The Issue The issue is whether the correctional officer certification of Steven S. Wright should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Steven S. Wright is a certified correctional officer, having been issued certificate number 43-88-502-05 on December 19, 1988. Mr. Wright was employed as a Correctional Officer I at Lake Correctional Institute in June 1989. On the morning of June 20, 1989, and on other occasions, Mr. Wright had discussed drugs with inmates. He did not encourage or support the use of drugs. He believed these discussions were a useful part of the rehabilitation process. Later on June 20, 1989, Inmate Clinton Gholson approached Mr. Wright in the Food Services area and placed a piece of paper in Mr. Wright's pocket. Mr. Wright was planning to be married in a short time. Gholson had indicated that he and some other inmates wanted to make a wedding present for Wright in Arts and Crafts. Because inmates are generally prohibited from giving gifts to correctional officers, Mr. Wright and Gholson had agreed to a paper work process which was to be followed if Gholson and the others wished to make the gift for Mr. Wright. Authorization was to be sought before Mr. Wright actually received the gift. Gholson was to give Mr. Wright a choice of gifts Gholson could make. Mr. Wright understood that Gholson was to give him a short written list from which to pick. While Mr. Wright was working on June 20, 1989, Gholson approached him from behind and slipped the piece of paper into Mr. Wright's back pocket. Gholson indicated it was the gift list and Mr. Wright was to circle the gift he wanted. Gholson said something like, "You do that and that's what we'll make." Mr. Wright did not look at the note then. He forgot about it and finished his work. When Mr. Wright got home that evening, he discovered the note in his pocket. When he opened it, instead of a gift list, he found $3.00 and a note asking Mr. Wright to smuggle drugs (a "twenty cent piece") into the prison and they would make $240.00 from it. Mr. Wright was scheduled off from work the next two days. He was afraid he would lose his job because of what Gholson had done. When Mr. Wright returned to work on June 23, 1989, he told Sergeant Alexander what had happened. She sent him to Major Collier to make a report. Wright made the report and submitted it. He had forgotten to bring the note and money that day, so he could not attach it to the report. When Mr. Wright returned home that night, the note and money were gone. It was never determined if his wife or his nephew or someone else had thrown it away. Once Gholson knew he had Mr. Wright in a bad position, he used it to his advantage. He began demanding money from Mr. Wright and stated at various times that he had given Mr. Wright $10.00 to buy drugs and that he had loaned Mr. Wright $10.00. Mr. Wright reported these incidents immediately. When Gholson wrote another note demanding $10.00, Mr. Wright immediately turned that note over to Major Collier. A hearsay statement from Gholson in the form of a taped interview was submitted into evidence. It is found that Gholson's statements are so unbelievable as to be unworthy of any credibility. Even if the statements were not hearsay, they would be too unbelievable to form the basis for a finding of fact. Mr. Wright was fired from his job at Lake Correctional Institute as a result of these incidents and Gholson's statements. While there are some insignificant inconsistencies among the various statements and reports given by Mr. Wright, I find that his testimony and account of these events is absolutely credible and worthy of belief. While it is not disputed that Mr. Wright left the correctional institute on June 20, 1989, with a note and $3.00 which Gholson slipped into his pocket, it is affirmatively found that Mr. Wright had unwittingly done so. Mr. Wright had no idea that Gholson had placed money into his pocket until he reached home later that night. Mr. Wright did not knowingly accept money from Gholson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Steven S. Wright. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 10th day of June, 1991.
The Issue Whether Proposed Rule 33.9007(9), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Steven Rivera, Petitioner, is currently serving a prison sentence at Walton Correctional Institution at DeFuniak Springs, Florida. He is on his fifth commitment to prison. Respondent supervises the operation of correctional institutions in Florida and promulgates rules governing the operation of the prisons and various subjects relating to inmates of these prisons. The proposed rule here under challenge provides: Any inmate who is serving his fourth commitment to prison or higher shall be excluded from work release if the inmate has previously been given the opportunity to participate in work release, except that an inmate may be given consideration if the inmate has demonstrated outstanding institutional adjustment and if extenuating circumstances exist. Petitioner has been admitted to the work release program in a prior commitment and, with more than four prison commitments is in the class of prisoner covered by this rule. Accordingly, he has standing to challenge the rule. The work release program is intended to motivate the individual offender toward self improvement, to ease the transition from prison into the community, place the inmate in employment to which he or she may return after release from the institution, permit the offender to contribute towards his own support and the support of his or her family, help determine the prisoner's readiness for parole, preserve family and community ties, and permit the offender to develop or maintain occupational skills. (Exhibit 6) The Florida work release program has been in effect for many years allowing Department of Corrections officers the opportunity to gain experience in the effectiveness and efficacy of the program. First commitment offenders are more likely to benefit from work release than are those who have three or more prior commitments. Inmates who have been given one chance in the work release program and are subsequently recommitted to the prison institution have thereby demonstrated that they did not obtain the anticipated benefit of remaining crime free subsequent to being admitted to the work release program. Following a murder committed by a prisoner who escaped from the work release program at another institution, a Task Force was set up to study the work release program and prepare recommendations affecting this program. As a result of this Task Force's recommendations, wide ranging changes to the rules affecting the work release program were promulgated of which the rule here challenged is only one small subsection. Furthermore, prior to the commission of the crime referred to above, there were approximately 4000 prisoners admitted to the work release program. Legislative changes since that time have limited the maximum number of prisoners admitted to the work release program to 2100. Although Petitioner contends that there is no rule definition of commitment, this is a word that is well recognized in the prison community. As defined by one of Respondent's witnesses in these proceedings, each time a prisoner is committed following a release from a prior commitment whether in Florida or in another jurisdiction, this counts as an additional commitment. If the inmate commits an offense while in confinement, is taken to court and receives an additional sentence, this is not counted as an additional commitment. This method of counting commitments inures to the benefit of the prison inmates. Petitioner also contends that the phrase "has demonstrated outstanding institutional adjustment and if extenuating circumstances exist" is arbitrary and vests unbridled discretion in the prison officials. However, admission to the work release program is a privilege which all prisoners admitted to such program must earn. They earn this privilege by adhering to the code of conduct established for prisoners, by participating in education, drug and alcohol abuse programs, and by other acts contributing to earning gain time. Certain classes of prisoners, e.g. those who have committed serious crimes, sex crimes, and crimes evincing a violent disposition must demonstrate more clearly than does the less violent criminal that he is eligible for work release. No one act can show that one prisoner is better deserving for the limited number that can be admitted to the work release program than is another prisoner. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider innumerable factors to determine which are the prisoners most likely to benefit from work release based upon their history and their current conduct in the prison system. A finite list of factors to be considered in determining those most eligible for work release is impracticable because the list would be too numerous and could still omit factors deserving consideration. The proposed rules, including the rule in issue here, provide that certain prisoners are not eligible for work release; but the rule provides two exceptions to this general disqualification, to wit: those who "demonstrate outstanding institutional adjustment and extenuating circumstances." By providing these exceptions, the rule removes the arbitrary exclusion of certain prisoners from work release regardless of their good conduct in prison and demonstration that they have totally reformed and are most unlikely ever to again commit a crime.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Homer Rozier has been certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida. On February 17, 2003, Respondent was employed at the South Bay Correctional Facility. He resigned from that employment on or about July 16, 2003. On February 17, 2003, Chad Pelham was employed as a loss prevention officer at the Wal-Mart located in Clewiston, Florida. As a law enforcement officer certified by the State of Florida for the five years previous, Pelham had been trained in law enforcement techniques, including observation, and was qualified to perform store security duties. On that date, Respondent and his wife entered the Wal- Mart to shop. Since other Wal-Mart employees told Pelham they suspected that Respondent had stolen items from the store on previous occasions, Pelham and his partner followed Respondent and his wife, watching them as they shopped. Respondent and his wife selected some baby shoes from the shelf, removed the tags, and placed the shoes on their infant. They continued walking through the store, stopping to remove a bottle of water from the Wal-Mart cooler, and drinking the water as they shopped. Respondent and his wife proceeded to the houseware section. Respondent removed two wallpaper borders and a bathroom tumbler from the displays and hid them in his baby's diaper bag that he had in the shopping cart. In the deli department of the store Respondent and his wife obtained a bag of chicken. They ate the chicken as they walked through the store and then discarded the bag. In the electronics section of the store Respondent took two magazines related to certain electronic games, such as Nintendo X-box, and put them in his shopping cart. These magazines were sold by Wal-Mart for approximately $15 and $13. When Respondent was in the housewares section he placed the magazines under some towels (or rugs), concealing them. Respondent and his wife then proceeded to the cashier and paid for some of the merchandise they had taken. They did not pay for the chicken they had eaten or the water they had drunk or the baby shoes they had placed on their baby's feet. After paying for the items in their cart and having those items placed in blue Wal-Mart bags, Respondent and his wife left the register area as they would do to exit the store. They did not exit, however. Instead, carrying the Wal-Mart bags containing the items they had paid for, they split up, with Respondent returning to the housewares section and his wife returning to the groceries section. In the housewares section, Respondent retrieved the gaming magazines he had hidden under the towels (or rugs) and placed them in the Wal-Mart bags containing items that had been purchased. He then rejoined his wife in the grocery aisles where they placed some small items in the bags containing the items that they had purchased. They then proceeded to exit the store without returning to a cashier to pay for the items they had not purchased. After Respondent and his wife exited through the first of two sets of exterior doors, Pelham and his partner detained them. Pelham and his partner retrieved the merchandise Respondent and his wife had not paid for and contacted the City of Clewiston Police Department. Officer Demetrius Scruggs responded to the call, coming to the store and arresting Respondent for retail theft.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and suspending his certification as a correctional officer for a period of 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Homer Rozier 633 Southwest Eighth Street, No. 5 Belle Glade, Florida 33430
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement and correctional officer, stole money from inmates, in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent on March 22, 1993, as a law enforcement officer and issued her certificate number 135498. Petitioner certified Respondent on July 25, 1995, as a correctional officer and issued her certificate number 156433. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed by the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer. On October 12, 1995, deputies of the Hendry County Sheriff’s Office arrested Ernesto Estepes and escorted him to the Clewiston Substation. At the substation, Mr. Estepes turned over to a deputy $132 in cash and other personal items, including a watch and wallet. Deputies later transported Mr. Estepes to the Hendry County jail, where the $132 and other personal items were transferred. The booking officer received all of the items, including the cash, and turned them over to Respondent. Four days later, when deputies went to find the items, including the cash, to return to Mr. Estepes, they found that everything was missing, including the property receipt that the jail booking officer had completed. Respondent stole Mr. Estepes’ property, including the cash. The property was never recovered. On October 29, 1995, Hendry County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Jose Ramos. They escorted him to the Clewiston Substation, from where he was later transported to the Hendry County jail. The deputy who transported Mr. Ramos received from Mr. Ramos $112.04 in cash and other personal items, consisting of a gold Citizen quartz watch, silver chain, leather belt, and wallet. The deputy completed a property receipt for these items. At the jail, Respondent handled the booking process, which included receipt of the inmate’s property, including cash. Shortly after Mr. Ramos arrived at the jail, Respondent substituted a fraudulent property receipt for the actual property receipt. The fraudulent receipt stated that Mr. Ramos arrived at the jail with only the clothes he was wearing and was unable to sign the receipt. Respondent took the property and cash with an intent to derive Mr. Ramos permanently of these items. Mr. Ramos was released shortly after his arrest, but was not given his property. Deputies searched the jail, including the booking area, but were unable to find the property. Shortly after a thorough search had been completed, the property, except for the cash, reappeared in the booking area, which had been searched previously to no avail. The property items were returned to Mr. Ramos. The Hendry County Sheriff’s Office reimbursed the cash to the two inmates. Respondent resigned prior to the completion of the internal affairs investigation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the law enforcement and correctional certificates previously issued to Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Anne Dox-Haynes 1447 Ford Circle Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Baker Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 78-G-1 is a rule not promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1981) , and therefore is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners initiated this challenge to Operating Procedure 78-G-1 by the filing of their petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 2, 1983. The case was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer on December 12, 1983, and a formal hearing was held on January 5, 1984. At the formal hearing, the Petitioners called as witnesses Wilfred M. Ellis, James C. Wolf, Willard A. Jackson, and David Keith Allen. Petitioner Joe Lewis Holland testified on his own behalf. The Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence Petitioners' Exhibits 1-3. The Respondent offered no evidence. The Petitioners and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings of fact and conclusions contained in this order, they are rejected as not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are inmates incarcerated at Baker Correctional Institution, Olustee, Florida. Baker Correctional Institution is a prison operated by the Department of Corrections. The Superintendent of Baker Correctional Institution issued Operating Procedure 78-G-1, which was originally issued on June 21, 1978, and revised April 11, 1983, and is entitled "Preparation of Legal Documents." This operating procedure is addressed to all inmates of Baker Correctional Institution and sets forth the procedures inmates are to follow in obtaining all necessary support to prepare legal documents. Section X of that operating procedure is titled "Copies of Legal Documents" and provides: The Institution shall provide copying services for inmates who need legal documents and accompanying evidentiary material copied for submittal to courts or administrative bodies. A charge of 15 cents per page for all copies provided to inmates will be made and collected in advance of providing the copies to the inmate. Copying services shall be provided without charge if there is less that $5.00 in the inmate's account. The inmate may make arrangements for copying services by writing his Classification Specialist. Each Specialist will arrange for the copying to be completed as soon as practical and will then complete procedures to have the inmate be properly charged for the service. This operating procedure applies only within Baker Correctional Institution. This operating procedure was not promulgated as a rule in accordance with the procedures set forth in Florida Statute 120.54 (1981) The Superintendent considered the operating procedure to be authorized by those statutes, rules and directives contained in the referenced paragraph of the Operating Procedure No. 78-G-1. Those references are: Florida Statutes Chapter 944.09, 944.11, 945.21 and 20.315 Department of Corrections Rules & Regulations 33.03.05 Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.06 and 4.10.51. Under the Operating Procedure 78-G-1, an inmate desiring copies to be made of legal materials must submit a written request for the copies to his Correctional Probation Officer (previously called Classification Specialist) Generally, all such requests are answered within seven (7) days of receipt of the request. If there is a short deadline for filing these materials with a court or other body, then the officer expedites the request. Each officer has the discretion to complete the copying of materials in a time period shorter than seven (7) days. If the inmate has an extremely short deadline to meet, then a pass can be obtained for the inmate to personally go to the library building to have copies made. Subsequent to the issuance of Operating Procedure 78-G-1, the Department of Corrections promulgated Rule 33-3.051, titled "Copying Services for Inmates." This rule is not being challenged in the instant case and provides: All institutions and facilities shall provide photographic copying services to inmates submitting legal documents and accompanying evidentiary materials to courts and administrative bodies. Documents will be copied only if they are necessary to initiate a legal or administrative action or if they must be filed or served in a pending action. The number of copies made shall be the number required to be filed and served according to the rules of the court or administrative body: one additional copy shall be made for the inmate to keep if the original is filed or served. Cases, statutes, and other reference materials are not evidentiary materials and will not be copied to accompany legal documents. Inmates will be charged $0.15 per page for standard legal or letter size copies, or if special equipment or paper is required the institution may charge up to the estimated actual cost to the institution of making the copies. Copying services shall not be denied inmates unable to pay for copies. An inmate shall be considered unable to pay for copies when there is $5.00 or less in his inmate account at the time any copies are made. If an inmate requesting copies has more than $5.00 in his account he shall be required to pay for copies furnished him at the rate of $0.15 per page until the costs reduce his account to $5.00. Copies for which the inmate is unable to pay shall be provided free and the expense will be borne from general operating funds of the institution. No attempt will be made to recover such expense from money later deposited in the inmate's account. The librarian may require an inmate for whom copies are to be made to seal the copies, except for his file copy, in envelopes and mail them immediately. This requirement, if imposed, shall be explained to the inmate before copies are made. Specific Authority 20.315, 945.04, 945.21FS. Law Implemented 20.315, 945.04, 945.21 FS. History--New It was stipulated by the parties that the Petitioners have standing to challenge Operating Procedure 78-G-1. On one occasion, Petitioner Joe Lewis Holland requested copies through Mr. Townsend and Mr. Townsend turned the request over to Classification Officer James C. Wolf for processing.
The Issue Whether Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, William Van Poyck, Mike Ramadanovic and Kenneth Boudreaux, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioners are subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rules challenged in these cases, Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i), and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rules"). Petitioner Van Poyck is on death row, which is considered administrative confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Van Poyck have been suspended for almost three years. Petitioner Ramadanovic at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Ramadanovic have been suspended for almost one year. Petitioner Bourdreaux at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. The Challenged Rules. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "administrative confinement". Administrative confinement is the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for one or more specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (l) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis excluding showers and clinic trips may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule shall be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise out of doors. Such exercise periods shall be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. The superintendent or assistant superintendent may restrict exercise for an individual inmate when the inmate continues to pose a serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates; by involvement in acts which seriously interfere with the staff's daily security functions, or by actions demonstrating an extreme escape risk. Inmates shall be notified in writing of this decision and may appeal through the grievance procedure. The denial of exercise shall be for the shortest length of time to accomplish the goal of safety, security and order within the institution and shall be documented on Form DC4-814. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not compromise the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "close management". Close management is the "long-term single cell confinement of an inmate apart from the general inmate population, where the inmate, through his own behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of other inmates or disturbing the security, order or operation of the institution." Rule 33-3.0083(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis, excluding showers and clinic trips, may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of 2 hours per week of exercise outside of cell. Such exercise periods will be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not threaten the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "disciplinary confinement". Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (n) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a twenty- four hour basis (excluding showers and clinic trips) may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a thirty-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell. Such exercise periods should be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts show that such exercise periods should not be granted. Restrictions may also be placed on the exercise periods by medical staff. The reason for any exercise restrictions shall be documented. Period of Outdoor Exercise. The Challenged Rules all provide that inmates may exercise in their cells and that "a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell" should be provided to inmates in administrative confinement, close management and disciplinary confinement. Unless specified otherwise, all references to "inmates" in this Final Order are to an inmate in administrative confinement, close management or disciplinary confinement. At Florida State Prison, non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules are given an opportunity to attend one, two-hour exercise session a week. If an inmate misses a session for medical or attorney "call out", a holiday or inclement weather, the session is not made up. The Challenged Rules do not specifically require that missed sessions be made up. On their face, the Challenged Rules provide that two hours of exercise should be provided without indicating any exceptions. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, is mandatory: two-hours of exercise must be provided each week. The amount of time inmates are allowed to exercise is affected by the budget and staff of the Respondent. Because of lack of funds and staff, the Respondent is not able to provide more exercise time to non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. At Florida State Prison, a maximum security prison, there are thirteen wings housing inmates. Ten wings house inmates (including four housing inmates on death row) in various types of confinement status. Nine of the ten wings have a separate area, referred to as a "yard", in which inmates may exercise outdoors. There are two correctional officers on duty at each of the yards during the outdoor exercise period for non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. One sergeant also rotates between the yards. Four to five correctional officers are required to take inmates in and out of the yards. Each inmate must be strip searched, handcuffed with his hands behind his back and then escorted into the yard. Exercise Yards. The Challenged Rules do not specify the size of the area in which outdoor exercise to be provided to inmates. The Challenged Rules also do not specify the number of inmates that may be placed in an area for outdoor exercise. Yards at Florida State Prison consist of a fenced concrete slab. The yards for non-death row inmates are approximately 24' by 33', or 792 square feet. Usually 17 inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. The number of inmates in the yard on occasion may be 20 to 25. This is the exception, rather than the rule. Recreational Equipment. The Challenged Rules do not require that recreational equipment be provided to non-death row inmates. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provide that recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period if it does not compromise the safety or security of the institution Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, is silent concerning recreational equipment. Recreational equipment is not provided to inmates during exercise at Florida State Prison. Inmates tend to fight over recreational equipment and to abuse it when it is provided. In light of the findings of fact, infra, concerning death row inmates, the evidence failed to prove that the failure to provide non-death row inmates with recreational equipment is arbitrary or capricious. Although there is a rational and reasonable reason for not providing recreational equipment to inmates who have proven to be a disciplinary problem (including some death row inmates) the Respondent is evidently prohibited from withholding recreational equipment for death row inmates by court decree. No such decree applies to non- death row inmates. Yard Suspension. The Challenged Rules provide that exceptions to the provision for outdoor exercise may be made "only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted." Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, contain very similar language. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, do not specify who may decide who is to be denied exercise in the yard, referred to as being placed on the "yard suspension list", or the specific reasons for placing an inmate on such a list. The various institutions are given discretion to decide who will place an inmate on the yard suspension list and the reasons for such suspensions. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, also do not specify the procedures for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list, do not require periodic review of the list, do not specify a maximum period of time an inmate may be on the list and do not specify the conditions which must be met for an inmate to be removed from the yard suspension list. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides who may restrict exercise, requires that there be a "serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates" and other acts, requires that inmates be notified in writing and provides that denial of exercise be for the shortest length of time possible. There is a list of inmates at Florida State Prison who have been denied yard exercise. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list because of security problems similar to those specified in Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, caused by an inmate. The procedure for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list is as follows: The chief security officer recommends that an inmate be placed on the list. The recommendation of the chief security officer is reviewed by a team of senior correctional officers and the superintendent. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate is placed on the yard suspension list. Any inmate placed on the list is notified in writing and may appeal the decision through the grievance procedure. Chapter 33-29, Florida Administrative Code. The following procedure is followed to determine whether an inmate is removed from the yard suspension list: The list is reviewed monthly by the team of senior correctional officers that recommends the placement of an inmate on the list. If an inmate's behavior demonstrates that he has adapted to the institution and is no longer acting out in such a manner to create a security problem, a recommendation is made to the superintendent to remove the inmate's name from the list. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate's name is removed. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the goal of changing the inmate's behavior and to eliminate the threat to security caused by the inmate. Inmates on the yard suspension list are still allowed to exercise in their cells. Although cells are small and exercise is not necessarily easy in the cells, inmates may do elevated push-ups, step-ups, and jog in place. There are at any given time approximately 100 inmates at Florida State Prison on the yard suspension list. Inmates may be kept on the yard suspension list for years. Inmate Jimmy Stephens has been on the yard suspension list since February, 1990, and was previously on the yard suspension list for over fifteen years. Petitioner Van Poyck was placed on the yard suspension list upon his arrival at Florida State Prison on December 28, 1988, and remained on the list until January 7, 1992. Death Row Inmates. Inmates on death row are in administrative confinement and are, therefore, subject to Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Inmates on death row are provided two, two-hour exercise sessions each week. A total of four hours of exercise. If an exercise session is missed by a death-row inmate, the session is made up. The yards provided to death row inmates are larger than the yards provided to non-death row inmates. The yards for death row inmates at Florida State Prison are 71' by 69' (4,899 square feet), 80' by 64' (5,120 square feet), 62' by 91' (5,642 square feet) and 74' by 80' (5,920 square feet). Approximately 24 to 30 death row inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. Death row inmates are provided with a variety of recreational equipment. The amount of exercise time, the size of the yards and the amount of recreational equipment provided to death row inmates was agreed to in a consent decree in a federal court proceeding involving the Department of Corrections.
