The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted an exemption to work in a position of special trust, pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Since July 1997, Petitioner has been employed continuously as a driver for Big Bend Transit, Inc., an organization that provides transportation services to disadvantaged persons. In this capacity, Petitioner provided direct hands-on care to children and disabled adults by driving them from place to place in the course of her job. When Petitioner was hired by Big Bend Transit, Inc., she was screened, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. It was determined during this screening that Petitioner had been convicted of a felony for possession of cocaine in 1987 and convicted of the misdemeanor of petit theft in 1994. Both of these offenses occurred in Florida. By operation of law, Petitioner is disqualified from working in a position of special trust on the basis of her 1987 conviction for possession of cocaine. It was stipulated by the parties that the petit theft conviction is non-disqualifying. Petitioner also has had a lengthy involvement with, and dependence on, alcohol and cocaine. From before her 1987 conviction for possession of cocaine until at least August 1994, Petitioner regularly used these drugs to excess. Petitioner and her immediate supervisor, Ms. Eddie B. Smith (no relation), were both apparently under the erroneous impression that it was acceptable for Petitioner to continue her employment in a position of special trust, despite the disqualification letter sent them by certified mail on January 26, 1998. There was nothing unclear about the Agency's notification letter. Petitioner has had an incident-free driving record with Big Bend Transit since her employment. Eddie B. Smith, is the Big Bend Transit supervisor for Petitioner. Ms. Smith has never ridden with Petitioner in the Big Bend van nor has she ever observed Petitioner driving the van. However, she considers Petitioner to be a safe, dependable, responsible driver and employee. She testified that among other Big Bend employees and their disadvantaged clientele, Petitioner's reputation is that "all speak highly of her." Although Eddie B. Smith did not know Petitioner prior to her drug rehabilitation, she is aware of Petitioner's past record and experiences, and still wishes to employ her. From 1987 to 1994, Petitioner repeatedly attended and participated in several substance abuse programs, none of which were successful for her. Notwithstanding her substance abuse during the foregoing period, Petitioner managed to maintain regular employment. Petitioner admitted that the shoplifting incident in September 1994 was inspired by her need to get money to buy cocaine and/or alcohol. However, in August 1994, Petitioner had voluntarily entered detox at Apalachee Center for Human Services, in Tallahassee, and voluntarily proceeded immediately afterward to the residential drug rehabilitation program run by Promise Land Ministries in Crawfordville, Florida. Petitioner admitted to one relapse using alcohol in early 1995, but forthrightly asserted that she knows now that she cannot even take one drink of alcohol, let alone use it socially. Petitioner also used drugs on her one night of relapse. She testified that she has not used either alcohol or drugs since that date in 1995. Petitioner quit smoking cigarettes approximately one year before formal hearing. Primary to Petitioner's successful rehabilitation has been her love for, and taking responsibility for the care of, her son, who is now seven years old. On November 14, 1995, Petitioner tested negative for the use of drugs as part of her employment with Cabot Lodge Motel in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner also took a mandatory drug screening test ordered by Big Bend Transit when she went to work for that corporation in July 1997. She also tested drug-free on that occasion. The foregoing two successful drug tests are only accurate to show that Petitioner had not used cocaine or other illegal drugs for a period of two to three days prior to the administration of each test. Petitioner is buying her own home at Lake Talquin Resort. She is a community leader and holds the position of a Director on the Board of the Home Owners' Association at Lake Talquin Resort. As a Director, Petitioner oversees the maintenance and quality of her trailer park neighborhood. Petitioner runs her own yard and cleanup service to supplement her regular employment with Big Bend Transit and also baby-sits for her friends and neighbors. Petitioner's immediate neighbors, who know her both professionally and intimately as a friend and baby-sitter for their nine-year-old son, are Sergeant Shelton Turner of the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office and his wife, Annetheria. According to Mr. and Mrs. Turner, Petitioner is a model neighbor and friend. Both expressed the sentiment that "my house is her house." Mr. Turner serves on the Home Owners' Association Board with Petitioner. He has known Petitioner for ten years and testified that since her rehabilitation, Petitioner has made a 360-degree change in her life. He considers her totally rehabilitated and has seen her "transformation." Sergeant Turner has had an opportunity to observe Petitioner in her home at all hours of the day and night and testified that, "[She's] not in that old white station wagon at the drug hole [anymore]... no one with drugs is ever hanging on [at her house]." Sergeant Turner further testified that two signs of drug abuse can never be observed in Petitioner's home, e.g., the lights are never cut off for failure to pay, and there is always food in the house. Antheria Turner is a Program Director at a group home for the elderly, where she has observed Petitioner with disadvantaged clients. She testified that, "If there were a position in one of my homes, I would have no problem hiring her." Mrs. Turner has only known Petitioner for the last three years during which time Petitioner has been drug-free, but she is well aware of Petitioner's past criminal record and drug/alcohol dependency. Petitioner is an active church-goer and credits her religious faith as another reason for her continued rehabilitation. She is characterized by Ms. Turner as a "good Christian." Edith Smith is the former owner of Precious Angels Family Home Daycare. Ms. Smith is employed elsewhere at the present time, but has known Petitioner for six to seven years. She also has had an opportunity to observe Petitioner's transition, subsequent to her final successful drug rehabilitation. Before rehabilitation, she would distance herself from Petitioner but now Petitioner often babysits for Ms. Smith's four year old daughter, and Ms. Smith considers Petitioner to be "very loving and caring around children," and trustworthy. At formal hearing, the Department presented one witness, a district screening coordinator who did not recommend that Petitioner be granted an exemption from disqualification. She speculated that the Petitioner might be somehow "covering up" possible continued weekend drug abuse. Her testimony is to the effect that if Petitioner could remain fully employed while "using," the fact that Petitioner has remained fully employed since she quit "using" in 1995 should not be considered as part of the evidence of good moral character. Ms. LeClair's testimony does not amount to either a policy statement by the agency or an expert opinion that Petitioner's current full time employment should be held against her. The Department seemed to merely assert a "legal position" that a longer period of rehabilitation should be necessary to clearly and convincingly establish Petitioner's good moral character, under the circumstances of this case.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner Jacqueline Smith's request for exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Thornburn, Esquire Grant Dearborn, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. Suite 200 8 West Jefferson Street Quincy, Florida 32351 John Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 100A Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Service Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a teacher since 1993. She is a 34- year-old divorced mother of a four-year-old son. Respondent has suffered from a chemical dependency since she was 18 years old. At that time, she completed a 28- day detoxification program at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in Miami. Six or seven years later, Respondent underwent additional inpatient treatment for her addiction to drugs. She submitted to a third detoxification, lasting five to seven days, in 1993 or 1994. Respondent underwent a fourth detoxification ten months later and, in 1996, a fifth detoxification. Respondent admits that she has undergone detoxification several more times since 1996. These detoxifications and Respondent's intermittent participation in Narcotics Anonymous were parts of treatment programs attempting to relieve Respondent from her addiction to cocaine and heroin. Respondent's addiction has spanned her college years through her entire teaching career. The effects of Respondent's illness have, at times, precluded her from reaching her full potential as a classroom teacher. After a brief period of employment by Petitioner as a permanent substitute teacher, Respondent began fulltime employment with Petitioner in August 1994 as a teacher at Oak Grove Elementary School. While at Oak Grove, Respondent was a satisfactory teacher, although her attendance was less than satisfactory. Also, on at least six occasions, evidently starting in her second year, Respondent fell asleep while conducting a reading tutorial session in which the students spent 20 minutes in separate cubicles. Respondent's principal at Oak Grove documented by a memorandum dated December 4, 1995, eleven full-day absences and two half-day absences during the 1995-96 school year and two instances of sleeping while charged with the instruction of a student--both on the same day and both discovered by the principal. Due to these incidents and an earlier incident of sleeping while on duty, the principal administratively referred Respondent to Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The December 4 memorandum documented the actions taken at a conference held the same date involving, among others, Respondent and the principal. Respondent then missed work on December 6 and 7--calling in at 10:06 a.m. on December 7 saying that she had overslept and asking if it was too late to report to work. Respondent missed a considerable amount of work during the 1996-97 school year. Some of the absences, especially from early December through early February, were due to Respondent's chemical dependency. However, some absences, especially during the latter part of the school year, may be attributed to the birth of Respondent's child on July 9, 1997, following a high- risk pregnancy. The record does not disclose much about the 1997-98 school year. However, Respondent missed ten days of work due to sick or personal leave and eleven days of work due to unpaid, but authorized, leave. The absence of additional administrative action against Respondent suggests that she may have improved her attendance and eliminated her sleeping while on duty. For the 1998-99 school year, Respondent transferred to a new school, Linda Lentin Elementary School. Again, Respondent was a satisfactory teacher, except for absenteeism. However, during a nine-day absence from May 20 through June 2, 1999, the principal received a telephone call from someone claiming that Respondent had had a breakdown and was in a "drug rehabilitation hospital." Accordingly, the principal requested that Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) monitor Respondent's return to work. On June 8, 1999, Respondent, the principal, Petitioner's OPS Director, and others participated in a Conference for the Record (CFR). Respondent attributed her 21 absences in the 1997-98 school year, as well as 20.5 absences in the 1998-99 school year, to six miscarriages and depression. Petitioner's OPS Director explained the procedures for reasonable-suspicion drug testing. The CFR memorandum concludes by emphasizing that Respondent must report to work when scheduled and on time, obtain medical excuses for all absences, provide lesson plans for substitute teachers, and obtain approval for scheduled leave. At the same time, Petitioner's OPS Director referred Respondent to Petitioner's EAP. Subject to these actions, Petitioner approved Respondent's return to the classroom. However, Respondent's attendance did not improve the following school year, and her behavior became somewhat eccentric early in the school year. At noon on September 27, 1999, Respondent told the principal that she was ill and needed to go home for the remainder of the day and the following day. Respondent went home, but, despite requesting leave and a substitute for the following day, returned to work the following day without calling first. Near the end of the school day, while her students were in a special-area class, Respondent signed out of school and walked down the street, despite the fact that it was raining. The next day, Respondent left the school grounds without permission and, the following day, failed to attend a mandatory teachers' meeting. The situation deteriorated in mid-October 1999. From October 11-14, Respondent telephoned the school each day and reported that she was sick and in the hospital. The following Monday, October 18, Respondent reported to work. However, on October 19, Respondent failed to report to work or call, leaving her class sitting in the hallway. Respondent telephoned the school at mid-day and stated that she had been in a five-car accident. This accident did not take place. On October 20, while driving to school, Respondent was involved in a two-car accident, which resulted in her striking a fire hydrant not far from the school. The accident took place at about 8:45 a.m., which was about 15 minutes after Respondent assumed direct supervision of her students. Respondent arrived at school late, crying and disconcerted. An acquaintance transported Respondent home. The next morning, prior to the start of school, Respondent called the school and stated that she would not be at work. On the following morning, October 22, Respondent reported to work, and her principal ordered her to submit to a reasonable-suspicion drug test. Respondent complied, and the drug test revealed the presence of cocaine and morphine. The drug test accurately detected the presence of these substances because Respondent had used crack cocaine and heroin within the period for which the drug test is sensitive. By memorandum dated October 29, 1999, Respondent's principal asked Petitioner's OPS to monitor Respondent's return to work. By memorandum dated November 1, 1999, Petitioner's OPS informed Respondent that she would require a clearance from OPS before returning to work. On November 8, 1999, Respondent requested a leave of absence without pay to extend from October 22, 1999, through June 16, 2000. Petitioner granted this request. Shortly after starting her leave from work, Respondent was first seen by Dr. John Eustace. Dr. Eustace is Board-certified in internal medicine and is also certified in the treatment of addictions. He is the medical director of the Addiction Treatment Program at Mt. Sinai Medical Center. He is also an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Miami medical school. In the last ten years, Dr. Eustace has performed 2000 evaluations of professionals to assess whether they can return to practice with the requisite skill and safety. During his career, Dr. Eustace has diagnosed and treated over 10,000 patients for addictions. Dr. Eustace admitted Respondent as an in-patient at Mt. Sinai for, among other things, a four- or five-day detoxification program. He found that Respondent was in the late middle stage of addiction to heroin and cocaine and that her illness was active. When releasing Respondent from the detoxification program, Dr. Eustace recommended that Respondent enter a twelve- step program to better prepare Respondent for the difficult recovery process, which requires, among other things, gaining insight into the consequences of the addiction. Following the detoxification process, Dr. Eustace opined that Respondent had an even chance of avoiding another relapse. However, this prognosis improves with time. After the first five years without relapse, the relapse rate is only ten percent. Also, after a second treatment, the recovery rate is over 90 percent. Of the 2000 professionals whom Dr. Eustace has treated, over 90 percent have recovered. Unfortunately, Respondent relapsed after her 1999 detoxification and treatment by Dr. Eustace. Despite her return to active use of illegal drugs, Respondent chose to restart the process by which she could return to the classroom. Petitioner's OPS informed Respondent that she would need OPS clearance before returning to work. Reacting to Respondent's request for a clearance, OPS scheduled a CFR with Respondent and others to take place on July 28, 2000. At the July 28 CFR, Respondent signed an Employee Acknowledgement Form concerning Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy. The form states: "Before returning to duty, I must undergo a return-to-duty . . . controlled substances test with verified negative results." At the CFR, Respondent admitted that she had had a chemical dependency, but represented that she was now clean and sober. Apparently, Respondent did not anticipate that she would be required to take a drug test at the July 28 CFR. However, with the new school year imminent, it is difficult to understand exactly when Respondent thought she would be required to take the drug test. If she were going to teach the next school year, her principal needed more than a few days' notice. In any event, Respondent took the test on July 28, and the test revealed the presence of morphine, although not cocaine. By memorandum dated September 6, 2000, from Petitioner's OPS Director to Respondent, Petitioner advised Respondent that it was reviewing its options after receiving the results of the July 28 drug test. By letter dated October 6, 2000, to Respondent, Petitioner's Superintendent advised Respondent that Petitioner was suspending her and initiating dismissal proceedings due to just cause, including incompetency, misconduct in office, gross insubordination, excessive absences, and violation of Petitioner's Rules 6Gx13-4-105 (drug-free workplace) and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (responsibilities and duties). By letter dated October 12, 2000, and revised October 17, 2000, Petitioner's board took the action recommended by the Superintendent. The contract between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (Contract) provides in Article XXI, Section 1.B.1.a, that "[a]ny member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Article XXI, Section 2.G, sets forth the Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement. Section 2.G.b provides the policy statement on illegal drugs, Section 2.G.c provides the policy statement on alcohol and prescription drugs, and Section 2.G.d provides the policy statement on employee drug screening. Under employee drug screening, Section 2.G.d.5 states: [Petitioner] recognizes that chemical dependency is an illness that can be successfully treated. It is the policy of [Petitioner], where possible, to seek rehabilitation of employees with a self- admitted or detected drug problem. Disciplinary action may be instituted against employees who the Board believes will not be assisted by rehabilitation or who have negatively impacted students and/or staff. Employees who have previously been referred for assistance or employees unwilling or unable to rehabilitate may be subject to appropriate action, pursuant to Board Policy, applicable Florida Statutes, State Board Rules, and applicable provisions of collective bargaining agreements. Petitioner has invoked two of its rules in this case. Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which is a statement of "Responsibilities and Duties," requires, at Section 1, all employees "to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system." It is unnecessary to determine whether the Contract incorporates this rule, or whether Petitioner may otherwise rely on this rule to dismiss an instructional employee during the school year. Rule 6Gx13-4-1.05 (Rule), which is the "Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement," is a restatement of the Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement contained in the Contract. The prominent role of the Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement in the Contract, as well as its provision for the dismissal of employees, justifies Petitioner’s reliance upon a violation of the Rule as a basis for dismissing an instructional employee during the school year, notwithstanding the provision of the Contract otherwise requiring that all such dismissals be based on violations of Florida Statutes. In most respects, the Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement is the same in the Rule and the Contract. The Rule provides for "disciplinary sanctions" against employees who have violated the "standards of conduct" set forth within the Rule. Like the Contract, the Rule contains three "policy statements," which supply most of the operative provisions of the Rule. For illegal drugs, the policy statement, as set forth in the Rule, provides: "Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the following provisions: Employees on duty or on School Board property will not manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess or use illegal drugs, nor will they be under the influence of such drugs. Employees on or off duty will not influence students to use illegal or abuse legal drugs. An employee convicted, adjudicated guilty, or who has entered a plea of guilty for an criminal drug statute violation occurring in the workplace shall notify [Petitioner] within 48 hours after final judgment. Paragraphs A and C are limited to acts and conditions that take place while an employee is on Petitioner's property or on duty. Paragraph B is limited to acts of the employee directed toward students. The evidence does not suggest that Respondent violated any of these provisions of the Rule. Petitioner failed to serve that the incidents involving Respondent sleeping while in charge of students appear not to have been due to her cocaine or heroin intoxication; it is at least as likely that the sleeping resulted from fatigue following the use of one or both of these drugs the preceding night. The distinction between intoxicating levels of these drugs and nonintoxicating trace amounts is explicitly dismissed by the Rule's treatment of alcohol, as to which employees must be "free of measurable . . . concentrations." After the policy statements on illegal drugs and alcohol and prescription drugs, the Rule sets forth the policy statement on employee drug screening. Although this part of the Rule fails to provide explicitly that a positive drug screen is a violation of the Rule, the introductory paragraph of the Rule acknowledges that Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade are jointly committed "to create and maintain a drug-free work environment." Paragraph D within the drug-screening policy statement restates this purpose. Also, the disciplinary sanctions provided by the Rule clearly state that a refusal to submit to a drug test or a second violation of the Rule constitutes an inability to be assisted by rehabilitation; if a refusal to submit to a drug test is a violation, a failed drug test must also be a violation. These statements are therefore sufficient to provide that the presence in employees of even nonintoxicating amounts of illegal drugs, while on duty, constitute a violation of the Rule. In two respects, the Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement, as described in the Rule, is materially different from the Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement, as described in the Contract. First, the Rule adds another objective: To communicate that persons who violate the standards of conduct cited in this rule and who refuse or cannot be assisted by rehabilitation or who have negatively impacted students and/or staff shall be dismissed. Second, the Rule provides disciplinary sanctions for any violation--not just for violations of the drug-screening policy statement, as provided by the Contract--of the Drug-Free Workplace General Policy Statement. The Rule also adds two presumptive conditions for determining when an employee is unable to be assisted by rehabilitation. The Rule states: Employees who violate the standards of conduct cited it this rule and who the Board determines will not be assisted by rehabilitation or who have negatively impacted students and/or staff shall be dismissed. A refusal to submit to a drug test or a second violation of the Drug-Free Workplace Policy shall constitute an inability to be assisted by rehabilitation. . . . This case turns on whether Petitioner has proved that Respondent would not be assisted by rehabilitation because Petitioner has produced little detailed evidence of any negative impact upon Respondent's students. The record lacks detail of Respondent's specific teaching duties, the specific impact of her sleeping incidents or absences, and the academic achievements of her students during the periods in which these shortcomings took place. Notwithstanding the marked shortcomings in Respondent's performance as a teacher, Petitioner did not dismiss her until first giving her a chance to rehabilitate herself. The most likely inference is that Petitioner's administrative employees found that the situation did not satisfy the first criterion for dismissal--negatively impacting students. The basic issue, then, is whether Petitioner could reasonably have determined, from July to October 2000, that Respondent would not be assisted by rehabilitation. Petitioner could choose to show rehabilitation would be futile by relying on one of the two presumptions contained in the Rule. However, Respondent never refused to submit to a drug test, and difficult questions of her employment status in July 2000 obscure the determination as to whether her failure of the July 2000 drug test constitutes a second violation of the Rule. In this case, though, Petitioner may satisfy its standard of proof without regard to either of the presumptions in the Rule. After a display of considerable patience and good faith by Petitioner, Respondent, in July 2000, misrepresented to Petitioner that she was clean and sober and prematurely requested permission to return to teaching duties despite her knowledge that she was still abusing drugs and not ready to return to the classroom. These facts support the finding that, as of July or October 2000, Respondent would not be assisted by rehabilitation. This finding of the futility of rehabilitation, as of July or October 2000, is difficult due to the fact that subsequent events suggest that Respondent may finally be rehabilitating herself. After Petitioner dismissed her, Respondent underwent detoxification and then began treatment at St. Luke's Addiction Recovery Center, which is sponsored by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. She was in intensive residential treatment from November 6, 2000, through January 24, 2001. She later underwent nine urinalyses, through June 1, 2001--a day after the end of the hearing in this case-- and all of them were negative. Respondent is successfully participating in the St. Luke's aftercare program, where she takes weekly drug tests. She is proud of the fact that she has turned her life over to God and has achieved the longest period of sobriety that she has experienced in many years. After regaining sobriety, Respondent substituted for awhile and then found a job teaching a third-grade class at a private school in the Miami area. At the time of the hearing, Respondent had been so employed for six weeks, she had not been late or missed a day of school, and the school had invited her to teach again for the 2001-02 school year. Dr. Eustace opines that Respondent's prognosis is much improved from the prognosis of September 2000.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2001, 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 5th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Room 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Luis M. Garcia Attorney's Office School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Richard Baron Baron and Cliff 11077 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 307 Miami, Florida 33161 Honorable Charlie Crist Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondents, Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristides, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and 23- 8295, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. In March 1988, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), in conjunction with the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD), began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. Previously, Sergeant Tom Hunker and Detective Walter Campbell of the MBPD had made several drug arrests at the licensed premises, and had warned the owners to stop such activities on their premises or their licenses would be subject to revocation. On March 8, 1988, DABT Investigator Oscar Santana, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, he observed a male patron known as Junior sell what appeared to be rock cocaine to several persons both on and off the licensed premises. After observing the foregoing transactions, Investigator Santana approached Junior and asked him if he had any more to sell. In response, Junior handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks, for which Santana paid Junior $20. This transaction occurred in plan view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. 1/ On March 9, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering, Santana was approached by Junior who inquired as to whether he would be interested in purchasing some more cocaine. Santana responded affirmatively, and handed Junior $20. Junior then left the premises for a short time, and when he returned handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks. This transaction occurred at the counter, and in plain view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. After the foregoing transaction, Investigator Santana was approached by another patron known as Paul, who inquired whether he would be interested in buying some cocaine. Santana agreed to buy from Paul if he brought it to the licensed premises. Paul left the premises, returned shortly thereafter, and met Santana just outside the door. At that time, Santana paid Paul $30 in exchange for two crack cocaine rocks. During the course of this transaction, respondents' employees Ricky and Gonzalo were nearby. On March 10, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, Santana met with a patron known as Charlie, who offered to sell him some cocaine. Santana handed Charlie $20 and observed him leave the premises, walk across the street, and hand the money to another individual. Shortly thereafter, Charlie returned to the licensed premises and delivered the cocaine rocks to Santana. The exchange between Santana and Charlie took place in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employee Nene. On March 17, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Also on the premises that day were DABT Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, operating separately from Santana to provide backup for him. As he entered the premises, Santana seated himself with Junior and respondents' employee Ricky at a table by the front door. There, in front of Ricky, Santana purchased a cocaine rock from Junior for $20. Ricky, suspicious of Jenkins and Elkin, two female non-latins, warned Santana to be careful because the two females were police officers. On March 18, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, again operating separately from Santana, were also on the premises that day. Upon entering the premises, Santana was approached by a patron known as Reyna who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana responded yes, handed Reyna $25, and Reyna left the premises. After Reyna left the premises, Santana seated himself at the front table. When Reyna returned, she sat down at the table with him and delivered, above the table, two cocaine rocks. This transaction took place in front of respondents' employee Ricky, who again warned Santana to beware of the police officers (Investigators Jenkins and Elkin). Later that day, Santana gave Junior $20 to purchase cocaine for him. When Junior delivered the rock cocaine to Santana it was done in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. During the course of this visit to the premises, Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, also undercover, were seated separately from Santana. At some point they were joined by a male patron who later gave them two marijuana cigarettes. The investigators retired to the women's bathroom and burnt a marijuana cigarette to see what, if any, response it would bring. While one of respondents' employees entered the bathroom after they left, the aroma of marijuana brought no response. On March 21, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry, Santana, respondents' employee Gonzalo, and two black latin male patrons were the only persons present. These patrons approached Santana and inquired if he was interested in purchasing marijuana. Santana responded yes, and paid the men $20 for approximately one ounce of marijuana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of Gonzalo. On March 24, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit he met with Junior inside the bathroom, and purchased two cocaine rocks for $40. On March 25, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Santana was approached by Junior who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana handed Junior $40, and Junior left the premises to get the cocaine. Upon his return, Junior placed the cocaine rocks on the counter in front of Santana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. All of the events summarized in the proceeding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondents' employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that all of the employees knew that marijuana and cocaine were being sold on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent and flagrant basis. Neither respondents, who were on notice of such activities, nor any of their employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale of any controlled substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and alcoholic beverage license number 23-8295, series 2-COP, issued to Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristid d/b/a Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, for the premises located at 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was certified as a correctional officer, having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 276769. On or about July 3, 2008, Respondent was driving his vehicle on State Road 20 in Calhoun County. Trooper Philip Spaziante of the Florida Highway Patrol observed Respondent speeding and conducted a traffic stop of Respondent’s vehicle. After Respondent pulled to the side of the road and stopped, Trooper Spaziante explained to Respondent why he had stopped him. As he spoke to Respondent, he noticed that Respondent appeared to be exceptionally nervous. Respondent told Trooper Spaziante that he was on his way to Port St. Joe to spend the weekend at the beach. Trooper Spaziante then asked Respondent if he would consent to a search of his vehicle. Respondent consented to the search. Trooper Spaziante found a purple cloth “Crown Royal” bag in the driver’s side door of Respondent’s vehicle. Trooper Spaziante found a small quantity, less than 20 grams, of cannabis (marijuana) inside a Skoal (chewing tobacco) container which was inside the Crown Royal bag. Trooper Spaziante is trained in the recognition of the smell of burnt cannabis. During his nine years as a State Trooper, he has encountered cannabis many times, during traffic stops in particular. Based upon his experience, Trooper Spaziante was able to identify the substance in the Skoal can as cannabis. Trooper Spaziante then placed Respondent under arrest for possession of a controlled substance. After finding the marijuana, Trooper Spaziante contacted Deputy William Dalton of the Calhoun County Sheriff’s Office and requested that he come to the scene and assist. After Deputy Dalton arrived, the two officers continued the search of Respondent’s vehicle. Deputy Dalton is a police canine handler. Deputy Dalton is also trained in recognition of cannabis and cannabis paraphernalia. He is the handler for Gina, a K-9 dog certified in narcotics investigation by the American Canine Police Association. Deputy Dalton deployed Gina to conduct an exterior “sniff” of Respondent’s vehicle. Gina "alerted" as a result of her sniff of Respondent’s vehicle, indicating that narcotics were in the vehicle. Deputy Dalton then continued to search Respondent’s vehicle. The officers found a marijuana “blunt,” which is a cigar with some of the tobacco removed and replaced with marijuana. Trooper Spaziante observed some loose tobacco that appeared to have been removed from the cigar. The officers found a duffle bag in the back seat of the vehicle. The Respondent told the officers that the bag was his and that it contained clothing and personal items for his trip to Port St. Joe. Deputy Dalton took the duffle bag out of the vehicle where Gina “alerted” as a result of her sniff of Respondent’s duffle bag. Deputy Dalton then searched the duffle bag. Inside the duffle bag was a small smoking pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana. Deputy Dalton also observed marijuana residue in the bowl of the pipe. Respondent stated that he had forgotten that the pipe was in the duffle, and that it had been in there a long time. Respondent was arrested and charged with possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards Commission enter a final order revoking the corrections certificate of Respondent, Ben C. Cramer. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ben C. Cramer Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of misconduct involving the possession of cocaine. There is very little dispute regarding the facts in this case. The primary dispute concerns the determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alton J. Roberts, holds teaching certificate number 584629 issued by the Florida Department of Education. His certificate is in the area of Physical Education and is valid for the period 1991-1996. At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been, and continues to be, employed as a school teacher with the Dade County School System. He has been teaching in this capacity as a Physical Education teacher for approximately four years. On or about July 21, 1990, the Respondent and another adult male were in the process of driving from Miami to New York to return a van that belonged to the Respondent's brother. While the Respondent was sleeping and the other man was driving, law enforcement officers stopped the van for a traffic violation in the vicinity of Fort Pierce, Florida. As the van was coming to a stop, the driver woke the Respondent and told him that they were being stopped by law enforcement officers. When the van came to a stop, the driver got out first and went to speak to the officers. After the driver had gotten out of the car, the Respondent saw a small plastic container that he knew was the type of container customarily used for storing and sifting powdered cocaine. In an effort to conceal the container from the law enforcement officers, the Respondent picked up the container and put it in one of his back pockets. A few minutes later when the Respondent was asked to step out of the van, the law enforcement officers discovered the container in the Respondent's back pocket. Further examination of the container removed from the Respondent's back pocket revealed that it contained a small amount of white powder. The white powder was not weighed, but was perhaps as much as a gram in total weight. Described otherwise, the volume of the powder in the container removed from the Respondent's pocket was less than the volume of powder that would result from a crushed aspirin. The white powder was field tested and it tested positive for cocaine. As a result of the events described above, the Respondent was arrested and charged with felony possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. On February 25, 1991, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of cocaine and the other charge was dismissed. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years. The Respondent was also required to perform 150 hours of community service, to pay $725.00 in court costs and fines, to pay $50.00 per month toward the cost of his probation supervision, and to receive a substance abuse evaluation. The Respondent has complied with all of the court-ordered requirements. The Respondent does not use cocaine. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been involved in any way with cocaine or any other illegal drugs at any time before or after the incident on July 21, 1990. The Respondent's arrest and subsequent court proceedings did not receive any notoriety in the Dade County area. The Respondent reported the matter to the principal of the school where he is employed. The principal reported the matter to administrators of the Dade County School System. After review of the matter, the administrators of the Dade County School System allowed the Respondent to continue to be employed as a teacher. Between the date of his arrest and the date of the hearing, the Respondent has taught all of one school year and most of a second school year. No evidence was offered of any problems or irregularities in his teaching during that period, nor was any evidence offered of any lack of effectiveness as a teacher during that period.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a penalty consisting of the following: Issuance of a written reprimand from the Education Practices Commission to be placed both in the Respondent's certification file and in the Respondent's personnel file with the Dade County School System, and Placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of five years, the probation period to begin upon issuance of the Final Order and to include such terms as may appear necessary and appropriate to the Education Practices Commission to monitor the Respondent's performance as a teacher during the period of probation, including a provision for random drug testing of the Respondent at the request of the Education Practices Commission and at the expense of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Steve Martin, d/b/a The Hustler Bar, held alcoholic beverage license number 68-929, series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 5748 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges contained in the Notice To Show Cause and at the time of the final hearing. On November 10, 1984, Respondent received an official notice from the Division that charges would be filed against him for violations of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On January 11, 1985, Deputy Sheriff Bernie Vanderweert entered the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. He observed patrons engaged in playing pool for money in the presence of the bartender Jim Sealmayer. Deputy Vanderweert played pool with bartender Sealmayer for $1.00 to $2.00 a game. On January 17, 1985, Deputy Venderweert again observed patrons playing pool for money inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. The pool table was in view of the bar, where bartender Dory Korowold was on duty. Deputy Vanderweert played dice at the bar with bartender Dory for drinks. On January 18, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played the game of pool with various patrons for money. He additiogally gambled with bartender Jim Sealmayer on the pool table. On January 24, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed patrons playing pool for money inside The Hustler Bar and himself gambled on the pool table with patron Greg Sullivan. On January 29, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert gambled on the pool table with other patrons inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar while bartender Dory was on duty. On January 31, 1985, Beverage Investigator James Woodrow visited the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. He overheard licensee Steve Martin discuss wagering on games of pool with a patron named Leo. Martin and Leo agreed to play pool for $25.00 a game. Investigator Woodrow observed Martin and Leo playing pool, but did not actually see an exchange of money. On February 5, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed patrons gambling on games of pool inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar and himself wagered on a game of pool with patron Greg Sullivan. Dory Korswald was on duty behind the bar during this activity. Deputy Vanderweert observed the bartender Dory smoke a marijuana cigarette inside the premises with several patrons. Vanderweert approached Greg Sullivan and asked if he had a marijuana cigarette. When Greg responded that he did, Vanderweert purchased a marijuana cigarette from him while seated at the bar in the vicinity of bartender Dory and other patrons. On February 7, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert gambled on games of pool with patron Sullivan for $1.00 to $5.00 a game while on the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Deputy Vanderweert overheard licensee Steve Martin attempting to induce a patron to play the game of pool with him for $1,000.00 per game. When the patron would not play for that amount of money, Martin and the patron played games of pool for $5.00 to $10.00 a game. Vanderweert purchased marijuana from patron Greg Sullivan while they were seated at the bar. Respondent was present in the bar at the time of the transaction. On February 14, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played games of pool with patron Sullivan for $5.00 to $10.00 a game. Respondent Steve Martin was present during the gambling and was aware that gambling was taking place. Investigator Woodrow observed Sullivan produce a package of marijuana while he was standing at the bar. Sullivan asked the bartender Maggie and the officers if they had rolling papers but received negative replies. On February 19, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed Greg Sullivan obtain cigarette rolling papers from bartender Dory Korswald and smoke a marijuana cigarette with her while inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. While Vanderweert and Sullivan were seated at the bar in the presence of bartender Dory, Vanderweert purchased a plastic baggie of marijuana and a plastic baggie of cocaine from Sullivan. On February 21, 1985, Investigator Woodrow was approached by Sullivan inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar and asked if he would like to buy cocaine. Sullivan delivered a plastic package of cocaine to Woodrow while they were seated at the bar. Respondent Martin came into the bar during the negotiations and was seated three seats away at the time of the transaction and bartender Dory Korswald was on duty behind the the bar. On February 26, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played games of pool with patron Greg Sullivan for money. While Vanderweert was seated at the bar, he purchased a plastic package of suspected cocaine from patron Sullivan while bartender Dory Korswald was on duty behind the bar. But the Division never proved that the substance was cocaine. On February 28, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert engaged in playing pool for money on the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Vanderweert observed bartender Dory Korowald smoke a marijuana cigarette with patrons inside the premises. Investigator Woodrow observed Greg Sullivan produce a baggie of marijuana and roll a marijuana cigarette while he was seated at the bar. After Sullivan finished rolling his cigarette, Vanderweert purchased the remainder of the baggie of marijuana from him. Woodrow purchased a plastic package of cocaine from Sullivan while they were seated at the bar in the presence of bartender Dory Korawald. On March 5, 1985, Investigator Woodrow purchased from patron Greg Sullivan, inside the licensed premises of The suspected LSD. The transaction took place at the bar. However, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. On March 7, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert purchased from patron Sullivan, inside the licensed premises, what was described to him to be two hits of LSD. Again, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. On March 11, 1985, Investigator Woodrow purchased from patron Sullivan what was described to him to be two hits of LSD inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Respondent Martin was seated at the bar during the transaction. Again, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. Respondent Martin works at the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. every day, but is seldom there at night. He has never seen or possessed illegal drugs inside the bar. He is aware that patrons gamble on the pool tables and has done so himself. He stopped all gambling on the tables after charges were brought by the Division. Respondent cannot afford a manager and has only two full time employees, with one additional fill in. He does not require his employees to fill out an employment application and cannot remember if he checked his employees' prior employment records. He has no signs posted concerning drugs but does have posted a letter from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent was told by employees and customers that Greg Sullivan was involved in drug transactions and barred Sullivan from the premises. No evidence was presented as to what, if any, changes were made in Respondent's management of the premises after he received notice in November 1984 that drug transactions were alleged to have occurred on the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Alcoholic Beverage License Number 68-929, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Steve Martin, d/b/a The Hustler Bar. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Craig Soria, Esquire 766 Hudson Avenue Suite B Sarasota, Florida 33577 Lt. Tom Ewing 2665 Cleveland Avenue Ft. Myers, Florida 33482 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 Sough Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 85-3914 The following are specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The following proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary: 1-5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 19. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 6 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence was not proved. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 7 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the evidence was that other patrons, not Sullivan, were gambling with Vanderweert. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part subordinate. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 14, 16, 17 and 18 would have been included verbatim in the Findings Of Fact except that the evidence never proved the identity of the alleged substances. Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact.
The Issue The issues for consideration in this case are whether the Petitioner, Josephine Kimball, is entitled to an award of attorney fees from Respondent, Department of Health, as provided in Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003), and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Department, through its Bureau of Statewide Pharmaceutical Services (formerly the Bureau of Pharmacy Services), is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act, Chapter 499, Florida Statutes (1997), which includes the regulation of the manufacture, promotion, and distribution of prescription drugs. The Department initiated an Administrative Complaint in August 1993 (1993 Administrative Complaint) while in the middle of an investigation and after participating in a federal and state force of agencies that executed a search and seizure of the business establishment and of the home of James T. Kimball and his wife, Josephine Kimball, both of which were located in Wesley Chapel, Florida. The Kimballs' business establishment was located at 29949 State Road 54 West in Wesley Chapel, Florida ("business establishment" or "29949 State Road 54 West"). The search and seizure took place on May 12, 1993, pursuant to federal warrants. The 1993 Administrative Complaint was issued to Discovery Experimental and Development, Inc. ("DEDI"), located at 29949 State Road 54 West and related to that company's alleged sale of drugs that were not approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). After the 1993 Administrative Complaint was filed, the Department continued to investigate the activities of DEDI. Deborah Orr (Agent Orr) began working for the Department as a drug agent and investigator on or about 1993 and was assigned to investigate the underlying case until the case culminated. During the investigation, Agent Orr and other Department agents, investigators, and officials reviewed documents and other evidence seized during the search of the business establishment and the home of the Kimballs that tied both James and Josephine Kimball to several corporations that appeared to be connected to the manufacture and sale of certain unapproved drugs. Among the documents found and seized from the Kimballs' home, pursuant to the 1993 warrant and reviewed by Agent Orr, was the financial statement of James and Josephine Kimball dated April 14, 1992. According to that document, James and Josephine Kimball were 90-percent owners of DEDI, which "develops pharmaceuticals and chemicals for manufacturing" and had an assessed value of $1,000,000; James and Josephine Kimball were 90-percent owners of ASTAK, Inc. ("ASTAK"), a company that "manufactures custom order vitamins"; James T. Kimball was a 100-percent owner of Discovery Experimental and Development, Mexico N.A. (DEDI of Mexico), a company that "manufacture[s] pharmaceuticals" and ships to 12 countries; and James and Josephine Kimball were 83-percent owners of Discovery Tour Wholesalers, Inc. (Tours), which owned the real property located at 29949 State Road 54 West. The Department's investigation indicated that several companies controlled by the Kimballs had separate and distinct functions related to the unlawful drug enterprise. For example, it appeared that one company manufactured the unlawful drugs, another took and filled orders from customers for the unlawful drugs, and another put out promotional information and literature about the unlawful drugs. During the investigation, the Department determined that most of the corporations involved in the unlawful drug enterprise had common ownership and operated from 29949 State Road 54 West. The Department's investigation revealed that Josephine Kimball provided administrative and secretarial services, as well as "consultant services," for several corporations owned by her husband, James T. Kimball, and/or owned jointly by Mr. and Mrs. Kimball that were alleged and found to have been involved in unlawful drug activities. Prior to 1997, Agent Orr received and reviewed several checks written to Tours by companies operating out of the 29949 State Road 54 West location, specifically DEDI and ASTAK, both of which were involved in the manufacture and distribution of drugs that were not approved by the FDA. From a review of these checks, it appeared that Mrs. Kimball, in her individual capacity or in connection with her role at Tours, had signature authority on those corporate bank accounts because some of the checks written to Tours by DEDI and by ASTAK, on their respective bank accounts, were actually signed by Josephine Kimball. During the course of the Department's investigation, Agent Orr obtained and reviewed a letter and check which indicated that Josephine Kimball ordered and/or purchased self-inking signature stamps for "personal checks" for "R.R. Riot" and "R.C. Brown." The letter, which effectively placed the order for the self-inking signature stamps, was signed by Josephine Kimball, as the representative of "Discovery," and requested that the self-inking stamps be mailed to "Discovery, 29949 S.R. 54 West, Wesley Chapel, Florida." Moreover, the self-inking stamps were paid for by check on the account of DEDI and bore the facsimile signature of "R.C. Brown" and the hand- written signature of Josephine Kimball. The R.R. Riot and the R.C. Brown signature stamps were connected to DEDI of Mexico and B & B Freight Forwarding, Inc. (B & B Freight), respectively. According to documents reviewed by the Department, the "R.R. Riot" signature stamp was used to establish a bank account for DEDI of Mexico. A resolution, executed by James T. Kimball, as secretary of DEDI of Mexico, authorized the bank at which that company's account was established, to honor all checks or drafts or other orders of payment drawn on the DEDI of Mexico account that bore or purported to bear only the facsimile signature of R.R. Riot. The self-inking stamp for R.C. Brown was to include the facsimile signature of "R.C. Brown" and the following: B & B Freight Forwarding Pay to Order of Dis. Exp .& Dev. Inc. For Deposit Only Lloyd's Bank Acct. #12032151 During its investigation, the Department obtained bottles of liquid deprenyl from an individual in South Carolina who had ordered the product from Discovery of Mexico, c/o B & B Freight Forwarding" at 29949 State Road 54 West. Both DEDI of Mexico and B & B Freight, which were Respondents in the underlying proceedings and alleged to have manufactured, sold, or otherwise distributed drugs that were not approved by the FDA, in violation of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes (1997). In that proceeding, B & B Freight was determined to have violated the provisions of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes (1997), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Prior to issuance of the 1997 Administrative Complaint, Agent Orr wrote a report of her findings based on her multi-year investigation and sent them to her supervisor, who forwarded the report to Jerry Hill, R. Ph., Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Statewide Pharmaceutical Services. Mr. Hill reviewed Agent Orr's report and other information and evidence obtained during the investigation. He also talked to some of the Department agents and/or investigators who participated in the investigation at various times during the years the investigation was on-going. Based on his review of Agent Orr's report and related information and evidence, Mr. Hill believed there were several companies involved in promoting and/or advertising, manufacturing, and distributing prescription drugs that were not approved by the FDA. The specific unapproved drugs were selegiline citrate (deprenyl) and some silvicidal products, some of which had been found during inspections of the premises at 29949 State Road 54 West prior to issuance of the 1997 Administrative Complaint. After reviewing all of the information and documents provided to him, Mr. Hill believed that some of the companies were more involved in the illegal drug operation than others. However, he also believed that all of the principals had some involvement in the illegal activity. A review of the documentation, particularly certain checks, provided to Mr. Hill indicated that Josephine Kimball had full signature authority on the checking accounts of several of the corporations that the Department determined were involved in the illegal drug activity. Based on checks seized pursuant to the federal search warrants, Mr. Hill determined that checks from DEDI, written to Tours for consulting fees, were signed by Mrs. Kimball. There was also documentation that Mrs. Kimball signed checks from ASTAK that were written to Tours. Based on the information and evidence Mr. Hill had received, he believed that the corporations that were engaging in the illegal drug activities involved two principal natural persons, James and Josephine Kimball. Mr. Hill believed that he had sufficient evidence to tie Josephine Kimball and several of the companies, including DEDI, DEDI of Mexico, ASTAK, and Tours, together. Given the companies' common ownership, and Josephine Kimball's involvement in those companies, Mr. Hill was concerned that if the Department did not prosecute all the entities and individuals involved in the operation, the illegal activity would continue and the unapproved drugs would get into commerce. After careful consideration of all the information and evidence provided to him by Department investigators, agents, and other Department officials familiar with and involved in the investigation, Mr. Hill concluded that Josephine Kimball participated in the illegal drug enterprise and was, therefore, in violation of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes (1997). The Department expanded its administrative enforcement action in the underlying case by the Administrative Complaint dated June 24, 1997, based on its on-going investigation of illegal activities taking place at the 29949 State Road 54 West. Mr. Hill, on behalf of the Department, issued the 1997 Administrative Complaint, and that case was later assigned DOAH Case No. 97-3836. Pursuant to a Delegation of Authority dated February 19, 1997, Mr. Hill was authorized to initiate and pursue to conclusion any legal or administrative action authorized by Chapter 499, Florida Statutes (1997). In the underlying administrative proceeding, after taking and considering testimony and documentary evidence, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order finding that the Department failed to prove the allegations against Josephine Kimball by clear and convincing evidence and recommending that the charges against her be dismissed. However, the Recommended Order made no finding that the Department participated in the underlying proceeding against Petitioner for an improper purpose. With regard to the corporate Respondents in the underlying proceeding, the Recommended Order found that Discovery Distributing, Inc., DEDI, ASTAK, and B & B Freight, violated the provisions of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes (1997), as alleged in the underlying proceeding and recommended that those Respondents be fined a total of more than $3.5 million dollars for the violations. The Department adopted the Recommended Order in the underlying proceeding in its Final Order. In this proceeding, Petitioner asserted that the Department brought the underlying proceeding against her for "personal" reasons. In support of this assertion, Petitioner presented the testimony of one witness, Petitioner's adult daughter, Toni Kimball, who was also a Respondent in the underlying proceeding. Toni Kimball testified that at some point, Agent Orr and/or counsel for the Department told her that the Department took the underlying action against Josephine Kimball because of Mrs. Kimball's relationship with James T. Kimball and that the case was "no longer business," but was "personal." Ms. Kimball's testimony is not credible or persuasive and is, therefore, rejected. Clearly, at the time the Department initiated the underlying proceeding and participated in that proceeding, there was sufficient evidence of Josephine Kimball's connection and involvement with the companies engaged in the illegal drug activities to bring and pursue the administrative action against her. At the final hearing in the underlying proceeding, there was voluminous evidence that appeared to tie Petitioner to the corporate Respondents found to have engaged in the illegal drug activity with which they were charged and that implicated her in some of these activities. Josephine Kimball and Tours, a company she operated, was represented by Elliot Dunn, Esquire, in the underlying proceeding, including and through the final hearing. Mr. Dunn withdrew from the case prior to Petitioner's filing her Proposed Recommended Order. Mr. Dunn did not testify at this proceeding and no time records related to his representation of Josephine Kimball or any of the other Petitioners in the underlying proceeding were available for review, inspection, or consideration. Josephine Kimball did not pay Mr. Dunn for the legal services that he provided. Instead, he was paid by ASTAK, one of the nonprevailing parties in the underlying proceeding and, later, by Strictly Supplements. There was never a contract between Josephine Kimball and Mr. Dunn that defined the terms and conditions of Mr. Dunn's legal representation on behalf of Josephine Kimball. However, during the time Mr. Dunn represented Josephine Kimball, he was in-house counsel for ASTAK and/or DEDI, a job for which his annual salary was about $52,000. Petitioner's expert witness opined that a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney representing each of the Petitioners, including Josephine Kimball was $175 to $350. Petitioner's expert did not form an opinion as to the total number of hours reasonably spent by Mr. Dunn representing Josephine Kimball in the underlying proceeding. Rather, the expert testified that he utilized Rule Regulating Florida Bar 4-1.5, which deals with the reasonableness of fees. Based on the factors in that Rule, Petitioner's expert opined that reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Josephine Kimball in the defense of the underlying case are $50,000, assuming the hourly rate of $175. Rolando J. Santiago, Esquire, provided legal services to Josephine Kimball in the post-hearing phase of the underlying proceeding. Specifically, Mr. Santiago reviewed the case file and the record in the underlying case and prepared the Proposed Recommended Order and related pleadings for Josephine Kimball. Mr. Santiago's hourly rate is $175 and he spent 92 hours providing legal services to Josephine Kimball in the underlying proceeding. Therefore, Mr. Santiago's fee for the legal work he performed for Josephine Kimball is $16,100. In light of the findings and conclusions reached in this Recommended Order, no findings are made or necessary regarding issues related to the reasonableness of the attorney's fees, the quality of the evidence presented on that issue or any other issues related to attorney's fees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Josephine Kimball's Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, (Division), was the state agency responsible for regulation the wholesale and retail sales of alcoholic beverages in Florida. Respondent, Warehouse Liquors, III d/b/a Lake Avenue Liquors, held 3-PS liquor license 93-00582, for its retail liquor store located at 209 E. Lake Avenue in Tampa. The parties stipulated that the facts as alleged in paragraphs 1 - 18 of the Emergency Order of Suspension issued in this case on September 27, 1994, and Counts 1 through 11 of the Notice to Show Cause of even date are correct, and may be incorporated herein as Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer. They are as follows: On or about April 29, 1991, Tampa City Councilman, Perry Harvey, notified the licensee's President and sole officer, Michael Kwasin, Jr., by letter, of specific public nuisance problem associated with his operation of the licensed premises. Mr. Kwasin was also given a corrective action plan to follow which included working with the Tampa Police Department, (TPD), to remedy the problem. In addition, TPD Sergeant G. Kelly contacted the licensee, through Mr. Kwasin, by telephone on several occasions in an effort to have him address the public nuisance complaints from the police Citizens Advisory Committee, made up of community leaders and city officials, relative to the licensed premises. In addition, citizens who reside in the surrounding neighborhood have met with Mr. Kwasin to voice their complaints about the drug dealing and safety problems related to his operation. Notwithstanding the repeated notices of misconduct in and around his facility given to Mr. Kwasin, the records of TPD reflect numerous complaints, incident reports and arrests associated with the licensed premises. On or about April 16, 1994, Special Agents, (SA), Hamilton and Murray went to the licensed premises as a part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While at the premises, SA Murray observed patrons in the possession of "crack" cocaine. On or about May 19, 1994, SA Hamilton spoke with Mr. Kwasin regarding drug and loitering problems at the licensed premises. Nonetheless, TPD continued to receive complaints about the drug activity on the premises from citizens of the neighborhood. On or about June 2, 1994, SA's Hamilton, Zedell and Akins returned to the premises and while there, Zedell observed several male patrons, some of whom were conducting drug transactions, loitering in front of the licensed premises. Again, on or about July 21, 1994, SA's Maggio and Zedell returned to the licenses premises where Zedell observed patrons conducting drug transactions right in front. On or about August 25, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises and went inside where they met with the two female employees of the licensee and a male patron to arrange a purchase of marijuana. Zedell handed the male patron ten dollars and received, in exchange, a small plastic package of a substance which, when later analyzed, was determined to be marijuana. On or about August 26, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell again returned to the licensed premises where Zedell observed patrons conducting drug transactions out in front. After one transaction, a patron went inside. When the agents went inside, they met with an employee, Lori, who asked the previously mentioned male patron if he had any marijuana. Thereafter, McKenzie got change from Lori from which he gave the patron ten dollars in exchange for a small plastic package containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. On or about September 1, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell again returned to the licensed premises. While there they were approached by a male patron and solicited to buy marijuana. This patron thereafter directed McKenzie inside the premises to conduct the transaction because, he indicated, there were two police cars in the area. While inside, in front of employee, Lori, McKenzie gave the patron ten dollars for a small plastic bag of a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Again, on or about September 2, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises where they observed several male patrons loitering outside. Just outside the door, McKenzie met with one of the male patrons to whom he gave ten dollars in return for a small bag containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. On or about September 7, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell went back to the licensed premises where they were approached outside by a male patron regarding the sale of marijuana. McKenzie and the patron went inside where McKenzie handed him ten dollars in exchange for a small package containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. Later that same day, McKenzie and Zedell were again approached by the same patron regarding a sale of marijuana. McKenzie and the patron entered the premises where McKenzie again handed him ten dollars in exchange for a small plastic package containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. This transaction was witnessed without interference by a male employee of the establishment. Again, that same day, Zedell met for a third time with that patron and gave him ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. On September 9, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises where they were approached by another patron, different from all the previous patrons mentioned, who offered to sell them marijuana. They went with that patron inside the licensed premises where, in the presence of Respondent's employee, Jackie, McKenzie handed the patron ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. On September 12, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell again went to the licensed premises where they were approached by yet another patron, a female this time, who offered to sell them marijuana. Again, as with prior patrons, they went inside the licensed premises where, in the presence of and with the concurrence of Respondent's employee, Lori, McKenzie handed the patron ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance which was later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Two days later, on September 14, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell again went to the licensed premises where they were approached by several male patrons who were competing with one another to sell marijuana. All these patrons displayed small packages of purported marijuana and followed McKenzie into the licensed premises. Two of the patrons got into an argument about what was described as marijuana being openly displayed on the counter. Nonetheless, while inside the premises, McKenzie gave one of the patrons ten dollars in front of Jackie for which he received in return a small plastic bag containing a substance which was later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Respondent's President, Mr. Kwasin, on the other hand, while not denying the details of the reported drug transactions which reportedly took place on the premises, denied ever being advised by his employees, the police, or his neighbors, that the situation was as bad as reported. His employee, Jacqueline Hall, (Jackie), in testimony at the hearing, indicated there was no room for drugs in the store because Mr. Kwasin has made it clear he doesn't want them there. She indicated management has also tried to get rid of the pushers outside the store as well and has cooperated with the police in all efforts to clean up the area. In her opinion, the primary responsibility lies with the police. Ms. Hall noted that she and Mr. Kwasin have gone to neighborhood meetings and have tried to implement the suggestions give by the police and others in an effort to cut down drug activities. There are only two employees at the store, she and Lori, and she has heard from law enforcement and others in the area that Respondent's policies on drugs are effective. According to her, the police have indicated that Respondent is doing all that can be done, and his efforts are appreciated. Ms. Hall has lived in that area all her life and she knows who the drug dealers are. They have come onto the licensed premises, but when they try to sell drugs inside, she sends them out. She denies having ever seen Lori selling drugs on the premises. Her testimony is patently incredible. Nonetheless, some law enforcement officers feel Respondent is being cooperative and trying to solve the drug problem. According to TPD Officer Garrett, who has spoken with Respondent Kwasin about the problem on many occasions, there has never been an instance where Kwasin has not cooperated fully with him, and Kwasin has sought suggestions from him on how to curb the drug traffic in the area. Respondent's general manager, Ms. Kennedy, has worked with him for about eight years. Approximately three years ago, the company put out a policy seeing to operate a drug-free work place. All employees are given copies of this policy. Earlier this year, Respondent's worker's compensation carrier provided her with new information to use to promote a drug free environment, which called for mandatory drug testing of employees and signed affidavits of non-use required from each employee. These new procedures have not been implemented as yet, however. Ms. Kennedy knows that Mr. Kwasin goes to the licensed premises in question each day, seven days a week. She also sees him at the location where she works, at least four hours a day the six days a week she is there. They have frequently discussed, prior to their implementation, anti-drug policies and procedures which Mr. Kwasin has brought back with him from training sessions at the IBD conventions he attends. He recognizes it to be in his best interests to conform to a no-drug policy in his stores. Ms. Kennedy is available to all Respondent's employees 24 hours a day, either at work, or on call at home. All employees go through a training program on anti-drug activity, but the drug testing and the anti-drug affidavits have not yet been implemented. Mr. Kwasin believes his efforts to curb drug activity in and around Lake Avenue Liquors had brought the problem under control. When Sgt. Hamilton spoke with him in May, 1994, he added more external lights and found that within a week of installation, all bulbs were broken. He replaced them four times, finally installing another type of bulb which is not so easily broken. He has tried to work with the police and even suggested they send in an undercover agent to work in the store as a clerk. This was not done, however. He has tried to enlarge the peep hole through which in-store activity could be monitored, but this was resisted by his employees who felt it placed them in increased danger of bodily harm. Mr. Kwasin claims he tried every way he knew to reduce the drug activity in the area because he knew it was a liability. He has taken pictures of the drug activity going on in the area outside his facility and contends they show open and unfettered drug sales going on without any interference by police. He tried to solicit suggestions from the police but nothing he tried helped. He thought his presence at the store would reduce drug dealing and when he was present, it was usually quiet. All of this related to drug activity outside the store, however. Mr. Kwasin claims to have had no knowledge at all that any drug activity was going on inside the store. He was told by his employees that they were doing what the could do and that no problem existed. It was only recently he found that his two female employees were being flattered by the male patrons who then could do what they wanted on the premises. Respondent now has a plan for new employees which includes "responsible vendor training" on anti-drug policies and procedures at the company headquarters and at the store. He had thought his prior policy was enough since no liquor was sold over the bar. At Respondent's Gandy Boulevard store, where liquor is sold by the drink, he has implemented such training, and will implement it at Lake Avenue Liquors. He will also repair and place into operation a video monitor which has been installed but not working for the past year, and he will manage the licensed premises personally until he gets proper, qualified employees in place, and he will monitor the closely after that. In short, Mr. Kwasin contends there was a tremendous breakdown in communications between him and the police and his neighbors, but denies there is any reason to fear being in the area at night. He claims he has been there at night many times. He admits his previous written policies have not worked with the employees he had. He admits his video system didn't work, and he admits that neither Jackie nor Lori was checked out on anti-drug training or tested. Notwithstanding Mr. Kwasin's denials of knowledge that any problem regarding drug sales existed inside the premises, Senator James T. Hargrett, Jr., who has lived in the area of the licensed premises for many years and who passes it frequently, has received numerous complaints from residents about the area, and as a property owner, he has made considerable effort to insure his properties are in compliance with all requirements of the law. He has observed the area at all hours and has worked with the police regarding it. Senator Hargrett believes Respondent could have done more to thwart the drug trafficking in the area. If the Senator suspected drug activity inside the premises, he would have gotten rid of those who were engaged in illegal activity; he would have worked more closely with the police; and he would have worked to get rid of loiterers. Lake Avenue Liquors has a very poor reputation in the surrounding community. It is not responsive to the neighbors' concerns about illegal activity. This facility constitutes a definite problem compared with other businesses in the neighborhood and seems to suffer from owner neglect. In Hargrett's opinion, it is incumbent upon anyone in business to supervise and audit what goes on in his business establishment and to be aware of any illegal activity. This was not done here, he feels, and this absence of proper supervision has resulted in the creation of a nuisance in the community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license number 39-00583, series 3- PS, issued to Respondent, Warehouse Liquors III, Inc., d/b/a Lake Avenue Liquors, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 29. Not Proposed Findings of Fact but restatements of the testimony of witnesses. They are, however, accepted as accurate restatements of the testimony as they support the findings made herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No submittal by Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Michael Kwasin, Jr., pro se Lake Avenue Liquors 4023 Gandy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33611 John J. Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is Lillian Marie Reynolds, d/b/a Diamond Lil's, who currently operates under beverage license number 54-00573, Series 2-COP, at U.S. Highway #1, Lot #5, Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida. On August 7, 1986, the Monroe County Sheriff's Department and Petitioner began an undercover narcotics investigation entitled "Operation Sabre". As part of that investigation, two of Petitioner's beverage agents conducted surveillance of Respondent's licensed premises. On August 15, 1986, Petitioner's investigators, Deloach and Warner, entered this licensed premises. They met a patron known as "Ken" and discussed the purchase of marijuana. Subsequently, Ken sold Investigator Deloach approximately 3.4 grams of marijuana, in exchange for $10. This transaction occurred in plain view and took place in an open and notorious manner inside the licensed premises. On that same day Investigator Deloach was invited into the ladies' bathroom by two other patrons to use cocaine. He observed the patrons "snort" cocaine in the licensed premises. On August 16, 1986, Investigators Deloach and Warner reentered the licensed premises. Investigator Deloach was approached by the patron Ken regarding the sale of marijuana. During the conversation, Ken displayed a marijuana cigarette in plain view. Later in the evening, the investigators were approached by Steve Anderson, a member of the band that played at Diamond Lil's. Anderson discussed future sales of marijuana to the investigators. Anderson then sat on the floor just inside the front door of Diamond Lil's, rolled a marijuana cigarette, lit it, smoked it, and passed it to Investigator Deloach who simulated smoking it. On August 18, 1986, Investigators Deloach and Warner returned to the licensed premises. On this occasion, Respondent's son Kevin Blackburn was acting as the bartender/manager. The investigators were approached by Steve Anderson, who inquired whether they would be interested in purchasing some marijuana or cocaine. In response thereto, Investigator Deloach handed Anderson $10 for the purchase of some marijuana. However, Anderson later returned Investigator Deloach's money and stated that his supplier was not at home. On that same day the investigators approached Kevin Blackburn to inquire as to whether he could get them cocaine or marijuana. In response thereto, Blackburn stated that he had been on a "three day buzz" and that there were no drugs available at this time. The term "three day buzz" is a slang term which is generally understood to mean a narcotics-induced euphoria. Investigator Deloach also asked Blackburn to advise him when drugs became available. On August 19, 20 and 21, 1986, Investigators Deloach and Warner returned to the licensed premises. No actual drug purchases were made on these occasions; however, the investigators had loud conversations with Steve Anderson relative to the purchase of cocaine and marijuana. On August 22, 1986, Investigators Deloach and Warner returned to the licensed premises. On this occasion, the licensee and her son were sitting at the bar, facing the investigators, in the vicinity of a patron known as "Jackie Francesia". While at the bar, Investigator Deloach asked Jackie Francesia if he could purchase some cocaine. In response, Jackie Francesia sold Investigator Deloach one-half (1/2) gram of cocaine for $35. This transaction occurred in plain view and took place in an open and notorious manner, some fifteen feet from the licensee and her son. On August 25, 1986, Investigators Deloach and Warner returned to the licensed premises. Investigator Warner met with band member Steve Anderson to inquire as to the availability of marijuana. Anderson stated that he did not have any but that he would check in the bar for some. Anderson then left the immediate vicinity of Investigator Warner and approached Kevin Blackburn, who was tending bar. Investigator Warner observed Kevin Blackburn talking with Anderson and pointing out another patron, who was seated in the premises. Anderson went directly to that patron and spoke with the patron. Shortly thereafter, Anderson returned to Investigator Warner and told her that the cocaine was available but that his motorcycle was not running. Also on this date, the investigators observed three patrons standing just outside the main entrance of the licensed premises, smoking marijuana. On August 26, 1986, Investigators Deloach and Warner returned to the licensed premises. On this occasion, Kevin Blackburn was working behind the bar in a managerial capacity. The investigators met with Jackie Francesia to inquire as to the availability of cocaine. In response, Francesia handed Investigator Warner one-half gram of cocaine in exchange for $35. This transaction occurred in plain view and took place in an open and notorious manner in the licensed premises. After the cocaine delivery, Investigator Deloach approached Investigator Warner at the bar of the licensed premises and held out his wallet in full view of several patrons and Kevin Blackburn. Investigator Warner removed the cocaine from her pants pocket, held it up in plain view of Kevin Blackburn and placed it in Investigator Deloach's wallet. Subsequently, Investigator Deloach approached Kevin Blackburn and told him that he had just purchased cocaine from Jackie Francesia at the bar. In response thereto, Kevin Blackburn voiced his approval of the narcotics transaction occurring on the licensed premises. On August 28, 1986, Investigators Deloach and Warner returned to the licensed premises. Again, Kevin Blackburn was tending bar. The investigators approached Steve Anderson in the presence of Kevin Blackburn to inquire as to the availability of cocaine. Anderson stated that a patron known as "Miguel Vasguez" had some in his possession. Investigator Deloach then gave Anderson $40 for the purchase of cocaine. Anderson left the immediate vicinity of the investigators and returned shortly thereafter with one-half gram of cocaine. He then handed the cocaine to Investigator Deloach. This transaction occurred in plain view and took place in an open and notorious manner on the licensed premises. After taking delivery of the cocaine, Investigator Deloach again approached Kevin Blackburn and told him that he had just purchased cocaine in the licensed premises. Kevin Blackburn again acknowledged his approval of the narcotics transaction. In addition to being the licensee of record in the instant case, Lillian Marie Reynolds operates another premises which has an alcoholic beverage license and at which business she spent almost all of her time. Sometime prior to the commencement of "Operation Sabre", Reynolds turned over the management of Diamond Lil's to her son Kevin Blackburn. Although Reynolds was only present during one of the drug transactions described above, Blackburn was present during most of the others. Neither Reynolds nor Blackburn voiced any disapproval of the drug transactions taking place in Diamond Lil's. Furthermore, Reynolds admitted she had given no specific directions to her son regarding prohibiting drug use or transactions in the premises even though she had told the Sheriff prior to "Operation Sabre" that drug dealing might be taking place in Diamond Lil's.
Recommendation Based upon 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 within the Notice to Show Cause and assessing a civil penalty against Respondent in the amount of $5,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2095 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-14 and the first two sentences of finding numbered 15 have been adopted verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of finding numbered 15, however, has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 2, and 4-7 have been adopted in this Recommended Order either verbatim or in substance. The remainder of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact have been rejected as follows: 3 and 9 as being immaterial to the issues under consideration herein; 12 as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; and 8, 10, 11, and 13 as not being supported by the evidence herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 John P. Rotolo, Esquire 627 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, who holds a Florida teaching certificate, on the basis of allegations regarding the Respondent's purchase of crack cocaine.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Wayne Thurston, holds Florida teaching certificate number 479646, covering the area of physical education, which is valid through June 30, 1995. During the period from April 1991 to July 1991, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at James H. Bright Elementary School, in the Dade County School District. On April 5, 1991, Detective Laurick Ingram was working as an undercover police officer with the Metro-Dade Police Department, assigned to a tactical narcotics team detail. As part of his assignment, Detective Ingram was posing as a seller of cocaine in what is termed a "reverse sting" operation. It was an operation in which several undercover police officers posed as sellers of crack cocaine at premises which were previously know by the police to be the location of frequent drug sales. The reverse sting operation in question took place in the front yard of a house located at 2520 N.W. 159th Street, Miami, Florida. At approximately 8:00p.m. on the evening of April 5, 1991, the Respondent approached Detective Ingram at the location described above and asked the Detective for $20.00 worth of cocaine. Detective Ingram gave the Respondent two rocks of crack cocaine and in exchange the Respondent gave Detective Ingram $20.00. Detective Ingram did not conduct any tests on the substance sold to the Respondent to verify that it was, in fact, cocaine. However, it is the regular and consistent practice of the Metro-Dade Police Department, in conjunction with reverse sting operations, to use genuine cocaine. Detective Ingram then gave a signal to one of the other police officers and one of the other police officers then arrested the Respondent. The Respondent was processed and was subsequently charged by information in the Circuit Court for Dade County with one count of purchasing cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. On or about July 11, 1991, the Respondent was accepted into the Dade County Drug Treatment Pretrial Release Program. During the period from February 27, 1992, to May 7, 1992, the Respondent was subjected to urinalysis examinations on eighteen occasions and on each occasion the results were negative for use of drugs. Ms. Joanne Goberna Molina has been the principal of James H. Bright Elementary School since January 23, 1992. During the year that she has been the principal at that school, the Respondent's performance as a teacher has been acceptable. During that period the Respondent has not been tardy. The fact that the Respondent was arrested has received very little notoriety among the faculty, staff, students, or parents of the school where he works.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of a three year period of probation, which probation shall include the requirements that the Respondent: Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with quarterly reports of his performance, including, but not limited to, compliance with school rules and school district regulations and any disciplinary actions imposed upon the Respondent; Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with a true and accurate copy of each written performance evaluation prepared by his supervisor, within ten days of its issuance; Shall satisfactorily perform his assigned duties in a competent professional manner; Shall violate no law and shall fully comply with all district and school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006; and Participate fully and to its completion in a substance abuse program and submit to random drug testing as directed by his employer or the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-7063 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as constituting primarily argument about conflicting testimony, rather than specific proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 11: First sentence rejected as unnecessary procedural details. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Rejected as based on speculation or conjecture, rather than on reliable evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1: This paragraph is rejected because as stated it is nothing more than an unnecessary summary of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made to the effect that the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint have been proved.) Paragraphs 2 and 3: These paragraphs are rejected as constituting summaries of testimony, rather than statements of specific proposed findings of fact. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made consistent with the testimony summarized in these two paragraphs.) Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 5: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony, rather than a statement of a specific proposed fact. Also rejected for the reason that the exculpatory explanation offered by the Respondent has not been credited. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 7: The first line is rejected as not supported by persuasive, credible evidence. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12: Accepted in whole or in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Jackson, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
