The Issue An Administrative Complaint dated May 20, 1998, alleges that Respondent James Collins, violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, when he falsely stated on an application for licensure that he had never pled guilty to, nor was convicted of a crime. The issue for disposition is whether that violation (obtaining a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment) occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact James Collins has been an active real estate salesperson in Florida since July 28, 1994, having been issued license No. 0614229. On his application for licensure dated January 22, 1994, Mr. Collins answered "no" to this question no. 9: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. In addition, he executed this affidavit statement on the application form: . . . The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. The response by Mr. Collins to question no. 9 failed to disclose that on September 18, 1978, he pled guilty to possession of not more than 5 grams of cannabis, a misdemeanor. His plea was in writing and he did not attend court. On September 21, 1978, he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $495, plus costs totaling $37.75. His attorney paid the fine. The plea was the outcome of Mr. Collins' arrest for possession of controlled substance, Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, on April 21, 1978, at the Orlando International Airport. He was 28 years old at the time of arrest and 29 years old upon sentencing. At hearing, Mr. Collins' explanation of his arrest was that he and some friends were at the airport getting ready to fly to Ft. Lauderdale. The security check lady found a "little bit of marijuana," "less than a tenth of a gram of marijuana," in his carry-on bag. He was arrested and put in a holding room at the airport and did not make the flight to Ft. Lauderdale. He also explained that he was on crutches after having broken his hip playing racquetball and was taking pain medication. Mr. Collins further explained that he contacted an attorney, James Russ, a friend of the family, who wanted $10,000 to "make it go away." Mr. Collins did not have that money so he contacted another attorney, Richard Rhodes, who advised him to plead guilty. According to Mr. Collins, he remembered none of this incident until confronted by the Division of Real Estate. Then, in 1997, at the invitation of a Division staff person, Ms. Atkinson, Mr. Collins wrote a letter explaining the circumstances. His letter, dated December 16, 1997, tells a somewhat different story from that given at the hearing: . . . I was charged with possession of 1/10 of a gram of cannabis that was on the ground beside me and about 1000 other people, O.I.A. [illegible]. My attorney, James M. Russ told me just to plead guilty to possession of less than 5 grams of cannabis. It would be a lot cheaper than going to court. He told me to just forget about this and go on with your life and that is exactly what I have done. I paid a fine-no probation. I never even went to court. The only person I saw was James Russ and that is exactly what I've done until your letter came. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4.) . . . Except for the amount of marijuana, the police report was more consistent with Mr. Collins' letter than with his account at the hearing. That is, according to the apprehending officer, Mr. Collins fled a search of his shoe, ran to the airport main entrance and starting shaking a bag of marijuana on the sidewalk, where he was apprehended. A letter from attorney Richard Rhodes and the written plea document confirm that it was Mr. Rhodes, not James Russ, who represented Mr. Collins in the airport matter. Mr. Collins averred that he simply forgot the arrest and plea when he filled out his licensure application. In explaining the oversight he also added that he felt comfortable with his "no" answer because he had passed the FBI fingerprint check. Mr. Collins' explanations of the circumstances of his arrest and subsequent guilty plea are inconsistent and evasive. His lack of candor in these matters contributes to the non- credibility of his excuse that he simply forgot the incident altogether when he was filling out his licensure application. In recent years Mr. Collins has been active in his church and his daughter's school. She is 16 years old and he is her sole support, as her mother, his wife, died 7 years ago. In the 4 1/2 years that he has been licensed there have been no other complaints related to Mr. Collins' practice of real estate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and revoking his real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY 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 30th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Wilsen, Jr., Esquire Gillis and Wilsen 1999 West Colonial Drive, Suite 211 Orlando, Florida 32804 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following: The Respondent, Gerald W. Conrad, is a registered building contractor who holds license No. RB 0016374. The projects involved herein are situated in Pinellas County, Florida. Pinellas County has a local Construction Industry Licensing Board which declined to prosecute this matter when it was referred to the local board for its determination as to whether or not any disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent, Gerald W. Conrad. Jerry Taylor, an investigator with the Board since approximately February of 1977, investigated the Board records as they relate to the Respondent. Evidence reveals that on May 1, 1977, Respondent Conrad d/b/a Spanish Grants, Inc., effected a license renewal and during July of 1977, Respondent requested and was granted permission to change the contracting entity involved herein from a corporate entity to a sole proprietorship. Peter M. Lipman, the Executive Director of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, testified that the complaint allegations concerning the Respondent were presented to the Board informally and that the Board, pursuant to its rules and regulations, conducted a preliminary inquiry into the matter and decided to defer to the jurisdiction of the State Board. Lipman testified that he, as the official custodian of the local Board records, found no evidence of any registration or certification of Respondent with the local Board either as an individual or as a corporate entity. Jack Harris and his spouse, on March 14, 1977, entered into a contract with the Respondent to construct a home for a price of $44,000.00. On March 15, 1977, Harris tendered a $1,000.00 deposit to a Mr. Charles Pitcock, Sales Director for the Respondent, as security for the land on which the home was to be constructed. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2.) Shortly thereafter, Mr. Harris visited the local offices of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Tarpon Springs and arranged permanent financing. According to the terms of the agreements entered into with the Respondent, approximately $30,000.00 was to be given the contractor at the completion of construction, with approximately $12,000.00 to be financed. During the early days of April, 1977, Mr. Harris received a call from Respondent asking that approximately $7,800.00 be paid in order to commence the construction of his home. The money was forwarded to Respondent on April 8, as requested. On May 18, the Harrises received a request from Respondent for $7,200.00 for nest connected with the pouring of the slab and for plumbing, which request was honored on May 24. On May 28, Respondent requested an additional $7,000.00 for payments toward the construction costs in erecting the lintels. On June 1, 1977, the Harrises sent Respondent a check for $7,000.00, as requested. The Harrises were then living in Rego Park, New York, and were making efforts to retire to the home that the Respondent was constructing in Pinellas County, Florida. On June 1, the Harrises received a letter from Respondent's Sales Director (Pitcock) who advised that he was leaving the Respondent's employ. Mr. Pitcock also outlined in that letter several reminders and recommendations to the Harrises, such as continual monitoring of the construction progress; advising them to make their homeowner's insurance effective when exterior walls were erected; confirming closing dates with builders before appearing for same and a general offer to be of service when he could provide same. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) All payments to Respondent from the Harrises were by check. (See petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4.) At about this same time, the Harrises became concerned about their reports of the lack of progress toward the construction of their home and Mr. Harris made a trip to Pinellas County from New York. Mr. Harris was able to arrange a meeting with Gerald Conrad and William Walker, Respondent's President and Vice President respectively. This meeting centered around the Harrises' inability to obtain a deed to the property they had purchased. On June 13, the Harrises filed an official complaint with a Mr. Anderson of the Consumer Affairs Department of Pinellas County. After the Harrises had paid approximately $15,000.00 toward the purchase price of their home and was unable to get a clear deed to the property, they ceased making further payments and Respondent has not refunded their money. The house was being constructed in a subdivision known as Oakleaf Village on Lot. 24, Block K, Oakleaf Village Unit 6. Further developments revealed that on October 26, 1976, the Respondent by its President, Gerald W. Conrad, executed a warranty deed to Richard G. and Kathleen Gushwa, that was the same property which the Harrises had agreed to purchase from the Respondent. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6.) Richard Gushwa, an employee of the City of Clearwater, testified that he contracted with the Respondent to construct him a home for a total purchase price of $44,500.00. Initially the Gushwas paid the Respondent a $200.00 binder and thereafter an $8,400.00 start- up fee. The $8,400.00 was paid on October 25, 1976. When construction had not commenced as scheduled during January, 1977, the Gushwas arranged a meeting with their attorney and Messrs. Conrad and Walker, at which time the Respondent requested an additional $3,500.00 to construct the home which the Gushwas had contracted for in October of 1976. The parties were unable to resolve their differences and the matter ended, with the Gushwas paying no more money toward the contract price. During late April of 1977, Mr. Gushwa noticed a building permit erected on his property and later learned that the house was being constructed for the Harrises. During the first week of April, 1978, the Gushwas were able to sell the lot and abandoned building "as is" to Thomas and Sandra Hanson for $10,500.00. (See Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 8.) On April 12, 1977, the Respondent, Richard A. and Helen Cope entered into a contractual agreement whereby the Copes agreed to pay Respondent $65,700.00 for a home to be erected in Oakleaf Village subdivision in Pinellas County, Florida. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9.) The Copes paid $15,000.00 for the lot and to date, no improvements have been made. Additionally, the Copes have been unable to receive a deed to their property nor has Respondent refunded their monies. Bernard and Mary Koser entered into an agreement with the Respondent for the construction of a home to be built in Oakleaf Village for a total purchase price of $55,000.00. On March 21, 1977, the Kosers paid the Respondent, Spanish Grants, Inc., $11,600.00 and to date, the Kosers too have been unable to obtain a refund of these monies which were paid to Respondent nor has the property been deeded to them. (See Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11.) On November 29, 1976, Joseph T. and Patricia Vollaro entered into a contract with Spanish Grants, Inc., for a home to be constructed for $51,460.00. The home was erected on property owned by a Mr. Dreher. The Vollaros purchased the land from the Drehers for a price of $8,080.00. Additionally, the Vollaros paid approximately $2,485.00 over and above the amounts paid for the lot and the price they contracted for their home. (See Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11 and 12.) Evidence also reveals that the Respondent, Gerald W. Conrad, pulled two permits for Lot 24, Block K of the Oakleaf Village subdivision. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibits Nos. 3 and 14.) RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Essentially, the Respondent, through counsel, attacked the alleged vagueness and uncertainty of Chapter 468.112(e), F.S. Finally, the Respondent considered the acts here complained of against him to be regrettable and that, if possible, he would "turn back the clock".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's registered building contractor's license No. RB 0016374 be revoked. That the Respondent pay the Board an administrative fine of $300.00. RECOMMENDED this 27th of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John Turnbull, Esquire 319 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mr. C. H. Hoskinson Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be disqualified from taking the real estate salesman license examination based on his alleged failure to disclose on his licensing application a prior arrest and conviction for possession of marijuana.
Findings Of Fact On December 19, 1980, Schwartz filed with the Board his application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In answer to the application's Question No. 6: "Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations) without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" (R-1), Schwartz answered, under oath, "Yes." If an applicant answers "Yes", the application asks for details, including the outcome. Schwartz responded: 2.28.69 Possession Marijuana Broward Cty. Sentenced 31 months, Released 4/30/71, No Further Record. (R-1.) He further explained his answer in a letter attached to the application: Sirs: In regard to question #6, I was arrested 2.28.69 in Broward County for possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Sentenced by Judge Robert Tyson in Broward County Criminal Court, Ft. Lauderdale, Fl in June of that year to two years, seven months. Released M.C.R. on 4/30/71. No problems since. H. Jeffrey Schwartz (R-1.) As part of the application, Schwartz executed an affidavit which provides in part: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesman, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the person so applying, that he has carefully read the foregoing application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete, as h[is] knowledge information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever, . . . (R-1.) In answering Question No. 6, Schwartz failed to disclose that he was indicted, arrested, and subsequently convicted of felonious possession of marijuana by the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, on January 31, 1968. Court records indicate that Schwartz, then 19 years old, pled not guilty to the charge; that he was represented by counsel during trial; and that upon hearing the evidence the court found him guilty and returned him to jail pending a pre-sentence-investigation. Subsequently, on March 18, 1968, the court suspended imposition of sentence "during. . .good behavior or until further order of this Court" (R-4), ordered him to pay costs of court, and placed him on supervised probation for an indefinite period. (R-4.) Schwartz then moved to Florida. In February, 1969, he was convicted of felonious possession of marijuana by the Circuit Court of Broward County and sentenced to 31 months at hard labor. On April 30, 1971, after serving his sentence, he was extradited by Virginia authorities on grounds that his Broward County conviction violated the "good behavior" condition of his earlier suspended sentence. After a hearing, at which Schwartz was again represented by counsel, the Hustings Court found he had not violated the provisions of his 1968 suspended sentence, and released him. At that time, Schwartz was 22 years old. (Testimony of Schwartz; R-4.) The Board does not contend that these two prior criminal convictions occurring over 12 years ago render him unqualified for examination and licensure as a real estate salesman. Since that time, Schwartz has been a law-abiding and responsible individual. He has conducted research and performed feasibility studies for various commodity marketing firms, and has gained the respect and confidence of his employers. On March 25, 1981, his civil rights were restored- -except to possess or own a firearm--by order of the Governor and Cabinet of Florida. (Testimony of Schwartz; P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4.) The Board seeks to deny Schwartz's license application based solely on his failure to fully disclose on the application his prior arrest and conviction for marijuana possession in 1968. Schwartz's defense is that he honestly believed the 1968 offense in Virginia was a juvenile matter, not a criminal offense; and that Question No. 6 on the licensing application did not cover juvenile offenses or adjudications. In reply, the Board acknowledges that Question No. 6 is ambiguous with respect to whether information concerning juvenile offenses is required. It follows that, if Schwartz--rightly or wrongly--believed that his 1968 offense was juvenile in nature, his answer to Question No. 6 was not unreasonable and cannot fairly demonstrate lack of honesty, truthfulness, and good character. (Prehearing Stipulation, Acknowledgment of Board Counsel.) Schwartz's testimony that he sincerely believed his 1968 offense to be juvenile in nature, and thus outside the purview of Question No. 6, is rejected as unworthy of belief. His assertion is uncorroboratcd by any independent evidence and is inconsistent with the effect of the following: The Official Court Records. These records, on their face, indicate that Schwartz was charged with and convicted of a criminal offense in 1968. The Procedures Used to Convict Him. At his 1968 trial, he pled not guilty; was represented by defense counsel--who unsuccessfully moved the court to strike the evidence as insufficient to support a judgment of guilty; and, after being found guilty was returned to jail pending pre-sentence investigation. It is unlikely that a 19-year-old could go through such an experience without realizing that he was being charged with and convicted of a crime. His Extradition and Return to the Virginia Court. His subsequent criminal conviction in Florida led to his extradition and return, under guard, to the Richmond Court of Hustings for alleged violation of probation imposed pursuant to his 1968 conviction. After hearing, where he was again represented by counsel, he was reinstated to probation. It is unlikely that Schwartz, then 22 years old, did not understand--by this second encounter with defense counsel and the Court of Hustings--that his 1968 offense was a crime, and that he had been convicted in a criminal, not a juvenile proceeding. Schwartz's Demeanor and Intelligence. Schwartz's demeanor as a witness showed him to be an articulate and intelligent individual. As a marketing analyst, he is required to conduct research and perform studies upon which others can rely. Such work requires rational investigation and analysis. His ostensible conclusion that the 1968 offense was a juvenile proceeding was not the result of diligent investigation and analysis: it represents a departure from the analytical habit he has developed in the working environment. (Testimony of Schwartz; R-4.) Since Schwartz's assertion that he genuinely believed his 1968 conviction was a juvenile matter is rejected, it follows that his answer to Question No. 6 was incomplete and evasive. With regard to the traits of honesty and truthfulness, it places his character in serious question. To the extent the parties' proposed findings of fact are incorporated in this Recommended Order, they are adopted; otherwise, they are rejected as unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of H. Jeffrey Schwartz for licensure as a real estate salesman be denied, without prejudice to his right to reapply in the future. DONE AND REC0MENDED this 19th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 19th day of June, 1981.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, William James Barbour, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0631568. On September 28, 1995, Respondent filed an application (dated September 22, 1995) with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer yes or no to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent responded to the question by checking the box marked "Yes," and attached documents relating to his arrest on June 17, 1992, and conviction on March 1, 1993, for the offense of driving under the influence. The documents further revealed that Respondent's driving privilege was revoked by the court for a six-month period (nunc pro tunc to June 17, 1992), and that by August 9, 1992, he had successfully completed the Broward County Court Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Respondent's driving privileges were restored February 25, 1993. No other offenses were disclosed on the application. The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) Following approval of Respondent's application, and his licensure as a real estate salesperson, the Department discovered that on March 4, 1993, in the County Court, Dade County, Florida, Respondent was arraigned on a charge of simple battery (date of occurrence January 9, 1993), a first degree misdemeanor, proscribed by Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. Respondent entered a plea of not guilty; however, on March 30, 1993, the court, following hearing, found Respondent guilty of the charge, but withheld adjudication. Respondent was subsequently ordered to pay $2,536 in restitution, $105.00 in court costs, and participate in a pre-trial diversion anger control class. After receipt of the foregoing information, the Department apprised Respondent of its discovery. Respondent addressed the Department's concerns by letter of September 5, 1997, as follows: After our conversation on this morning of 9-5-97 I am aware that I filled out the application for Real Estate incorrectly. At the time, my understanding to the question about an arrest or convictions on the application, was for a felony. I have had arrest but all of the 3 I've had were misdemeanors. One was for a DUI. In June of 1992 where I was found guilty and lost my Drivers License for 6 months & had to attend a counter measures class. I completed all required classes and now hold a safe Driver's Lic. I had two other arrest[s]. Both were for battery. I had to attend an advocate program for violence. I completed all classes. I believe that ajudication [sic] was witheld [sic] for both charges. I am sorry for any inconvenience that I have caused over this matter, and hope that I can continue to keep my Real Estate License. Thereafter, on November 20, 1997, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid finding of guilty to the crime of battery, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." and sought to take disciplinary action against his license. According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought . . . may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 1 At hearing, Respondent offered the following explanation for his response to item 9 of the application or, stated differently, for his failure to disclose the charge of battery for which he had been found guilty (albeit adjudication being withheld): . . . Your Honor, at the time that I had filled out the application -- okay, right before that I had been arrested for a DUI. That's one thing that I did list in the application. But at the time of the application, you know, the question had stated: If you had ever been arrested -- anyhow I answered yes to the question. But when it said to list the details, my first understanding of the question was that it was for felonies only, but the charges that I had -- I had a charge for a fight, actually two times I was arrested for fighting. And I didn't know what the outcome of the charge was to be able to list it, you know, in detail. So when I answered the question I answered yes, you know, believing that the Real Estate Commission would, you know, because it said at the end of the question your answer would be checked with state, local, and federal officials, and I didn't know the detailed charges that I was -- that were placed upon me. So I just answered the question yes figuring that they would find what the charges were. I was not trying to hide anything from the Real Estate Commission. I had great feeling that they were going to find out everything that I had been arrested for. (Transcript, at pages 4 and 5.) And, on cross-examination, Respondent responded regarding his response to the application question, as follows: Q. And in attaching materials you listed a conviction for driving under the influence charge? A. Right. Because at the time I had understood that the question was for a felony, but even still I answered it yes, because, you know, I knew the other ones were like misdemeanors or something, but I didn't know what degree or any of that, you know, so I answered yes. And the only thing I had attached was the DUI because that's the only thing that I even had paperwork on. (Transcript, at pages 7 and 8.) Apart from the foregoing incidents, Respondent has had no other involvement with the criminal justice system. Here, Respondent's explanation for his failure to disclose the battery charge on his application is wanting in substance, and does not detract from the conclusion that the application he submitted was false. In so concluding, it is observed that Respondent's answer to the question posed by the application (given the information requested and his attestation) purported to divulge every offense for which he had "been convicted . . . , found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Under such circumstances, it cannot be subject to serious debate that, when the application was submitted, Respondent knew he provided false or misleading information regarding his criminal record. In concluding that Respondent knowingly and intentionally provided false or misleading information on his application, his explanation that he lacked paper work on the battery arrest and assumed the Department would uncover the charge upon a background check, has not been overlooked; however, such explanation does not detract from the conclusion reached. Indeed, it is inherently improbable, given the proximity in time of the offenses (Respondent was convicted of DUI on March 1, 1993, and arraigned on the battery charge on March 4, 1993), that Respondent would be able to relate the particulars of the DUI conviction on his application, but not one iota of information regarding the battery charge. Rather, Respondent's failure to even mention the battery charge on his application renders his claim of reliance on the Department's investigation to uncover it ring hollow.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that for such violation, the Final Order revoke Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Professional Regulation. As such, Petitioner acts as the licensing and regulatory agency for real estate salesperson licensees. The Respondent is Jack Wilson Johnson, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of license number 0636049 issued by Petitioner. His license is currently inactive. His address is c/o Jack Lu, Inc., 8445 Pensacola Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32534. On or about February 26, 1996, Respondent submitted an application to Petitioner for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Question number 9 on the application read as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of any other state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” If you answered “Yes,” attach details including dates and outcome, including sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not understand the question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent marked the “NO” box beside this question. Respondent then signed the “Affidavit of Applicant.” Above his signature was printed the following language. The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate sales person under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and recollection permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. On or about July 6, 1989, Respondent pled nolo contendere to reckless driving in Santa Rosa County, Florida, and was adjudicated guilty with a sentence of 6 months probation. Later, Respondent pled nolo contendere to a second charge of reckless driving on or about February 21, 1991. On or about January 19, 1994, Respondent pled guilty to violation of his probation on this charge. On or about March 8, 1993, Respondent pled nolo contendere to Battery in Escambia County, Florida. Adjudication was withheld. On or about May 1, 1974, Respondent pled nolo contendere to three counts of failure to register as a dealer or salesman, a felony, in Escambia County, Florida. Respondent admitted at the final hearing that he was guilty of answering “NO” to question number 9 on the application that he made to Petitioner in this case, but that this action was merely a result of “poor judgment.” Respondent offered mitigating testimony by two witnesses, establishing that he had handled real estate transactions for them to their satisfaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses charged in the administrative complaint and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack Wilson Johnson c/o Jack Lu, Inc. 8445 Pensacola Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32534 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's responsibilities include the prosecution of administrative complaints. Prior to February 1993, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. In February 1993, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for licensure as a real estate broker. The application provided the applicant with two boxes, one marked "yes" and the other marked "no" to the following question, instructions, and caveat: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES," attach the details and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could result in denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney of the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered Question 9 in the negative. Respondent thereafter signed the application, including the following affidavit: The above named and undersigned applicant for licensure as a real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information, an records permit, without any evasion or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications, whether and additional oath thereto shall be administered or not. On the evening of September 28, 1986, Respondent and her husband became involved in a loud argument at their home after having consumed too much alcohol. As a result, someone called the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with disorderly intoxication. On November 20, 1986, Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of disorderly intoxication in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was fined, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Katherine [sic] Lawand, which is her married name, and Kay Starr, which is the name Respondent uses for business purposes. On the evening of April 25, 1992, a virtual repeat of the incident of September 28, 1986, occurred. Again, as the result of a loud, drunken argument between Respondent and her husband, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was called. As a result of her behavior, Respondent was arrested on the charge of disorderly conduct. On May 21, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of disorderly conduct in Broward County, Florida. The court records reflect Respondent's name entered on this plea as Kathline [sic] Starr. Respondent testified that she thought Question 9 on the application for a broker's license only pertained to felony crimes. Respondent testified that she does not consider herself to be a criminal and that she did not intend to mislead or deceive the licensing agency. On May 3, 1993, Respondent passed the broker licensure examination. On May 23, 1993, Respondent was issued her initial license as an inactive broker. The license number was BK0459569. Since September 24, 1993, Respondent has been actively licensed as either a broker or a broker/salesperson. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was licensed as an individual broker with an office at 120 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Following an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida, on December 12, 1994, Respondent was charged with "DUI/ Blood Alch Above 0.20" (Count I); "Driving Under the Influence" (Count II); and "Disobey Stop/Yield Sign" (Count III). On October 3, 1995, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (Count II). Count I was nolle prossed and Count III was dismissed. As a result of the plea entered on October 3, 1995, Respondent was adjudged guilty of D.U.I. She was fined, placed on probation for six months, and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Her driver's license was suspended for six months. As a condition of her probation, she attended a Court Alcohol Substance Abuse Program D.U.I. School. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Kay Starr Lawand. There was only minor property damage as a result of the accident involving Respondent on December 12, 1994. No person was injured.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be adopted that finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and orders that all licenses issued to her by Petitioner be revoked without prejudice to her right to reapply for licensure. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1998
The Issue Pursuant to the order of the First District Court of Appeal dated October 18, 2005, the issue before the Division of Administrative Hearings is a determination of the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded for the administrative proceeding in Department of Health v. Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D., DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL, and for the appellate proceeding styled Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D. v. Department of Health, Case No. 1D04-1153 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 18, 2005).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, and the Board of Medicine ("Board") within the Department is the entity responsible for entering final orders imposing disciplinary action for violations of the laws regulating the practice of medicine. See §§ 455.225 and 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. On January 4, 2002, the Department of Health filed an Administrative Complaint charging Dr. Rogers with violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (1998).3 The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which assigned the matter DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL. The case was heard on May 7, 2002, by Administrative Law Judge Michael J. Parrish. Judge Parrish entered his Recommended Order on February 21, 2003, in which he found that the Department had failed to prove violations of Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and recommended dismissal of those charges. Judge Parrish found that the Department had proven a violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), failing to keep medical records as required by rule, and he recommended that Dr. Rogers be required to pay a $1,000.00 administrative fine and attend a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course as the penalty for the violation. The Board entered its Final Order on February 17, 2004, in which it adopted its own findings of fact and conclusions of law; found Dr. Rogers guilty of all three charges in the Administrative Complaint; and imposed a penalty on Dr. Rogers consisting of a $10,000 administrative fine, completing of a drug course sponsored by the University of South Florida, completion of a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course, and two years' probation, during which he was not permitted to practice medicine unless his practice was monitored quarterly by a physician approved by the Board. Dr. Rogers appealed the Board's Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal, challenging the Board's determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998). Dr. Rogers filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs based on Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes. In addition, Dr. Rogers filed a Motion for Stay of Final Order, which the Board opposed. The district court denied the motion for stay in an order entered April 2, 2004, and Dr. Rogers proceeded to comply with the terms of the two-year probationary period imposed by the Board, as well as fulfilling the other requirements set forth in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004. In an opinion issued on October 18, 2005, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Board's Final Order with respect to its determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and remanded the matter to the Board for entry of a Final Order consistent with its opinion. The district court held in its opinion that the Board had erroneously re-weighed the evidence and had rejected findings of fact in the administrative law judge's Recommended Order that were supported by competent substantial evidence. The district court also entered on October 18, 2005, the order granting Dr. Rogers's motion for attorneys' fees and costs that is the subject of this proceeding. The district court's mandate issued on February 23, 2006, and, on April 21, 2006, the Board entered a Final Order on Remand adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Judge Parrish's Recommended Order, finding that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine on Dr. Rogers and requiring him to attend a medical record-keeping course. Based on the Amended Affidavit of C. William Berger filed August 24, 2006, the total number of hours Mr. Berger spent in representing Dr. Rogers in the administrative proceeding in DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL is 79.75, a total that the Department does not challenge. Mr. Berger's billing rate was $300.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid to Mr. Berger for his representation of Dr. Rogers through the administrative proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings was, therefore, $23,925.00. Dr. Rogers was ultimately found to have violated one count of the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against him by the Department, the count in which the Department alleged that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), by failing to keep adequate medical records related to the patient that was the subject of the charges against him. Mr. Berger did not record in his billing statements the amount of time he spent researching this charge, preparing for hearing on this charge, or addressing this charge in the Proposed Recommended Order he filed in 02-0080PL. It is reasonable that Mr. Berger spent 10 percent of the hours included in his billing statements preparing Dr. Rogers's defense to the charge that he failed to keep adequate medical records.4 Accordingly, Mr. Berger's attorney's fees will be reduced by 10 percent, or by $2,392.50, for a total of $21,532.50. In reaching the percentage by which Mr. Berger's fees should be reduced, consideration has been given to the amount of the fees in relationship to the failure to prevail on the medical-records violation, to the seriousness of the alleged violations on which Dr. Rogers prevailed before both the administrative law judge and on appeal,5 and the penalty ranges that the Board could impose for the violations with which Dr. Rogers was charged.6 Based on the Supplemental Affidavit of Lisa Shearer Nelson Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed September 5, 2006, Ms. Nelson claimed that she spent a total of 187.1 hours "from the issuance of the final order of the Board of Medicine through the appeal and remand and initial preparation of the petition for attorney's fees and costs." Ms. Nelson's billing statements reflect that she represented Dr. Rogers during the appellate proceedings before the First District Court of Appeal in Case No. 1D04-1153 and before the Board on remand from the district court. Ms. Nelson's billing rate was $250.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid by Dr. Rogers to Ms. Nelson for her representation was, therefore, $46,775.00. A review of the billing statements attached to Ms. Nelson's supplemental affidavit reveals that the final billing statement, dated June 9, 2006, was for "preparation of petition for fees and costs; preparation of affidavit re same." Dr. Rogers was billed for 1.9 hours in this billing statement, for a total of $475.00. Because the work done by Ms. Nelson reflected in this billing statement did not involve the appellate proceeding arising out of the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, the hours claimed by Ms. Nelson are reduced by 1.9 hours, for a total of 185.2 hours. Accordingly, Ms. Nelson's attorney's fees for her representation of Dr. Rogers on appeal total $46,300.00. The total costs identified in Mr. Berger's Amended Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Amended Affidavit is $4,462.55. This amount is reduced by $1,000.00 attributable to a retainer paid to a Dr. Spanos, who was initially retained as an expert witness but who ultimately did not testify on Dr. Rogers's behalf. The total allowable costs for the administrative proceeding, therefore, are $3,462.55. The total costs identified by Ms. Nelson in her Supplemental Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Supplemental Affidavit is $1,005.01. The total costs for both the administrative and the appellate proceedings are, therefore, $4,467.56. Dr. Rogers submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that he expended total costs of $154,807.23 in fulfilling the terms of the penalty assessed against him in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, which was reversed by the district court.
Conclusions For Petitioner: C. William Berger, Esquire One Boca Place, Suite 337W 2255 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33486 For Respondent: John E. Terrel, Esquire Michael D. Milnes, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0073256 authorizing his practice in such a capacity in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, for realtors in the State of Florida. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent, acting in the capacity of a real estate salesman, was employed by a broker by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation of Miami, Florida. That entity with Broker Kane was involved in the advertisement, promotion and sale of parcels of unimproved land in west Texas. The Respondent's duties involved making long-distance telephone calls to prospective purchasers of that land (in Cochran County, Texas), attempting to induce them to buy one or more parcels. In the course of this telephone sales campaign, in which the Respondent participated with approximately 20 salesmen making such phone calls, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his employing broker. The script, in general, extolled the attributes of the unimproved property in an arid region of west Texas, representing that the land possessed favorable climatic conditions, water supply and soil conditions for agricultural purposes and was near property in which oil companies were interested. The Respondent contacted a potential buyer by phone who lived in Wisconsin and attempted to persuade the buyer to purchase a parcel of the property through use of the prepared "script" given him by his broker. That potential customer apparently became suspicious of the sales method, manner or assurances given by phone and ultimately was instrumental, along with the United State Attorney, in the filing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, charging the Respondent (along with his broker, principals of the corporation and other salesmen) with the use of wire communication in furtherance of a scheme to defraud potential purchasers of real estate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. In that proceeding, the Respondent initially professed his lack of knowledge of the truth or falsity of the representations made in the prepared script his broker gave him and required him to use concerning the attributes of the west Texas land involved. Due in part to a dearth of financial resources to devote to litigation, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 7, 1978, to the charge involving using wire communication in a scheme to defraud. He was ultimately found guilty and was placed on probation for three years, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended by the court. The Respondent had no part in the preparation of any written materials or "script" which he employed in making the telephone conversation and representations describing the supposed attributes of the property he was attempting to market on behalf of his employer, Broker Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation. That script was prepared by his broker or others and the Respondent read or consulted from it as he was communicating with prospective purchasers, but had no actual knowledge of its truthfulness or falsity with regard to the representations contained therein. He was shown to have made no representation or verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made it. The Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding involving the same factual transaction in the past which culminated in a final order dismissing that administrative complaint. 1/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ed Rich, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(i)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a two (2) year suspension of licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire 626 Northeast 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallendale, Florida 33009 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent Charles Moore was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 2, 1968, and was issued Certificate Number 10-2-68-G. Prologue Christina Marie Hechler and his girlfriend Teresa Hammic worked at "the first rest area before you get to Lake Buena Vista exit" (T.21) in July of 1984. One day that July, they were talking before work, when Mr. Moore, whom neither knew at the time, approached and "made some . . . different little suggestions . . . He wanted . . . [the young women] to have sex together while he watched." (T.22) Their conversation over, Mr. Moore left with Ms. Hechler's telephone number. In addition to performing her duties at the rest area, Ms. Hechler worked as a confidential informant under the direction of Russell Bernard Permaul, at the time assigned to the Narcotics Section of the Orange County Sheriff Department's Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation. Ms. Hechler, who spent time with Mr. Permaul socially as well as professionally, told him on May 3, 1985 that "she knew of someone that did the same work [he] did that was involved in cocaine." (T.45) On May 6, 1985, she told Mr. Permaul the man she had referred to three days earlier was Mr. Moore, and that, at unspecified times and places, she "was present when he snorted cocaine, and that he had offered cocaine to her and a friend for unknown sexual acts." (T.45) On May 16, 1985, Ms. Hechler gave Mr. Permaul a foil packet containing cocaine. At hearing, she testified that Mr. Moore brought the packet to her at her grandmother's house but neither fingerprints nor anything else, aside from her testimony, linked Moore to the cocaine. Ms. Hechler's grandmother was unable to pick respondent out of a "photo lineup." (T.36). Mr. Permaul did not feel Ms. Hechler's information "was reliable enough . . . to come out and arrest." (T.60) The First Investigation But Mr. Permaul apprised his superiors of the situation, and they authorized him to begin an investigation. To this end, he enlisted a female police officer from Kissimmee and arranged for Ms. Hechler to introduce her to Mr. Moore outside "the Triple X Movie Theater on Orange Blossom Trail," (T.47) on Friday, May 17, 1985. Ms. Hechler worked at the theater at the time. A listening device in Ms. Hechler's pocketbook malfunctioned, so no recording was made of what turned out, in any event, to be a very short meeting. The next day, Ms. Hechler later told Mr. Permaul, she sought out Mr. Moore on her own, who told her that the woman she had been with the day before was a deputy sheriff. He also reportedly told her "that if anybody from . . . Department Internal Affairs . . . contacted her . . . to tell them that she has no idea what's going on (T.49) At this point the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation "didn't feel there would be any merit to proceeding with a criminal investigation any further." (T.88) Along with Mr. Permaul, Tony Randall Scoggins, a sergeant with the Orlando Police Department who was supervisor in charge of internal affairs investigators, had watched while Ms. Bechler introduced the undercover female law enforcement officer to respondent Moore at the Fairvilla Triple X Theater. Moore was employed by the Orlando Police Department at the time, and the Orlando Police Department wanted to determine whether he should continue as a police sergeant. After the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation decided not "to do anything more with it right now," (T.88) Sgt. Scoggins turned the matter over to Lt. William Kennedy of the Orlando Police Department to pursue a criminal investigation "before he got into the thing administratively." (T.92). The Second Investigation On September 3, 1985, Lt. Kennedy and Sgt. Jacobs assigned Agent Gary Rowell and Carey Farney, then a narcotics agent attached to the Orlando Police Department's special investigations division, to conduct a criminal investigation of respondent Moore. Sgt. Scoggins introduced them to Ms. Hechler, whom they instructed to telephone Sgt. Moore, even though she had not been in touch with him for four or five months. She made several telephone calls from various pay telephones, which the investigators tape recorded. Sgt. Moore "was suspicious that [Ms. Hechler] was possibly working [as a confidential informant.] He mentioned the MBI. It was like he wanted to talk to her, but he wasn't quite sure [whether] she was safe or not. (T.67) There were no specific offers to sell or provide cocaine during these conversations. Meanwhile Agent Farney approached Carol Lee Jones, who worked as a horse arrest officer for the Department of Corrections, to participate in an undercover "operation directed against Sgt. Moore." Allegedly, Sgt. Moore was interested in having a menage a trois arrangement with Chistina Hechler . . . . [Ms. Jones] was to be the third person. And in exchange for the sex act there would be an exchange of cocaine. (T.8) The "initial game plan was to have Carol Jones go undercover with Christine Hechler, and . . . see if Sgt. Moore would deliver cocaine ultimately to Carol Jones." (T.65) Ms. Hechler agreed to introduce Ms. Jones to Sgt. Moore, in furtherance of this plan. Sgt. Moore told Ms. Hechler he "would be working at the Howard Johnson's" (T.70) on Saturday night, September 14, 1985. September 14-15, 1985 Agent Farney rented a customized van in which he, Lt. Kennedy and Sgt. Jacobs followed Ms. Hechler and Ms. Jones to Howard Johnson's on September 14, 1985, or maybe a little past midnight on the morning of the 15th. Before setting out, they had furnished the women transmitters "the size of a cigarette pack, maybe a little smaller" (T.73) or bugs which they concealed on their persons or in their purses. The women parked their car and went into the motel's lounge in search of respondent Moore. The policemen parked behind the motel, out of view, with receivers and tape recorders ready to monitor any transmissions from the "bugs." Eventually Mr. Moore, dressed in full Orlando Police Department regalia, left the lounge to follow the women into the parking lot, where he and Ms. Hechler joked about her being an undercover agent. Agent Farney, listening from the van "believe[d] Christina and Charlie Moore were doing most of the talking. When they get outside Charlie Moore asks her, "[D]o you have a bug in your purse?" [Agent Farney] couldn't' understand what her answer was And then he asked her, "[D]o you want to buy some cocaine?" And she says, [Y]eah" or "[Y]es," or something to that [e]ffect. He asked her again, "Do you want to buy some coke?" . . . [H]e said "coke" both times [Farney believed, on reflection) . . The second time he said, "Do you want to buy some coke?," and she says, "Yeah, I sure do." And then they're giggling as they're walking along talking. Basically it's Christina and Charlie Moore doing the talking now. And for whatever reason Christina didn't pursue the coke issue, and then they make arrangements to get together later on . . . another date. And . . . [the women] get in their car and leave. (T.77) At least in the opinion of Agent Farney, this conversation did not give probable cause to believe that Sgt. Moore had been guilty of a crime, including, "[s]ome sort of solicitation to commit a crime" (T.85-86), so as to justify either his arrest or the filing of charges with the state's attorney's office. (T.84) Epilogue On September 24, 1985, Ms. Hechler accused respondent Moore of perpetrating a sexual battery on her person, and the Chief of Police immediately suspended Sgt. Moore. Administrative proceedings eventuated in disciplinary action on account of the alleged battery, but concluded with a finding that no drug offense was established. No criminal prosecution was instituted on either charge.
