Findings Of Fact In his application for unarmed guard license, the Petitioner was requested to list all arrests and the dispositions thereof. In response to this inquiry the Petitioner recited that he was arrested in 1973 for discharging a firearm, and that he paid a fine. At the hearing it was established that the Petitioner had been arrested and found guilty on numerous occasions from 1942 through 1972 for drunkenness, profanity, burglary, and reckless display of a firearm. He spent time in jail on some of these charges, and time on probation. The Petitioner is a reformed alcoholic. He stopped drinking approximately five years ago, and is now married with two young children. He has had no difficulties with law enforcement agencies since he stopped drinking alcoholic beverages. The Petitioner has made a sincere effort to reform himself, and it appears that he is succeeding in accomplishing that. The Petitioner has been working as an unarmed guard for some months under a temporary permit, and there is no evidence to establish that he has not performed his duties satisfactorily. When the Petitioner was filling out his application for license, he asked a representative of his employer how he should respond. He told the representative that he had been arrested numerous times. This individual told the Petitioner that reflecting the single 1973 arrest was adequate. The Petitioner felt that the inquiry related only to Florida offenses, and most of his law enforcement problems have occurred in the State of Tennessee. It does not appear that the Petitioner willfully falsified the application, but rather that he was mistaken, partially as a result of information that was given him by a person he was entitled to believe would understand the question.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether A-1 Security and Detective Agency’s Class B security agency license, and Mr. Rozzi’s Class MB security agency manager license should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, between May 5 and August 4, 1997, the Petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division) was the state agency responsible for the licensing of security agencies and security agency managers in Florida. Respondent, A-1 Security and Detective Agency, Incorporated (A-1) held a Class “B” security agency license number B89-0115; and Respondent, Stephen V. Rozzi, held a Class “MB” security agency manager’s license number MB89-00186. Respondent Rozzi was President and operating manager of A-1. At some point during the period in issue, Gary Q. Floyd, an investigator with the Division, received a call from the owner of another security agency who reported a potential problem. At the time, Mr. Floyd was nearby and responded immediately to the apartment complex which belonged to a client of the individual who had called in. His review of the security logs revealed abnormal entries. Returning to the Division office, Floyd checked on the license status of the guard in question who had made the questionable entries and found that this guard was not licensed. The guard, Carmen Santiago, had applied for a class “D” license as a security guard, but because of a prior disciplinary problem out-of-state, the Division had indicated its intent to deny the license. Santiago was employed by Respondent, A-1. Coincidentally, the following morning, Respondent Rozzi came to the Division office on another matter and Floyd showed him the questioned logs. Respondent agreed that the entry was unusual, but said he had terminated Santiago from employment with A-1 as a guard on July 30, 1997, before the date of the questioned entry. Floyd asked Rozzi which guard had worked on the site on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, and on Thursday, July 31, 1997, after Santiago had been terminated. Respondent indicated the replacement guard was a Mr. Michelin. The log entries in question, which got the interest of Floyd, indicated that Santiago, who was not properly licensed as a Class “D” security guard, had served as such at the Whisper Woods Apartments. By pre-hearing stipulation dated June 10, 1998, Rozzi agreed that he had employed Santiago at Whisper Woods Apartments during the period July 30 to July 31, 1997, and that Santiago did not have the proper license at the time. Rozzi indicated at hearing that he received notice from the Division to the effect that Santiago’s application for licensure as a security guard was being denied, but claims he did not receive the notice until he picked up his mail at about 9:00 p.m., on July 31, 1997. As soon as he got that word, Rozzi claims, he called Santiago at home but was unable to reach him. Nonetheless, he left word on Santiago’s answering machine for him not to report for work that evening. In his report to the Division made previously, he indicated he had fired Santiago on July 30, 1997. At hearing Rozzi claimed he back-dated the firing to the date he received the information on the denial, which would have been July 30, not July 31, 1997. However, Rozzi had already indicated he had notified Mr. Michelin, who was scheduled to work on July 30 and 31 at Fletcher Woods Apartments, to go instead to Whisper Wood Apartments to relieve Santiago. Mr. Carter, another employee, was to take Michelin’s place at Fletcher Wood Apartments. When asked to asked to explain the inconsistencies, he could not do so. Carter, when interviewed by Floyd on August 5, 1997, as a part of the investigation, stated he did not work at Fletcher Woods Apartments that night nor has he ever worked there. Carter also indicated that when he was contacted by Rozzi shortly before August 5, 1997, Rozzi told Carter, to say, if he were asked, that he had worked at Fletcher Woods on the night of July 31, 1997. When Floyd advised Rozzi of Carter’s story, Rozzi still declined to change his version. Santiago is disqualified from licensure as a security guard in Florida because of his conviction of a felony in another state. Nonetheless, he applied for a security guard license in Florida in April or May 1997. At the time he applied, he received a temporary Class “D” license which allowed him to work pending action on the permanent license application, and he started work at A-1 as a security guard at different locations wherever he was posted. From time to time, including on July 30 and 31, 1997, he worked at Whisper Woods Apartments. On July 30, 1997, Santiago went to work at 4:00 p.m., intending to stay until relieved at the end of his shift, at 1:00 a.m., on July 31, 1997. At the time he went to work, he did not know that his application for licensure had been denied, nor did he know of the denial when he went to work on July 31, 1997. He claims he did not go home after work on either July 31 or early on August 1, 1997. Santiago claims he first learned of the denial when he got home later in the day on Friday, August 1, 1997, to find Floyd at his door. During the conversation he had with Floyd which followed, Floyd advised him that his license had been denied. This was the first he had heard of the denial, he claims. Santiago indicates that as soon as Floyd told him that, he left Floyd in his apartment and immediately went to his mailbox where he found the denial letter from the Division. There is some evidence to indicate that Santiago told Floyd in another interview prior to the hearing, that he had received the letter informing him of the denial on either July 30 or July 31, 1997. At hearing he claims that he was referring to a letter from the Division soliciting more information. This contention is rejected, however, since it is considered unlikely the Division would seek additional information and reject the application almost concurrently with the request. After Floyd left Santiago on August 1, 1997, Santiago immediately called Rozzi to tell him he could no longer work. Santiago claims Rozzi was upset with him when he called, claiming that he, Rozzi had tried to call Santiago a few days earlier to tell him not to go to work, but Santiago had not received the message or called him back. However, Santiago was at work at Whisper Woods Apartments from 4:00 p.m., on July 30, 1997, until 1:00 a.m., on July 31, 1997, and again that evening, and no one came to the job site either evening to talk with him about his status. This was, he claims, even after he told Rozzi that he, Rozzi, was going to get a letter indicating Santiago’s license was denied. Santiago claims that at no time after that notice did Rozzi terminate him or advise him he would be terminated when the letter came in. Rozzi contended at hearing that the first time he heard anything about the problem with Santiago working was on August 1, 1997, when he was in the Division office on a probation matter. It was at that time that Floyd showed him the logs from Whisper Woods Apartments and asked him about what appeared to be differences in the handwriting on them. Floyd also asked him at that time if he knew Santiago’s license was going to be denied. Rozzi said then that he had first learned of the problem on July 31, 1997. That same day, Rozzi claims, he made arrangements for someone else to cover that post so that Santiago would not be on duty, and Rozzi insists he did not know that this had not happened until the next day. Analysis of and comparison of the varied stories told by Rozzi regarding when he found out that Santiago’s license was being denied results in the conclusion that Rozzi found out on July 30, 1997. Had he not known, he would have had no reason to contact Michelin and tell him to switch duty assignments or to call Santiago and leave the message not to go to work any more. However, Michelin did not testify at the hearing, and the evidence of what he told Floyd regarding this is hearsay evidence. Even if Rozzi received the notice on July 30, 1997, as it appears, by his own admission he did not receive it until mid- evening, at a time when Santiago would have already been at work on the 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. There is no way he could have reached Santiago that evening. Knowing this, Rozzi still did not make any effort to contact Santiago by going to the work site and relieving him by taking a relief guard with him. Consequently, it is found that regardless of which day Rozzi found out about Santiago’s disqualification, he did nothing to ensure that Santiago did not serve as a security guard without a license. Merely calling Santiago and leaving a message on the answering machine is not enough. At the least, he should have gone to the site to insure Santiago was not on duty. At this initial interview, Floyd also showed Rozzi a copy of one of A-1’s invoice forms which reflected at the bottom that the firm was available to perform certain tasks which were limited to a licensed detective agency and not permitted to a security agency. Rozzi indicated that he had copied the information from an advertisement of another agency, but assured Floyd that A-1 was not doing the unauthorized work. No evidence was introduced to indicate it was, and it is so found. Rozzi agreed to remove the inappropriate language from any form or communication used by the firm immediately. He did so. On December 31, 1996, the Director of the Division of Licensing entered a Final Order in Case No. C96-00855 relating to the two Respondents herein, adopting and incorporating the terms of a Stipulation and Settlement entered into between the division and the Respondents in that case. None of the documentation submitted in connection with that case indicates what offenses were alleged to have been committed by either Respondent. The terms of the Stipulation and Settlement called for the Respondents’ licenses to be placed on probation for a period of two years, and for Respondents to pay an administrative fine of four thousand dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of employing an unlicensed employee to perform services which require the possession of a license; of advertising the business of a private investigative agency without possessing the proper license; of failing to respond truthfully to questions asked by an authorized investigator during an official investigation; and of violating the terms of probation by committing violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondents’ class “B” and Class “ MB” licenses as a security agency and security agency manager respectively, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Rayford H. Taylor, Esquire Stiles, Taylor, Grace & Smith, P.A. Post office Box 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference- the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department Of State, Division Of Licensing, enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6780 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that the certificate was signed by Moore, who did not testify at the hearing. Rejected. Not supported by the evidence. Neither Meyer nor Wiese testified at the hearing. (This ruling is related to the second proposed finding identified as "4".) Rejected. Not supported by the evidence. Neither Meyer nor Wiese testified at the hearing. Respondent The Respondent filed a letter containing unnumbered paragraphs which is treated herein as a proposed recommended order. The paragraph beginning "I TAKE EXCEPTION" is regarded as paragraph #1. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1, 2. Rejected. The proposed finding is applicable to the weight of the testimony which clearly established that the witness received an inadequate level of instruction. 3. Rejected. The Respondent stipulated to the fact that Dale and Moore were in the same class. The stipulation was placed on the record. The Petitioner released Moore from testifying based on the stipulation. 4, 6-12. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 DV's Security Guard School Stephen Paul DeVillo 10871 Ruden Road Fort Myers, Florida 33917-5513
Findings Of Fact Respondent's Class "D" Security Guard license expired on September 10, 1993. On or about October 29, 1993, Respondent was employed by Thoney Georges Investigations. During the period October 29 through November 2, 1993, Respondent performed the duties of a security officer after expiration of his Class "D" license. On November 3, 1993, Respondent renewed his Class "D" Security Guard license.
Recommendation Upon consideration of all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalty: issuance of a reprimand and imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of November 1994. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Letroy Altidor 12300 N.E. 4th Avenue, #323 Miami, Florida 33161 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., has held a Class "s" security guard agency license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Rollins Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Respondent Linda Donald has held a Class "K" firearms instructor license. At all times material hereto, Linda and Rollins Donald have been the principal owners, corporate officers, and directors of Respondent North Dade Security, Ltd., and as such are responsible for the control and operation of the agency. There is no licensed manager for the agency. At all times material hereto, Raymond Curtis Foxwood was an employee of North Dade Security, Ltd. Foxwood has never been licensed as a firearms instructor. An applicant for a statewide gun permit, also known as a Class "G" armed guard license, must submit to Petitioner an application for such license. The application form contains a Certificate of Firearms Proficiency which verifies that the applicant has received the statutorily-required firearms training by a licensed firarms instructor prior to the filing of that application for licensure.- on October 7, 1985, Foxwood submitted to Petitioner on behalf of North Dade Security, Ltd., approximately 20 applications for licensure as unarmed and armed guards. Although Foxwood was advised at that time by one of Petitioner's employees that the applications could not be processed due to the absence of licensure fees and due to deficiencies in completeness, the applicants were sent by North Dade Security to Petitioner's office to pick up their temporary licenses on the morning of October 8. When questioned about their applications, some of the applicants advised Petitioner's employee that they had received no firearms training, although their applications certified that they had. After the applicants were refused temporary licenses by Petitioner, North Dade Security sent the applicants to a gun range where Foxwood administered some firearms training for approximately four hours. Neither Rollins Donald nor Linda Donald was present at that training session. As of October 1985, several other persons employed by North Dade Security as armed guards had received no firearms training in conjunction with that employment. Most of the Certificates of Firearms Proficiency a contained within the applications of those latter employees and of the October 7 applicants were signed by Rollins Donald and by Linda Donald. 11. The numerous applications submitted by North Dadee La Security, Ltd., on October 7, 1985 was occasioned by a large contract entered into by North Dade Security, Ltd. requiring the immediate employment of a large number of armed guards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents North Dade Security, Ltd., Rollins Donald and Linda Donald guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and revoking the Class "B.' license of North Dade Security, Ltd., and further revoking the Class "K" firearms instructor licenses of Respondents Rollins Donald and Linda Donald. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee' Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Room LL-10 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0250 Jackie L. Gabe, Esquire Charles C. Mays, Esquire McCRARY & VALENTINE Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 800, Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The testimony at the final hearing in this cause was preserved by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by use of the court reporter. At the conclusion of the final hearing, Respondents determined that they would provide a transcript of proceedings for use by the undersigned and would therefore have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded thirty (30) days from the filing of that transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23, 1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties hereto subsequently agreed that that transcript was incomplete, and a complete transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 22, 1986. Accordingly, the parties' proposed recommended orders became due to be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings no later than October 22, 1986. Respondents filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986. However, Petitioner did. not file its proposed recommended order until October 23, 1986. On October 24, 1986, Petitioner also filed what it considered to be an uncertified "corrected transcript. A series of correspondence and conference calls then ensued due to the Respondents' inability to accept the "corrected~ transcript, and the parties were afforded additional time in which to resolve their differences regarding the September 22, 1986 transcript, which was determined by the undersigned to be the official transcript of this proceeding. By correspondence from Petitioner's substituted attorney filed on February 2, 1987, Petitioner withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to the use of the official transcript filed on September 22, 1986. Since Petitioner's proposed recommended order was filed late and no extension of time for the filing of that proposed recommended order was requested or granted, no rulings are made herein on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Although Respondents' proposed recommended order was timely filed, only Respondent's finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Respondents' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony of each witness. ================================================================= FIRST DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NORTH DADE SECURITY LTD. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES CORPORATION, LINDA H. TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND DONALD and ROLLINS DONALD, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellants, CASE NO. 97-1350 DOAH CASE NO. 85-4192 Vs. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee. / Opinion filed September 1, 1988. An appeal from an order of the Department of State. Michael J. Cherniga, of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard, C Tallahassee, for appellants. R. Timothy Jansen, Assistant General Counsel, Department of State, Tallahassee, for appellee. THOMPSON, Judgee. This is an appeal from a final order of the Department of State (Department) approving and adopting the hearing officer's recommended order holding that the firearms instructor licenses of the individual appellants should be revoked and that the security agency license of the corporate appellant should be revoked. We reverse and remand. The appellants raise, inter alia, the following two questions: (1) Whether the Department's failure to accurately and completely preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of appellants' due process rights, and (2) whether the Department's failure to preserve the testimony adduced at the final hearing has materially prejudiced the appellants' rights to judicial review of this cause. At the final hearing in this case the Department attempted to preserve the testimony presented by tape recorder using cassette tapes rather than by the use of a court reporter. The Department notified appellants prior to the final hearing that it intended to preserve the hearing testimony in this manner, and that appellants would be responsible for furnishing any transcript they might need for review of the hearing officer's findings. Appellants were advised they were free to either hire a court reporter to produce such transcript or that they could use the Department's tapes t make their own transcript. Appellants neither hired a court reporter nor objected to the Department's announcement that it would tape record the proceedings. Unfortunately, the tape recorder malfunctioned, and numerous substantial and material portions of the testimony taken at the hearing were not transcribable because they were not recorded at all, or because the tapes were inaudible or unintelligible. The final hearing was concluded February 18, 1986. At the conclusion of the hearing the appellants determined that they would provide a transcript of the proceedings for use by the parties and would have the cassette tapes of the final hearing transcribed. The parties were afforded 30 days from the filing of the transcript in which to submit proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. On June 23,1986, a transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) but the parties subsequently agreed that the transcript was incomplete. An allegedly complete transcript was filed with DOAH on September 22, 1986, and the parties' proposed recommended orders were due to be filed no later than October 22, 1986. Appellants filed their proposed recommended order on October 20, 1986 and the Department filed its recommended order October 23, 1986 together with what it labeled a "corrected" transcript. The appellants refused to accept the "corrected" transcript and the parties were afforded additional time to resolve their differences regarding the September 22 transcript. Ultimately, the transcript filed September 22 was determined by the hearing officer to be the official transcript of the final hearing. On February 2, 1987, the Department withdrew its "corrected" transcript and agreed to use the transcript filed September 22, 1986. The hearing officer's recommended order was entered February 25, 1987, and the final order of the agency was entered September 23, 1987, more than one and one-half years after the date of the final hearing. Section 120.57(1)(b)6, Fla. Stat. (1985) provides in part: The agency shall accurately and completely preserve all testimony in the proceeding, and, on the request of any party, it shall make a full or partial transcript available at no more than actual cost. The statute requires agencies to accurately and completely preserve all testimony in §120.57(1) proceedings held before them, and this mandatory duty cannot be avoided or escaped by simply advising an opposing party that the agency proposes to preserve the testimony by tape recording and that the opposing party has the right to hire a court reporter. The appellants were entitled to rely upon the Department to accurately and completely preserve the testimony taken at the final hearing, yet review of the transcript herein reveals that the Department failed to perform its duty. There are numerous obvious omissions of substantial and material portions of the testimony received, and the answers to many of the questions posed are incomplete or inaudible. Because of the condition of the record the appellants are unable to obtain any meaningful review of the proceedings. Booker Creek Preservation. Inc. v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 415 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Florida Department of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) are not applicable, as these cases involved a factual situation where the appellant failed to furnish a written transcript although one could have and should have been obtained by the appellant. In this case the appellants made every effort to obtain a complete and accurate written transcript of the testimony but were unable to do so through no fault of their own. As the parties were unable to agree on a statement of the evidence, the appellants are entitled to a hearing de novo. The order of the Department is vacated and the cause is remanded for a hearing de novo on the petition. SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ ., CONCUR.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as an unarmed security guard and an armed security guard. In response to Question #13 on the application, "Have you ever been arrested?", Petitioner answered "yes" and indicated he was sentenced to 18 months for "buying and receiving" in 1971. Petitioner's complete criminal record is as follows: Arrested Charge Sentenced 1967 Willful misuse without right of 1967, six months a motor vehicle 1968 Willful misuse without right of 1968, two years' a motor vehicle probation 1969 Aggravated assault 1969, dismissed 1969 Willful misuse without a motor vehicle right of 1970, 158 days 1970 Receiving a stolen auto 1971, 18 months 1971 Escape, auto robbery, robbery 1971, years total 25 concurrent 1980 Arrested auto theft Charge dropped February 1981 Possession of a concealed weapon Dismissed February 1982 Possession of a concealed weapon Pending The 1967 arrest and conviction occurred when the Petitioner was approximately 16 years old. Petitioner admitted that he had taken the cars as alleged for joyriding as a youth. Petitioner explained that he was sentenced to the state correctional institution for possession of a rental car which he had borrowed from a friend, who had stolen it. Petitioner admitted he had escaped from prison, had stolen a car, and had been recaptured when he ran out of gas in Perry, Florida. Petitioner served eight years in prison and two years of probation of the 25 years' sentence imposed on him. Since his release from prison, the Petitioner has worked as a truck driver, roofer, security guard and mechanic. He has married and lives with his father-in-law, his wife and her two children by a previous marriage. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored to him except for the right to bear arms. He has petitioned to have that right restored. The Petitioner testified that he was issued a temporary pistol permit and issued a firearm by his employer, "Globe," and that he worked in an armed guard post on a building project in Miami. He worked hard as a security guard, frequently worked double shifts, had obtained two promotions, and was being considered for a third promotion when he was terminated as a result of the denial by the Division of Licensing. All charges made against the Petitioner since his release from prison have been dismissed except the charge of possession of a concealed weapon made in February of 1982, which the Petitioner fully disclosed. Petitioner had purchased a .38 calibre revolver, thinking that he was authorized to possess a firearm pursuant to the temporary pistol permit. It was this weapon that was discovered and for which he was charged in February of 1982. The Petitioner understood at the hearing that the temporary pistol permit did not authorize him to purchase or possess a firearm. Petitioner demonstrated a working knowledge of the limits of his authority as a security guard and secured his issued weapon in accordance with the company's rules and applicable regulations. The Petitioner presented a letter from his former supervisor at Globe, attesting to his good work, and a letter from a friend and neighbor attesting to his good conduct since his release from prison. Leroy Dowdell, who lives across from where the Petitioner now works, testified concerning Petitioner's reputation. Petitioner possesses a good reputation in the neighborhood. Dowdell stated he would trust the Petitioner to guard his personal property. The Petitioner stated that he wanted to be licensed because he could earn good money to support himself and his family, and that a knee injury and his criminal record had kept him from finding well-paid employment. Petitioner lacks a high school education. The Petitioner stated he did not list the offenses related to his escape because they occurred while he was in jail for the offense which he did list and were part of that record. Petitioner's testimony was uncontroverted.
Recommendation The Petitioner having established his reputation for honesty and fair dealing and respect for the law, he should be granted an unarmed security guard license; however, Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Willie James Summersett 2268 NW 51st Terrace Miami, Florida 33142 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing R. A. Gray Building, Room 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents were negligent by failing to provide proper supervision and control of two security guard employees, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent U.S. Security has held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License No. A00-01448; a Class "B" Watchman, Guard or Patrol Agency License No. B00-01042; and a Class "DS" Guard School License No. DS89-00077. At all times material hereto, Respondent Bahram Sedaghat has held a Class "C" Private Investigator License No. C87-00645, a Class "DI" Guard Instructor License No. DI89- 00275, a Class "G" Statewide Gun Permit No. G88-00869, and a Class "M" Manager License No. M90-00046. At all times material hereto, Respondent Bahram Sedaghat has been the Vice-President of Respondent U.S. Security, and Juan Cabrera and Octavio Valdez were employees of Respondent U.S. Security. At all times material hereto, Respondent U.S. Security has provided supervision of its security guards (including Cabrera and Valdez) through patrol supervisors, assistant area managers, and area managers. Pursuant to that three-tier level of supervision, every guard post was checked by a supervisor almost every night as part of Respondent U.S. Security's regular supervisory procedures. For several years, Respondent U.S. Security had in effect a contract with Flamingo Plaza, an industrial complex in Hialeah, Florida, to provide unarmed guard services to Flamingo Plaza. That contract was in effect on October 23, 1989. When Cabrera was first employed by Respondent U.S. Security, he was assigned to perform unarmed guard services at a construction site for the Carnival Cruise Lines building. On his first day at that post, construction workers noticed that he was armed. When Brian Pierce, the area manager, came to the post approximately one hour later, the construction workers advised Pierce that Cabrera was armed. Pierce immediately reprimanded Cabrera, reminding Cabrera that the post was an unarmed guard post and that Cabrera was prohibited from being armed while on duty at that post. He made Cabrera lock his gun in his car. Thereafter, no one saw Cabrera with a firearm at that unarmed post. Cabrera was subsequently reassigned to perform guard services at the unarmed guard post located at Flamingo Plaza. On his first day at that assignment, James Cee, the property manager at Flamingo Plaza, saw Cabrera with a firearm while on duty and reported that to Brian Pierce. Pierce reprimanded Cabrera in front of Cee and instructed him not to return to the post with a firearm since it was an unarmed post. Thereafter, there were no further complaints regarding Cabrera carrying a firearm while at Flamingo Plaza although Cabrera continued his assignment at Flamingo Plaza for approximately three or four more months. After Pierce reprimanded Cabrera for appearing at Flamingo Plaza on his first day with a firearm, however, on one occasion Mark McCray, the assistant area manager, saw Cabrera at Flamingo Plaza wearing a jacket while on duty. Visible below the jacket was the bottom of a holster. Cabrera was specifically ordered by McCray not to wear a holster while on duty at an unarmed post. Cabrera was not armed on that occasion. There were no other reports that Cabrera wore a holster at Flamingo Plaza on any other occasion. On October 23, 1989, a shooting incident involving Cabrera took place at the Flamingo Plaza. Upon being notified of the incident Respondent U.S. Security immediately suspended Cabrera and fired him on the following day. Criminal charges were filed against Cabrera based on that shooting incident, and those charges remained pending at the time of the final hearing in this cause. Petitioner immediately conducted an investigation of the incident and of Respondent U.S. Security's procedures for supervision of its unarmed guard employees. At the conclusion of the investigation, Petitioner determined there were no violations of the statutes regulating the security guard industry and closed its file. Thereafter, Cabrera, while the criminal charges were pending against him, appeared on television and gave statements which directly contradicted the evidence obtained by Petitioner in its investigation. As a result of those statements made by Cabrera and pressure exerted by the news media, Petitioner reopened its investigation and subsequently issued the Administrative Complaint which is involved in this proceeding. Respondents were not aware that Juan Cabrera or Octavio Valdez had firearms in their possession while on duty on October 23, 1989, when their assigned duties did not require firearms. Further, there is no reason that Respondents should have known that Cabrera or Valdez had firearms in their possession on that occasion. It is standard procedure for Respondent U.S. Security's supervisors to provide all security guards with "post orders" prior to each guard beginning a new post assignment. Among other things, this document notifies the guard as to whether the post calls for armed or unarmed personnel. Respondent U.S. Security ensures that the guard reads and understands the post orders prior to beginning his shift. On October 23, 1989, Respondent U.S. Security had procedures set up for the hiring, training, and supervision of security guards, both armed and unarmed. Respondent U.S. Security had in place procedures for taking disciplinary action against employees. Those disciplinary guidelines included the exercise of judgment by the supervisory personnel involved. If an employee did something prohibited, the employee was specifically reprimanded and instructed not to engage in that conduct again. If the employee engaged in the same conduct again, he would be fired immediately for disobeying direct orders. Respondent U.S. Security did not have a specific policy directed at a guard appearing at an unarmed post with a firearm or with only a holster because such conduct simply did not occur. Respondent U.S. Security's procedures for supervision of security guards comply with or exceed the procedures utilized in the industry.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them and dismissing that Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4840 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 3-7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2 and 10 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8 and 9 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Florida Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Norman S. Segall, Esquire Bentata Hoet & Associates and Zamora Segall Lacasa & Schere 3191 Coral Way Third Floor, Madison Circle Miami, Florida 33145 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondents' Class B, Class D, Class G and Class MB security licenses should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of private security guards and guard agencies in Florida. Respondent held a Class B Security Agency license, a Class D Security Officer license, a Class G Statewide Firearm license, and a Class MB Security Agency Manager license, all issued pursuant to and under the restrictions contained within the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Though the Class B Security Agency license was issued in the name of Alert Security Services, in reality, Respondent Maraia was the proprietor and operator of the agency under the license. Peter F. Walker was employed as the assistant manager of the 7 - 11 convenience store in Indian Shores, Florida on July 21, 1993. About 11:30 PM, that evening, he observed Respondent in the store about 8 to 20 feet away, wearing his security guard uniform shirt with khaki shorts. A patch on the shoulder of the shirt bore the logo, "Alert Security." As another customer was checking out, Mr. Walker heard a gunshot and then something hitting the floor. At this point, only Mr. Walker, his customer, and the Respondent were in the store. When Walker asked the Respondent about it, Respondent replied that a customer had come up behind him and was trying to take Respondent's weapon from the holster he had stuck in the waistband in the back of his shorts. Respondent claimed that when this happened, the clip from the weapon fell to the floor and one round in the clip went off. Later on, however, Respondent claimed the weapon had dropped and fired when it hit the floor. As Mr. Walker remembers it, however, he heard the shot before anything hit the floor. Patrolman Angela Cole had just pulled into the 7 - 11 parking lot late on the evening of July 21, 1993 when she heard a pop - as if someone had run over a bottle. She checked around the area and seeing nothing unusual, went into the store where she saw the clerk and the Respondent, whom she knew. Respondent was wearing a security badge and carrying a 9 mm weapon in plain view. When Cole spoke with Respondent and asked him why he wasn't in proper security guard uniform, because his dress that evening was not consistent with his usual security uniform, he indicated he was not feeling well. In response to her inquiry regarding the noise she had heard, and why he had the weapon in plain view, Respondent claimed he had dropped his weapon and he and the clerk were joking about it. At this point, however, Respondent seemed nervous and didn't want to discuss the matter further. Also about the same time, Patrolman Vance Nussbaum, of the Indian Shores Police Department entered the store to see Respondent, who had his 9 mm weapon in plain view and was wearing a security badge, engaged in conversation with the store clerk. The pistol was in a holster tucked into Respondent's pants in the back. Nussbaum took hold of the gun and shook it and then chastened Respondent for poor gun safety. At that point, Respondent indicated someone had just hit the magazine release on the weapon and the magazine fell to the floor. That individual was no longer in the area, however. Taken together, it is clear that on the evening in question, Respondent's 9 mm pistol, which was in his possession at the time, was somehow discharged. No report of this weapon discharge was ever filed with the Division, however. On May 23, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to the Holiday Villas II in Indian Shores. Upon his arrival at the scene, he saw June Hawks, who he knew to be a part-time security guard employed by Respondent, on duty in the resort's parking lot after a fire alarm had been sounded. This same activity was also observed, the following day, by E. D. Williams, Chief of the Indian Shores Police Department who presumed Ms. Hawks was working for Respondent. Chief Williams drew this conclusion because he had seen Respondent doing this work at the resort the night before and assumed the same firm was still in charge. On August 2, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to a Pick-Kwick in Madiera Beach based on a call about a drunk individual which call had come in to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office from an individual who described himself as Chris "Myers", a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. It is found that Chris "Myers" is, in actuality, the Respondent, Christopher Maraia, who had represented himself as a reserve police officer. This call was sent out to street units for response, thereby impacting on police operations in the area. When Nussbaum arrived at the scene, he observed Respondent, fully dressed in the uniform of a security guard, with patches, badge and weapon, in the company of a Madiera Beach Police Officer. At one time, Respondent had been a reserve officer with the Indian Shores Police Department but that status had terminated in December 1992. Keith Stillwagen had been employed by Mr. Maraia, off and on, for several years, but worked for him primarily as a security guard at the 34th Street Food Lion market in St. Petersburg between January and March, 1993. He was hired by Mr. Maraia personally, and the identification card Maraia issued to him bore Maraia's signature and license number. This employment was not reported to the Division as required. These allegations were investigated by Gary Floyd, an investigator with the Department of State, who initially interviewed Respondent regarding the alleged hiring of Ms. Hawks and Mr. Stillwagen. In a sworn statement to the investigator, Respondent indicated Alert Security Services had hired Stillwagen on weekends from January to March, 1993, and had also employed Hawks on holidays between April and June, 1993. He admitted that the firm did not notify the Department of State about the hirings and could give "no good reason" for failing to do so as required. In another sworn statement given to Investigator Floyd, Respondent indicated he had worked at Holiday Villas II on July 21, 1993 and had, while out of uniform but wearing a badge on his belt, visited a nearby 7 - 11 store. He admitted that at the time he had a 9 mm pistol with him and it had accidentally discharged when he dropped it. Respondent denied anyone had grabbed for the weapon. He did not report the discharge. On August 9, 1993, Floyd took a third statement from Respondent in which he admitted making the call about the drunk and initially indicating he was a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. He acknowledged this was not a true statement in that he had not held that status for a year and a half at the time. The following day, August 10, 1993, Respondent reiterated his statement to Floyd that he had been at the 7 - 11 when leaving a duty station and claimed he was not in uniform at the time. While he may not have been in full uniform, other credible evidence of record indicates he was dressed in a uniform shirt which bore the patch of his security guard; was displaying a security officer's badge; and was armed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case, dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, but finding Respondent, Maraia, guilty of Counts III, V and VI thereof and Respondent, Alert Security Services, guilty of Count I. It is also recommended that the Class "D", "G", and "MB" security licenses held by Respondents, Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. be revoked; that the C lass "B" license held by Respondent, Alert Security Services, be suspended for one year; and that Respondents jointly and severally pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Stop 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. Alert Security Services 15518 Redington Drive, Redington Beach, Florida 33708 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and/or Class "G" Statewide Firearm License should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence introduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about June 7, 1989, Respondent filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License with the Department. The application form asked the applicant whether he had ever been arrested and to list any and all arrests. The application specifically provided that "falsification of this question may be grounds for denial of your license." Respondent answered affirmatively that he had been arrested. The only specific incident listed on the application was an arrest in 1979 for a charge of "asault [sic] with a deadly weapon intemp [sic] to kill Fay N.C. [sic]." The Application also required the applicant to set forth the outcome of all arrests. Respondent replied that the "charges was [sic] drop [sic]." On or about July 17, 1990, Respondent submitted an application with the Department for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. The application form for this license included an identical request regarding prior arrests. In response, Respondent checked the box indicating he had never been arrested and wrote "N/A" where he was supposed to indicate the date, charge and outcome of the arrests. Respondent has not provided any explanation for why his Class "D" Application disclosed an arrest in 1979, but his Class "G" Application did not reference this arrest. This discrepancy is not alleged in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner has submitted a certificate from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court which indicates that a criminal summons was issued for "Angelo Louis Lugo" on or about May 5, 1987, for a charge of "M Assault By Pointing A Gun." It is not clear whether this summons is directed at Respondent nor is it clear whether the Summons was ever served and/or the subject was arrested. The ultimate disposition of this criminal case is not clear. Respondent denies ever being served with the summons referenced in this court record. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent was ever arrested in connection with this matter. Petitioner has submitted a second certified record from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court, which indicates that Respondent was issued a "Citation" on March 10, 1986, for the charge of "M Shoplifting Concealment Goods." No other evidence or explanation of this record has been provided. Respondent admits that he was issued a Notice to Appear in court after he was caught by store security personnel taking aspirin from a bottle. He testified that he did not list this matter on his applications because he was not "arrested." Instead, he claims that he was merely issued a citation to appear in court. The evidence presented in this case did not refute Respondent's version of the events surrounding this court record. In sum, the evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent was ever formally "arrested" for this incident. The ultimate disposition of this criminal charge is not clear from the record in this proceeding. Counts III and IV of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint are based upon an incident that occurred on February 9, 1993 between Respondent and Jorge Ruiz. There is a good deal of conflicting evidence regarding this incident. Both Respondent and Ruiz have testified and/or given statements on several occasions about the incident including statements to the police, testimony in a related criminal proceeding against Respondent and depositions taken in connection with a civil lawsuit filed by Ruiz against Respondent, Respondent's employer and the Bank where Respondent worked. It is impossible and unnecessary to resolve all of the conflicts in the differing accounts of the incident as described by Respondent and Ruiz at various times. After considering all of the evidence presented, including the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, the findings in this Recommended Order are based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented. On February 9, 1993, Respondent was working as an armed security guard at a Barnett Bank in Plantation, Florida. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Respondent was working outside the bank in the vicinity of the drive-thru lanes. He was there to direct traffic and monitor the area. Around this time, Jorge Ruiz pulled into the paved area in front of the drive-thru booths. Ruiz had been to the Bank on numerous occasions in the past and he had often used the drive-thru windows. Ruiz has a very powerful radio in his pick-up truck and he admits that he tends to play music at a loud volume. On at least one prior occasion, Ruiz had proceeded to the drive-thru station with his radio blasting. The tellers had complained about the noise coming through the intercom system. During the week or so prior to February 9, 1993, Ruiz and Respondent had at least one minor confrontation. During this prior instance, Respondent advised Ruiz that he had to turn his radio down before he reached the drive-thru booth because the intercom system picked up the background noise and it interfered with the tellers' ability to communicate with the customers. Ruiz replied that he would turn down the radio when he got to the window. When Ruiz entered the Bank's parking lot on February 9, 1993, his radio was playing loudly. Respondent approached the driver's side window of Ruiz' vehicle and asked Ruiz to turn his radio down. Ruiz responded with a number of obscenities. Respondent told Ruiz that unless he turned his radio down, he could not use the drive-thru facility. Ruiz refused to comply. Respondent stood in front of Ruiz' vehicle and directed him away from the drive-thru lane. Ruiz' vehicle moved forward and bumped into Respondent. Respondent drew his gun and shouted at Ruiz to stop the car and get out. Respondent claims that he intended to hold Ruiz while he called the police. The parties exchanged words and Ruiz' truck again moved forward striking Respondent. Respondent was not knocked down or otherwise injured, however, his gun discharged. The bullet penetrated the windshield of Ruiz' truck and hit the steering wheel. A fragment from the steering wheel struck Ruiz in the neck or chest area, causing a minor wound. Respondent contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon and/or using deadly force "to prevent the escape from custody of a person who committed a felony in his presence." This contention is rejected because there is no evidence that Ruiz was attempting to escape. Furthermore, it is not clear that Ruiz in fact committed a felony, nor does it appear that the use of force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances of this case. Respondent also contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon in self-defense because he was being threatened by a deadly weapon, i.e. Ruiz' truck, and he had no reasonable means of escape. Respondent claims that he was boxed in by a vehicle in front of the truck and had no reasonable way to retreat from the "deadly force" that confronted him. Respondent's contention that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected as not credible. Contrary to Respondent's claim, the evidence was clear that Respondent had reasonable means of escape. Moreover, there were alternate ways to handle the situation which would have diffused rather than exacerbated the tension and danger. Respondent claims that the gun discharged accidently when the truck hit him. No persuasive evidence was presented to refute this contention. Indeed, in some of his statements, Ruiz admitted that the gun may have gone off by accident when his truck struck Respondent. In sum, it is clear that Ruiz was belligerent and abusive and that his car bumped into Respondent twice. Nonetheless, Respondent's contention that he was justified in drawing his weapon and that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected. While it can not be concluded from the evidence presented that Respondent deliberately shot at Ruiz, the evidence did establish that Respondent was guilty of negligence, misconduct and/or incompetency when he drew and pointed his loaded weapon at Ruiz. The circumstances did not justify Respondent pointing a loaded weapon at Ruiz. Without question, Respondent failed to demonstrate that level of discretion and caution that is expected of a person licensed to carry a firearm in the course of his employment. After the gun went off, Respondent immediately jumped into the truck and took Ruiz to a nearby hospital where Ruiz' minor injury was treated and he was released.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent and finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Count IV of that Third Amended Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, Respondent should be fined $1,500.00, his Class "G" Firearms License should be revoked and his Class "D" Security Guard License should be placed on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 28th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2566 Petitioner has not submitted any proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's proposed recommended order included a section entitled Findings of Fact. However, that section does not include any individually numbered proposed findings of fact and the paragraphs contained in this section of Respondent's proposal include a mixture factual assertions, argument and legal conclusions. The proposal has been fully reviewed and considered. However, because proposed findings of fact have not been separately identified, no rulings are made with respect to Respondent's proposal. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 James S. Benjamin, Esquire Benjamin & Aaronson, P.A. 100 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 850 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On June 11, 1991, Respondent filed an employment application with Florida Patrol and Security Guard Service, Inc., d/b/a Sunstate Security Patrol. Respondent submitted to Maria Vilma Gonzalez, the secretary for Sunstate Security Patrol, photocopies of two documents. Respondent represented that one photocopy was of his Class D Security Officer License and that the other was a photocopy of his Class G Statewide Firearms Permit. The photocopy of the Class D license depicted a valid license with an expiration date of April 1, 1992. The photocopy of the Class G license depicted a valid license with an expiration date of March 4, 1992. Respondent began working for Sunstate Security Patrol as an armed guard on June 11, 1991, and continued that work for approximately six weeks. He left that employ to take employment with Ventura Security Services. Respondent submitted the same documents to Ventura Security Services to show his licensure that he had submitted to Sunstate Security Patrol. Respondent did not hold a valid Class D license or a Class G license on June 11, 1991, when he applied for employment with Sunstate Security Patrol, at any other time while he was employed by Sunstate Security Patrol, or when he applied for employment with Ventura Security Services. Respondent had been issued a Class D license that expired March 4, 1988. Respondent had been issued a Class G license that expired April 1, 1988. The document that Respondent gave to Sunstate Security Patrol and to Ventura Security Services with his employment application purporting to depict a photocopy of a valid Class D license had been altered to reflect an erroneous expiration date. There was no competent evidence submitted at the formal hearing as to who altered the document, but it is clear that Respondent misrepresented his licensure status by submitting this altered document. The document that Respondent gave to Sunstate Security Patrol and to Ventura Security Services with his employment application purporting to depict a photocopy of a valid Class G license had been altered to reflect an erroneous expiration date. There was no competent evidence submitted at the formal hearing as to who altered the document, but it is clear that Respondent misrepresented his licensure status by submitting this altered document. 1/ At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent held a "D" license and a "G" license. The "D" license has an issuance date of October 1, 1991, and an expiration date of July 31, 1993. The "G" license has an issuance date of October 1, 1991, and an expiration date of October 1, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which revokes all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1992, 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 18th day of August, 1992.
