The Issue The issue presented is whether Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO or Petitioner) properly terminated Christopher Hamilton (Respondent) from his employment as a deputy sheriff for engaging in conduct prohibited in Chapter 89-404, Laws of Florida (the Civil Service Act), and Petitioner's General Order Section 3-1.3, Rule and Regulations 3.4(d) and 5.21, and General Order Section 3-1.4, Rule and Regulation 2.17.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for providing law enforcement and corrections in Pinellas County, Florida. At all times pertinent to these cases, Petitioner employed Respondent as a deputy sheriff. Respondent does not dispute that his conduct violated Petitioner’s rules and regulations. Respondent alleges that the penalty of termination is excessive, inconsistent with the progressive discipline policy, and, therefore, disparate. General Order 3-1.3, Rule and Regulation 3.4(d), relates to “Performance of Duty.” The cited provisions require that “All members will be efficient and effective in their assigned duties, performing them in a competent, proficient and capable manner.” For convenience, the cited provisions are referred to as Rule 3.4(d). The evidence shows that from March 2004 through August 8, 2008, Respondent demonstrated a pattern and practice of violating Rule 3.4(d). The individual violations are undisputed, and it is undisputed that the violations arose from Respondent’s inability to complete required reports, to do so in a timely manner, and to be punctual in attendance. It is also undisputed that the violations arose from events in Respondent’s personal life, which included a divorce and custody battle that precipitated a financial crisis for Respondent and the death of Respondent’s father. Finally, Respondent acknowledged during cross-examination that Petitioner attempted to “work with” Respondent during his personal crises. Petitioner first disciplined Respondent for violating Rule 3.4(d) in March 2004. In January 2005, Petitioner issued a formal reprimand for a second violation. Petitioner issued a second formal reprimand for the third violation in February 2005. In May 2007, Petitioner issued a third formal reprimand for a fourth violation of Rule 3.4(d). On December 6, 2007, Petitioner issued a written reprimand to Respondent for a fifth violation of Rule 3.4(d). On April 10, 2008, Petitioner found Respondent to be a Chronic Offender, as defined hereinafter, and suspended Respondent for seven days for violation of Rule 3.4(d). In June of 2008, Respondent again violated Rule 3.4(d) by failing to complete and submit reports within the required timeframe. Respondent violated Rule 3.4(d) on May 27, 2008, and again on June 24, 2008. Petitioner notified Respondent that he was required to attend a Vehicle Crash Review Board (VCRB) on May 27, 2008. However, Respondent failed to attend the VCRB. Petitioner re-scheduled the VCRB for June 24, 2008, and notified Respondent that he was required to attend that VCRB. Respondent failed to attend the VCRB on June 24, 2008. General Order 3-1.4, Rule and Regulation 2.17, relates to “Timeliness.” The cited provisions state that “Members shall not be late to work without valid reason or authorization,” The cited provisions are referred to for convenience as Rule 2.17. Respondent violated Rule 2.17 by being late to work on February 28 and March 8, 2008. Petitioner disciplined Respondent for both offenses in a single written reprimand. Respondent violated Rule 2.17 by being late to work again sometime between June 18 and July 2, 2008. On or about August 8, 2008, Respondent reported to work approximately 30 minutes late in violation of Rule 2.17, and this proceeding began. On September 11, 2008, Petitioner conducted an Administrative Review Board (ARB) meeting at which Respondent testified. The ARB concluded that Respondent had violated Rules 3.4(d) and 2.17 and found Respondent to be a Chronic Offender of both rules. General Order 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.21 (Rule 5.21), defines “Chronic Offender” as a member of the PCSO who violates the same rule or regulation three or more times within an 18-month period. Respondent is a Chronic Offender of Rules 3.4(d) and 2.17. Respondent violated each rule three or more times within an 18-month period. The progressive discipline policy treats Chronic Offender violations as a more severe “Level Five” violation. Petitioner has issued written guidelines that are followed during the disciplinary process and are contained within General Order 10-2. The goal of General Order 10-2 is to standardize the disciplinary process and make the process fair and consistent in application. Consistency is important to ensure fairness for the member being disciplined and for maintaining accountability throughout the agency. General Order 10-2 sets forth a procedure for assigning points for sustained violations based on their severity level. The points range from Level Five to Level One. Level Five violations result in the most serious discipline. The total of points to be assigned in these cases is determined by considering Respondent’s prior disciplinary record. Additional points are assigned for disciplinary violations within the recent past. Total disciplinary points are comprised of points for the current offense, plus carryover points for recent discipline against Respondent. The range of discipline that is appropriate in these cases is based upon the total number of disciplinary points accumulated. The highest or most severe discipline applies because Respondent accumulated more than 100 discipline points. Respondent’s point total in Case No. 08-4823 is 108.3 points. Authorized discipline ranges from a 15-day suspension to termination of employment. Respondent’s point total in Case No. 08-4824 is 116 points. Authorized discipline ranges from a 15-day suspension to termination of employment. Termination of employment is reasonable in this proceeding. Termination of employment does not impose disparate discipline on Respondent. From 2005 through the date of the final hearing, nine members of the PCSO have been disciplined within the same discipline range as Respondent. Petitioner terminated the employment of seven of those nine members of the PCSO. Four of Respondent’s exhibits are excerpts of the case files of other PCSO members charged with violating Rule 5.21 as was Respondent. In each case, the alleged violation of the Level Five Chronic Offender rule was based upon repeated violations of Level Three rules. Respondent’s Exhibits 2 and 3 each show a member who violated the Level 3 rule, pertaining to abuse of sick leave a sufficient number of times to be considered a Chronic Offender in violation of Rule 5.21. In both cases, it was the member’s first Chronic Offender violation. Authorized discipline ranged from a suspension to termination of employment. In each case, the member received the minimum length of suspension, which is the minimum discipline in General Order 10-2. This is comparable to and consistent with the seven-day suspension Petitioner imposed against Respondent for his first violation of the Chronic Offender rule. The remaining proposed comparator introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 relates to an agency member disciplined for being a Chronic Offender based on repeated violations of Rule 3.4(d). This was the member’s first violation as a Chronic Offender in Rule 5.21. Like Respondent’s seven-day suspension for his first offense as a Chronic Offender, the member in Respondent’s Exhibit 1 received a suspension corresponding to the bottom of the disciplinary range under the disciplinary policy. Prior to Respondent, no other agency member had been found to have violated the Chronic Offender rule a second time. However, Petitioner’s Exhibit 5 shows that subsequent to Respondent’s discipline, the member referenced by Respondent’s Exhibit 2 was disciplined for violating Rule 5.21 a second time. In similar fashion to Respondent, this member was disciplined as a Chronic Offender for the second time with respect to accumulated violations of the same Level Three rule as the first time he was found to be a Chronic Offender. Like Respondent, this member received the minimum suspension for the first violation of Rule 5.21 and was terminated for the second.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order terminating the employment of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Afienko, Esquire Kenneth J. Afienko, P.A. 560 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 James L. Bennett, County Attorney Office of County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
Findings Of Fact 1. On March 6, 1984, a person named Earl Cole, who is or was also known as Robert E. Cole entered pleas of nolo contendere in the Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm B3each County, Florida, to the following: Case No. Count(s) Crime 82-4836-CF A02 Check 1 Obtaining Property in Return for Worthless 82-7339-CF A02 Check 2 Obtaining Property in Return for Worthless 82-7745-CF A02 1 Uttering a Forgery
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint with leave to file an amended administrative complaint alleging post-licensure misconduct only, within twenty days of the order of dismissal. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire P. O. Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert Dempsey, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to a felony thereby triggering the statutory mandate that the Department of State revoke his Security Officer's license for a period set by statute?
Findings Of Fact Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, governs the private security, investigative and recovery industries. The industries were found by the Legislature when it passed Chapter 90-364, Laws of Florida, in 1990, to be "rapidly expanding fields that require regulation to ensure that the interests of the public will be adequately served and protected." Section 493.6100, Florida Statutes. Among the findings announced by the Legislature in the enactment of the chapter was that "persons who are not of good moral character engaged in the private security, investigative or recovery industries are a threat to the welfare of the public if placed in positions of trust." Id. Petitioner, the Department of State, (the "Department") is the agency of the State of Florida conferred with administrative authority under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Among its duties are the receipt of applications for Security Officer licenses and their processing (including a background investigation) ultimately culminating in either issuance of the license or denial of the application. After issuance of a license to a new licensee, the Department has authority based on certain grounds to take disciplinary action against the licensee ranging from a reprimand to revocation of the license. Respondent, Louis Palmieri, holds a Class "D" Security Officer License issued by the Department. Bearing the license number D91-04959, the current license has been effective since March 25, 1997. On or about April 7, 1994, in Duval County, Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of "lewd and lascivious act upon a child," in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, in Case No. 94-2507CF. An order of probation was rendered under which adjudication of guilt was withheld in favor of probation for five years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Neighbors and long-time friends of the family of Mr. Palmieri are aware that he entered the plea of nolo contendere to a felony. They are also aware of the nature of the felonious charges and his status as with regard to the criminal case as being "on probation." Still, they hold him in high regard. He is seen as reliable and a good worker. Those who occasionally drive him to work or have seen his workplace were quick to point out that there are no children present at the place where he is currently employed as a security officer. Mr. Palmieri has not shielded his neighbors from his misdeed. In fact, he has confided in them that the circumstances leading to his nolo plea involved exposing himself in public in the presence of a twelve-year old girl. Nonetheless, one of his neighbors, the grandmother of a five year-old girl who frequently cares for the child, stated that she would not hesitate to invite Mr. Palmieri over to her house for dinner in the presence of her granddaughter so long as Mr. Palmieri and the child were never left alone. Despite his neighbor's willingness to issue such an invitation, and to his credit, Mr. Palmieri informed his neighbor that he could not be in the child's presence consistent with the terms of his probation. Mr. Palmieri remains under the supervision of the Department of Corrections to this day. Absent a violation of probation, April 6, 1999, will be the last day of probationary supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, its is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State enter a final order revoking the Class "D" Security Officer License of Louis Palmieri, License No. D91-04959, and that he not be able to reapply for a license pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, until a period of three years has expired since his final release from supervision, whenever that may be. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Hearings Division of Administrative 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 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Cathleen B. Clarke, Esquire Melbourne Financial Centre, Suite 102 1990 West New Haven Avenue Melbourne, Florida 32904 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John M. Russi, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Third AOPA”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence admitted at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is the agency responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. Gregg Construction is a corporation engaged in business in the State of Florida. Gregg Construction has been operating as a business since November 9, 2007. William Gregg is the owner of Gregg Construction and its sole employee. The address of record for Gregg Construction is 166 Big White Oak Lane, Crawfordville, Florida 32327. On June 15, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Lewis Johnson, conducted a routine visit to a jobsite to conduct a compliance investigation. Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg use a table saw, measure, and cut a piece of wood. Mr. Johnson then observed Mr. Gregg nail the wood to the exterior wall of the home at the jobsite. After Mr. Johnson inquired about the work Mr. Gregg was performing, Mr. Gregg ultimately told Mr. Johnson that he was working as a subcontractor for Respondent. Based on Mr. Johnson’s observations, Mr. Gregg was performing construction-related work at the job site. Mr. Johnson then conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which revealed that Respondent did not have active workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg. Based on the results of his investigation, on May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson issued a SWO to Respondent for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson hand-served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations (“Records Request”) on Respondent. The Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of May 10, 2015, through May 11, 2017. While Respondent provided tax returns, it did not provide sufficient business records to the Department. Penalty Assessment To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, May 10, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. If the employer does not produce records sufficient to determine payroll for employees, the Department uses imputed payroll to assess the penalty as required by section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to calculate the penalty assessment for Respondent. Based upon Mr. Johnson’s observations at the jobsite on May 10, 2017, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) classification code 5645 to calculate the penalty. Classification code 5645 applies to work involving carpentry. Ms. Jackson applied the approved manual rates for classification 5645 for the work Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg perform. The application of the rates was utilized by the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027 to determine the penalty assessment. The manual rate applied in this case was $15.91 for the period of May 11, 2015, through December 31, 2017; and $16.92 for the period of January 1, 2016, through June 10, 2017. The statewide average weekly wage, effective January 1, 2017, was used to calculate the penalty assessment. Mr. Johnson discovered that Mr. Gregg previously held an exemption, which expired on April 26, 2013. Although Mr. Gregg currently has an exemption, his exemption was not in effect during the audit period. On June 6, 2017, the Department issued its first AOPA that ordered Respondent to pay a penalty of $46,087.72, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). On August 1, 2017, Petitioner issued the Second AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent, which reduced the penalty assessment to $14,752.62. After this matter was referred to the Division, on January 23, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment and issued the Third AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent. Based on the Department’s calculation, the record demonstrates that the penalty assessment, based on records provided by Respondent, would be $9,785.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding the following: that Respondent failed to secure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg; and that Respondent shall pay a penalty of $9,785.50.1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 23rd day of March, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Lamar S. Green's, conduct evidenced lack of "good moral character" as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent was certified by Petitioner on November 18, 1998. He holds law enforcement Certificate No. 197843. At the times relevant to the allegations of impropriety in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a bailiff with the Polk County Sheriff's Office. On October 15, 2006, Deputy Jeff Blair of the Polk County Sheriff's Office responded to a residence in Lakeland regarding a child custody dispute. Upon arrival at the residence, Deputy Blair met with Tracy Fields. Ms. Fields wanted Deputy Blair to get her children back from her ex-husband, Mr. Fields. Based on the initial information he obtained, Deputy Blair told Ms. Fields that in the absence of a court order, he was not authorized to intervene in the matter. (Apparently, it was later determined that a restraining order as a result of domestic violence had been issued against Mr. Fields. It appeared that the restraining order had been issued prior to October 15, 2006. It is also similarly unclear as to whether the restraining order awarded custodial responsibility and visitation and would have provided the "court order" Deputy Blair required.) Subsequently, Respondent, Ms. Fields' boyfriend, arrived on the scene. Deputy Blair did not know Respondent and Respondent was not in uniform. Deputy Blair repeated his statement to Respondent and Ms. Fields that in the absence of a court order, he was not authorized to intervene in the matter. Respondent reacted angrily to Deputy Blair, became confrontational, and questioned Deputy Blair as to his time in service as a law enforcement officer by telling him that given his identification number, he had not been a deputy very long. Respondent subsequently apologized to Deputy Blair and identified himself as a deputy sheriff, serving as a bailiff. While Deputy Blair was discussing the matter with Ms. Fields and Respondent, Deputy Blair received a report that a "911" call had been made reporting Ms. Fields at Mr. Fields' house, which was obviously untrue since she was with him. In addition, Mr. Fields agreed to meet Deputy Blair and his watch commander at a gas station to return the Fields' children. He failed to meet them. Neither of these incidents resulted in an incident report; however, Deputy Blair was directed to author an Incident Report regarding Respondent's conduct. In June 2006, Respondent was re-assigned from his post as a court bailiff to the court holding section based on a memorandum from a judge to Respondent's supervisor regarding Respondent's work performance. The stated reason for Respondent's reassignment was his reported absenteeism from his courtroom duties. Respondent was told this by his Captain, and he acknowledged that he understood. Respondent explained to his Captain that he had been having difficulties with his bowels that made it necessary to be absent from the courtroom from time to time. On September 15, 2006, Respondent testified as a witness before Polk County Circuit Court Judge Carpanini in a domestic violence injunction hearing in Fields v. Fields, Polk County Circuit Court Case No. 2006DR-6613. During direct examination, Respondent was questioned about his removal from his job assignment as a bailiff with the Polk County Sheriff's Office. The following is the relevant portion of the testimony: T. Fields: Has there been any other type of harassment that you feel Mr. Fields has employed upon you? Respondent: He's contacted the Polk County Sheriff's Office and filed a complaint with the internal affairs against me, which is not true. I have documentation and we'll have testimony from the deputy that was at the Kroger's Dance Studio that what he alleges in the complaint is not factual, also he alleged a, tried to put an injunction of protection against me, stating I threatened his secretary that I didn't (inaudible) him. It was denied. He then entered a voluntary dismissal up of [sic] that injunction, but there still is an investigation at the sheriff's office that's going to be followed up on where he filed a bogus complaint against me there. T. Fields: And because of this harassment Mr. Green, you've had to hire an attorney haven't you? Respondent: That's correct. T. Fields: And you've been removed from your current position as a bailiff here at the courthouse? Respondent: That's correct. T. Fields: And was that on or before- Judge Carpanini: Mrs. Fields is this; this case doesn't involve Mr. Green. It involves you so please move on. During cross-examination, Respondent was questioned further about his removal from his job assignment as a bailiff with the Polk County Sheriff's Office. The following is the relevant portion of that testimony: ML: You know, you mentioned with Mrs. Fields earlier that you've been removed from your job, your current job here at the courthouse because of Mr. Fields. Respondent: Believe so. That investigation isn't complete. Respondent's testimony set forth hereinabove is ancillary to the matter at issue before the Circuit Court and not dispositive of any issue in the domestic violence case involving Mr. and Mrs. Fields, and, as pointed out by the presiding Circuit Court Judge, this testimony is not germane to the issue being considered by the Court. In addition, it clearly expresses Respondent's opinion or belief on why his job was changed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Lamar S. Green, be found not guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes; and that no disciplinary action be taken against Respondent's law enforcement certification. This matter should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 22nd day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner violated Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1(002), 3-1.3(066), and 3-1.3(067), and, if so, whether Petitioner should be terminated from his position with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office.
Findings Of Fact Based on a review of the case file, the Transcript of the final hearing, and the exhibits entered into evidence, the following Findings of Fact are found. On July 13, 2001, Dominguez was assigned to foot patrol at the K-Mart store in South Pasadena, Florida, as a community police officer. At that time he had been employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for approximately sixteen and one-half years. On the evening of July 13, 2001, Dominguez was standing outside K-Mart talking to an employee of K-Mart, Renee Herrington (Herrington). While talking to Herrington, Dominguez observed a white van and a black sport utility vehicle (SUV) parked in front of K-Mart next to a yellow curb. The area in which the vehicles were parked was marked by a faded “no Dominguez observed the vehicles for a time and when no one moved the vehicles, he decided to cite both vehicles for parking violations. He issued a citation to the white van and then proceeded to the black SUV. The SUV had been parked in front of K-Mart by Maryellen Ruvolo (Ruvolo) while she and her niece went into K-Mart to make a purchase. Ruvolo left the vehicle running, and her sister and two nephews remained in the vehicle. Dominguez went to the rear of the SUV and began writing the ticket. Ruvolo’s sister, Eugenia Quinn (Quinn), got out of the SUV and asked Dominguez to not issue the ticket and allow her to move the vehicle. Dominguez refused her requests and gave the ticket to Quinn. Dominguez started walking in the direction of Herrington, who was sitting on a bench approximately 30 yards away from the vehicles. When Ruvolo returned to the vehicle, Quinn gave her the ticket and told her that Dominguez would not let her move the SUV. Ruvolo turned in the direction of Dominguez and shouted, “Have a nice day, you fucking fat bastard.” Dominguez turned around and went back to where Ruvolo was standing. He wanted to confront her about her comment. Ruvulo started to yell after Dominguez went up to her. He arrested her, handcuffed her, and put her in his patrol car. The charge was disorderly conduct. During the confrontation between Dominguez and Ruvolo, none of the members of the public became involved in the dispute and Ruvolo did not incite any members of the public to participate in the dispute. She never physically or verbally threatened Dominguez. Ruvolo’s actions did not invade the right of others to pursue their lawful activities. Herrington went back inside K-Mart and other members of the public were not disrupted in their entering and leaving K-Mart. Quinn asked Dominquez why he was arresting her sister and he told her that he did not get paid enough to put up with what Ruvolo had said. While he was arresting Ruvolo, Dominguez had requested assistance from another deputy sheriff, Kelvin Franklin. When Deputy Franklin arrived on the scene the confrontation was over. Dominguez asked Franklin to go inside K-Mart and get the address of Herrington, who had witnessed the incident. Dominguez did not request Franklin to take a statement from Herrington. On the way to the jail, Ruvolo apologized to Dominguez, and he told her to shut up. Prior to reaching the jail, Ruvolo stopped for a few minutes in a parking lot and met with his supervisor to get some in-service papers. When they reached the jail, Dominguez was advised that there were six persons to be processed ahead of Ruvolo. Dominguez got out of the patrol car and turned off the ignition. He did some paperwork on the trunk of his patrol car while waiting. He left Ruvolo in the patrol car without air conditioning and the windows rolled up for approximately six or seven minutes. He returned to the vehicle and turned on the ignition and waited to be called to take Ruvolo inside the jailhouse. They waited approximately 20 minutes from the time they got to the jail until they entered it. Ruvolo spent approximately five hours in jail and was required to post bail before she could be released. After arresting Ruvolo, Dominguez prepared his incident/offense report and complaint/arrest affidavit. Dominguez admitted during his testimony that neither the arrest report nor the arrest affidavit set forth facts to establish the elements for the offense of disorderly conduct, the crime for which he arrested Ruvolo. Dominguez told the Administrative Review Board (ARB) that he felt that Herrington’s peace had been disturbed. Dominguez did not talk with Herrington between the time he heard Ruvolo make her remarks to him and the time he arrested Ruvolo. When asked why he had not included any statements from Herrington in his report, he replied, “Laziness.” During the ARB hearing, Dominguez stated that he had no excuse for not completing a thorough report and detailing the elements of the crime. He acknowledged the position that he placed the Sheriff's Office in when he did not do a complete and thorough report. Ruvolo and Quinn made complaints to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office about Dominguez’s actions. The complaints alleged that Dominguez was rude, intimidating, and unprofessional in his behavior during the July 13, 2001, incident. Ruvolo also alleged her arrest to be false. As a result of the complaints, Sergeant Tim Pelella (Pelella) of the Administrative Investigations Division of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office conducted preliminary interviews of Ruvolo and Quinn. During the course of the interview, Ruvolo recognized that she would have to pursue her false arrest claim through the courts. Pellella referred the matter to the commander of the road patrol division for investigation of the non-arrest components of the complaints. The complaints were referred to Sergeant Jay Morey (Morey), Dominguez’s immediate supervisor. Sergeant Morey talked to Dominguez and Herrington, but did not talk to either Ruvolo or Quinn. Morey concluded that he would not sustain the complaint, but his conclusion was never finalized or reduced to writing. The arrest for disorderly conduct was referred to the State Attorney’s Office for prosecution. The arrest report and arrest affidavit were reviewed by Assistant State Attorney Lydia Wardell, who concluded that neither the report nor the affidavit set forth sufficient facts to prosecute the case. As a result, a No Information was filed by the State Attorney’s Office disposing of the charges against Ruvolo, stating: “The facts and circumstances revealed do not warrant prosecution at this time.” As a result of the decision not to prosecute, the Administrative Investigation Division of the Sheriff’s Office retrieved the complaints from Morey and began its investigation of the false arrest complaint. It is the policy of the Sheriff’s Office not to investigate allegations of false arrest until such time as the State Attorney’s Office makes a decision on whether to prosecute. Dominguez was notified that an investigation was being initiated. Dominguez gave a sworn statement to the investigators assigned to the case. Ruvolo and other witnesses also gave sworn statements. After the investigation was completed, Dominguez was given an ARB hearing. In accord with General Order 10-2 of the Sheriff’s Office, at least one member of Dominguez’s chain of command sat on his ARB hearing. Prior to the hearing, the ARB members are given a copy of the investigation conducted by the Administrative Investigation Division. At the hearing Dominguez was permitted to offer a statement, to respond to questions, and to present additional evidence. The ARB made the following determination: On July 13, 2001, Manuel Dominguez, #52303, while on duty in Pinellas County, Florida; did violate the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Act Laws of Florida, 89-404 as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4, by violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five Violation), 002, relating to Loyalty, to wit: Members shall maintain their loyalty to the Sheriff's Office and it's [sic] members as is consistent with law and professional ethics as established in General Order 3-2. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you failed to abide by the PCSO Code of Ethics, to wit: You acted officiously or permitted personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence your decisions while in the performance of duty as a deputy sheriff. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 066, relating to Performance of Duty, to wit: All members will be efficient in their assigned duties. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you failed to accurately document an incident that resulted in the arrest of a citizen of this county. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 067, relating to Performance of Duty, to wit: All members will be effective in their assigned duties. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you effected an arrest which the State Attorney's Office could not prosecute because you were ineffective in your assigned duties. The violations resulted in a cumulative point total of 75 points. A Level Five violation is given a point value of 50 points. A Level Three violation is given a point value of 15 points. The ARB assigned a total of 25 points for the two Level Three violations and 50 points for the Level 5 violation. There were no previous discipline points added. The discipline range for 75 points is from a ten-day suspension to termination. The ARB recommended the maximum penalty of termination. General Order 10-2 of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office deals with disciplinary procedures. It provides that the termination procedure to be followed is the same as that of a member who is suspended without pay with certain additional procedures. Only the sheriff has the authority to terminate a member of the Sheriff’s Office. A member can only be terminated “subsequent to an Administrative Investigation Division investigation supported by findings and disciplinary action recommended by a Administrative Review Board, and at the instruction of the Sheriff” that the member be terminated. At the time that the ARB made its recommendation that Dominguez be terminated, Rice, the Pinellas County Sheriff, was out of the state. He had discussed Dominguez’s disciplinary case with Chief Deputy Coats (Coats) prior to leaving the state. Rice had specifically authorized Coats to impose discipline, including termination, upon Dominguez that was consistent with the ARB’s recommendations. Coats advised Rice of the findings and recommendations of the ARB. Rice told Coats that he had no problem with terminating Dominguez. Coats signed the inter- office memoranda for Rice, advising Dominquez of the findings and recommendations of the ARB and advising of the decision to terminate Dominguez from employment with the Sheriff's Office. Coats was instructed by Rice to terminate Dominguez. In his deposition, Rice stated that Dominguez should have been terminated and that it was his decision to approve Dominguez's termination. Dominguez did not know the elements of the offense of disorderly conduct when he arrested Ruvolo. He felt that he could arrest her for her inappropriate comments to him. At the final hearing, Dominguez admitted that based on his long career in law enforcement that he should have known what constituted disorderly conduct. Dominguez was insulted by Ruvolo's name-calling and felt that her words were a challenge to the uniform of a deputy sheriff. Dominguez allowed his personal feelings to influence his decision to arrest Ruvolo.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a Final Order finding Manuel R. Dominguez guilty of violating the Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as set forth in September 27, 2001, inter-office memorandum and upholding the termination of Manuel R. Dominguez from his employment as a deputy sheriff with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
