Findings Of Fact Arthur Steinhardt, on September 27, 1972; July 5, 1973; and November 17, 1975 applied to take the examination given to applicants for registration as real estate salesman by the FREC. All of these applications were denied on grounds that applicant had failed to give complete answers to questions on the application and had failed to show that he met the statutory qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character. At the instant proceeding the FREC's attorney stipulated that the giving of incomplete answers on the application was no longer an issue and that the FREC had been fully apprised of the applicant's past record of conviction. Applicant, who is presently 59 years old, was convicted in 1969 of grand larceny and uttering a forgery, and sentenced to prison for a term of six months to three years. He was released after serving nineteen months and applied for a pardon on May 19, 1971. On June 15, 1972 he was granted a pardon and his civil rights were restored. Since his release from prison he has worked as office manager for his sister who is a licensed mortgage broker and real estate broker. Applicant filed for bankruptcy and was discharged by the referee in bankruptcy in 1973. For the past six years he has had no further brushes with the law. The conviction for which applicant was imprisoned involved a family dispute and the ownership of family assets is presently in litigation with applicant and his sister attempting to recover estate assets from a brother. One witness, a member of the Florida Bar, testified to the good character and business reputation of the Applicant. One affidavit of good character has been received as late-filed Exhibit 2.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and (c),2 by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7) for good moral character; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 139869 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department (the "Department"). On January 23, 1994, Deputy J. W. Strickland observed Respondent in a parked vehicle in a vacant lot in an area of town known to the deputy as an area of drugs and prostitution. A white female was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Deputy Strickland approached the vehicle and asked Respondent what he was doing in the area. Respondent identified himself as a correctional officer. Deputy Strickland recognized the female as Ms. Sherry Reinstzell. Ms. Reinstzell has a criminal history of prostitution. Deputy Strickland completed a field investigation report. Respondent and Ms. Reinstzell drove away. Deputy Strickland filed the field investigation report with the appropriate Department office. Sgt. Donald Retzer, Internal Affairs, received a copy of the field investigation report. He opened an internal affairs investigation concerning Respondent's conduct. Sgt. Retzer obtained a sworn statement from Respondent on January 28, 1994. Respondent stated under oath that he was just giving Ms. Reinstzell a ride to see a friend and did not know she was a prostitute. He denied any sexual activity with Ms. Reinstzell. Later in the same interview on January 28, 1994, Sgt. Retzer confronted Respondent with additional evidence previously gathered by Sgt. Retzer, including a sworn statement by Ms. Reinstzell. Respondent admitted that he picked Ms. Reinstzell up on Lane Avenue and negotiated a monetary arrangement for sex. Respondent then drove to an abandoned warehouse where Ms. Reinstzell performed fellatio on Respondent. Respondent paid Ms. Reinstzell $20 for the oral sex. He then drove her to a house where she used the $20 as part of the purchase price for illegal drugs with Respondent's knowledge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 943.1395(6), guilty of violating Section 943.1395(7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and suspending Respondent's certificate for two years, including the period, if any, that Respondent has been unemployed by the Department prior to the date of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1997.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Kenneth Hart (Hart), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hart. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hart had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hart and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hart filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hart denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hart on May 22, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana and cocaine. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Hart used marijuana on approximately three occasions and cocaine on approximately three occasions, that such use was sporadic and infrequent, and that such use occurred more than two years prior to the interview. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hart's background, that Hart possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his infrequent and sporadic use of marijuana over 5 years ago. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hart, born February 15, 1962, used marijuana and cocaine approximately three times over 5 years ago when he was 21-22 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Hart has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three years. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hart has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Kenneth Hart, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by Petitioner on November 3, 1978, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number24368. On or about July 28, 1992, Respondent became the subject of a criminal investigation by the City of Miami Beach Police Department. The criminal investigation involved an allegation of sexual assault at the Respondent's residence. The complaining witness alleged that Respondent sexually assaulted her and that during the course of the sexual assault Respondent used an artificial penis, which was an ice mold in the shape of a penis. The Respondent was read his constitutional rights by the City of Miami Beach Police officers who were conducting the investigation. At approximately 4:40 a.m. on July 29, 1992, the investigating officers began their interview of Respondent. During this interview, Respondent was questioned about the existence of the artificial penis. Respondent indicated that he had not seen an artificial penis in his house. The interview of the Respondent was concluded at approximately 5:15 a.m. on July 29, 1992. At approximately 5:30 a.m. on July 29, 1992, Respondent telephoned his son, Patrick Alzugaray, who was asleep at the residence they shared. Following this telephone call from his father, Patrick immediately got dressed, went to the kitchen of the residence, removed from the freezer section of the refrigerator the artificial penis, went outside the residence, and threw the artificial penis down a chute into a dumpster. This was the only object thrown away by Patrick. He then returned to the residence he shared with his father and went back to sleep. Shortly thereafter, police officers from the City of Miami Beach Police Department arrived at the residence. Patrick was taken to the police station and interviewed. During this interview, he said that his father had told him "you have to find that damn thing (the artificial penis) in the freezer and throw it away because its embarrassing if they come and find that in there." After being questioned, Patrick showed them where he had disposed of the artificial penis. The artificial penis was retrieved at 6:50 a.m. on July 29, 1992. Patrick initially said that he had disposed of the artificial penis at approximately 6:00 p.m. on July 28, 1992. When he was confronted with the fact that there was still ice inside the artificial penis, he admitted that he had just disposed of it. Patrick was returned to the police department where he was interviewed on tape. During this interview, Patrick said that he threw the artificial penis away because his father had told him to do so. The artificial penis matched the description given by the complaining witness and was a material piece of evidence in the investigation. At the formal hearing, Patrick recanted his story and claimed that he was intimidated by the investigating police officers into saying that his father had told him to dispose of the artificial penis. At the formal hearing, Patrick testified that his father only told him that he was being investigated and asked if he knew anything about an artificial penis. Patrick testified that he threw the artificial penis away without being asked to do so by his father. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent was interviewed as a suspect in a sexual assault case, that because of that interview he knew that the artificial penis was a material piece of evidence, and that he telephoned Patrick shortly after the interview. The evidence is also clear and convincing that because of that telephone conversation with his father, Patrick attempted to dispose of this material piece of evidence. Patrick's statements to the police officers at the time of this incident are more consistent with the other facts in this proceeding and are more credible than his testimony at the formal hearing. Consequently, it is found that Patrick attempted to dispose of the artificial penis because his father told him to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of facts and conclusions of law contained herein and revokes Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 6th day of May 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Peter Alzugaray 3075 Northwest 28th Street Miami, Florida 33142 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1983, Walter Taylor (Respondent) was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 66856. On December 23, 19851, Respondent was certified by Petitioner, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 66855. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Riviera Beach Police Department (Riviera Beach PD) as a law enforcement officer. In April 1994, Respondent and his wife were divorced. They had been married 14 years and had minor children. Prior to the divorce, Respondent had several confrontations with his wife regarding her relationship with another man, a Mr. Chilton, whom she had met in or around 1988. During one confrontation in April 1993, Respondent slapped his then wife. At times, Mr. Chilton was present when the confrontations took place. At no time prior to the divorce did Respondent harm or threaten to harm Mr. Chilton. Subsequent to the divorce, Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton continued their relationship. In August 1994, Respondent wanted to attend his family’s reunion in New York but had insufficient funds to take his children with him. Respondent’s ex-wife agreed to attend the reunion with them. With her financial support, everyone could attend the reunion. Respondent and his ex-wife agreed to a pre- arranged time for them to meet on August 11, 1994, and drive to the reunion together. On August 11, 1994, prior to the pre-arranged time, Respondent and his children were packed and ready to leave. Respondent attempted to contact his ex-wife, so they could depart early. He called several places but to no avail. Having failed to locate his ex-wife, Respondent concluded that she was at Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent called Mr. Chilton’s apartment several times only to get an answering machine. He drove to Mr. Chilton’s apartment. By this time, it was approximately 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Chilton’s apartment complex, he observed both Mr. Chilton’s and his ex-wife’s vehicles in the parking area. Respondent knocked on Mr. Chilton’s apartment door but received no response. Having knocked from two to five minutes, Respondent left but stopped nearby at a telephone. He repeatedly called Mr. Chilton’s apartment and again the answering machine answered. Respondent was convinced that his ex-wife was in Mr. Chilton’s apartment and that they were refusing to answer the telephone or the door. Respondent was upset and frustrated. Respondent returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment and began knocking again. The more he knocked, the more frustrated he became. His knocks became harder and louder until he was pounding the door. No one answered the door. Respondent’s ex-wife and Mr. Chilton were afraid to open the door. At all times, Mr. Chilton and the Respondent’s ex-wife were inside the apartment. The door was locked and the deadbolt was engaged. Becoming more and more frustrated, Respondent hit the apartment door two or three times with both hands, arms raised, palms forward and with the weight of his body behind him. The force applied by Respondent knocked down the door. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment beyond the door frame. He told his ex-wife to come outside with him and talk. She immediately complied. While exiting Mr. Chilton’s apartment, Respondent informed Mr. Chilton to bill him for the door. The door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment was damaged beyond repair and the area surrounding the door was severely damaged. The dead bolt area on the door was bulged. The area on the door jam in which the dead bolt slid had popped and come loose and was indented. The door handle was very loose. The trim on the doorway was split. On many occasions Respondent has been involved in law enforcement raids in which he, personally, has had to break down doors with his body. The method used by Respondent to break down the doors during the raids was not the same method used by him on August 11, 1994. Even though Respondent’s action forced open the door to Mr. Chilton’s apartment, he reacted out of frustration, not with the intent to force the door open. However, Respondent acted in reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions. He should not have returned to Mr. Chilton’s apartment but waited for his ex-wife until the prearranged time. Respondent’s actions could have escalated the situation into a more serious incident. He exhibited a reckless disregard for the safety and property of others. The incident was reported to the Martin County Sheriff’s Department. The Deputies on the scene took pictures and completed a report. Mr. Chilton did not want to file criminal charges against Respondent but only wanted his door repaired. The Deputies assisted Mr. Chilton in somewhat securing the door, so that it would at least close. Approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 12, 1994, Respondent telephoned Mr. Chilton. Respondent apologized for the damage to the door and agreed to pay for the damage. Subsequently, Respondent telephoned the apartment complex’s manager and agreed to pay for the damage to the door. The cost of the door was $352.99. A payment plan was arranged in which Respondent would pay for the damage in installments. Due to financial constraints, Respondent was unable to comply with the payment plan as agreed upon. The final payment was made on or about February 2, 1995. Respondent had no reason associated with his law enforcement duties to enter Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Respondent was off-duty and out-of uniform. Respondent entered Mr. Chilton’s apartment without permission or invitation. Respondent is responsible for the damage to the door of Mr. Chilton’s apartment. Prior to the incident on August 11, 1994, in or around June 1994, Respondent received training in Anger Management. On August 3, 1994, Respondent was promoted to Sergeant, on a probationary status, by the Riviera Beach PD. As a result of the incident on August 11, 1994, the Riviera Beach PD conducted a personnel investigation. On January 24, 1995, it issued a notice of intent to take disciplinary action against Respondent -– a demotion from a Sergeant to a Patrol Officer, which included a five percent cut in salary. The disciplinary action was taken by the Riviera Beach PD. On November 2, 1994, Petitioner’s Probable Cause Panel issued Respondent a Letter of Guidance for the act of committing battery (slapping) upon his then wife in April 1993. At the time of the issuance of the Letter of Guidance, Respondent had successfully completed the Probable Cause Intervention Program. The Probable Cause Panel was not aware of the pending disciplinary action against Respondent by the Riviera Beach PD involving the incident of August 11, 1994. Neither Respondent nor the Riviera Beach PD notified the Probable Cause Panel of the pending disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding Respondent; and Suspending Respondent’s certification for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s application for a real estate associates’ license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate sales associates and brokers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2009). Petitioner is a retired individual from Exxon. He worked as a research technologist for Exxon for 34 years. As such, he traveled extensively both in-state and out-of-state for the company. He retired in late 2008 and moved to Florida, shortly thereafter. He lives in Florida with his wife and two step-sons and worked for a brief time in a real estate sales office. During that experience he became interested in obtaining a real estate sales associates’ license and applied for licensure around March 2009. In 1998 or 1999, Petitioner lived in Louisiana where he resided with his daughter. On three separate occasions he either inappropriately touched his daughter in a sexual manner or she inappropriately touched him in a sexual manner. His daughter was about nine years old at the time of the three incidents. However, Petitioner’s actions were not reported to law enforcement until sometime in 2002. In October, 2002, Petitioner was charged with three counts of molestation of a juvenile and aggravated incest in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisana. On September 10, 2003, Petitioner plead guilty to three counts of molestation of a juvenile and was sentenced to five years of supervised probation with a variety of conditions. The evidence showed that supervised probation in Lousiana is similar to house arrest in Florida. During his supervision, Petitioner participated in and completed therapy with his daughter and ex-wife. According to Petitioner, he made amends to both his daughter and other members of her extended family. His daughter, who is now in college, regularly calls him on the phone, visits him in Florida and stays at his house. He testified that they have a close relationship and she has forgiven him. However, Petitioner’s daughter did not testify at the hearing. Indeed, Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay corroboration of his good character or his rehabilitation. Given this lack of evidence, the record is insufficient to establish that Petitioner now has good moral character or rehabilitated himself. Petitioner also testified that after his convictions, he returned to work at Exxon and frequently traveled with special travel permits from the Court and GPS tracking, both in- state and out-of-state, for the company. However, without more details from a credible source, these facts do not establish good moral character or rehabilitation. Petitioner completed his sentence in September 2008, and moved to Florida. He has not had any further criminal involvement with the law. Unfortunately, because of his record, he has had great difficulty finding employment. Petitioner worked as an assistant in a real estate office for about three months; his contact with the public was limited. His work in the real estate office precipitated Petitioner’s interest in becoming licensed. Petitioner testified that the agent he worked for was willing to hire him at his office. This agent did not testify at the hearing. Again, Petitioner’s testimony, by itself, is insufficient to establish good moral character. Additionally, there has been insufficient time between his release from supervision and the date of the hearing (approximately two years). Given these facts, Petitioner’s application should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner has been rehabilitated sufficient to show good moral character and denying Petitioner’s application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvah T. Wickboldt 1150 Fort Pickens Road, Unit F-1 Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Special Counsel Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commissions personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Marie Elie Davis (Davis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Davis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Davis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Davis and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly committed petty theft. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Davis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Davis denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Davis on April 25, 1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, and that she had been arrested in 1979 for shoplifting. Regarding her use of controlled substances, the proof demonstrates that Davis tried marijuana one or two times prior to 1980 and that she tried cocaine one time prior to 1980. Other than these isolated incidents she has not otherwise used controlled substances. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that in December 1979 Davis was arrested for shoplifting costume jewelry. She pled guilty to the offense of petit theft, and was fined $40. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Davis' background, that Davis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana and cocaine almost 9 years ago, and her conviction in 1979 of petit theft. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Davis, born September 12, 1958, used marijuana two times and cocaine one time, the last time being almost 9 years ago when she was approximately 21 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, is her arrest and conviction for petit theft almost 9 years ago current or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Davis has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost two and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Davis has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Marie Elie Davis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Alfonso Morales (Morales), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Morales. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Morales had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified Morales and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly carried a concealed firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Morales filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Morales denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Morales on December 18, 1985, at which time he divulged that, as to arrests, he had been arrested one time in 1980 for carrying a concealed weapon and that, as to drug usage, he had used marijuana one time "many, years ago." Regarding the use of marijuana, the proof demonstrated that Morales had used it but once, and that was in 1976, when he was 17 years old and attending high school. Regarding his arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the proof demonstrates that in August 1980, Morales was stopped while driving in the City of Miami Beach for a "routine traffic offenses (unsafe equipment)." Following the stop, Morales volunteered to the officers that he had a .25 caliber automatic pistol under the driver's seat which, upon discovery by the officers, resulted in his arrest. No charges were filed, however, as a consequence of that arrest, and Morales' arrest record was expunged and sealed by court order in August 1985. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Morales' background, that Morales possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing incidents. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Morales, born March 9, 1959, used marijuana one time, 13 years ago when he was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, can Morales' arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, considering what has occurred in his life since that time, be considered persuasive proof, if it ever was, of bad moral character. 4/ Morales graduated from high school in 1981, and entered the U.S. Army in 1982 where he served honorably for over three years. During his service he attained the rank of sergeant, enjoyed a top secret security clearance, garnered several commendations, and all drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the services, Morales was employed by the State of Florida, Job Services of Florida, until his employment by the County. To date, Morales has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Morales has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Alfonso Morales, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Leonard McMullen (McMullen), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of McMullen. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that McMullen had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified McMullen and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, McMullen filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, McMullen denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a preemployment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of McMullen on March 8, 1985, at which time he admitted limited use of marijuana some 9 years previously. Here, the proof demonstrates that McMullen's use of marijuana was indeed limited, probably numbering little more than twice, and that his use occurred during high school, when he was 17 or 18 years of age. Since that time, McMullen has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of McMullen's background, that McMullen possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana over 13 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, McMullen, born January 7, 1958, used marijuana approximately two times, the last time being over 13 years ago when he was 17 or 18 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Following his graduation from high school, McMullen joined the U.S. Army, where he served honorably for three years as a military policeman. He enjoyed a secret security clearance, and his periodic drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the service, McMullen was employed for a few months by Gulf Life Insurance Company, and then by Florida Power & Light Company until he was employed by the County. To date, McMullen has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years, and was recently promoted to the rank of corporal. His annual evaluations have been above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, McMullen has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Leonard McMullen, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On March 23, 1981, the Petitioner, Isidro R. Crucet, applied to the Respondent, Department of State, for licensure as a Class "D" (unarmed) and Class "G" (armed) security guard. The application for Class "D" and "G" licensure was denied on September 23, 1981, by the Director of the Division of Licensing pursuant to Section 493.306(2)(b)(1), 493.309(1)(e), 493.319(1)(a), (c), (g) and (p), Florida Statutes. On October 6, 1981, the Petitioner Crucet requested a hearing on the licensure denial. The basis for the Department's denial was the Petitioner's guilty plea on April 24, 1981, on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon following an information being filed against him in Dad County Circuit Court on April 5, 1981, which alleged violations of Section 790.01, Florida Statutes, carrying a concealed firearm, and Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. Following his guilty plea, the Petitioner Crucet was sentenced to eighteen months probation beginning April, 1981, and adjudication and sentence were withheld. At the final hearing, the Petitioner Crucet, through his interpreter, explained the events which led to his being charged and convicted of carrying a concealed firearm. Since early 1981, the Petitioner has been employed by Minutemen Security Patrol. In April, 1981, he was working the 6:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m. shift guarding a warehouse located at 3050 North River Drive in Miami. Adjacent to the warehouse area which he was guarding was a bar. A patron of the bar wanted to park his car in the warehouse area which the Petitioner was guarding since the bar parking area was full. When the Petitioner refused to allow the bar patron to park in the warehouse parking area, the patron became abusive and threatening. After the bar patron grabbed his neck and shoved him aside, the Petitioner went to his car and returned carrying a 33 caliber gun retrieved from the glove compartment which was lawfully purchased and for which he had received a temporary gun permit. When he reached the area where the bar patron had threatened him and the individual saw the gun, he left in his car. Although the gun was loaded, the Petitioner did not point the gun at anyone nor did he leave the area he was responsible for guarding. Approximately one hour after the incident the police arrived at the warehouse and asked the Petitioner if he had a gun. The Petitioner replied that he did and turned the gun over to the police. He was then arrested and booked on April 5, 1981. The Petitioner arrived in the United States from Cuba on May 1, 1980. He testified that while in Cuba he had worked on trains. He is presently working as an unarmed security guard for the same company which employed him when the incident in question occurred. Since the Petitioner arrived from Cuba, it is impossible at this time for the Respondent Department of State to ascertain from official records his criminal history in that country, if any. In this regard, the Petitioner is not unique and this is a situation that confronts all entrants from countries with whom the United States does not maintain formal or informal diplomatic relations. The Petitioner Crucet produced affidavits from individuals who were friends and neighbors in Cuba and who now reside in the United States. All of these individuals, who include an auto store clerk, a grocery store owner, a Community Service Agency owner and a supermarket owner, attest to his good moral character in Cuba and in the United States since his arrival in 1980. Additionally, the Petitioner's attorney, Jorge Fernandez, testified at the formal hearing that he knew the Petitioner, his family and his employer and would vouch for the good moral character and reputation of the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner informed the Hearing Officer at the close of the final hearing that one of the conditions of his probation prohibit him from receiving a license as an armed security guard without the permission of his probation officer. However, once the Petitioner's probationary period has ended, it is the intention of Mr. Fernandez to attempt to expunge the Petitioner's record and reapply for a license as an armed security guard. The Respondent Department of State offered no evidence to refute the Petitioner's account of the incident which resulted in his guilty plea for carrying a concealed weapon or the character affidavits filed following the close of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Petitioner Isidro R. Crucet for licensure as a Class "D" unarmed security guard be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jorge Luis Fernandez, Esquire 221 S.W. 22nd Avenue Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33135 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Room 106, R. A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone R. Stephen Nall, Esquire Secretary of State General Counsel The Capitol Department of State Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE ISIDRO R. CRUCET, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-2625S DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Respondent. /
