Findings Of Fact During the month of April in 1988, and perhaps also in March of that year, the Petitioner, Sam Anthony Ciotti, conspired with others to purchase 200 pounds of marijuana in Broward County, Florida, for $110,000.00 The conspirators intended to transport the 200 pounds of marijuana to Ohio, where they expected to sell the marijuana to others. Unbeknownst to the conspirators, the persons from whom they arranged to purchase the marijuana were detectives of the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department. The negotiations for the sale were primarily between the detectives and a conspirator named Klenner. The basic terms of the agreement were that the detectives would deliver 200 pounds of marijuana to Klenner or to someone designated by Klenner, Klenner would then transport the marijuana to Ohio and sell it, and once he received the money for selling the marijuana, Klenner would pay $110,000.00 to one of the detectives. To secure the deal, Klenner agreed that he and the Petitioner, Ciotti, would sign a promissory note for $110,000.00 secured by a boat co-owned by Klenner and Ciotti. On April 14, 1988, one of the detectives met with the Petitioner, Ciotti, at the boat yard where the boat was. docked. During that meeting the detective confirmed with Ciotti that a promissory note would be signed for 200 pounds of marijuana and that the boat would be collateral for the promissory note. On April 15, 1988, the two detectives met with Klenner and Ciotti, at which time Klenner delivered to one of the detectives a promissory note in the amount of $110,000.00 signed by both Klenner and Ciotti. On April 19, 1988, one of the detectives spoke to Klenner and arrangements were made for the marijuana to be delivered to a third conspirator named Bradford. Later that day the two detectives met Bradford at a prearranged location. One of the detectives took possession of Bradford's motor vehicle, loaded it with 200 pounds of marijuana, and returned the motor vehicle and its cargo of marijuana to Bradford. The trunk was opened and Bradford examined the marijuana cargo. Bradford then took possession of his motor vehicle and attempted to drive away with the 200 pounds of marijuana. At that point, he was arrested. Later that same day, the detectives went to the boat yard where the boat owned by Klenner and Ciotti was docked, where they arrested Ciotti and seized the boat owned by Klenner and Ciotti. On June 8, 1989, the Department of Revenue issued a document titled Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings which assessed tax, penalties, and interest in the amount of $52,534.42 against the Petitioner, Ciotti, pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1987). The factual basis for the assessment was the Petitioner's involvement in the marijuana transaction described in the foregoing findings of fact. Following other unsuccessful efforts to resolve the matter, the Petitioner ultimately filed a timely petition seeking a formal hearing. At the formal hearing in this case on September 28, 1990, the Department of Revenue delivered to the Petitioner a document dated September 27, 1990, titled Revised Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings. The significant difference between the original assessment and the "revised" assessment is that in the latter document the Department seeks to recover less than in the original assessment. Specifically, the "revised" assessment contains a lower estimated retail price than on the original assessment and eliminates a fifty percent penalty that was included on the original assessment. These changes are consistent with the Department's current policies regarding the assessment of taxes, penalties, and interest. The net difference between the two assessment documents is a reduction of $18,809.39 in the amount sought by the Department. The specific amounts assessed in the "revised" assessment are as follows: Tax, $22,000.00; Penalty, $5,500,00; and Interest, $6,225.03; for a total of $33,725.03. Interest continues to accrue at the rate of $7.23 per day. The factual predicate for the "revised" assessment is the same as that of the original assessment.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue issue a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Sam Anthony Ciotti, is liable for taxes, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1987), and assessing the amount of such liability at $33,725.03, plus interest at the rate of $7.23 per day since September 28, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of February 1991. 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 1st day of February 1991.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary ace ion against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact On and after June 19, 1985, respondent Mack T. Short has been certified as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate No. 14-85-502-05. Two years ago, when, like respondent, he worked at the Florida State Prison as a correctional officer, Guy William Carstens "usually had some" (T. 84) marijuana with him. Messers. Carstens and Short "carpooled" (T. 83) to and from work in the spring of 1987. On "a couple of occasions after work," (T. 84) in April or May of that year, Mr. Short accepted Mr. Carstens's offer to share a pipe or cigarette filled with marijuana. All told, in the course of a year or so, the two men smoked marijuana together five or ten times. T. 88,92. Dale D. Farrow, another correctional officer at the Florida State Prison who bought marijuana from Mr. Carstens periodically over a year's time and regularly smoked it, grew apprehensive of finding himself "up for criminal charges possibly" (T. 80) when he learned from Mr. Carstens that an inmate had threatened to turn Mr. Carstens in, after a $10,000 marijuana transaction went sour. In fact, the inmate did report the drug deal he had with Mr. Carstens to prison authorities, but they did nothing about it. After speaking to the inmate, Mr. Farrow, who has worked at Florida State Prison as a correctional officer for more than seven years, contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), informing personnel there that Mr. Carstens "was dealing in narcotics and that several other correctional officers were buying narcotics from him and using narcotics." T. 16. FDLE passed this information on to the Inspector General's Office within the Department of Corrections. When Mr. Carstens was eventually apprehended, arresting officers found more than a pound of marijuana in the trunk of his car. At one time Mr. Carstens Stored marijuana in a shed behind the house respondent shared with his wife and small child. Mr. Short, who had made the shed available to him as storage for two bucket seats and some motorcycle parts, was apparently unaware of any marijuana in the shed. He was not home when Mr. Farrow saw Mr. Carstens unlock the shed door, enter and remove a sizable quantity of marijuana After his arrest, Mr. Carstens, who was Promised more lenient treatment if he implicated others, named respondent (among Several other correctional officers) as a drug offender. Convicted of Possession (but not distribution despite, e.g. testimony under oath in the present case that he did distribute), Mr. Carstens was placed on five years' probation. Mr. Farrow, who, like respondent, was never Prosecuted criminally, continues to work as a guard at Florida State Prison. There was no indication that Petitioner intends to take any action affecting Mr. Farrow's certification as a law enforcement officer.
Recommendation Particularly in light of the treatment Petitioner has accorded Mr. Farrow, whose moral character the evidence called at least as clearly into question as respondent's, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner reprimand the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5249 Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Nos. 8, 9, and 12 were not convincingly established by credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 88-5249 CJSTC CASE NO. C-1390 MACK T. SHORT, Certificate Number 14-85-502-05. Respondent. /
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Noel Anthony Brown, is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0642242. On July 23, 1996, Respondent filed an application (dated July 19, 1996) with the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer "Yes" or "No" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent responded to the question by checking the box marked "No." The application concluded with an "Affidavit of Applicant," which was acknowledged before a Notary Public of the State of Florida, as follows: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person so applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. (Emphasis added.) On September 30, 1996, Respondent passed the salesperson examination and he was issued license number 0642242 as an inactive salesperson. From November 12, 1996, through the date of the hearing, Respondent has been an active salesperson associated with Premiere Homes Realty, Inc., a broker corporation located at 5737 Pembroke Road, Hollywood, Florida. By letter of March 16, 1998, the Department requested an explanation from the Respondent regarding certain information it had received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement regarding Respondent's criminal record. That letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has returned information to this office that an arrest was made on January 3, 1992 by the Metro-Dade Police Department for Marijuana- Possess-MISD[EMEANOR]. To clear any ambiguity regarding your "No" response to the relevant application question, we request additional information. If charges were Dismissed or Nolle Prossed, please forward a copy of the dismissal or a notarized statement so that we may clear your records. If the charge(s) resulted in a conviction(s), or adjudication withheld, you will need to forward a copy of the Information, Plea and Sentencing to this office along with a statement or explanation regarding your failure to disclose this information on your application form. By letter of May 5, 1998, Respondent responded to the Department's inquiry, as follows: Please correct the answer to question nine (9) on my application to "Yes". A copy of the printed docket case action summary is enclosed as indicated. I did not in anyway write "NO" to hide the information. I was not familiar with the terms used in the Criminal Justice System and was confused when I was told that I was not found guilty. This was an honest mistake and I do apologize. As for the disposition of the charge, the case summary (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) reveals that Respondent was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis (marijuana), a misdemeanor.1 According to the summary, Respondent apparently entered a plea (although whether the plea was guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendre is not of record) on or about April 13, 1992, and the court apparently found Respondent guilty of the charge since it "withheld ADJUDICATION WITH FINE AND COSTS." Thereafter, on August 19, 1998, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding which, based on Respondent's failure to disclose the aforesaid criminal disposition, charged that "Respondent has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of [Section] 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." and sought to take disciplinary action against his license. According to the complaint, the disciplinary action sought . . . may range from a reprimand; an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation; probation; suspension of license, registration or permit for a period not to exceed ten (10) years; revocation of the license, registration or permit; and any one or all of the above penalties. 2 Consistent with the explanation he offered the Department in his letter of May 5, 1998, Respondent explained, at hearing, that his response to item 9 on the application was, at the time, an accurate reflection of his understanding of the disposition of the charge. According to Respondent, who was not represented in the criminal matter, he simply followed the instructions of the court personnel, since he was unfamiliar with court procedure, and, after having complied with those instructions, it was his understanding that the matter was dismissed. Here, Respondent's explanation for his failure to disclose the marijuana possession charge on his application is credited, and it is resolved that, at the time he submitted his application, Respondent did not intend to mislead or deceive those who would be reviewing his application. In so concluding, it is observed that Respondent's testimony was candid and his understanding of the disposition of the matter was, given the alien nature of the experience, reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1999.
Findings Of Fact While a student at Southwest Florida Police Academy in April 1981, Petitioner gave Janice Kellogg a baggie containing 3.2 grams of marijuana. The only factual dispute occurred regarding the circumstances leading to Petitioner's acquisition of the marijuana and the reasons for giving the marijuana to Kellogg. Petitioner testified he found the marijuana in the road leading into a trailer space adjacent to his trailer the morning after the trailer had departed. He further testified he threw the marijuana into the cab of his pickup truck intending to turn it in to the authorities; that he was engaged in final exams and forgot about the marijuana until later in the day when a K-9 drug dog was presented and Petitioner hid the marijuana to test the dog; that after they observed the dog locate the marijuana, Kellogg asked Petitioner for the marijuana and he gave it to her; and that when he asked for it back later that day he was told she had smoked it. Kellogg's version of the events surrounding the marijuana is that after the marijuana had been produced for the drug dog, Petitioner gave her the baggie saying, "You look like a girl who likes to lay back and smoke a joint once in a while." Upon receipt of the marijuana Kellogg turned it in to police authorities and at their request attempted to get Petitioner to provide her with additional marijuana, without success. She further testified Petitioner told her he had obtained the marijuana from a suspect he had "frisked" the previous day. Petitioner worked in law enforcement in Tennessee for at least two years before moving to Florida. He has been in charge of the drug section of a police force in Tennessee but has had no special training. His experience caused him to immediately recognize the contents of the baggie as marijuana. Janice Kellogg has been involved in police work in Florida for one and one-half years and worked as a confidential informant to a narcotics squad in Michigan for five years before coming to Florida. She is certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and their demeanor while testifying, the following; relevant facts are found. Mitchell E. Verdell is registered with the Florida Board of Real Estate as a salesman. On or about July 17, 1978, the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell, filed with the then Florida Real Estate Commission, now Board of Real Estate, an application for registration as a Real Estate Salesman. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) On the Respondent's application for licensure, he failed to disclose that he had been arrested in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 7, 1974, and tried for unlawful possession of marijuana. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance over five (5) grams for which he was place on probation for a period of two (2) years and an adjudication of guilt was withheld. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) Mitchell E. Verdell appeared and testified that his only witness, his probation officer, was ill and thus could not appear at the hearing. Mr. Verdell acknowledged his failure to disclose on his application for licensure with the Board the fact that he appeared in court on a charge of possession of a controlled substance. He also acknowledged the fact that he was placed on two (2) years probation. His probation officer, Bill Gross, advised Mr. Verdell with reference to his conviction and the manner in which he should handle it that since the judge withheld adjudication, he should never disclose it for a job when questions respecting his arrest were asked. He testified that he relied on Officer Gross, who bad been a probation officer for a few decades. (TR 9-10)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell's license to practice real estate as a salesman be REVOKED without prejudice to filing an application that is proper. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate Post Office Pox 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn Anderson, Esquire Post Office Pox 9159 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
The Issue Whether Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton should be granted re-registration of terminated license No. 34741-1 as indicated in the Administrative Complaint dated 7-18-78, pursuant to Section 464.21(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton appeared at the hearing without counsel or other representative. The Hearing Officer explained her rights in an administrative hearing and she acknowledged that she understood the same. The Respondent also stated that she is now married and that her married name is Farris. Petitioner moved to amend paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint to reflect that Respondent was arrested in January, 1976 rather than 1975 as alleged therein. There being no objection, the request was granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a Licensed Practical Nurse with the Florida State Board of Nursing in 1974 and such license was automatically terminated on April 1, 1977, for non-payment of license renewal fee. On August 11, 1977, Respondent filed an application for re-registration of her terminated license with Petitioner. Petitioner reviewed the application and denied the same by a letter to Respondent dated October 28, 1977, under the authority of Section 464.21(d), Florida Statutes. The specific basis for denial was that Respondent had a prior arrest for possession of marijuana. (Testimony of Johnson, Exhibit 1-2) On February 4, 1975, Hillsborough County Deputy Sheriff Gene L. Stokes and Detective William Strickland, who were operating as undercover narcotic detectives, entered Respondent's residence at 3213 Delray Drive, Tampa, Florida. They had made prearrangements with Joseph H. Farris, who also resided at that residence, to purchase approximately two pounds of marijuana for $175.00 per pound. Farris met the officers at the door and escorted them into the kitchen where Respondent, Albert Yourn, and Thomas Spear, were seated around the kitchen table. A neighbor, Nancy Anderson, entered the residence at the same time as did Stokes and Strickland. Farris proceeded to cut a quantity of material from a compressed block of a substance that appeared to he marijuana. He placed the severed portion in a ziplock "haggle" and weighed it on a scale located on the kitchen table. At that point, the officers arrested all persons on the premises for possession and delivery of marijuana. A search of the residence pursuant to a search warrant revealed the presence of other quantities of marijuana and implements for its use in a kitchen desk drawer and in a cabinet above the kitchen stove. Two bags of marijuana were also found in Spear's possession as a result of a search of his person. The amount of marijuana remaining on the kitchen table was approximately 920 grams and a "haggle" containing approximately 16 pre-wrapped ounces of marijuana was also on the kitchen table. The substance which had been sold to Stokes was delivered to the Florida State Crime Laboratory in Tampa and, after analysis by Richard H. Estes, a forensic chemist employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, was determined to be cannabis sativa, also known as marijuana. Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled drug under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Stokes, Estes) On February 13, 1975, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida against Respondent for possession of more than five grams of marijuana on February 4, 1975, in violation of subsection 893.13(1)(e) Florida Statutes. On May 25, 1976, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge and Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt was entered by the Court with probation for a period of two years. (Exhibits 3-4) Respondent testified at the hearing that she had no knowledge that marijuana was being sold at her residence on February 5, 1975, and that she had not entered the house until subsequent to the entrance by the detectives. She admitted that her residence had been a gathering place for individuals in the neighborhood, including some of whom she did not approve and also persons unknown to her. She testified that although she pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of marijuana, she was under the impression that she was simply acknowledging that marijuana had been present at her residence. She also testified that when she had discovered what was taking place at her home, she "started a little hassle " with Farris. Her present husband, Joseph Farris, testified and corroborated her version of the incident, including her claim that she was unaware of the presence of marijuana on the premises. In addition, her cousin, Albert Yourn, who was present at the time of the arrest, testified that Respondent was not in the house at the time the drug transaction was taking place, but that she arrived prior to the arrest. (Testimony of Respondent, J. Farris, Yourn) Petitioner's records reflect that Respondent meets all other qualifications for licensure. They do not show the presence of any other derogatory information prior to or subsequent to Respondent's arrest. (Testimony of Johnson)
Recommendation That the application of Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton Farris for re-registration as a Licensed Practical Nurse be denied under the authority of Section 464.21(1)(d) Florida Statutes. That favorable consideration he given to any subsequent application by Respondent for re-registration, provided that such application is accompanied by proof of present good character. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Della Elaine Lamberton Farris 3202 Clifford Sample Drive Tampa, Florida 33619
The Issue Whether respondent's law enforcement officer certificate should be revoked or suspended for alleged failure to maintain qualifications for certification, failure to maintain good moral character, and willful neglect of duty, incompetence, or gross misconduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the charges, respondent held a law enforcement certificate issued by the Commission, and was employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Polk County Sheriff's Department. In December, 1979, Respondent -- while employed as a Deputy Sheriff -- purchased a $5.00 bag of marijuana from an individual identified as "Baldy." The purchase took place in the presence of others and occurred at Baldy's apartment located at 904 Center Avenue, Haines City, Florida. Respondent did not arrest Baldy for possession and sale of marijuana. Moreover, on at least one occasion during the same year, respondent smoked marijuana at Baldy's apartment in the presence of others. This finding is based on respondent's admissions to R. L. Stanley and Jerry Whitehead. Those admissions are corroborated by the hearsay statement made by John Butler, Jr. to investigator Robert Parnell, and by the results of a polygraph examination which respondent took on February 9, 1981. The examination was administered by an expert polygraph examiner. Moreover, respondent did not object to receiving the examination results into evidence. At hearing, respondent admitted using marijuana, but denied having purchased marijuana at Baldy's apartment in December, 1979. His denial is rejected as unworthy of belief. (Testimony of Stanley, Whitehead, respondent; P-1, P-2, P- 3) On February 9, 1981, respondent was involuntarily terminated as a Deputy Sheriff with the Polk County Sheriff's Department for conduct unbecoming an employee, i.e., the purchase and use of marijuana.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's law enforcement officer's certificate be suspended for one year, with reinstatement upon a showing of rehabilitation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this proceeding was provided Compton by registered mail return receipt requested at the last address provided the Florida Real Estate Commission by Compton and also at the forwarding address obtained by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Compton was arrested for failure to appear in court to answer a traffic citation, in the City of Hollywood, Florida. Compton was also arrested for possession of cannabis and found to be not guilty in the City Court of Pompano Beach. Compton was also named in an information charging him with burglary in California. He was placed on 5 years probation and proceedings were suspended by the Superior Court, Los Angelos County, California. These records were provided the Florida Real Estate Commission from the clerks of the courts named above. Investigator Freeman testified that because of Compton's vigorous denials, a second check of Compton's arrest records based upon fingerprint identification was made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which confirmed by fingerprint comparison that the records of arrests were those of the individual who applied for registration to the Florida Real Estate Commission as Ray F. Compton. Ray F. Compton concealed on his application for registration the fact that he had been arrested in Florida for failure to appear in Court, possession of cannabis and in California for burglary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Ray F. Compton be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ray F. Compton 9134 Boyer Lane Mentor, Ohio 44060
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent, Lucille Marie Royce, is guilty of alleged illegal possession of Marijuana, Librium and Darvocet capsules as alleged by the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint dated May 14, 1979, charging that the Respondent, on or about October 20, 1978, was arrested at her home by officers of the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department and found to be in illegal possession of Marijuana and the above-mentioned controlled substances, in violation of Subsection 464.21(d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. On October 20, 1978, officers of the Sheriff's Office of Santa Rosa County, Florida visited the Respondent's premises in Santa Rosa County and, pursuant to an authorization to search her (Respondent's) premises, found and seized approximately sixteen items as reflected on Petitioner's Exhibit 14, which is an inventory of items received from Respondent's residence on October 20, 1978. Among these items were Marijuana, three Darvocet 100 tablets and one Librium tablet. The Respondent was placed under arrest; however, the charges of possession of paraphernalia and possession of controlled substances wore nolle prossequi. 2/ Rosa Lee Wier, a Deputy Sheriff of Santa Rosa County, testified that she received a call on or about October 20, 1978, to the effect that there were Marijuana plants growing on the outside of Respondent's residence. Deputy Weir visited Respondent's neighborhood and observed what appeared to be Marijuana plants growing in the front and side of Respondent's residence. Deputy Weir returned to the Sheriff's Office and received assistance from two other deputies who returned to the scene and inquired of Respondent the reason the "flowers" were growing in her front yard. Respondent credibly testified that she did not know what kind of "flowers" there were growing in her front yard but that she suspected that they were Marijuana plants which had been planted by Navy student pilots who were living in the apartment building next door. Following the deputies' discovery that the plants were in fact Marijuana plants, they requested, and obtained, a voluntary search release from Respondent to search her premises for other controlled drugs. Based on the ensuing search, several packets of Marijuana, three Darvocet 100 tablets and one Librium tablet were found. The Respondent is a Registered Nurse and has been since 1977. She has been a Licensed Practical Nurse since 1966. Prior to the subject incident, she has not been involved in any disciplinary actions by the Petitioner. Respondent, since 1977, was employed as a Charge Nurse in the Emergency Room at Santa Rosa Hospital. Respondent's supervisor on the three to eleven shift, Leilanim Fobtanilla, testified that Respondent was a good nurse who renders good health care. In this regard, character letters are introduced reflecting the fact that the Respondent is a person of unquestionable character. (Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2.) Respondent's supervisor testified that it was not unusual for nurses to withdraw medications intended for patients and and up taking such medications home when patients refuse to take it. According to Ms. Fobtanilla, this situation usually occur when patients refuse to take prescribed medication and the nurse, being busy, forgets to return the medication to the medication drawer. (TR 40-42.) In this regard, Respondent testified that this exact situation occurred to her on October 19, 1978, when she withdrew three Darvocet 100 tablets and one Librium capsule which had been prescribed for a patient who refused to take the medication. Respondent testified that she put the medication in her uniform because she would never leave medication lying around in the Emergency Room due to the large number of patients milling around therein. Respondent took the medication home and while changing clothes, noted that she bad taken the medication home. She put the medication in her purse to return it to the hospital the following day. In this regard, Respondent's testimony was credible and was not attached by Petitioner's counsel. Respondent testified that she inherited the residence at which she is now living from a former patient for whom she had served as a private duty nurse, Elton E. Nichols. Respondent testified that Mr. Nichols and she became lovers while she was caring for him as a private duty nurse. Mr. Nichols died of cancer on September 12, 1978, and willed the property to Respondent based on their relationship. Respondent testified credibly that she underwent a period of grief following Mr. Nichols' demise and that it was months before she could pull herself together to try to rid herself of his personal effects. It was noted that the subject incident occurred on October 20, 1978, which, of course, is approximately five weeks subsequent to Mr. Nichols' death. Additionally, Respondent credibly testified that she has a metabolic disease which prevents her from taking drugs, even for a cold. She testified that she has no use for drugs and per instructions from her physicians, cannot take any narcotics. Respondent testified that she has never used drugs nor has she sold them. In these circumstances, it is the undersigned's considered opinion that the above facts do not warrant disciplinary action as contemplated by Subsection 464.21(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and I shall, therefore, recommend that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
