The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Kenneth Hart (Hart), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hart. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hart had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hart and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hart filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hart denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hart on May 22, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana and cocaine. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Hart used marijuana on approximately three occasions and cocaine on approximately three occasions, that such use was sporadic and infrequent, and that such use occurred more than two years prior to the interview. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hart's background, that Hart possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his infrequent and sporadic use of marijuana over 5 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hart, born February 15, 1962, used marijuana and cocaine approximately three times over 5 years ago when he was 21-22 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Hart has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three years. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hart has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Kenneth Hart, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The Issue for consideration is this matter is whether the Respondent, Kinnett Dairies, Inc., should be placed on the State of Florida's convicted vendors list because of its conviction on January 9, 1990 for "making false statements to a federal agency."
Findings Of Fact The Department of General Services is the state agency required, pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(d), Florida Statutes, to maintain a list of the names and addresses of those persons who have been disqualified from the public contracting and purchasing process under that section. On May 16, 1991, Kinnett, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State of Georgia, entered a plea of nolo contendere to a one count felony charge brought under Section 16-10-22, Official Code of Georgia for conspiracy in restraint of trade. On July 31, 1991, Kinnett was convicted in federal court of a one count felony charge brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, for a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids. Pursuant to the requirements of the Florida statute in issue here, Kinnett made timely notification of those convictions to the Florida Department of General Services. Thereafter, based on those convictions, the Department concluded it was in the public interest to place Kinnett on the convicted vendors list. The parties have stipulated that concurrently with and as a part of the agreement for the entry of the plea of nolo contendere to the state charge, Kinnett entered into an agreement with the State of Georgia whereby it paid a fine of $10,000.00 and costs of an additional $10,000.00. It also cooperated fully with the investigation of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia which led up to the charge. On the same date, May 16, 1991, Kinnett also entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice whereby it plead guilt to one felony count, as alleged in the information, and agreed to pay criminal penalties of $300,000.00 over a four year period and $25,000.00 in civil damages to the United States. On July 19, 1989, Kinnett entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Florida regarding possible bid rigging of school requirements contracts in Florida by various dairies and paid settlement sums of $150,000.00. All penalties and civil liabilities due to the federal and state governments have been paid. Kinnett fully cooperated with both Florida and Georgia in connection with their investigations into its activities. It also cooperated with the federal Grand Jury investigating its activities, a matter which was confirmed in an October 8, 1991 letter from the federal prosecutor to the Department. No Kinnett employees were indicted as a result of the investigations by the federal and state governments as noted. No member of Kinnett's top management had knowledge of the alleged conduct of the four employees who were implicated in the misconduct involved herein. None of those four employees are still associated with Kinnett. Kinnett has implemented an active antitrust and ethics compliance program developed with the advice and assistance of experienced antitrust counsel. Inherent in this program is the adoption of a Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct regarding antitrust matters; establishment of an ethics committee to monitor compliance; establishment of a reporting "hotline"; adoption of new bidding procedures bringing upper management into the pricing process; implementation of a training program for all personnel; and adoption of a policy and procedure review program to oversee both internal and external review of company ethics, policies and procedures. Going beyond the minimal requirements, Kinnett has arranged for outside accountants to perform a yearly, in-depth audit of all company books and accounting and pricing practices and has retained an expert in ethics to review existing policies and procedures and make recommendations for improvement. Kinnett has maintained its long-standing involvement in both civic and charitable activities in and around the Columbus, Georgia area and employs disabled veterans and military retirees, who currently make up 38% of its workers, when possible. It was recognized by the Georgia Department of Labor for its efforts in this area. Kinnett was one of the first companies in the Columbus, Georgia area to test both employees and job applicants for drug use, and has endorsed the Mayor's Task Force for Drug Free Columbus and consistent therewith has been instrumental in assisting other companies to establish programs to address substance abuse. Its officers are active as leaders in various civic organizations and it has given generously to numerous public, civic and charitable organizations. No matters in aggravation, other than the existence of the pleas, the convictions, and the penalties involved herein was presented by the Department. No evidence was presented relating to a conviction in January, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Savage is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. As such, he holds a position of high trust. Savage abused that trust by lying on his application for employment as a court bailiff in Palm Beach County. The deception came to light between March 4, 2002, and April 15, 2002, when Elizabeth McElroy (McElroy) in her official capacity as background investigator for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, attempted to verify information provided under oath by Savage, and to search law enforcement databases to assure that he had been truthful in claiming that he had no criminal record. Instead, McElroy's investigation revealed that Savage failed to disclose two arrests, one of which involved the use of a firearm. Florida law requires, as a minimum qualification for its correctional officers, that they be of good moral character. Florida law further provides that officers who lack good moral character, or who make false statements under oath, may be stripped of their license to serve in law enforcement. The public has every right to expect that those who work in law enforcement will, at a minimum, tell the truth under oath. Individuals can be rehabilitated and can go on to occupy positions of trust, but that decision is to be made by duly authorized licensing authorities acting upon complete information. It should not be necessary for a background investigator to have to unearth information which the individual concealed on an employment application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Savage's correctional certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 3rd day of September, 2003. 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 32302 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Savage 7547 Edisto Drive Lake Worth, Florida 33467
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Leonard McMullen (McMullen), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of McMullen. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that McMullen had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified McMullen and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, McMullen filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, McMullen denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a preemployment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of McMullen on March 8, 1985, at which time he admitted limited use of marijuana some 9 years previously. Here, the proof demonstrates that McMullen's use of marijuana was indeed limited, probably numbering little more than twice, and that his use occurred during high school, when he was 17 or 18 years of age. Since that time, McMullen has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of McMullen's background, that McMullen possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana over 13 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, McMullen, born January 7, 1958, used marijuana approximately two times, the last time being over 13 years ago when he was 17 or 18 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Following his graduation from high school, McMullen joined the U.S. Army, where he served honorably for three years as a military policeman. He enjoyed a secret security clearance, and his periodic drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the service, McMullen was employed for a few months by Gulf Life Insurance Company, and then by Florida Power & Light Company until he was employed by the County. To date, McMullen has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years, and was recently promoted to the rank of corporal. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, McMullen has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Leonard McMullen, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and (c),2 by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7) for good moral character; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 139869 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department (the "Department"). On January 23, 1994, Deputy J. W. Strickland observed Respondent in a parked vehicle in a vacant lot in an area of town known to the deputy as an area of drugs and prostitution. A white female was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Deputy Strickland approached the vehicle and asked Respondent what he was doing in the area. Respondent identified himself as a correctional officer. Deputy Strickland recognized the female as Ms. Sherry Reinstzell. Ms. Reinstzell has a criminal history of prostitution. Deputy Strickland completed a field investigation report. Respondent and Ms. Reinstzell drove away. Deputy Strickland filed the field investigation report with the appropriate Department office. Sgt. Donald Retzer, Internal Affairs, received a copy of the field investigation report. He opened an internal affairs investigation concerning Respondent's conduct. Sgt. Retzer obtained a sworn statement from Respondent on January 28, 1994. Respondent stated under oath that he was just giving Ms. Reinstzell a ride to see a friend and did not know she was a prostitute. He denied any sexual activity with Ms. Reinstzell. Later in the same interview on January 28, 1994, Sgt. Retzer confronted Respondent with additional evidence previously gathered by Sgt. Retzer, including a sworn statement by Ms. Reinstzell. Respondent admitted that he picked Ms. Reinstzell up on Lane Avenue and negotiated a monetary arrangement for sex. Respondent then drove to an abandoned warehouse where Ms. Reinstzell performed fellatio on Respondent. Respondent paid Ms. Reinstzell $20 for the oral sex. He then drove her to a house where she used the $20 as part of the purchase price for illegal drugs with Respondent's knowledge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 943.1395(6), guilty of violating Section 943.1395(7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and suspending Respondent's certificate for two years, including the period, if any, that Respondent has been unemployed by the Department prior to the date of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer on April 6, 1984, and has been continuously so certified since that time. After the Tampa police arrested Doug Jernigan in August, 1986, on charges of armed robbery committed between January and July, 1986, including bank robberies, the Tampa police learned that on July 18, 1986, Jernigan rented a limousine and visited several bars with one of his companions being a police officer. When this information was passed to the Bureau of Internal Affairs, an investigation was started, and it was learned that Respondent was the police officer involved with Jernigan on the evening of July 18-19, 1986. Thereafter, the investigation centered on Respondent's knowledge of Jernigan and any criminal offenses of which Respondent may have been aware. During this investigation, Respondent cooperated fully with the investigators, including the taking of a polygraph test, and two or more taped interrogations. In addition, the investigator interrogated the chauffeur of the limousine, Jernigan, and at least one other passenger who was in the limousine on July 18, 1986. All of these witnesses denied that any drugs were used in Respondent's presence, stated that the party continued for several hours during which time the four people involved consumed a large quantity of alcohol, and that all were quite intoxicated. Respondent was only casually acquainted with Jernigan who he had seen as an employee of the Temple Terrace Bar on previous occasions. On July 18, Respondent encountered Jernigan at the Temple Terrace Bar as a patron who told Respondent that he had hired a limo for the evening and invited Respondent to join him for some drinks. Jernigan had a large roll of bills which he told Respondent he had won at the gambling table at Atlantic City. Respondent joined Jernigan, and they proceeded to another bar where a third and perhaps fourth companion was picked up. The limo then drove the new companion (McGahee) to his residence to change clothes, and while McGahee and Jernigan were let off, the driver took Respondent to Respondent's apartment to change clothes, waited for him, returned to pick up Jernigan and McGahee, and then they proceeded on the bar hopping escapade. The investigation by the Internal Affairs Division disclosed that Respondent had no knowledge of the crimes Jernigan had committed between January and July, 1986. During a second interrogation of Respondent which continued for two hours by an experienced investigator, Respondent was repeatedly told that the other occupants of the limo had acknowledged use of drugs during the night of July 18-19, and that the polygraph exam showed Respondent was not telling the whole truth about his knowledge of Jernigan's criminal activities and of the use of drugs on July 18. Respondent, after earlier denying that any drugs were used in his presence, finally acknowledged that maybe a joint (of marijuana) was passed around in the limo, but that he never took a puff. Once Respondent acknowledged during this two hour interrogation that maybe marijuana was smoked that evening, this became a fact in all further questioning of Respondent regarding his knowledge of Jernigan's criminal activities and further questioning regarding the use of cocaine on that evening. Respondent steadfastly denied any knowledge of any other activities of Jernigan or that he ever saw anyone use cocaine on July 18-19, 1986. James McGahee was one of the passengers in the limo July 18-19. Either he or Jernigan had some that evening, and when they were dropped off at McGahee's apartment for McGahee to change clothes, they ingested some cocaine. McGahee does not smoke marijuana, and to his knowledge, no marijuana was used in the limo that evening. McGahee operated a heavy duty wrecker and had seen Respondent on several occasions at the scene of an accident to which McGahee and his wrecker had been called. He had never socialized with Respondent prior to or since July 18- 19, 1986. Respondent denies that, to his knowledge, any marijuana or other drugs were used in his presence on the evening of July 18-19, 1986, and that his sworn statement taken during his two hour interrogation that a joint had been passed around in the limo was not true. He gave the statement because the interrogator had convinced him the other passengers had admitted using drugs, and he assumed they had done so. To Respondent marijuana was deemed less serious than cocaine.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a license to engage in the business of contracting should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact In June 2004, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application for licensure as a certified general contractor. Petitioner had already passed the requisite contractor's examination. Question one at page six on the form used by Petitioner states: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to, even if you received a withhold of adjudication? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including felony, misdemeanor and traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, intersection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. Petitioner answered this question in the affirmative and disclosed a federal bank robbery conviction from 1994. Petitioner served 58 months in prison, underwent three years of probation, and paid full restitution for that conviction. Question eight of the form used by Petitioner at Page 13 states: Have you, or a partnership in which you were a partner, or an authorized representative, or a corporation in which you were an owner or an authorized representative ever: * * * 8. Been convicted or found guilty of or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction within the past 10 years? Note: if you, the applicant/licensee, have had a felony conviction, proof that your civil rights have been restored will be required prior to Licensure. Because Petitioner has had a clean record since his bank robbery conviction in 1994, Petitioner answered this question in the negative. The "No" answer was provided despite the fact he had been found guilty of two misdemeanors: Unauthorized Use or Possession of Driver's License and Unlawful Possession of Cannabis upon the entry of a nolo contendere plea in 1989. On August 5, 2004, Respondent requested additional information from Petitioner concerning his work experience and equipment. On February 8, 2005, Respondent requested additional information regarding proof of restoration of Petitioner's civil rights. Neither of the requests asked Petitioner for further information about his criminal past. The application was reviewed by Respondent and was denied. The Board's (amended) stated grounds for its denial of the application were: (1) Petitioner was guilty of committing a crime -- bank robbery -- directly related to contracting or the ability to practice contracting pursuant to Subsection 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004); (2) Petitioner was guilty of committing a crime -- bank robbery -- related to contracting or the ability to practice contracting pursuant to Subsections 455.227(1)(c) and (2), Florida Statutes; (3) Petitioner was guilty of making fraudulent misrepresentations on his application pursuant to Subsections 455.227(1)(h) and (2), Florida Statutes; and (4) Petitioner lacks "good moral character" under Subsections 489.111(1)(b) and (3), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was confused by the questions on the application concerning past criminal history. He freely and voluntarily provided information about the felony bank robbery conviction. He did not believe the misdemeanor charges were within the time frame (ten years) discussed in the application. Applicants routinely make mistakes and have omissions on the Board's application form, causing the Board to routinely send formal Requests for Additional Information to applicants. The Board processes hundreds of applications every week. Many applicants receive formal written Requests for Additional Information from the Board, including requests directed to the criminal history section of the Board's application package. Professional services have developed for the purpose of assisting applicants with these applications. One such service helps with 15 to 20 applications every week. Petitioner is not and has never been a contractor, or a certificateholder or registrant, under Chapters 455 or 489, Florida Statutes (2004). Obviously then, Petitioner has never been the subject of any DBPR disciplinary action proceedings or orders commenced under Section 455.225 or Subsection 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (2004). A licensed contractor may typically collect funds from his client and disburse them to vendors, subcontractors, and the like. Contractors could also have access and/or keys to houses of persons for whom they are working. These responsibilities require the contractor to act prudently and reasonably. It is noted that a contractor may utilize a "financially responsible officer" to manage and be responsible for all monies coming from the contractor's clients. Respondent maintains that the bank robbery conviction is evidence of Petitioner's bad moral character. No other evidence of Petitioner's character was presented by Respondent. Petitioner's family immigrated to the United States via Spain from Cuba in 1980. He had a high school diploma and attended college, but did not finish his degree. He was abusing alcohol and drugs and associating with the wrong sort of people at the time he committed the bank robbery in 1994. While in prison, Petitioner attended drug rehabilitation classes for a period of one year. The classes were held five days a week, eight hours per day. During this time, he was housed in a special dorm for inmates attending the classes. His drug rehabilitation courses continued for six months after he was released from prison. He has paid full restitution for the money he stole. Petitioner's last criminal conviction was the 1994 bank robbery. Since abandoning drugs after this conviction, Petitioner has not been arrested for any crime, has become a husband and father, and has dispatched his professional duties to the praise of his colleagues and employer. Petitioner has been regularly employed since he stopped using drugs. He is currently employed as a sales manager for a large telecommunications company. He has an excellent credit history. Petitioner owns his own home subject to a mortgage. Petitioner also owns his own painting business, which is licensed by Broward County, Florida. Rafael Antequera has known Petitioner for approximately five years. Petitioner currently is employed by Antequera's company, Antequera Enterprises, Inc., with whom Petitioner would become a general contractor upon approval of his certified general contractor's licensure application. Mr. Antequera trusts Petitioner with his company's supplies, equipment, and money. Mr. Antequera considers Petitioner to be a good, honest, hard-working, and reliable employee. Antequera believes that Petitioner has the ability to distinguish right from wrong and has the character to observe the difference. Mr. Carlos Alonso also has known Petitioner for more than four years. Mr. Alonso worked with Petitioner at Mr. Alonso's family construction company, Domas & Alonso Development, Inc. Petitioner worked for Mr. Alonso as a project manager from 2004 to 2005. His duties included ordering supplies, picking up supplies, and interacting with local building inspectors. Petitioner was in a position of great trust and was often given a blank bank check to obtain project supplies. Petitioner never misused or abused that position of trust and authority. Rev. Adam S. Zele is a pastor at Epworth United Methodist Church, where Petitioner attends church. Pastor Zele described Petitioner as a hard-working, devoted family man with religious conviction. Zele also has observed Petitioner in a business capacity. With full knowledge of Petitioner's prior criminal history, Pastor Zele awarded Antequera Enterprises a $20,000 bid to paint his church. Petitioner acted as the salesperson for the project, and Pastor Zele was confident enough in Petitioner to hand Petitioner a check in the amount of $10,000 for the first half of the work. Petitioner is actively involved with the activities of Epworth United Methodist Church. Petitioner is highly regarded by church officials and enjoys a reputation of being very reliable, honest, and a person of integrity and good morals. The Board recently granted a license with six years' probation to an applicant who had been convicted of a crime related to contracting. The nature of that crime was not clear from the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation granting a contractor's license to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 26th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy P. Atkinson, Esquire Gavin Burgess, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued Respondent law enforcement certificate number 102033 on December 3, 1989. Respondent has remained certified continuously since that date. Respondent's law enforcement experience includes a related assignment while serving in the United State Marine Corps. He then worked as a deputy sheriff and police officer in Los Angeles, California. In 1989, Respondent was employed by the Tampa Police Department for three or four months, and, in 1990, he was employed by the Cocoa Police Department for two years. For the last seven years, Respondent has been employed outside of law enforcement; currently, he is a sales manager at a Chevrolet dealership in Cocoa. While working for the Cocoa Police Department, Respondent continued to reside in the Tampa area, where his wife and three children also resided. On November 20, 1991, pending the later entry of a final dissolution decree, a circuit judge in Tampa entered an Injunction for Protection from Domestic Violence. The injunction ordered Respondent and his then-wife "from entering the dwelling, or from entering upon the curtilage of the dwelling of the other . . .." The injunction warned that an "intentional violation" of its provisions "shall constitute contempt of court, punishable by incarceration and/or fine." Respondent was six feet tall and 220 pounds, and his then-wife was five feet, three inches tall and 115 pounds. On December 11, 1991, Respondent intentionally entered the driveway of the townhouse at which his then-wife was residing. A sheriff's deputy responding to a telephone call from Respondent's then-wife saw her in the driver's seat of her vehicle, parked in the driveway, and Respondent standing next to her holding the top of the door, so as to prevent her from closing the door. Respondent and his then-wife were arguing. The deputy arrested Respondent. A judge revoked bail on various criminal charges arising out of an earlier altercation between Respondent and his then-wife. Respondent remained in jail for 18 months awaiting trial on these charges. At trial, he was acquitted of all but two charges--trespassing and battery for grabbing the hands of his then-wife--but the court withheld adjudication of guilt on these charges.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character and reprimanding his certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 David Barnard Post Office Box 360971 Melbourne, Florida 32936-0971
Findings Of Fact Background In June 198, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Hattie Moore (Moore), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 18, 1987, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Moore. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Moore had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Moore and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Moore filed a timely request for a formal bearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Moore denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Moore on October 15,1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, with the last time being in 1977, and that she had been arrested in 1977 for possession of cocaine. Regarding her use of marijuana and cocaine, the proof demonstrates that any such use ceased in 1977, and that, while Moore cannot remember with exactitude the number of times she used either substance, she most probably used such substances no more than 3-5 times each. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that on February 3, 1977, when she was arrested, Moore had in her possession less than one gram of cocaine. The state chose not to file a criminal information, and her arrest record was expunged on February 3, 1986. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Moore's background, that Moore possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her use or possession of marijuana and cocaine over 12 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Moore, born September 3, 1958, used or possessed marijuana and cocaine infrequently, the last time being over 12 years ago when she was 18 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Moore has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over two years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Currently, Moore is married and the mother of two children, ages 11 and 9. She is a homeowner, and also attends Miami Dade Community College where she has amassed 73 credit hours to date. Overall, Moore has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Hattie Moore, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Steven Albert (Albert), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 19, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Albert. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Albert had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Albert and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Albert filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Albert denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Albert on July 23, 1987, at which time he admitted that during the course of his military service he had been involved with controlled substances. Here, the proof demonstrates that Albert joined the United States Air Force on March 31, 1975, at the age of 19, following his graduation from high school. During the course of such service, he experimented with cocaine, qualudes and "speed" a few times, the last time being in 1980 or 1981; used marijuana occasionally, the last time being in 1981; and sold or attempted to sell one ounce of marijuana on three separate occasions, the last being in 1981. On January 2, 1981, following his receipt of an Article 15, an administrative form of discipline, for possession of marijuana, Albert received a general discharge, under honorable conditions, from the military. Since that time, Albert has not used, bought or sold any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Albert's background, that Albert possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Albert used controlled substances, and sold or attempted to sell marijuana on 3 occasions, the last time being over 8 years ago when he was 26 years of age. Since that time he has had no contact with controlled substances. Under such circumstances, his prior contact with controlled substances is not proximate within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Albert has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. His performance has ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, he has received two commendations, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Albert was employed as a security guard for a private company, and was duly licensed by the State of Florida as an unarmed officer. Overall, Albert, now 34 years of age, has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Steven Albert, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
