activity, he was attired in his uniform. This was the last time that they had sexual contact. Almost three months later, Mrs. Prevatt again established a relationship with her husband. Mr. Prevatt began to inquire about Mrs. Prevatt's relationship with Mr. Manderville and she revealed what had occurred. On September 28, 2000, she gave a detailed report of the matter to Lieutenant Roger W. Sassaman and Detective Walter Perkins of the internal affairs section of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. On October 11, 2000, Mr. Manderville was discharged from his employment with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Manderville asserted that Mrs. Prevatt's statements with regard to sexual activity were fabrications. He claimed that Mrs. Prevatt was infatuated with him. He asserted that she called him on many occasions in furtherance of what she wanted to be a continuing romantic relationship but that he had resisted her. Mrs. Prevatt is a woman whose life has been beset with problems. At the time of the hearing she had endured an abusive marital situation for eighteen years. She has experienced problems maintaining steady employment and she has abused prescription drugs. Nevertheless, it is concluded that Mrs. Prevatt's version of the story was, in pertinent parts, true, and that Mr. Manderville's version lacks credibility. In arriving at that conclusion, the following matters were considered: Mrs. Prevatt was able to describe with particularity the interior of Mr. Manderville's parents' house and the interior of Mr. Manderville's residence. If she had not been taken to these places, she would not have been able to glean these details. Moreover, Mrs. Debbie Manderville, who married Mr. Manderville in 1996, in her attempt to discredit Mrs. Prevatt's knowledge of the interior of the two houses, succeeded only in demonstrating that Mrs. Prevatt did have an accurate recollection of the interiors. Mrs. Prevatt was aware that Mr. Manderville was married to a nurse because she heard him call her at the local hospital from Mrs. Manderville's home. This call was undoubtedly made for the purpose of insuring that Mrs. Manderville would not intrude while he was present there with Mrs. Prevatt. Mrs. Prevatt knew that Mr. Manderville's entire body, except for the pubic area, was cleanly shaved, at times pertinent. Mr. Manderville confirmed this in his testimony. Had she not seen him in the nude, she would not have been aware of this. Mrs. Prevatt was able to point out a spot on the interview room carpet where she claimed semen residue would be found. Mr. Manderville, when questioned about this at the hearing, did not deny that semen residue was found at that exact spot she identified. He stated, however, that it was produced not from illicit activity with Mrs. Prevatt, but through self- abuse. His version regarding the presence of the semen was unbelievable. Upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances elicited at the hearing, it is found by clear and convincing evidence that on four occasions Mr. Manderville had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt while he was on duty, when she was emotionally distraught, and under circumstances where he used his power as a law enforcement officer to take advantage of her in a stressful situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that a final order be issued revoking the certification of Mr. Manderville as a law enforcement and correctional officer. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 19th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted certification as a law enforcement officer under the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-16, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the matter to be determined deals with the propriety of the denial of certification in the face of an arrest and conviction of Petitioner for a felony offense, which allegedly would cause the Petitioner to be rejected as an applicant for certification. The denial of licensure is purportedly in keeping with the dictates of Subsection 943.13(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner had made application to be certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida, in keeping with the terms and conditions of Subsection 943.13, Florida Statutes. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has completed all administrative requirements for such licensure; however, he has been denied licensure based upon his arrest, a finding of guilt and judgment and sentence related to a charge of conspiracy to transport a stolen vehicle in Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce from New York, New York, to Miami, Florida, and from Miami, Florida, to Havana, Cuba, knowing that the motor vehicle had been stolen. This offense related to Title XVIII, Sections 2312 and 2371, U.S.C., in an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 8519-M-CR. For these matters the Petitioner was imprisoned for a period of two (2) years on two (2) counts of the indictment, Counts 3 and 6. The sentence in those counts was to run concurrently. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored in the State of Florida, together with his rights to own, possess and use a firearm. Federal firearms disability arising from the felony conviction have also been set aside. See Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, respectively, admitted into evidence.
