The Issue Whether Petitioner has sufficient experience in private investigative work to qualify her for licensure as a Class "C" private investigator under Section 493,306(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980).
Findings Of Fact In July, 1980, Applicant applied for a Class "C" license as a private detective. By letter dated April 9, 1981, the Department denied the requested license solely on the ground that she failed to meet the minimum "2 years experience and/or training" requirement of Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980. 2/ The Department concedes that, except for her alleged lack of investigative experience, she is qualified for the requested license. (Stipulation of counsel; R-1, R-2) Since 1973, Applicant has engaged in the business of furnishing for- hire private investigative services under the name of ABC Locating Service, a business located in Orange Park, Florida. She started the business as a modest venture; she was unaware that a private investigator's license was required and was also unsure of her ability to conduct private investigations. (Testimony of Applicant.) Over the years, her small and tentative investigation agency has grown into a substantial business. Since January, 1978, she has conducted more than 200 private investigations; from 1979 to 1980, her investigations consumed over 5,000 hours. The gross receipts from her investigative work exceeded $8,400 during 1978 and $12,100 during 1979. If issued a license by the Department, she plans to expand her activities and relocate her business to a commercial office building. 3/ (Testimony of Applicant; P-3) In the operation of her business, Applicant has conducted numerous private investigations for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to: (a) the identify, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, and character of persons; (b) the credibility of witnesses and other persons; (c) the whereabouts of missing persons; (d) the location of lost or stolen property; and (e) the preparation and trial of civil or criminal cases. 4/ Several typical investigations are described below: February, 1977; Criminal Investigation (four weeks): A mother hired Applicant to investigate son's arrest on shoplifting charges. Applicant questioned merchant about incident and investigated behavior and past records of son's accomplices; investigation revealed that client's son had a peripheral role in crime and resulted in his receiving a probationary sentence rather than imprisonment. December, 1979; Criminal Investigation (nine months): A teenager hired Applicant to investigate the circumstances surrounding his conviction on drug-related charges and placement in the Lancaster Correctional Institution for a six-year term. She investigated witnesses and police officers, examined court records, and identified conflicting accounts of the incident. The evidence she gathered was presented to a court, and resulted in her client's release and placement on five years' probation. August, 1977 Surveillance Investigation (two weeks): A wife hired Applicant to investigate the conduct and movements of her husband who was neglecting his family responsibilities. Applicant visited subject's place of employment, questioned his coworkers and placed under surveillance the bar which he commonly frequented. Eventually, the subject visited the bar and left in the company of a female with whom he spent the night. This information, with photographs, was presented to Applicant's client and led to a dissolution of the marriage. November, 1980; Surveillance Investigation (four weeks): A wife hired Applicant to investigate the conduct and movements of her husband. After questioning the subject's friends and placing him under surveillance, Applicant gathered evidence indicating that he was having an illicit relation- ship with another woman and using heavy drugs. August, 1977; Missing Person Investigation (approximately ten days): A mother hired Applicant to locate her missing daughter. Applicant inter- viewed subject's friends, checked popular gathering places for teenagers, and eventually located her daughter at a local movie theater. February, 1979; Surveillance Investigation (three days): A wife hired Applicant to investigate conduct, habits, and movements of her husband who was neglecting his family responsibilities. Applicant placed him under surveillance and discovered that he was suffering from a serious drinking problem. February, 1979; Missing Person Investigation (three days): A mother hired Applicant to locate her missing 12-year-old son. Applicant found the subject by visiting his school and interrogating his friends and classmates. February, 1979; Surveillance Investigation (two weeks): A mother hired Applicant to locate and identify an individual who was selling illicit drugs to her son. With the assistance of the Orange Park Police Department, Applicant conducted a joint undercover investigation; she made a "buy" using marked money which resulted in the drug dealer's arrest and conviction. (Testimony of Harvey, Kosobud, Franasiak, Rose; P-3.) On several occasions, Applicant worked closely with and assisted Sergeant Mike Probst, Orange Park Police Department, in recovering stolen property and locating missing persons. Information which she gave to Sergeant Probst resulted in several drug arrests and convictions. (Testimony of Applicant; P-2.) Prior to opening ABC Locating Service, Applicant applied for and obtained a Clay County occupational license to engage in business as a clairvoyant. (She testified that she has unique psychic abilities which have sometimes proven helpful in locating missing persons.) Although she still has a clairvoyant license, she has little time available to practice that occupation; almost all of her energies are devoted to her investigation service. The two occupations are unrelated in that when she occasionally practices as a clairvoyant, she operates out of a separate building and keeps a separate set of business records. (Testimony of Applicant.) As part of her second application for a private investigator's license, Applicant executed an Affidavit of Experience (on a one-page Department form) attesting that she had conducted over 400 private investigations in the last three years; that those investigations involved locating missing persons, checking the background of employees and in-laws, recovering stolen property, investigating thefts, and aiding in the defense of accused persons. In an effort to supply additional specific information, she attached a 4 1/2 page, single-spaced description of 17 separate private investigations she had conducted from 1977 to 1980. In spite of this seemingly ample description and substantiation of her investigative experience, the Department concluded that "according to [its] . . . investigative report, you [Applicant] do not meet the [experience] requirements" for licensure. (R-1, R-2.) Yet, at hearing, the Department presented no investigator, no investigative report, no witnesses, and no evidence to rebut or controvert the testimony of Applicant. The only affirmative position taken by the Department was that the burden was on Applicant to demonstrate investigative experience sufficient for licensure under Chapter 493, Part 1, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue Applicant a private investigator's Class "C" license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed violations of provision of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary action against Respondent's Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License; his Class "C" Private Investigator License; his Class "D" Security Officer License; his Class "G" Statewide Firearm License; and his Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License.
Findings Of Fact The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Respondent's Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A93-00352, effective October 11, 1993; his Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C93-00189, effective March 8, 1993; his Class "D" Security Officer License, Number D93- 10584, effective July 15, 1993; his Class "G" Statewide Firearm License, Number G93-01 133; effective May 24,1993, and his Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License, Number M93-00074, effective July 15, 1993, are hereby REVOKED. It is further ORDERED based on a complete review of the record and in accordance with the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law Number 27 and the Hearing Officer's finding of aggravating circumstances pursuant to Rule 1 C-3. 113(5), Florida Administrative Code, that as to Count III of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent be and is hereby FINED $700.00 pursuant to Rule 1C-3.113(2)(q), Florida Administrative Code. Payment of the administrative fine shall be by cashier's check or money order payable to the Department of Stated Division of Licensing within thirty (30) days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of allegations contained in Counts I, II and III of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such final order revoke Respondent's Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number A93-00352, effective October 11, 1993; his Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C93-00189, effective March 8, 1993; his Class "D" Security Officer License, Number D93-10584, effective July 15, 1993; his Class "G" Statewide Firearm License, Number G93- 01133; and his Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License, Number M93-00074, effective July 15, 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-12. Accepted in substance, though not verbatim. 13. Incorporated by reference. 14.-17. Accepted in substance. 18.-19. Incorporated by reference. 20.-23. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 24.-38. Accepted in substance, though not verbatim. 39. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 40.-42. Incorporated by reference. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. Accepted in substance. 2.-4. Rejected, argument. 5. Rejected, Class C license was effective in March. 6.-10. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. 11. Incorporated by reference. 12.-15. Unnecessary to result, rejected. Rejected, hearsay. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. 20.-26. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 27. Rejected, credibility. 28.-29. Accepted. 30.-31. Rejected, credibility, not supported by weight of the evidence. 32.-38. Rejected, relevance. 39. Accepted in substance. 40.-41. Rejected, credibility. 42. Accepted in substance. 43.-46. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 47.-48. Accepted in substance. Rejected, subordinate, credibility. Rejected, credibility. 51.-52. Rejected, subordinate. 53.-54. Rejected, relevance, credibility. Rejected, subordinate, credibility. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Rejected, subordinate, relevance, credibility. 58.-59. Rejected, credibility, weight of the evidence. 60.-62. Rejected, relevance, subordinate to HO findings. Rejected, credibility. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Incorporated by reference. 66.-68. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 70.-77. Rejected, subordinate, argumentative, legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole and Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner Gilbert Hevia's application for a Class "C" private investigator's license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On November 18, 1993, Petitioner submitted an application dated October 18, 1993, to the Department for a Class "C" private investigator's license. Paragraph 8 of the application directed the applicant to list the sponsor and time period for any internship he had completed. Petitioner listed an internship under the sponsorship of Carlos A. Fernandez for the period from March 15, 1991 through September 17, 1993. In a letter dated February 24, 1994, Cindi Merritt, a Service Representative for the Department's Bureau of License Issuance, advised Petitioner that the Department was investigating his experience for the Class "C" license. The letter confirmed that the Petitioner was entitled to two months credit for investigative experience under the sponsorship of Mr. Rolando Baldomero of Tri-Star Security Systems, Inc. ("Tri-Star") from June 10, 1991 through August 1991. The record in this proceeding does not reveal how the Department became aware of Petitioner's experience with Mr. Baldomero since that internship is not listed on Petitioner's application. Apparently, Petitioner presented some supplemental information to the Department to be considered. However, it is not clear when or how such information was presented. At the hearing, the Department agreed that Petitioner was entitled to two months credit for his internship with Tri-Star. The February 24, 1994 letter states that the Department's service representative "asked Mr. Carlos A. Fernandez (who sponsored you after Mr. Baldomero) to complete the completion/termination of Sponsorship Form. Mr. Fernandez sent the completed form back on February 22, 1994. He indicated that he could not supply your dates of employment because he no longer had your records. He also stated 90 percent of your job duties entailed office work and that you did not successfully complete your internship with him." As set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, counsel for the parties apparently discussed and agreed prior to the commencement of the hearing in this matter that the sole issue to be resolved in this case was whether Petitioner's employment with Mr. Fernandez's company, CAF Associates, Inc. ("CAF"), qualified as lawfully gained investigative experience for purposes of Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. Mr. Fernandez testified at the hearing and claimed that Petitioner's job duties with his company were mainly clerical and only 10 percent of Petitioner's work was investigative in nature. This contention is rejected as not credible. Mr. Fernandez has apparently decided to try to thwart Petitioner's effort to obtain his own license. The more persuasive evidence established that, from at least March of 1992 through September of 1993, Petitioner was intricately involved in all aspects of the operations of CAF, which is a private investigative agency. At some point during this time period, Petitioner was made President of the company. Respondent worked 45-60 hours a week for CAF. He did field work on his own and with subcontractors of the company. He was also actively involved in the administration of the business, but he only spent 5-15 hours per week on administrative duties. In sum, the evidence conclusively established that Petitioner had qualifying experience under Mr. Fernandez for at least eighteen (18) months from March of 1992 through September of 1993. It appears that Petitioner actually began working for Mr. Fernandez prior to March of 1992, but the exact date his employment began has not been established in this proceeding. Furthermore, it is not clear that Petitioner's job duties prior to March of 1992 would qualify as experience for purposes of Section 493.6203, Florida Statutes. As noted above, there is no dispute that Petitioner obtained two (2) months of qualifying experience with Tri-Star Security from June of 1991 through August of 1991. The evidence also conclusively established that Petitioner obtained qualifying experience with CAF from March, 1992 through September 1993. The evidence was not conclusive as to Petitioner's activities from August 1991 through March 1992. Thus, the evidence presented only established that Petitioner had twenty (20) months of qualifying experience. At the hearing, Petitioner claimed that he had several other forms of experience that qualified for credit under Section 493.6023(4), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioner contended that he had successfully completed some college coursework in criminal justice and had also completed some law enforcement training. These items are not listed on his application. Petitioner testified that he completed two semesters of college work in "pre-law." No evidence was presented as to the specific courses taken, how many hours were completed or how such coursework should be translated into credit for purposes of the experience requirement of the statute. Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner submitted certain additional information which he contends supports his claim to experience arising from matters not previously considered by the Department. As discussed in more detail below, the evidence presented was not sufficient to reach a conclusion as to the amount of credit, if any, which should be afforded to Petitioner for these matters. However, in view of the confusion arising from the stipulation as to the scope of the hearing, these matters should be reviewed and considered by the Department prior to the entry of a Final Order in this case. With his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner filed a Certificate of Completion awarded to him by the Southeast Florida Institute of Criminal Justice/Miami-Dade Community College. This information was apparently not provided to the Department when it initially reviewed Petitioner's application. The certificate indicates that Petitioner completed a course for "State Certified Security Training for "D" License" on September 13, 1990. Petitioner contends that this certificate evidences completion by Petitioner of "college coursework related to criminal justice, criminology, or law enforcement administration" or "law enforcement-related training received from any federal, state, county, or municipal agency" as described in Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. The Department has not commented on whether this program can qualify under the statute. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to conclude how much, if any, credit should be given to Petitioner for the completion of the training for the class "D" license. During the hearing, Petitioner claimed that his work experience while a member of the United States Marine Corps should also be considered towards the experience necessary for licensing. The evidence established that Petitioner was stationed in the Persian Gulf from approximately November 1990, through April 1991. During that period, he was assigned to an intelligence officer who was responsible for investigations and hearings in a wide variety of matters. Petitioner claims his job duties included investigation and quasi-law enforcement duties. Petitioner did not list his military experience on his application. Section VI of the Class "C" license application states that "if military experience is to be used towards satisfaction of the experience requirement . . ., a copy of [the Respondent's] DD 214 must be provided with the application." The required form has not been provided so Petitioner's military experience has not been verified. The Department contends that Petitioner deliberately submitted a misleading application that claimed he was employed by CAF from March 1991 through September 1993. The evidence presented in this case is insufficient to reach such a conclusion. There is obviously some confusion as to when Petitioner actually began working for CAF. This confusion has been exacerbated by Mr. Fernandez's claim that Petitioner's employment records have been lost. The more persuasive evidence in this case established that Mr. Fernandez has sought to keep Petitioner from obtaining a license. Petitioner apparently thought there was little doubt that he met the experience requirement. His application failed to list several matters that could potentially be credited towards the total experience needed for licensure. The evidence in this case, however, is insufficient to conclude that the twenty- four (24) month total has been met.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner has gained eighteen (18) months of verifiable full-time experience or training as a result of his employment with CAF and two (2) months as a result of his employment with Tri-Star. Petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to produce additional evidence within sixty (60) days to establish that he has met the remaining four (4) months experience requirement. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of December 1994. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 7th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Addressed in the preliminary statement and in Findings of fact five (5). Rejected as unnecessary. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Fernandez was a formal sponsor pursuant to Section 493.6116. Rejected as argumentative. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact five (5), six (6) and seven (7). (7). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact five (5), six (6) and seven Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact seven (7). Addressed in the Preliminary Statement and in Findings of Fact eleven (11). Subordinate to Findings of Fact twelve (12). Subordinate to Findings of Fact thirteen (13). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact one (1) and two (2). Subordinate to Findings of Fact two (2) and fourteen (14). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact thirteen (13). Subordinate to Findings of Fact five (5), six (6), and seven (7). Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact three (3) and seven (7). COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 J. James Donnellan, III, Esquire 1900 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent, Frank R. Kuiken, Jr., should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At approximately 3:00 PM on August 30, 1989, Manatee County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Kenyon saw Respondent's wife, Michelle, driving their automobile in the city of Bradenton with a blue flasher posted on the dash board inside the windshield. Because the unauthorized use of such a light is prohibited by law, Deputy Kenyon stopped Ms. Kuiken and when he approached the car, noticed she had moved the light from the dashboard to the floor. When he asked her why she had such a light in the car, she replied that her husband, a private investigator, used it in the course of his business in emergency situations. Deputy Kenyon requested Respondent be contacted and come to the scene. When he arrived, Kuiken advised Kenyon that he was a private investigator and used the light only in cases of extreme emergency in the performance of those duties. He further related he had not yet had the opportunity to use it. Mr. Kuiken also indicated that in addition to being a private investigator, he was a process server appointed by two local judges, and a court officer. Deputy Kenyon attempted to verify Respondent's claim to being a court officer but was unable to do so. Upon request, Respondent refused to show a private investigator's license, but indicated he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Several days later, Mr. Eugene Blitch, an investigator with the Department of State's Division of Licensing, was contacted by the Bradenton Police Department regarding Mr. Kuiken's claim to being a private investigator, and requested to confirm the licensing status. Blitch's inquiry and search of official state records revealed that Kuiken was the holder of a concealed weapon permit but did not hold, does not now hold, and never has held a license as either a private investigator or a private investigative agency. There was no evidence presented with reference to the occupational license. Respondent's business card, which he gave to the Deputy Sheriff indicates he holds himself out, without qualification, as an "investigator" offering surety recovery, missing persons searches, and service of process services. He claims this card was not given out to the general public but only to attorneys and finance companies for whom he worked on a contract basis. On September 7, 1989, Mr. Blitch, in the company of a Manatee County detective, went to the Respondent's home in Bradenton where upon inquiry from Blitch, Respondent admitted he did not hold a license to do private investigative work. He also indicated he carried no liability insurance but claimed, however, that he did not work for the public and did not advertise or hold himself out to the general public as a private investigator. He indicated he worked for attorneys, as a process server, and as an employee of ITT Financial Services. Inquiry of the manager of this concern revealed Respondent was not an employee of the company but did security and investigative work for it on a contract basis from time to time. During his interview with Blitch, Respondent denied having admitted to the deputy that he was a private investigator, but the other evidence contradicts this and is found to be more credible. The evidence of record clearly indicates that Respondent held himself out as an investigator, and the hearsay statement of the ITT manager confirms this. Respondent asserted to Mr. Blitch that since he did no work for the general public and limited his activity solely to process serving, work for attorneys, and for ITT, he was not required to be licensed. When advised that his understanding was incorrect, he quickly agreed to do whatever was necessary to "get legal".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Frank Robert Kuiken, Jr., be assessed an administrative fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 11th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Frank Robert Kuiken, Jr. 5655 Tousley Drive Eau Claire, Michigan 49111 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact In 1993, Respondent Carl Clausen, along with some acquaintences, was interested in opening a private investigative business or becoming associated with a private investigative agency. Mr. Clausen had an extensive background in police investigative and security work and was well qualified to be licensed as a private investigator. In pursuit of getting into the business of private investigations, Mr. Clausen attended a business recruiting meeting held by a private investigative company on March 19, 1993. Ms. Bronson, owner of Prosearch International, then the holder of a valid Class A Private Investigative Agency license, also attended the meeting where she met Respondent. After the meeting, Ms. Bronson and Respondent discussed various ways he might became associated with her investigative agency in order to expand the services Prosearch could offer potential clients. These discussions included buying part or all of Prosearch. At some point after the recruiting meeting, Ms. Gentry, a local attorney in Tallahassee, Florida, was appointed to represent a man accused of murder in Quincy, Gadsden County, Florida. Ms. Gentry felt the defense team needed an experienced investigator who could effectively work within a predominately minority community in Quincy. Ms. Gentry contacted Ed Rawls about possibly working the case. However, Mr. Rawls was a reserve Gadsden County Sheriff's Deputy, and had an obvious conflict in investigating the case for Ms. Gentry. Mr. Rawls recommended Mr. Clausen as a potential investigator. Ms. Gentry called Mr. Clausen on March 24, 1993, and requested that he come the next day for an interview. On March 25, 1993, Mr. Clausen asked Ms. Bronson to meet him for lunch to discuss her employing him as an intern private investigator. An intern private investigator holds a Class "CC" license once the sponsorship becomes effective. Eventually, the intern can obtain a Class "C" investigative license. Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson met for lunch and Ms. Bronson agreed to sponsor Mr. Clausen. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Bronson about his scheduled meeting with Ms. Gentry. Soon after the meeting, Ms. Bronson left town to take care of some personal matters. After lunch, Mr. Clausen went directly to Ms. Gentry's office for the meeting she had scheduled. Ms. Gentry interviewed Respondent to determine whether he had the experience and ability to perform the investigation she felt was necessary to prepare for her client's murder trial. Ms. Gentry discussed some general details of the case with Respondent in order to more fully assess Respondent's abilities to investigate her case should the Respondent become licensed as an investigator. Respondent did not receive the case file from Ms. Gentry, nor did Respondent receive information such as addresses which would have enabled him to begin an investigation. Ms. Gentry felt that Mr. Clausen was very well qualified. At the initial meeting Respondent made it very clear to Ms. Gentry that he would not begin any investigation until he was properly licensed or could conduct the investigation under one of the exemption categories in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, such as an employee for an attorney. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry he was not at present in business as a private investigator, but that he wanted to be and was working on the prospect. However, Ms. Gentry did not want to deal with the paperwork or potential liability of an employment relationship with Mr. Clausen. Therefore, Mr. Clausen needed to become licensed as quickly as possible so that the investigation could begin. Respondent and Ms. Gentry met again on March 30, 1993. However, the meeting contered on the quickest way Respondent could become licensed as an investigator. Mr. Clausen also told Ms. Gentry that his license would most likely be in order April 2, 1993, when Ms. Bronson, through Prosearch, would return to formalize his application at the Department of State for the internship. In short, Mr. Clausen would have a Class "CC" license. Prior to licensure as a Class "C" or "CC" licensee, Respondent did not advertise or solicit any investigative business on his behalf. Respondent only participated in an employment interview for future employment after he was licensed and discussed various methods of becoming legally able to pursue Ms. Gentry's case. Likewise no investigation was begun prior to his licensure. On April 2, 1993, Ms. Bronson filed Respondent's sponsorship papers and Respondent filed an application for a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Because of the sponsorship, Respondent was employed by Prosearch International, a Class "A" private investigative agency, under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Ms. Bronson furnished Mr. Clausen with letters of introduction and appointment as her investigator. These letters were given to Ms. Gentry and a contract for services was entered into. On April 6, 1993, Ms. Gentry met with Mr. Clausen at her office where he was furnished with names, addresses, physical evidence and access to Ms. Gentry's case file. The case file contained police reports and probable cause affidavits on the case. Ms. Gentry requested Mr. Clausen to proceed immediately with the investigation. Mr. Clausen began the investigation on the morning of April 7, 1993, by interviewing the defendant in jail. Around April 21, 1993, Prosearch presented its first invoice for services to Ms. Gentry. The invoice contained charges for Mr. Clausen's meetings on March 25 and 30, 1993. However, the charges were not for investigative services. Ms. Gentry felt it was appropriate for Prosearch to bill for those hours even though she was aware no investigative work had begun and she had no contract with Respondent or Prosearch until April 6, 1993. Thereafter, Gadsden County paid the first invoice to ProSearch. Aroung May 7, 1993, ProSearch submitted a second invoice to Ms. Gentry. The investigation and report were completed and delivered by Ms. Bronson to Ms. Gentry's office around June 22, 1993. Both Ms. Gentry and Ms. Bronson praised Mr. Clausen's investigation and report as excellent. From March 25, 1993, to July 3 or 4, 1993, discussions between Mr. Clausen and Ms. Bronson regarding the future organization and market strategy for ProSearch or another business occurred almost daily. At the July meeting it became clear that Ms. Bronson had decided to associate with two others and gave Mr. Clausen a ProSearch check for his commission on the first invoice. On July 6, 1993, Ms. Bronson sent letters firing Mr. Clausen and notifying the Division that she would no longer sponsor Mr. Clausen. However, there was still billable time for investigative services outstanding for the investigation for Ms. Gentry. Additionally, Mr. Clausen was due his commission for those hours. Ms. Bronson said she had no money to pay wages or workman's compensation and therefore did not have funds to pay Mr. Clausen's his commission or expenses. Anxious to resolve the situation and not having contact with Ms. Bronson, Mr. Clausen submitted a final invoice on Specialty Security Services, Inc., letterhead to Gadsden County. The invoice referenced the first and second ProSearch invoices, showing the first invoice as paid and the second invoice as unpaid. The Gadsden County Commission approved and paid the invoice. Mr. Clausen used Special Security Services, Inc., letterhead because his word processor is programmed to always include the "Special Security Services, Inc." (SSS) letterhead. Otherwise, Special Security Services, had no role in this matter and should be dismissed as a party. Further, none of Mr. Clausen's activities violates Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Respondent should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not violated Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 1C-3.122(2), Florida Administrative Code, and that the petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 94-0853 The facts contained in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Petitioner's Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The statements contained in paragraphs 1, 5 and 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate. The statement contained in paragraph 3, of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are either introductory or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John Wardlow Attorney at Law Post Office Box 84 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds a Class "CC" private investigator intern license, #CC85-00162. On the morning of May 27, 1987, Respondent visited Tropical Men's Wear to pick up some clothes. The store's owner, John Menegat, told Respondent that Donald Scheib owned Mr. Menegat some money. Mr. Menegat did not hire Respondent to collect this alleged debt. On or before the above-described conversation, Respondent presented Mr. Menegat with a business card. In very large print the card read, "FLORIDA STATE INVESTIGATOR." It bore one outline of two badges resembling badges used by law enforcement officers throughout the state. It also bore Respondent's name and telephone numbers. Later the same day, Respondent identified himself to Pauline E. Kemp, who was the receptionist at an office building in Maitland, Florida, where he believed Mr. Scheib maintained an office. The purpose of the visit was to attempt to collect the alleged debt owed by Mr. Scheib to Mr. Menegat. When Ms. Kemp explained to Respondent that Mr. Scheib was unavailable, Respondent identified himself as an "investigator" and displayed to her his badge and identification card which he carried in a dark leather wallet. The card and badge are highly misleading. The badge, which is secured to the inside of the wallet, resembles the badge used by law enforcement officers throughout the state. In the center of the badge is a close facsimile of the state seal. The outer circle of the badge carries the words, "INVESTIGATOR" and "FLORIDA." The inner circle of the badge carries the slightly smaller words, "STATE OF FLORIDA." The card bears Respondent's photograph. Stamped diagonally across the card in large letters is the word, "INVESTIGATOR". At the top of the card in slightly smaller letters are the words, "STATE OF FLORIDA." In very small print beneath these words are the words "private investigative agency." In the background behind Respondent's name, address, state agency id number," and signature is the outline of a badge resembling the badge used by law enforcement officers throughout the state. Respondent used this badge for "results" -- that is, to intimidate uncooperative persons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 493.319(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and imposing upon him an administrative fine of $250. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0794 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in substance, except that references to Respondent's other licenses are irrelevant. The only license subject to discipline in the above-styled proceeding is CC85-00162. and 7. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 3-5, 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 6. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and unnecessary, except that the second sentence is adopted. 9-13. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, MS 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Anthony Zarelli, Jr. 3000 Willow Bend Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32808 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner satisfies the "experience or training" requirement to obtain a Class "C" private investigator's license.
Findings Of Fact On May 22, 1989, Petitioner filed an application for a Class "C" private investigator's license. Included in that application, Petitioner related that he was employed by Austin Private Security Specialists of Austin, Texas as a security officer-undercover investigator during the period from September, 1985 until July, 1987. During his employment with Austin private Security Specialists (Austin), approximately 60% of Petitioner's job duties included investigative work and the remaining 40% was in security related work. Respondent did not credit Petitioner's investigative experience which he claims based on his employment at Austin; however, he was credited with nine months security experience based on his employment at Austin. Respondent' denied Petitioner's claim for investigative experience in Texas based on its determination that Petitioner was not in compliance with Texas regulations while he was employed at Austin. Petitioner also claimed experience for employment with Wackenhut Company of Tampa during the period February 28, 1989 through July 28, 1989. At Wackenhut, Respondent was employed as a private investigator intern. At Wackenhut, Petitioner worked under the sponsorship of Robert Crane, private investigator and successfully completed his work for Wackenhut during Crane's sponsorship. Petitioner was credited with five months investigative experience for his employment at Wackenhut. A review of Petitioner's relevant personnel records from Texas indicates that Petitioner was registered as a commissioned security guard from October 29, 1985 until September 4, 1986. Petitioner was registered as being employed in security sales from September 4, 1986 until September 30, 1987. Petitioner was never registered as an investigator with Austin or any other Texas company. In Texas, to properly perform investigative work, an applicant, as Petitioner, must either hold a private investigator's license or be registered under a qualifying company's license as doing investigative work for the company to be in compliance with state regulations. Section 35 of Texas article 4413(29 dd) and Sections 35 and 36A, Rules and Regulations of the Texas Board of Private Investigators. Petitioner was not otherwise exempt from licensure in Texas as he failed to demonstrate that he was employed exclusively as an undercover agent during the period for which he claims experience based on his Texas employment. Respondent has a written policy of not crediting experience or training without required licensure or registration as it is difficult to verify such experience without licensure and it is practically impossible to determine whether the applicant has complied with applicable law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a class "C" private investigator's license. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol D. Roberson 1714 Old Village Way Oldsmar, FL 34677 Henry D. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mailstation #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the Petitioner’s application for a Class “C” Private Investigator license and the application he filed as President on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner’s Class “C” Application The Petitioner applied for his Class “C” Private Investigator license on April 29, 1996. The application included the Petitioner’s Affidavit of Experience, which represented the following qualifying experience: employment with Telephonic Collections, Inc., from 3/91 to 9/93, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “credit and asset investigations for recovery of debts; did skip-tracing full-time to locate subjects for debt recovery; utilized collection network and data base information.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Collections, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment with Telephonic Info, Inc., from 9/93 to 2/96, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “administrative processing of investigation files; computer data base research and information recovery; computer preparing or reports; administrative dutys [sic] in investigation agency.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Info, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment as an auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven, Connecticut, from 1965 to 1967, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself part-time as follows: “received police training and performed assignments as required.” The Petitioner did not specify how much time was devoted to those duties. Captain Stephen D. Rubelman was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. Processing of the Petitioner’s Applications The Respondent began the process of verifying the information in the Petitioner’s Class “C” application on May 8, 1996, when it had referred the Petitioner’s fingerprint card to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for a criminal history. The Respondent subsequently began its own verification of the information in the application by telephoning Apter. On June 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned Apter, who verified the representations in the Petitioner’s application as to his experience with Telephonic Collections. Specifically, Apter stated that Telephonic Collections was a collection agency and that, for two years and five months, “100% of the applicant’s job was skiptracing [sic] individuals with delinquent accounts for the purpose of collecting the money owed to creditor.” Since this experience exceeded minimum requirements, no further verification was considered necessary, and the Respondent awaited the criminal history report from the FDLE. While the Respondent was awaiting the criminal history report from the FDLE, the Petitioner telephoned the Respondent to inquire as to the status of his application. On August 2, 1996, after being told the status, the Petitioner filed an application as president on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license. Eventually, on August 27, 1996, the Respondent received the Petitioner’s criminal history report from the FLDE, and it showed no reason not to grant the Petitioner’s applications. But earlier in August, Garry Floyd, an investigator in the Respondent’s Tampa office, learned that the Petitioner had filed applications for licensure. From prior dealings with the Petitioner and Apter, Investigator Floyd was unaware that the Petitioner had any qualifying experience. To the contrary, during a June 1994, investigation Floyd was conducting into unlicensed activities by employees of Telephonic Info, a licensed private investigation agency, the Petitioner emphatically denied that he was conducting investigations for the company. The Petitioner told Floyd that the Petitioner did not know how to conduct an investigation and did not want to know how; he said his role in the company was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd obtained a copy of the Petitioner’s applications and saw the Petitioner’s representations as to his experience with Telephonic Info as well as Telephonic Collections. Since those representations did not comport with statements the Petitioner made to Floyd in June 1994, and did not comport with Floyd’s understanding as to the nature of the Petitioner’s experience, Floyd recommended on August 13, 1997, that the Respondent allow him to investigate further before approving the Petitioner’s applications and issuing any licenses. During his investigation, Floyd obtained statements from three individuals thought to be former employees of Telephonic Collections to the effect that they had no knowledge of any skip- tracing or other investigative work being conducted by the Petitioner. All three—C.J. Bronstrup, Jason Gillard, and Duncan Tate—thought that the Petitioner’s role was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd also was aware that Apter’s applications for renewal of his Class “C” and Class “A” licenses had been denied due to what Floyd understood to be a felony conviction. (Although Apter’s testimony on the criminal charges against him was confusing, it would appear that he entered a plea on the felony charge, and adjudication was withheld. There apparently also were unconnected charges of perjury against him, but the disposition of those charges is not clear from Apter’s testimony.) Finally, Investigator Floyd also recalled that Apter once told Floyd that Apter thought he might have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease. For these reasons, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent not credit the Petitioner with any qualifying experience from his employment with Telephonic Collections and also recommended that the representations on the application regarding that employment experience be considered fraudulent misrepresentations. When the Petitioner’s experience with Telephonic Collections was called into question, the Respondent attempted to verify the Petitioner’s experience with the City of West Haven Police Department but was unable to contact Stephen Rubelman at the telephone number given in the application. (According to the Respondent’s witness, “the phone rang off the hook.”) Then, on September 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned the City of West Haven Police Department but was informed that the Respondent’s employment there between 1965 and 1967 was too old to verify. For these reasons, on September 27, 1996, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent deny the Petitioner’s applications. On October 7, 1996, the Respondent mailed the Petitioner a letter giving notice of intent to deny the Petitioner’s applications. The letter was addressed to the Petitioner as president of INFO, Inc., at “13575 - 58 Street North, Clearwater, Florida 34620.” This mailing was returned undelivered on October 14, 1996, and the letter was returned undelivered. On October 15, 1996, the letter was re-sent in another envelope to “Post Office Box 1241, Largo, Florida 34649,” the mailing address on the Class “A” application. But apparently this time the mailing was returned for postage. The envelope was meter-stamped on October 26, and was received by the Petitioner on October 29, 1996. Verification of Petitioner’s Qualifying Experience The Petitioner did not directly dispute the testimony of Investigator Floyd as to what the Petitioner told him during Floyd’s June 1994, investigation. See Finding 5, supra. Instead, the Petitioner testified essentially that he in fact knew how to do skip-tracing and conduct investigations, having been taught and trained by Apter, and that the Petitioner had extensive experience doing skip-tracing and conducting investigations working for Telephonic Collections, which was a debt collection agency. While not directly disputing Floyd’s testimony as to what the Petitioner said to Floyd, the Petitioner alleged that Floyd may have been biased against him (due to his association with Apter) and suggested that Floyd knew or should have known that the Petitioner knew how to do investigation work because Floyd once asked the Petitioner to get some information for him and watched as the Petitioner placed a pretext call. Regardless of Floyd’s alleged bias or pertinent knowledge, it is found that Floyd accurately related what the Petitioner said to him and that the Petitioner’s purpose in making those statements was to avoid any further investigation into whether the Petitioner also was participating in unlicensed investigative activities during his employment by Telephonic Info. Even assuming that the Petitioner did skip-tracing and investigations for Telephonic Collections, it is clear from the testimony that the Petitioner did not do skip-tracing and investigations full-time, 100 percent of the time, as represented in the Class “C” application and as verified by Apter upon telephone inquiry. At final hearing, Apter testified that, when he verified the Petitioner’s experience for the Respondent on June 26, 1996, he did not mean that the Petitioner had no other duties but rather that the Petitioner did no collection work— i.e., the collection employees would take the information the Petitioner developed from his skip-tracing and asset location efforts and telephone the debtors to try to get satisfaction of the debt. Apter conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. It is the Respondent’s policy, when an applicant has employment experience in a full-time job that involves some investigative work or training in addition to other duties, to credit the applicant for a pro rata amount of qualifying experience based on the quantifiable percentage of time devoted to the investigative work or training. It could not be determined from the evidence what percentage of the Petitioner’s work at Telephonic Collections was devoted to skip-tracing and investigation work and how much was administrative. The Petitioner and Apter testified that Apter trained the Petitioner in skip-tracing and investigation work and that the Petitioner did a substantial amount of skip-tracing and investigation work from March 1991, through September 1993; but both conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. Apter did not break down the Petitioner’s time spent between the two. The Petitioner made a rough approximation that 25 percent of his time was spent on administrative matters. Sharon Jones, who worked for both Telephone Collections and Telephone Info, testified that the Petitioner did some skip-tracing work, as well as other duties, between June through September 1993, but she also could not estimate the percentage of time spent between the two. Other witnesses, including Bronstrup and Tate, were not aware that the Petitioner was doing any skip-tracing at all during the times they were working for Telephonic Collections. (Bronstrup worked there for approximately ten weeks between March and June 1993; Tate worked there from February 1993, through the time it became Telephonic Info in September 1993.) In partial response to the testimony of Bronstrup and Tate, the Petitioner suggested that it was not surprising for them not to be aware of the Petitioner’s skip-tracing and other investigative work because much of it was done at the Petitioner’s home after hours and because most of the employees were treated on a “need to know” basis. (The Petitioner also contended that Bronstrup did not spend much time at work for Telephonic Collections, as he also had another part-time job and did some personal investigation work on the side.) But even if it is true that the Petitioner did much of his skip-tracing and other investigative work at home after hours, only the Petitioner and Apter even knew about it, and the amount of time the Petitioner spent doing investigative work at home clearly was not verified. The Petitioner continues to maintain that he stopped doing any skip-tracing or investigative work after Telephonic Collections, the debt collection agency, ceased doing business and became Telephonic Info, the private investigation agency. As for the Petitioner’s experience as a part-time auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven police department, the application does not give any indication as to how much time, if any, the Petitioner spent doing investigation work or being trained in that work. The Rubelman affidavit introduced in evidence to verify his experience likewise does not give that kind of information. It only states generally that the Petitioner received training in and assisted in police work. It does not indicate that any of the training or work was in investigations. It also indicates that no records of the Petitioner’s employment exist and that Rubelman cannot reconstruct even the months the Petitioner worked, much less what the work consisted of. Although it is not clear, at final hearing it appeared that the Petitioner may have been claiming credit for work he did collecting Telephonic Info’s accounts receivable. However, the amount of any such work was not quantified. It also appeared at final hearing that the Petitioner also was claiming credit for doing background investigations on prospective employees of Telephonic Info. However, the Petitioner also did not quantify the amount of any of this work. Alleged Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation The Petitioner stated in the Affidavit of Experience in his Class “C” application that the “approximate percentage of time devoted to” the qualifying skip-tracing and investigation duties listed for his employment with Telephonic Collections from March 1991 to September 1993 was “full time.” This statement clearly was false. All of the witnesses confirmed that the Petitioner spent at least some time doing administrative work; several thought that was all the Petitioner was doing. The Petitioner conceded in his testimony at final hearing that at least 25 percent of his time was devoted to administrative work, and it is found that the actual percentage probably was much higher. Unlike Apter, the Petitioner made no attempt to explain his false representation, and it is found to be a fraudulent or willful misrepresentation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying both the Petitioner’s Class “C” license application and his Class “A” license application. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry P. Schlenther 12155 Meadowbrook Lane Largo, Florida 33774 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint by subcontracting with individuals named therein to provide private investigative services at a time when they were not licensed as a Class "A" investigative agency. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, by allowing an improperly licensed person, John Polk, to direct the activities of licensees, or exercise operational control over the regulated activities of Morse Security Group, Incorporated. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count VI in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to report to the Department the termination of persons listed in that count. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by directing the activities of licensees, thereby acting as a manager, subsequent to the voluntary deactivation of his Class "C" private investigator's license and Class "M" private investigative/security agency manager's license. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by misrepresenting his agency by advertising in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 1993, that his agency is "Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agency", when it is not. Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to certify the completion or termination of the internship of William J. Smithberger when he had the duty as a sponsor to do so.
Findings Of Fact Morse Security Group holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number AOO-00919, effective June 30, 1993, which was originally issued in 1976, and is currently active. Harvey Morse, the principal of Respondent, holds a Class "C" private investigator license, number COO-008861, effective November 24, 1992, which was originally issued in 1975, and was placed on inactive status by the Department on January 21, 1993. Harvey Morse also was issued a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI89-00348, effective January 8, 1993, a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, No. GOO-11067, effective December 6, 1991, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993, and a Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager license No. M85-00112, effective August 7, 1992, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993. Craig Hull became employed with Respondent in February of 1993, as a part-time investigator. Hull worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent, and held himself out to the public as an employee. When Hull entered into his contractual employment agreement with Respondent, he was given a vacation/sick day policy document noting his status as a full-time employee of Respondent. Hull executed an Employment Agreement which referred to him as the "employee" and also referred to him as an "independent subcontractor" for the purpose of withholdings. At the time of Hull's employment with Respondent, he held a Class "C" private investigator license. In all aspects of Hull's employment with Respondent, he conducted himself, and was treated as an employee. Hull did business for Respondent under the Respondent's corporate name; held himself out to the public as being Respondent's employee; signed contracts on behalf of Respondent; received letters and correspondence as an employee; was directed when and were to show up for work; how to answer to the telephone; when to answer the telephone; and in all other respects was under the direct control and supervision of Respondent. During the course of employment with Morse Security Group, Hull possessed no occupational license, business cards, stationery, telephone listing, brochures or printed material that identified him as having any relationship with Respondent other than employee and filed no fictitious name with the Department of State. In dealing with clients and the general public, Hull held himself out as an employee of Respondent and his business cards indicated that he was an employee of Respondent. Of the five cases that Hull handled on behalf of Respondent, he at no time attempted to limit the Respondent's liability to any of those clients by asserting that he was an independent contractor, or had any other relationship with Respondent other than employee. Respondent never identified Hull to others an anything other than an employee. At no time did Respondent attempt to limit its general liability to the public as to Hull's employment by the use of the term subcontractor. Respondent never attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the public by the use of the term subcontractor as to Hull's employment. Respondent's liability insurance in effect from 1991 through 1994, specifically covered Hull as an employee of Respondent. John K. Polk was employed by Respondent from February 5, 1992 through March 27, 1993. At the inception of Polk's employment, he entered into an employment contract with Respondent. The agreement for employment was entitled "Employment Agreement", and consisted of twelve paragraphs. Throughout the employment agreement Polk is referred to as employee and Respondent is referred to as employer except in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10 informed Polk that as employee he would be regarded as a subcontractor or independent contractor for the purposes of taxes, workers' compensation, licenses, permits, and insurance. During the course of Polk's employment his relationship with Respondent was governed by the employment agreement. In addition to the employment agreement signed by Polk, he received a separate document entitled, "Employee Vacation/Sick Leave Policy". The vacation/sick leave document further identified and regulated Polk as an employee. During the course of Polk's employment with Respondent Polk did not maintain a separate general liability policy. At no time during the course of Polk's employment with Respondent did Respondent attempt to limit its liability to its clients by treating Polk as anything other than as an employee. Polk never attempted to use the fact that the term "subcontractor" had been used in paragraph 10 of the employment agreement in order to limit Respondent's liabilities to clients. Polk's employee fidelity bond questionnaire for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Insurance was submitted by Respondent listing Polk as an employee, and Polk was covered under the policy for any acts of negligence of omissions. During the period of Polk's employment with Respondent he held no separate occupational license. Polk's business cards and stationery was provided by Respondent, and identified Polk as an employee of Respondent. The business telephone employed by Polk during his employment with Respondent was identified as Respondent. Polk worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. At all times Polk held himself out as an employee to Respondent's clients. During the course of his employment with Respondent, Polk was covered under Respondent's general liability policy for any acts of negligence or omission committed by Polk. Randy Morgan was employed with Respondent as an investigator from January 1, 1991, to approximately December, 1992. Morgan did not have a written contract for employment with the Respondent. Morgan was compensated by the case on an hourly basis by Respondent. Morgan was responsible for withholding his own Social Security and federal income taxes. Morgan considered himself as an employee of Respondent, and was under the supervision and control of Respondent. At all times during the course of his employment Morgan held himself out as an employee of Respondent, not as a subcontractor. Robert O. Sutley was employed by Respondent from November of 1992, until approximately March, 1993. During his employment with Respondent, Sutley held "DD", "B", and "G" licenses from the Department. Sutley entered into an employment agreement with Respondent which consisted of twelve paragraphs entitled "Employment Agreement". Within the employment agreement, the term "independent contractor" was a term used in relation to the workers' compensation and the withholding of taxes. Respondent did not attempt to limit its liability to the general public in regard to Sutley. Throughout the course of his employment with Respondent, Sutley held himself out as an investigator employee of Respondent. During his employment with Respondent, Sutley was under the supervision and control of Respondent. Respondent was contacted on a cold call by Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for the purposes of advertising. After negotiations, Respondent caused to be issued an advertisement in the Martindale-Hubbell directory. Respondent initially instructed Martindale-Hubbell to advertise that Respondent was "one of the oldest and largest investigative agencies in Florida". The basis for the requested advertisement that Respondent was one of the oldest and largest was Respondent's purchase of a statewide detective agency, which had been in business in Florida since the 1950's, and that Respondent has an affiliate office in Europe and other parts of the United States. Pinkerton's of Florida has been licensed in Florida as an investigative agency since 1968. Pinkerton's has employed over 25 investigator employees on an annual basis over the last five years. Prior to its publication in Martindale-Hubbell, Respondent was not aware of the contents of the advertisement. The ad, as published, stated that the Respondent was the oldest and largest investigative agency in Florida. Respondent became aware of the contents of the advertisement upon receipt of the complaint filed against him by the State. Respondent then sent a letter to Martindale-Hubbell, inquiring why the advertisement read "Florida's oldest and largest private investigative agency", as opposed to "one of Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agencies" as previously instructed by Respondent. Martindale-Hubbell acknowledged that the final draft of the advertisement had been done without Respondent's approval and that an error had been made by Martindale-Hubbell in the advertisement, as it appeared in their publication. Respondent instructed Martindale-Hubbell to cease further advertisement. Respondent reported on his letterhead stationery to the Department the termination of the following persons: Colard, Crews, Fitzgerald, Martin, Morgan, Polk, and Stebbins within the statutory time limit. When Respondent was advised by Mr. Matlack that the computer printout from the Department showed that the above named people were still on a list indicating that they were associated with Respondent, Respondent sent another letter dated April 27, 1993 to the Department advising them of the termination of those listed individuals. As of October 15, 1993, the above named persons were still listed as in Respondent's employ. During the period from January 1, 1993 to April 1993, Harvey E. Morse voluntarily deactivated Class "C" Private Investigator's License and Private Investigative Security Agency Manager's License. Morse voluntarily deactivated licenses upon his graduation from the police academy and his association with the Florida Highway Patrol as a full time auxiliary trooper. Upon voluntary deactivation of Morse's licenses, Morse notified each of the company's employees that Morse would not be involved in any more investigations, and that the employees were to receive their direction from either Dwayne Rutledge or Maria Morse. Morse continued to engage in non-regulated functions such as marketing, sales, computer functions, bookkeeping, and payroll and teaching, training and instruction. During the periods of voluntary deactivation of his license, Morse would run a driver's license record on the computer, receive a printout, and hand it to an employee. Morse refrained, however, from being involved in an investigation based upon that printout. Morse has refrained from involvement in any regulated activities from the time that he voluntarily deactivated his license. Once Morse voluntarily deactivated his license, the primary person responsible for investigations and management of employees was Dwayne Rutledge. During the period from September 1992 to January 1993, Harvey E. Morse supervised and trained John Polk. Morse was always available by way of pager or cellular phone, and in constant contact with John Polk during that time period. Further, Respondent installed a two-way radio system so that Morse could talk with and supervise John Polk on a constant basis. Morse was never more than 60 miles from John Polk during his internship from September 1992 till January 1993, and Morse was in daily contact with John Polk in regard to pending investigations, new matters, old matters, and the general business of the Respondent's office. On several occasions during the above stated time period, Polk would communicate with Morse while he was on patrol in a Florida Highway Patrol vehicle, and ask questions of Morse concerning how investigative matters should be handled. Polk was afforded certain latitude by Morse to make administrative decisions on a day-to-day basis as his training progressed, and Morse placed more confidence in Polk's abilities in certain areas. However, Morse still oversaw those decisions. At all times, Polk's supervision of Respondent's employees was under the direct supervision and control of Morse or other licensed managers in Respondent's employ. The purpose of the Respondent's purchase of a two way radio system was twofold: One, to communicate with other investigators during the course of an investigation; and the other was to afford constant communication among Morse, the office managers, Dwayne Rutledge and Maria Morse, and the investigators, in case of a question would arise in the performance of their duties. Rutledge, as well as Maria Morse, became employed as office manager(s) shortly after 1990, and both he and Mrs. Morse were continuously available to the employees and oversaw, in conjunction with the Morse, the performance of their regulated duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is WHEREFORE, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner having failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated those sections as alleged in Counts I through IX of the Administrative Complaint, it is hereby recommended that said Counts be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3890 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner waived the filing of proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count II, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22; Count IV, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; Count V, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count VIII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Count VI, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2 (in part), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Count VII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Count III, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. Rejected as argument or conclusory: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 2, 21; Count IV, paragraphs 9; Count V, paragraph 2(in part); Count VII, paragraphs 4; Count III paragraphs 4, 9. Rejected as redundant or surplusage, or irrelevant and immaterial: Count II, unnumbered paragraphs 13, 18, 19; Count IV, paragraph 5; Count VI, paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Mail Station-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 William J. Sheaffer, Esquire William J. Sheaffer, PA. 609 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has the three years of experience as an employment clerk of its equivalent as required by 449.023(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Sarah B. Bedingfield applied for licensure as a private employment agency and private employment agent pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 449, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that Sarah B. Bedingfield has extensive experience as an office manager but lacks specifically three years experience as an employment clerk or its equivalent. The Petitioner meets all other requirements of licensure as an employment agency and employment agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the application of Sarah B. Bedingfield as an employment agency and employment agent be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sarah B. Bedingfield 18700 South West 99th Road Miami, Florida Marvin Sirotowitz Division of Licensing The Capitol Gerald Curington, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida
