The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, John Hawks (Hawks), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hawks. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hawks had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hawks and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly cultivated and delivered cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hawks filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hawks denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hawks on January 25, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had, three years previously, grown four marijuana plants which he had given away, and that he had on another occasion, three years previously, delivered one ounce of marijuana to a friend. The circumstances surrounding these incidents were further developed at hearing. There, the proof demonstrated that in or about 1982, Hawks was employed by the Metro-Dade Water and Sewer Authority on a survey crew. While working in the field, Hawks stumbled upon a marijuana plant, which was identified to him by a coworker. Having never seen a marijuana plant before, Hawks took 3-4 seeds back to his home and planted them to see what they would do. What they did, following his fertilization, was die when they had matured to the stature of approximately one inch. Following their death, Hawks permitted a coworker to take the plants. Regarding his delivery of one ounce of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that in or about 1982, Hawks was about to go to Broward County to visit a friend when another friend, aware of the pending visit, asked him to deliver a package to the same friend. Hawks did so, and after delivering the package learned for the first time that it contained one ounce of marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hawks' background, that Hawks possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidences. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hawks, born November 13, 1957, delivered a package which contained, unbeknownst to him, one ounce of marijuana and grew four marijuana plans to a stature of approximately one inch approximately 7 years ago. Considering the nature of such acts, their isolation and lack of timeliness to the pending application, and Hawks' age at the time, they are hardly persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Hawks has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hawks has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, John Hawks, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue By letter dated July 18, 1977 the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco disapproved Petitioner's application for transfer of beverage license for the stated reason that corporate officer Anthony DuVal was not believed to be of good moral character. By letter dated July 25, 1977 DuVal contested the denial of the license transfer and requested a hearing. Two witnesses including DuVal testified in behalf of Petitioner, two witnesses were called by Respondent, and 4 exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact Red Wing Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, acquired ownership of the Red Road Lounge and the beverage license appurtenant thereto. Anthony DuVal and his wife own fifty percent of the stock of Red Wing Enterprises although Exhibit 3 shows DuVal to own one hundred percent of the applicant. Exhibit 3 shows DuVal was born in 1933; he testified that he is now 46. He changed his name to DuVal from Anthony Anello. On his original application, Exhibit 3, under his arrest record DuVal showed arrests in 1961 for FHA fraud and worthless check for which he was placed on probation and in 1965 a conviction for buying receiving, and concealing stolen property for which he was sentenced to one year in the county jail. During the investigation of his application DuVal was questioned at the Miami Division of Beverage office in April, 1977 regarding various arrests. He then denied having been arrested in New Jersey under the name of Anello and had no recall of various other arrests prior to 1960. Exhibit 4, Personnel Questionnaire, was prepared by DuVal with assistance of counsel on December 9, 1977 at the time of his previously scheduled hearing which was then continued until December 15. Exhibit 4 shows 6 worthless check offenses between March and August, 1960 for which he pleaded guilty and was placed on two year's probation; worthless check conviction in 1961 for which he was given probation; PEA fraud conviction 1961, for which he was given probation; a grand larceny charge dismissed for want of prosecution 10-7-63; aggravated assault, 1966 for which he was found not guilty; possession of firearms by a convicted felon, 1966 which was dismissed for want of prosecution; buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, 1965 and 1967 for which he was found not guilty; worthless check, 1967 for which he was found not guilty; buying and receiving or concealing stolen property, 1965, found guilty and sentenced to one year in county jail; and buying and receiving stolen property, 1969 for which he was found not guilty. In his testimony DuVal admitted arrests and convictions in New Jersey under the name of Anello plus numerous arrests from the operation of his store "Tony's Trading Post" in Miami as well as citations for not keeping his property clean of trash. His explanation of Exhibit 3 not including numerous arrests was that he thought only convictions need to be reported. His explanation for not listing the arrests prior to 1960 was that he thought he only needed to go back fifteen years in disclosing his record. DuVal described his trading post as a borderline operation by which he obviously implied that he often bought stolen property but could only take the seller's affidavit that the property was rightfully his to tell. For complaints stemming from this operation he was arrested perhaps 20 times but was not convicted. Numerous other times he was arrested for municipal code violations when trash was dumped on his property. In 1972 DuVal had his civil rights restored that had been -lost by reason of his convictions of the worthless check offenses and FHA fraud in 1961, and for the 1965 conviction of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. The one witness who testified regarding DuVal's character had worked for DuVal as bookkeeper and bartender when he first took over the Red Road Lounge. Although she testified DuVal's reputation was good and people spoke highly of him, her observations were limited generally to the patrons of the bar. She had never spoken to the police, to patrons of Tony's Trading Post, or to any of the local politicians she knew, about DuVal's reputation. DuVal's explanation for failure to bring in various witnesses whose names he dropped as good friends, was that he didn't want them to know about his criminal record. DuVal owns motels, apartments, the Trading Post, and several lots in Miami in addition to the interest he acquired in the Red Road Lounge.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent was certified by the Commission on March 1, 1983, and was issued certificate number 06-83-502-01. Prior to January, 1990, the Respondent was employed as a correction officer at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI). During the course of his training and experience as a correction officer Respondent has become familiar with cannabis and is able to recognize the controlled substance both by sight and smell. Respondent has confiscated cannabis from inmates at TCI at least one hundred times. On January 17, 1990, Respondent went to the Cool Breeze Bar in Seminole County, Florida. On that date, the bar was under surveillance by the narcotics and vice unit as it was thought to be a known gathering place for individuals selling illegal narcotics. As part of his surveillance of the bar, Deputy Shea observed a man later known to be the Respondent passed out in an automobile. The automobile belonged to Respondent and he was its only occupant. When Deputy Shea approached the vehicle he observed what appeared to be a marijuana pipe on the dash of the car at approximately arm's length from the Respondent. On further search Deputy Shea retrieved an envelope containing a substance which he later field tested. That substance field tested positive for cannabis. Deputy Shea's investigation was initiated after he opened the car door and smelled an aroma which he identified with burnt cannabis. After the Respondent was aroused from his sleep, Deputy Shea patted him down and placed him under arrest. The Respondent was disoriented and remained so during the time Deputy Shea searched the vehicle. Respondent had been drinking heavily. Deputy Shea marked the seized items for identification and later sent them to the sheriff's laboratory for additional testing. That testing was performed by Ms. Alt. Ms. Alt weighed and tested the items seized from Respondent's vehicle and determined that the plant material was cannabis and weighed less than 20 grams. Respondent knew on the evening of January 17, 1990, that cannabis had been smoked in his car but claimed he was unaware of the illegal items which others had allegedly left behind. Respondent claimed his cousins had smoked the marijuana in his car while he was in the bar and that he had gone to the vehicle later to sleep off his intoxication. On March 19, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis and was adjudicated guilty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certification. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3589 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Chavers 113 Scott Drive Sanford, Florida 32771 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Signe Anthony (Anthony), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately one and one-half years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Anthony. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Anthony had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Anthony and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission'S letter of denial, Anthony filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Anthony denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Anthony on May 9, 1987, at which time she admitted that she had tried marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that on one occasion, at age 13 and while a student in junior high school, Anthony took three or four "drags" from a marijuana cigarette. Other than that one occasion Anthony has not used marijuana or any controlled substance. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission's contention that Anthony's application with the City of Miami for employment as a police officer was denied in 1985 because her pre- employment urinalysis ostensibly proved positive for the presence of marijuana has not been overlooked. However, the proof offered to demonstrate that her urinalysis proved positive for the presence of marijuana was not credible or reliable. Contrasted to such unpersuasive proof was the credible testimony of Anthony that she had used marijuana on but the one occasion during junior high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Anthony's background, that Anthony possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Anthony, currently 26 years of age, used marijuana on one occasion approximately 13 years ago when she was 13 years of age. Such an isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Anthony has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately one and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to outstanding, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Anthony has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Signe Anthony, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked, or otherwise disciplined, for failure to maintain qualifications.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Dade County public schools and worked as a guard in the school system's administration building for several years. As a public school employee, he was subjected to random drug testing. None of those tests indicated the presence of drugs in Respondent's system. Over time, persons employed as police officers by the school system's Special Investigative Unit became impressed with Respondent's character and job performance and approached him regarding becoming certified as a police officer and working with the Special Investigative Unit of the Dade County public schools. Since Respondent had always wanted to be a police officer, he attended the police academy under the sponsorship of the Dade County school system. After graduation from the police academy, Respondent was certified by Petitioner on January 4, 1988, and was issued Certificate Number 03-87-002-04. Thereafter, he was employed as a police officer with the Dade County public schools' Special Investigative Unit. In mid-April, 1988, Respondent and his then-fiancee went down to the Florida Keys with, and at the invitation of, another couple to spend the weekend in a time-share condominium, from Friday through Sunday. After lunch on Saturday, Respondent and the other couple began drinking beer. They drank beer until the time that the four vacationers went to dinner. At dinner Respondent consumed several mixed drinks. After dinner they returned to the condominium where Respondent consumed more beer. By this time Respondent was drunk. He fell asleep on the couch while his fiancee and the other couple continued talking and listening to music. At some point Respondent began waking up. Respondent's male "friend" reached into his own wallet, took out what appeared to be a cigarette, lit it, and placed it in Respondent's hand. When Respondent, who smokes cigarettes, began smoking the item placed in his hand, he began choking. When Respondent's fiancee demanded to know what was occurring, the "friend" replied that he was only playing a joke on Respondent and took the "cigarette" back from the Respondent. Respondent lay back down on the couch and again fell asleep. Due to the amount of alcohol he had consumed on Saturday, Respondent remembers going back to the time-share condominium after dinner but has no recollection of anything that happened thereafter. On the following day, the vacationers returned to Miami. No one told Respondent about the joke his "friend" had played on him. On Monday Respondent was advised that his annual employment physical, including drug screening, would take place on Tuesday. Respondent made no attempt to avoid that physical examination, but rather appeared for his physical as scheduled. On Tuesday, April 19, 1988, Respondent underwent his annual employment physical at Mt. Sinai Hospital. He was administered a drug test as part of that routine annual physical mandated by his employer. The employer had no reasonable suspension to drug test the Respondent. The subsequent gas chromatography, mass spectrometry analysis performed on Respondent's urine sample produced a reading of 27 nanograms of THC metabolites, i.e., his urine test was positive for the metabolite associated with the drug marijuana or cannabinoids. When Respondent was advised by his supervisor that his test was positive for marijuana, Respondent was shocked. He denied ever having smoked marijuana and also denied being around anyone who was smoking marijuana. Respondent took the position that his sample must have been contaminated. When advised by his supervisors that he could have the sample re- tested, Respondent declined believing that if the sample was contaminated, the results of any re-testing would be the same. Respondent's supervisors were also shocked that Respondent's test proved positive. They held him in the highest regard and testified at the final hearing that Respondent is an excellent police officer, that he is conscientious and reliable, and that he possesses honesty and integrity. One of his supervisors testified that he would let Respondent "watch my back" without hesitation in any situation -- the highest tribute a police officer can give to another police officer. In spite of his supervisors' high opinion of Respondent, Respondent was fired from his employment with the school system's police unit as a result of the positive urine test results because that was that department's policy. Respondent consistently maintained that he had never used marijuana. Believing his urine sample to have been contaminated, he hired an attorney to represent him in proving that the test results were erroneous. Respondent consistently maintained that he did not use drugs. He maintained that he could not understand why his test was positive. At some point in an informal discussion with one of his supervisors, Respondent maintained that he did not use drugs and told that supervisor the only thing unusual that had happened prior to the drug test was that he had spent the weekend in the Keys and perhaps he had been some how exposed to marijuana there. Some time after Respondent's termination from the school system, Petitioner filed formal charges to revoke his certification as a police officer. Some where around that time, his then-fiancee finally told Respondent what had happened in the Keys the night that Respondent was drunk. She told him she had been afraid to tell him about it since she had not told him earlier. She thought that if she had told him before he was fired, then he might have been able to avoid being fired. Since she had not told him then, she had not told him subsequently since she thought he would consider it her fault that he had been fired and would refuse to marry her. She finally told him because of the pain he was suffering not knowing and because of the need for honesty in their relationship. Although Respondent had no recollection of the incident described to him by her, he believed her when she told him that it had happened. Respondent then accepted responsibility for having smoked marijuana on that one occasion when he was drunk. Respondent did not knowingly and voluntarily possess marijuana and did not knowingly and voluntarily introduce that substance into his body during that weekend in the Keys. Respondent's consumption of marijuana in the Keys on that weekend was an isolated incident, and Respondent has not possessed or consumed marijuana prior to or subsequent to that incident. Although Respondent exhibited poor judgment in becoming so intoxicated that evening in the Keys, Respondent does possess good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-6484 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 8-10, and 12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 11, and 15 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13 and 14 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. The first through fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth unnumbered paragraphs in the findings of fact section of Respondent's proposed recommended order have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The sixth, seventh, and tenth through thirteenth unnumbered paragraphs in the findings of fact section of Respondent's proposed recommended order have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Copies furnished: Mark Richard, Esquire 304 Palermo Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 13, 1987, and was issued certificate number 19-86-502- 05. Respondent is employed as a correctional officer by Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and has been so employed since June, 1986. Respondent's current assignment is at the Metro-Dade County Women's Detention Center, Miami, Florida, where she works in different correctional capacities. Respondent was born on March 18, 1956, and attended junior and senior high school in Miami, Florida. She then attended Miami-Dade Junior College on a two-year scholarship, earning an A.A. degree in criminology. She then attended Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, earning a Bachelor's degree in criminology. During high school Respondent lost the tips of three fingers on her right hand, as a result of an accident in the factory where she worked. Respondent worked for the Clerk of the Courts, Dade County, Florida, from 1979-1986. At first, she worked in the Clerk's Office itself. She was subsequently assigned to work as a courtroom clerk in the misdemeanor division, and later moved up to working as a courtroom clerk in the felony division. Hector A. Rocafort, a polygraph examiner with the Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, administered a polygraph pre- test to Respondent on November 5, 1985. The pre-test involves a discussion/interview between Rocafort and the person being examined prior to the time that the polygraph examination itself is administered. Rocafort made notes of his interpretation of the discussion between Respondent and him. Those notes were never shown to Respondent. Respondent was never advised that any statements made by her to Rocafort could or would be used against her in an administrative forum. The statements subsequently attributed to Respondent, as reported by Rocafort, are not verbatim statements; rather, Rocafort paraphrased statements made by Respondent to him. The statements allegedly made by Respondent were not sworn to by Respondent, and the written interpretation subsequently made a part of her personnel file by Rocafort were not sworn to by him. During the pre-test, Respondent was encouraged to disclose any conduct that was even questionable in her mind, and Rocafort explained legal ramifications to her. For example, he explained that taking items home from work, shoplifting, and petit theft were all the same thing. When a specific dimension of the pre-test format called for time periods or the number of times that conduct was engaged in, Respondent was asked to indicate a time frame or number with which she would feel comfortable. Rocafort explained that the methodology used is to have the examinee make pre-test disclosures in their worst light so that when the actual polygraph examination is administered, he can ask the question "Other than what we have already discussed, have you ever . . . ." That way, the examinee does not have to worry about exact numbers or dates or questionable incidents during the examination and can comfortably answer the polygraph examination questions so as to produce accurate readings. Accordingly, the number of occasions indicated or the time periods indicated during the pre-test need not be accurate. According to Rocafort, Respondent did very well on the actual polygraph examination. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to being arrested and charged with petit theft in 1977. In 1977 Respondent, while attending Florida State University, was in a Woolco Department Store in Tallahassee with another lady she knew. Respondent's companion took off the pair of old "thongs" which she was wearing and put on a new pair of "thongs" which the store had for sale. The "thongs" had a retail value of $1.99. She left the store without paying for them. A Woolco security guard called Respondent and her companion back to the store. Respondent returned to the store, but her companion did not, having gone elsewhere in the mall. Since Respondent had been with the person who committed the theft, the security guard called the police, and Respondent was charged with petit theft. She was taken to jail and brought before a judge the next morning. When she appeared in court, she had no attorney, was scared, and was alone. The judge explained to her that if she pled guilty, she would be required to serve 24 hours of community service. Since she was afraid of what else could happen to her if she did not plead guilty, she entered a plea of guilty and was required to perform 24 hours of community service. She performed her community service at the Salvation Army's nursery and worked there for more than the 24 hours required, working there during the evenings when she had spare time. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to purchasing stolen goods on four occasions, the last time being 1980 when she allegedly purchased a pair of sneakers for $5.00. Respondent purchased items from street vendors several times throughout her life, a common occurrence or "way of life" in her neighborhood. In approximately 1980, while Respondent was working in a restaurant with her mother a man came into the restaurant selling canvas sneakers. Respondent's sister wanted to purchase a pair, so Respondent gave her the $5.00 she needed to buy a pair of sneakers from the vendor. Currently, similar sneakers can be purchased retail for $5.99. Similarly, Respondent purchased undershirts for her baby son when Respondent was 15 years of age. Respondent never considered the fact that the sneakers or the undershirts might have been stolen until Rocafort suggested to her during the pre-test on November 5, 1985, that items bought from street vendors could be stolen property. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to shoplifting ten times, the last time being five years earlier. Respondent has never shoplifted. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test, Respondent allegedly admitted to using marijuana approximately five times, the last time being two years earlier. Respondent took a single puff from a marijuana cigarette at a party while she was in the 9th or 10th grade, at the age of 15 or 16. Respondent involuntarily took a single puff from a marijuana cigarette, at the insistence of a man she was dating in 1982 or 1983. Respondent has no recollection of puffing a marijuana cigarette other than on those two occasions. Respondent took a pre-employment physical examination on April 10, 1986, at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, part of which was a urinalysis in which Respondent proved negative for all drugs tested, including marijuana. Respondent took an annual employment physical on March 14, 1990, at Mount Sinai Hospital, part of which was a urinalysis. Respondent proved negative for all drugs tested, including marijuana. Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation considers, in determining whether an applicant's prior use of controlled substances should be a bar to employment, the severity and frequency of the usage and the lapse of time between the usage and the applicant's employment. If the usage is not severe or frequent and one year has passed between the last usage and the employment application date, then the usage is not considered proximate in time and prior use will not be a bar to employment but will simply be considered along with all of the other factors considered as a result of the background investigation of an applicant. During the November 5, 1985, polygraph pre-test Respondent allegedly admitted to taking minor office supplies totalling approximately $10.00. Respondent, while working as a courtroom clerk for the Clerk of the Courts, Dade County, Florida, was issued pens, pencils, "Wite out", and manila folders to use at her job. When Respondent "used up" the supplies issued to her or if someone took them off her desk in the courtroom, she would have to submit a written request for a replacement. Accordingly, Respondent often took these supplies home to safeguard them and generally brought them back to the job the next day, but may have forgotten on occassion. The polygraph examination, the pre-test, the physical examination, and a background investigation are required to be conducted by the employing agency prior to certification of a correctional officer by Petitioner. By virtue of the fact that Respondent was certified by Petitioner on February 13, 1987, she was determined at that time by Petitioner to be of good moral character up to that date. All allegations of misconduct made by Petitioner in this cause involve dates prior to the date that Petitioner concluded that Respondent had good moral character. Respondent is considered, by reputation, to be honest beyond reproach, to possess integrity, and to be of good moral character. She is an outstanding employee, and has the respect of her supervisors. As one supervisor testified, "She can work with me any time." Respondent possesses, and has maintained, good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and dismissing the Administrative Complaint with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 31st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 8 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11- 15 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Casey, Esquire 10680 Northwest 25th Street Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33172 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
