The Issue The issue in case number 94-6750 is whether Respondent's Class "A" private investigative agency license should be disciplined. The issue in case number 95-1084S is whether Respondent's application for a Class "C" license should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of State, Division of Licensing (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is responsible for, among other things, the licensing of privateinvestigators and private investigative agencies in the State of Florida. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, the Division may issue, pursuant to Section 493.611, Florida Statutes, the following classes of licenses: Class "C": private investigator; Class "CC": private investigator intern; and Class "A": private investigative agency. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Keith P. Acuff, was licensed by the Division as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff holds a Class "CC" license from the Division. Mr. Acuff is also the owner of a private investigative agency known as Chatoyant Executive Protection and Investigative Services (hereinafter referred to as "Chatoyant"). Mr. Acuff holds a Class "A" license from the Division for Chatoyant. License Requirements. In order to qualify for a Class "C" license, an individual must operate for a minimum of twenty-four months as a private investigator intern. Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. During those twenty-four months, the intern must be sponsored and supervised by an individual holding a Class "C" license. See Sections 493.6101(11) and 493.6116, Florida Statutes. Anyone, regardless of licensure, may hold a Class "A" license. In order for the business to operate as a private investigative agency, however, the agency must be managed by a person holding a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Investigatory Experience. Mr. Acuff first received his Class "CC" license in July of 1990. In October of 1994 Mr. Acuff applied for a Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division denied the application based upon its conclusion that Mr. Acuff had failed to verify that he had accrued twenty-four months of sponsored service as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff was first employed by Don Hubbard Investigations. Mr. Acuff had not claimed, nor does the evidence support a finding, that he is entitled to any time toward a Class "C" license for his employment with Don Hubbard Investigations. From the middle of September, 1990, until December, 1991, Mr. Acuff was employed by The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at The Brown Group was Steve Brown. The Division was able to verify from documentation submitted by Mr. Brown that Mr. Acuff was entitled to 12 months of investigatory work while employed at The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 12 months credit for his employment with The Brown Group. Although Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 15 months under Mr. Brown's sponsorship, he offered no proof from Mr. Brown to substantiate his testimony. From December 15, 1991, to February 15, 1992, Mr. Acuff was employed by Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at Intercontinental Detective Agency was Sean Mulholland. The Division was able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed investigatory duties for Mr. Mulholland for 1 month. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 1 month credit for his employment with Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Mulholland's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Mulholland to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff's testimony that he submitted a Sponsorship Term Addendum completed by Mr. Mulholland to the Division was not credible and, even if it had been credible, was insufficient to constitute substantiation from Mr. Mulholland of Mr. Acuff's work for him. Mr. Acuff's next investigatory work was for MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at MG Detective Agency was Michael G. Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff by executing a Letter of Intent to Sponsor Private Investigator Intern on October 27, 1992. See Respondent's exhibit 2. Cynthia L. Cartwright signed the form agreeing to be an alternative sponsor. Mr. Acuff did not list any time under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship for credit on his application for Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division was not able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed any investigatory duties for Mr. Hatcher. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to any credit for his employment with MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Hatcher to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff claimed on his application for Class "C" license that, upon leaving MG Detective Agency, he worked for Chatoyant from June of 1993 until August 1994. Mr. Acuff claimed that he was sponsored by Ms. Cartwright while employed for Chatoyant. Mr. Acuff also claimed that he performed investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship during the period he worked for Chatoyant for at least 3 and 1/2 months. Initially the Division planned to issue Mr. Acuff a Class "C" license. The Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was entitled to at least 11 months of sponsored investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Before the Class "C" license was issued to Mr. Acuff, however, the Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was not entitled to any sponsored time under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. The evidence, as discussed, infra, proved that Mr. Acuff is not entitled to any credit for work performed under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Acuff provided verification that he had 13 months of sponsored investigatory service. Mr. Acuff is, therefore, 11 months shy of the 24-months of experience required for a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Association with Ms. Cartwright. Mr. Acuff met Ms. Cartwright in late 1992 when he was employed briefly at MG Detective Agency. Ms. Cartwright has held a Class "C" license since 1991. Upon Mr. Acuff's termination of employment at MG Detective Agency, Ms. Cartwright was told by Mr. Acuff and a mutual friend, Carolyn Barber, that he only needed 2 or 3 months to complete the 2 years of internship required for a Class "C" license. Ms. Cartwright was asked if she would sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant for 2 or 3 months. Ms. Cartwright agreed to Mr. Acuff's request. She did so because Ms. Barber had asked her to and she felt sorry for Mr. Acuff because he had been terminated by MG Detective Agency only needing, Ms. Cartwright thought, 2 or 3 more months of sponsorship. Ms. Cartwright signed a Letter of Intent to Sponsor. The form she signed was blank. The Letter of Intent to Sponsor was subsequently completed, dated April 14, 1993 and filed with the Division. Ms. Cartwright admits she signed a blank form even though she understands that it was improper for her to do so. After agreeing to sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant, Ms. Cartwright changed her mind. She telephoned the Division's offices in Tallahassee in August of 1993 to ask how she could have her name removed as manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright was informed that her name did not appear as manager of Chatoyant. In the fall of 1993 Mr. Acuff asked Ms. Cartwright to sign a form terminating her position with Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright told Mr. Acuff she did not see why she needed to sign a form based upon what she had been told during her conversation with the Division. When Mr. Acuff suggested that the Division might have made a mistake, Ms. Cartwright agreed to sign the form. In January or February of 1994 Ms. Cartwright signed a blank copy of a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form. She gave the signed form to Ms. Barber. This form was ultimately completed, Ms. Cartwright's signature was notarized by Mr. Acuff's girlfriend, the form was dated August 30, 1994 and was then filed with the Division as part of Mr. Acuff's application for licensure. See Petitioner's exhibit 6. It was represented on Petitioner's exhibit 6 that Ms. Cartwright had sponsored Mr. Acuff from June 3, 1993 to August 26, 1994. An Employee Action Report was also filed with the Division. Petitioner's exhibit 5. The form indicates that Ms. Cartwright had resigned as manager of Chatoyant as of August 30, 1994. Ms. Cartwright did not sign the form. On October 5, 1994, Ms. Cartwright executed a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form attesting that "I did not sponsor Patrick Acuff to my knowledge. I was not aware of Intent to Sponsor." Petitioner's exhibit 7. Ms. Cartwright did not sponsor any investigatory work by Mr. Acuff or act as the manager of Chatoyant. The Administrative Complaint. During the summer of 1994, the Division's office in Jacksonville received a letter questioning how Mr. Acuff could be working for Chatoyant without an appropriate license or manager. Ms. Norma Benvenuto, an investigator for the Division, checked the Division's records and determined that there was no sponsor listed for Chatoyant. Ms. Benvenuto spoke with Mr. Acuff and asked that he come to her office. Mr. Acuff complied. Mr. Acuff informed Ms. Benvenuto that Ms. Cartwright was the sponsor of Chatoyant. When asked for documentation, Mr. Acuff was only able to produce a blank form signed by Ms. Cartwright. Ms. Benvenuto asked Mr. Acuff to bring any documentation that would support his assertion that Ms. Cartwright was the manager of Chatoyant and that they had met to discuss his work during her sponsorship of him. Ms. Benvenuto telephoned Mr. Acuff more than once to remind him to bring the documentation. Mr. Acuff failed to provide any such documentation. Ms. Benvenuto contacted Ms. Cartwright in an effort to verify Mr. Acuff's assertions. Ms. Cartwright denied ever sponsoring Mr. Acuff or every actually performing any duties as the manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright also admitted that she had initially agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff but had subsequently changed her mind. On October 20, 1995, the Division entered an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff. The Denial of Mr. Acuff's Application for a Class "C" License. By letter dated December 16, 1994, the Division notified Mr. Acuff that his application for a Class "C" license was denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Division sustaining Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff in case number 94- 6750, requiring that he pay a fine of $1,000.00 and denying the application for a Class "C" license filed by Mr. Acuff or about August 30, 1994 in case number 95-1084S. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 April, 1995. APPENDIX The Division has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Acuff did not file a proposed order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. See 4-5. 2-3 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 22, 28 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 25 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 22 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 17 and hereby accepted. See 26 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 16 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 13, COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Jeffrey Grainger, Esquire 1722 University Boulevard South Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Don Bell Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Wenceslao Manuel Lora (Lora), was the chief executive officer of, as well as a director of, respondent, ABA Professional Association, Inc. (ABA), a business located in Miami, Florida. On November 6, 1990, the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the decision of the Department of State, Division of Licensing, to revoke the licensure of Lora, a private investigator and repossessor, based on his 1985 conviction for burglary, unlawful interception of oral and wire communication, and criminal conspiracy. Since such time, neither Lora nor ABA have been licensed to provide private investigative services in the State of Florida. In April 1991, Lora met with a salesperson for Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation (Southern Bell) to renew the advertisements ABA had run in the Southern Bell yellow page directory for Dade County, Florida, the previous year. As ultimately approved by Lora in June 1992, the display advertisement for the 1991-92 yellow page directory was substantially the same as that run the prior year, and ABA secured listings under the yellow page headings of "Detective Agencies," "Investigators," "Lie Detection Services," and "Polygraph Examiners & Service." As published in the September 1991 Southern Bell yellow page directory the display advertisement appearing under the yellow page heading of "Detective Agencies" stated that ABA was available to provide the following services: . MISSING PERSONS-SPECIALTY WITH CHILDREN . SURVEILLANCE-VIDEO-PHOTOGRAPHY . INTELLECTUAL ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES . BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS (CRIMINAL & CIVIL) . REPORTS WITHIN MINUTES . MULTI LINGUAL STAFF . INTELLIGENCE DATA AVAILABLE & FINANCIAL REPORTS . POLYGRAPH TEST The display advertisement further represented that most major credit cards were acceptable forms of payment, and that ABA was licensed, bonded and insured. In addition to the display advertisement that appeared under the heading "Detective Agencies," the 1991-92 Southern Bell yellow page directory also carried at Lora's request, a similar, although smaller, display advertisement for ABA under the heading of "Investigators," and under the headings of "Lie Detection Services" carried ABA's name and telephone number and under the heading "Polygraph Examiners & Service" directed the reader to "See Our Ad At Detective Agencies." As a consequence of the appearance of the foregoing advertisements in the 1991-92 Southern Bell yellow page directory, petitioner filed the administrative complaint at issue in this proceeding, which charges respondents with violating the provisions of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by conducting or advertising the business of a private investigative agency after revocation of licensure. However, apart from demonstrating that respondents advertised as providing, for consideration, private investigations, there was no compelling proof that, as a consequence of such advertisements or otherwise, the respondents actually engaged in the business of furnishing private investigations. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding the respondents guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the sum of $1,000.00 against respondents, jointly and severally. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of November 1992. 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 6th day of November 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license issued by the State of Florida under license number A 0001058, issued on October 12, 1987, to expire June 30, 1989. From 1969 through 1976, he also held a Class "C" Private Investigator license No. 227-C, and on July 7, 1988, applied again for a Class "C" license. From late 1976, however, to the date of application for a new "C" license in 1988, he did not hold a valid "C" license in Florida. In 1986, Respondent agreed to sponsor Paul E. Hartigan for a Class "CC" Investigator Intern license utilizing his, Respondent's, license, Number GK 0001058 or 000007271. Neither was a bona fide Class "C" license, however. The sponsor form signed by the Respondent indicated he held a class "C" license. This was incorrect. As of June 23, 1988, Respondent was notified by the Department, by certified mail, that he did not possess a valid Class "C" or "A" license. That letter was correct as to the Class "C" license, but it was incorrect as to the Class "A" license. Janet R. Yonts, a well to do, eccentric, elderly woman who is active in animal rights causes in Florida and elsewhere, first met Respondent in 1986 through Mr. Bert Wahl, Jr., also active in those causes. In March 1988, she again contacted Respondent to do some work for her. She was looking for a private investigator to secure evidence of animal abuse against a Mr. Curtis, operator of the King Kong Zoo in Brooksville, Florida, who was suspected of abusing his animals. A corollary effort of Ms. Yonts, and one which she gave to Respondent, was to secure help for a friend, Ms. Bates, in her efforts to remove her trailer home from Mr. Curtis' property. Ms. Yonts was, for the most part, satisfied with Respondent's performance in their 1986 dealings. At that time, she paid him between $3,000 and $4,000 without receiving either an itemized statement or a report. Mr. Singleton attempted to get the evidence that Ms. Yonts desired concerning Mr. Curtis but denies he was in any way employed to move Ms. Bates' trailer. Ms. Bates was occupying her own trailer in a rental space on Mr. Curtis' property and had fallen behind in her rent payments when Mr. Curtis raised the rental payments considerably. Though Respondent denies any substantial effort to achieve the release of Ms. Bates' unit, and though he claims that what efforts he made did not constitute private investigation, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, in March or April 1988, he met with Ms. Bates and Mr. Curtis' stepson to discuss the possibility of getting the trailer off the property. Respondent contends that this meeting dealt primarily with an effort to get Mr. Curtis' stepson to provide evidence against his stepfather regarding the animal abuse allegations. In addition, he made at least one reconnaissance trip to the site, a trip on which he made a video tape which he played at the hearing. On that visit, he was unable to find the trailer in question because it had already been moved by someone else at Ms. Bates' direction As a result of the arrangement between Ms. Yonts and Mr. Singleton, however, she paid him $1,400.00 of which $500.00 was to be and was paid to Ms. Bates far back rent payments. The balance was to be used by Respondent both in his efforts to secure release of the trailer and to gather evidence against Mr. Curtis on the animal abuse allegations. There is substantial question in Ms. Yonts' mind as to how and where the remaining $900.00 was actually used. She made many phone calls to Respondent in an effort to get him to give her an accounting of the money spent and a report of his actions along with a bill for his services. He either ignored her requests or refused to provide such an accounting. Ms. Yonts also tried to get an accounting through her friend, Ms. Grabau, who was familiar with Mr. Singleton and what he was to do, and her efforts were also to no avail. Ultimately Ms. Yonts requested her Maine attorney, Mr. Strong, to contact Mr. Singleton and request an accounting and statement. When this was done, Respondent initially agreed to provide it, but immediately thereafter refused. Because Mr. Strong did not show a written authorization from Ms. Yonts, Respondent took the position that the confidentiality of his relationship with his client precluded him from releasing any information. He took the same position with Ms. Yonts' Florida attorney, Mr. Horan, who requested, both telephonically and in writing, an accounting and statement from the Respondent. At no time was either furnished. Respondent denies having received any request from Ms. Yonts and indicates he would have provided such requested information if he had been asked. By the same token, he also states that if either attorney or anyone purporting to represent Ms. Yonts had shown him a written authorization from her to release the information, he would have done so at that time. His testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Granted his reluctance to release the information to Ms. Grabau, both attorneys communicated with him on their professional letterhead, indicating their representative status, and he neither provided them with the information nor indicated what he would accept as authorization. Neither did he call Ms. Yonts to verify the authorization. It is clear Mr. Singleton had no intention of providing any statement or accounting to Ms. Yonts or her representatives for the $900.00 she gave him. At the hearing, however, he testified he spent well in excess of $1,000.00 worth of time in pursuit of her interests and that he earned every bit of the $900.00 fee she paid. Even at the hearing, however, he did not itemize and it is not at all unreasonable that Ms. Yonts should request an itemization. Having requested one, it is also not unreasonable that she should receive it. There was substantial issue raised by Respondent as to Ms. Yonts' competence to testify and to recall with any degree of accuracy the substance of her dealings with him. He made much of her inability to recall the actual address of her daughter whom she has not seen for several years. She related, however, that her daughter, from whom she is estranged, a not unusual situation, had recently moved. He alleged she rides around in a limousine with a basset hound who is not house broken, but she denied that, requesting to keep her animals out of the discussion. When his counsel asked her when she last combed her hair, she stated that she didn't comb it, but then quickly pointed out that she recently had a permanent and brushes it instead. While Respondent claims that Ms. Yonts, in her automobile outside of Ms. Grabau's house when she retained him to represent her in the matters in issue here, invited him to go to Australia with her, claiming they could have a good time, she unequivocally denies that happened. She admits to having been hospitalized for mental problems at one time in the past but claims she voluntarily admitted herself and was released when she recovered. She also admits that sometime around 1974, her not insubstantial property was placed into a conservancy but she has since been restored to full control over it and the conservancy has been cancelled. It is clear from the testimony given at the hearing and from personal observation of all parties, that while Ms. Yonts may be eccentric and unusual, while her syntax in speech may be unusual, and while she may be somewhat unsure as to the exquisite details of occurrences (times and dates), her testimony as a whole makes it clear she is competent to testify and her credibility is good. She is past seventy years of age. Though she may be reluctant to discuss her pets, this does not mean her recollection of past facts is faulty and when she claims to have repeatedly requested a statement and accounting of her fee from the Respondent, she is believable. Her eccentricities and idiosyncrasies in no way detract from the weight of her testimony in regard to the fundamentals of her story. Respondent's innuendo that she was coached as to what to say in her testimony by the Department's investigator is unsubstantiated and without merit. Ms. Yonts paid Respondent a substantial sum for the work he did for her on the prior occasion and at that time also got no itemization. Apparently, none was requested then. In the instant case, however, after she decided she could no longer work with him, while in the course of a conversation with someone about her dissatisfaction, it was suggested to her that she should get an itemization from Respondent as to the disposition of the money she had given him. When she entered the agreement with him, no set fee was agreed upon. She took it for granted Respondent would do what was necessary and would thereafter charge her a reasonable fee for his services. There was no request then for an itemized report. However, after the termination of their relationship, and after she spoke with another detective agency where she again was advised to get an accounting, she then requested one from Respondent. It was only when her repeated efforts to contact Respondent failed that she requested Horan and Ms. Grabau to speak with Respondent, and admittedly, she did not advise him that either was her representative. Respondent was first licensed in Florida as a private investigator in 1969 and, to the best of his knowledge, was licensed as such continuously ever since. As was seen before, however, his licensing history shows otherwise. In 1976 his "C" license was changed to an "A" license and he has maintained his "A" license throughout. Respondent changed from a "C" license to an "A" license because of the large number of investigator interns who wanted to work for him. He claims he called the Secretary of State's licensing office in Tallahassee at the time and was told by whomever answered the phone that to use interns in his work, he needed an "A" license. He also claims he was told he would have to change the "C" license to an "A" license when, in reality, he could have maintained both. In order to act as an investigator, one must hold a "C" license, but one may own and operate an investigative agency with merely an "A" license if one does not perform investigative work himself. Each year, after the change over, Respondent's "A" license was renewed. He relied completely on these automatic renewals as well as the fact he did what was advised by Department personnel to indicate he was properly licensed. Even in the case of Mr. Hartigan, the intern, who had been denied licensure because the Department claimed no record of Respondent, his "master," having a "C" license, when Respondent sent in evidence of his license status, Hartigan was licensed. He felt this was additional evidence of the propriety of his licensure status. Respondent is aware of the requirement in Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, that interns holding a "CC" license work under the supervision of the holder of a "C" license. Since Hartigan was licensed with a "CC" license while working for Respondent, who in reality held only an "A" license at the time, Respondent now claims that the Department is estopped from denying he was properly licensed as the holder of a "C" license at the time. All of this relates to the period of time during which Respondent was performing investigative services for Ms. Yonts. The issue of estoppel is a legal issue which will be discussed and resolved in the Conclusions of Law, infra. While Mr. Singleton admits to having done work for Ms. Yonts in 1986, his employment was arranged by Mr. Wahl and he did not meet her until about a year and a half later when Ms. Grabau advised him Mr. Curtis was suing Ms. Yonts because of the surveillance he had done. He met with Ms. Yonts at Grabau's house where they talked both inside the house and outside in her car. It was at this time Ms. Yonts allegedly suggested he accompany her to Australia as her bodyguard, a suggestion he interpreted as a pass. As was noted previously, Ms. Yonts denies this and her story is the more credible. It was also at this time that Ms. Yonts asked Respondent to continue the investigation into Mr. Curtis' activities. He claims that at this time he advised Ms. Yonts, and she agreed, that nothing would be committed to paper, reports or bills. He claims Ms. Yonts never told him that either Mr. Strong, in Maine, or Mr. Horan, in Florida, were her attorneys nor did she give him any authorization then to release the information he discovered to anyone other than her, and he was unable to reach her directly since he had no phone number for her. This may well be true because Ms. Yonts is, if nothing else, mobile. Respondent denies ever being hired by Ms. Yonts to move Ms. Bates' trailer. This may be true, however, he was retained by her to assist Ms. Bates in extricating herself from the situation in which she found herself regarding her trailer. He was sent money by Ms. Yonts with instructions to deliver $500.00 to Ms. Bates, which he did. Nonetheless, somewhat later, when it became obvious to him there would be some trouble over the trailer and Ms. Yonts' relationship with Curtis, he decided to look further into the matter. It was at this point he drove out to the park to find the trailer but discovered it had, by that time, been moved. In his opinion, his activities regarding the trailer had nothing to do with private investigations, however, either in practice or under the definition outlined in Section 493.30, Florida Statutes. There came a time in their relationship when Respondent "fired" Ms. Yonts as his client by long distance phone call because the evidence she was looking for regarding Curtis' abuse of animals simply was not there. When he told her that, she got quite upset, he claims, but soon calmed down: He claims great compassion for Ms. Yonts and believes she is being used by many people. From their day-to-day relationship he concluded she did not possess all her faculties and was not living a realistic existence. He kept the $900.00 remaining from the $1,400.00 he received from Ms. Yonts because he believed he earned it as a result of his continuing investigation on her behalf. Though he claims to have kept a rough calculation of hours and mileage spent in this investigation in his records, he has never produced them to Ms. Yonts or her agents, or at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lawrence E. Singleton, as to his current licenses as a Private Investigator and Private Investigative Agency, be placed on probation for a period of six months under such terms and conditions as the Department may specify; that he be reprimanded; and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989 at 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 11th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0117 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on a;; of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the signature block indicating Respondent held a "C" license was pre-printed on the form. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent received $1,400 from Ms. Yonts as a fee to both assist Ms. Bates and look into the alleged animal abuse by Mr. Curtis. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence and law. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent: Last sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. First, second and last sentences rejected as argument and comment on the evidence. Balance accepted and incorporated herein. 3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 & 6. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of pertinent law and a comment on the allegations. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Accepted. 12 & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to 1st and 2nd sentences. Third and fourth sentences irrelevant. Fifth sentence accepted. First and Second sentences rejected as argument. Third sentence rejected. Petitioner offered evidence to this effect which was objected to by Respondent. Balance accepted. Rejected as conclusive in Findings of Fact. Last sentence rejected as not a pertinent finding of fact. First sentence a recitation of evidence. Balance irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Douglas M. Wycoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent Agency is a Florida-licensed (Class "A" license number A88- 00297 private investigative agency. Respondent Foreman is the owner of the Agency. He is a Florida-licensed (Class "C" license number C00-02486) private investigator. He has been licensed for approximately the past 20 years. At no time during the period of his licensure has the Department taken any disciplinary action against him. At around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of September 30, 1994, Foreman interrupted his work schedule to drive a male tenant living in an apartment that he owned (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant") to the Henderson Mental Health Clinic, an outpatient mental health facility located in Broward County, Florida. The Tenant needed to receive treatment at the clinic. After parking his vehicle, Foreman escorted the Tenant to the reception area of the facility. Foreman was wearing a gun belt and a holster. A loaded firearm was encased in the holster. It was a warm day and Foreman did not have on a jacket. 2/ Consequently, the holstered firearm was in plain view. At the time, Foreman had a Department-issued Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, but he did not have a Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit. 3/ Detective Joel Maney of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was working a uniformed off-duty security detail at Henderson Mental Health Clinic that morning. From his position behind the reception counter, Detective Maney observed Foreman enter the reception area with the Tenant and noticed that Foreman was carrying a firearm. Not wanting to cause a disturbance inside the facility, Detective Maney did not immediately confront Foreman. He did, however, monitor Foreman's activity. After informing the receptionist that the Tenant had arrived and was waiting to be seen, Foreman left the facility. Detective Maney followed Foreman outside. As Foreman was walking on the sidewalk toward his vehicle, Detective Maney approached him and asked for identification. Foreman responded to the request by stating that he was a detective/investigator and that he did not have time to talk inasmuch as he was in the middle of an investigation. Eventually, Foreman produced his Florida driver license, his Class "C" Private Investigator License, and his Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License for Detective Maney. He also showed Detective Maney a five-pointed, star-shaped badge. In the center of the badge was a replica of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The words, "Special Investigator Foreman Investigative," were inscribed around the seal. When Detective Maney first saw the badge, he thought it was a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge because of its shape and because it bore the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Unlike a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge, however, Foreman's badge did not have a map of Florida superimposed on the seal. Moreover, the written inscription on the badge was different than that found on a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge. Throughout the period that he has been licensed, Foreman has used this badge as a means of identifying himself in connection with the performance of his duties as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent Foreman committed the violations alleged in Counts II and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, disciplining Respondent Foreman him for having committed these violations by imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of October, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator's License Number C90-00727 and a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, Number G90-02226. In April 1991 Respondent taught a Saturday morning class, the third or fourth week of that month, in which Beatrice Price and Ryan Martin were trainees. At the conclusion of the lecture Respondent took the two trainees on a "real" investigation. The subject of the investigation was a dentist, Dr. Kathleen Gerreaux, under surveillance on either a worker's compensation claim or a liability claim (conflict in the testimony and the type of surveillance is not relevant). Respondent placed a microphone under the blouse of Beatrice Price a/k/a Beatrix Herrera and had her go to the office of Dr. Gerreaux to try and learn in what activities she was engaging. The conversation was recorded in Respondent's van parked some distance away. When Herrera returned to the van the tape was replayed in her presence and the words of the investigator and Dr. Gerreaux could be clearly understood. Shortly thereafter Dr. Gerreaux left her office and returned to her home. Respondent took the van to the vicinity of the residence, parked several houses away and rigged Ryan Martin with a microphone under his shirt and had him go to Dr. Gerreaux's home to attempt to get her to go jogging or perform some other exercise which could be videotaped. Herrera overheard the conversation between Martin and Dr. Gerreaux while waiting in the van. This incident was not reported to Petitioner until several months later after Herrera had contacted plaintiff's investigator to complain about an incident which she was told she had been taped without her knowledge or consent. When told that her evidence was insufficient to support her claim Herrera told the investigator about the taping of the conversation with Dr. Gerreaux. This initiated the investigation which led to the Administrative Complaint filed herein. After talking to Herrera and Martin the investigator also interviewed Respondent regarding the taping incident. Respondent admitted to the investigator that he had used Herrera and Martin to intercept the conversations with Dr. Gerreaux, but said the tapes were unintelligible. Respondent's version of this incident was similar to the testimony given at the hearing by Herrera except for the clarity of the taped conversation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding David J. Berry guilty of violating section 493.6118(1)(f), F.S. and that an Administrative fine of $1000 be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 2nd day of November, 1993. 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 Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald L. Jones, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the Petitioner’s application for a Class “C” Private Investigator license and the application he filed as President on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner’s Class “C” Application The Petitioner applied for his Class “C” Private Investigator license on April 29, 1996. The application included the Petitioner’s Affidavit of Experience, which represented the following qualifying experience: employment with Telephonic Collections, Inc., from 3/91 to 9/93, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “credit and asset investigations for recovery of debts; did skip-tracing full-time to locate subjects for debt recovery; utilized collection network and data base information.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Collections, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment with Telephonic Info, Inc., from 9/93 to 2/96, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “administrative processing of investigation files; computer data base research and information recovery; computer preparing or reports; administrative dutys [sic] in investigation agency.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Info, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment as an auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven, Connecticut, from 1965 to 1967, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself part-time as follows: “received police training and performed assignments as required.” The Petitioner did not specify how much time was devoted to those duties. Captain Stephen D. Rubelman was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. Processing of the Petitioner’s Applications The Respondent began the process of verifying the information in the Petitioner’s Class “C” application on May 8, 1996, when it had referred the Petitioner’s fingerprint card to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for a criminal history. The Respondent subsequently began its own verification of the information in the application by telephoning Apter. On June 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned Apter, who verified the representations in the Petitioner’s application as to his experience with Telephonic Collections. Specifically, Apter stated that Telephonic Collections was a collection agency and that, for two years and five months, “100% of the applicant’s job was skiptracing [sic] individuals with delinquent accounts for the purpose of collecting the money owed to creditor.” Since this experience exceeded minimum requirements, no further verification was considered necessary, and the Respondent awaited the criminal history report from the FDLE. While the Respondent was awaiting the criminal history report from the FDLE, the Petitioner telephoned the Respondent to inquire as to the status of his application. On August 2, 1996, after being told the status, the Petitioner filed an application as president on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license. Eventually, on August 27, 1996, the Respondent received the Petitioner’s criminal history report from the FLDE, and it showed no reason not to grant the Petitioner’s applications. But earlier in August, Garry Floyd, an investigator in the Respondent’s Tampa office, learned that the Petitioner had filed applications for licensure. From prior dealings with the Petitioner and Apter, Investigator Floyd was unaware that the Petitioner had any qualifying experience. To the contrary, during a June 1994, investigation Floyd was conducting into unlicensed activities by employees of Telephonic Info, a licensed private investigation agency, the Petitioner emphatically denied that he was conducting investigations for the company. The Petitioner told Floyd that the Petitioner did not know how to conduct an investigation and did not want to know how; he said his role in the company was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd obtained a copy of the Petitioner’s applications and saw the Petitioner’s representations as to his experience with Telephonic Info as well as Telephonic Collections. Since those representations did not comport with statements the Petitioner made to Floyd in June 1994, and did not comport with Floyd’s understanding as to the nature of the Petitioner’s experience, Floyd recommended on August 13, 1997, that the Respondent allow him to investigate further before approving the Petitioner’s applications and issuing any licenses. During his investigation, Floyd obtained statements from three individuals thought to be former employees of Telephonic Collections to the effect that they had no knowledge of any skip- tracing or other investigative work being conducted by the Petitioner. All three—C.J. Bronstrup, Jason Gillard, and Duncan Tate—thought that the Petitioner’s role was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd also was aware that Apter’s applications for renewal of his Class “C” and Class “A” licenses had been denied due to what Floyd understood to be a felony conviction. (Although Apter’s testimony on the criminal charges against him was confusing, it would appear that he entered a plea on the felony charge, and adjudication was withheld. There apparently also were unconnected charges of perjury against him, but the disposition of those charges is not clear from Apter’s testimony.) Finally, Investigator Floyd also recalled that Apter once told Floyd that Apter thought he might have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease. For these reasons, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent not credit the Petitioner with any qualifying experience from his employment with Telephonic Collections and also recommended that the representations on the application regarding that employment experience be considered fraudulent misrepresentations. When the Petitioner’s experience with Telephonic Collections was called into question, the Respondent attempted to verify the Petitioner’s experience with the City of West Haven Police Department but was unable to contact Stephen Rubelman at the telephone number given in the application. (According to the Respondent’s witness, “the phone rang off the hook.”) Then, on September 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned the City of West Haven Police Department but was informed that the Respondent’s employment there between 1965 and 1967 was too old to verify. For these reasons, on September 27, 1996, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent deny the Petitioner’s applications. On October 7, 1996, the Respondent mailed the Petitioner a letter giving notice of intent to deny the Petitioner’s applications. The letter was addressed to the Petitioner as president of INFO, Inc., at “13575 - 58 Street North, Clearwater, Florida 34620.” This mailing was returned undelivered on October 14, 1996, and the letter was returned undelivered. On October 15, 1996, the letter was re-sent in another envelope to “Post Office Box 1241, Largo, Florida 34649,” the mailing address on the Class “A” application. But apparently this time the mailing was returned for postage. The envelope was meter-stamped on October 26, and was received by the Petitioner on October 29, 1996. Verification of Petitioner’s Qualifying Experience The Petitioner did not directly dispute the testimony of Investigator Floyd as to what the Petitioner told him during Floyd’s June 1994, investigation. See Finding 5, supra. Instead, the Petitioner testified essentially that he in fact knew how to do skip-tracing and conduct investigations, having been taught and trained by Apter, and that the Petitioner had extensive experience doing skip-tracing and conducting investigations working for Telephonic Collections, which was a debt collection agency. While not directly disputing Floyd’s testimony as to what the Petitioner said to Floyd, the Petitioner alleged that Floyd may have been biased against him (due to his association with Apter) and suggested that Floyd knew or should have known that the Petitioner knew how to do investigation work because Floyd once asked the Petitioner to get some information for him and watched as the Petitioner placed a pretext call. Regardless of Floyd’s alleged bias or pertinent knowledge, it is found that Floyd accurately related what the Petitioner said to him and that the Petitioner’s purpose in making those statements was to avoid any further investigation into whether the Petitioner also was participating in unlicensed investigative activities during his employment by Telephonic Info. Even assuming that the Petitioner did skip-tracing and investigations for Telephonic Collections, it is clear from the testimony that the Petitioner did not do skip-tracing and investigations full-time, 100 percent of the time, as represented in the Class “C” application and as verified by Apter upon telephone inquiry. At final hearing, Apter testified that, when he verified the Petitioner’s experience for the Respondent on June 26, 1996, he did not mean that the Petitioner had no other duties but rather that the Petitioner did no collection work— i.e., the collection employees would take the information the Petitioner developed from his skip-tracing and asset location efforts and telephone the debtors to try to get satisfaction of the debt. Apter conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. It is the Respondent’s policy, when an applicant has employment experience in a full-time job that involves some investigative work or training in addition to other duties, to credit the applicant for a pro rata amount of qualifying experience based on the quantifiable percentage of time devoted to the investigative work or training. It could not be determined from the evidence what percentage of the Petitioner’s work at Telephonic Collections was devoted to skip-tracing and investigation work and how much was administrative. The Petitioner and Apter testified that Apter trained the Petitioner in skip-tracing and investigation work and that the Petitioner did a substantial amount of skip-tracing and investigation work from March 1991, through September 1993; but both conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. Apter did not break down the Petitioner’s time spent between the two. The Petitioner made a rough approximation that 25 percent of his time was spent on administrative matters. Sharon Jones, who worked for both Telephone Collections and Telephone Info, testified that the Petitioner did some skip-tracing work, as well as other duties, between June through September 1993, but she also could not estimate the percentage of time spent between the two. Other witnesses, including Bronstrup and Tate, were not aware that the Petitioner was doing any skip-tracing at all during the times they were working for Telephonic Collections. (Bronstrup worked there for approximately ten weeks between March and June 1993; Tate worked there from February 1993, through the time it became Telephonic Info in September 1993.) In partial response to the testimony of Bronstrup and Tate, the Petitioner suggested that it was not surprising for them not to be aware of the Petitioner’s skip-tracing and other investigative work because much of it was done at the Petitioner’s home after hours and because most of the employees were treated on a “need to know” basis. (The Petitioner also contended that Bronstrup did not spend much time at work for Telephonic Collections, as he also had another part-time job and did some personal investigation work on the side.) But even if it is true that the Petitioner did much of his skip-tracing and other investigative work at home after hours, only the Petitioner and Apter even knew about it, and the amount of time the Petitioner spent doing investigative work at home clearly was not verified. The Petitioner continues to maintain that he stopped doing any skip-tracing or investigative work after Telephonic Collections, the debt collection agency, ceased doing business and became Telephonic Info, the private investigation agency. As for the Petitioner’s experience as a part-time auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven police department, the application does not give any indication as to how much time, if any, the Petitioner spent doing investigation work or being trained in that work. The Rubelman affidavit introduced in evidence to verify his experience likewise does not give that kind of information. It only states generally that the Petitioner received training in and assisted in police work. It does not indicate that any of the training or work was in investigations. It also indicates that no records of the Petitioner’s employment exist and that Rubelman cannot reconstruct even the months the Petitioner worked, much less what the work consisted of. Although it is not clear, at final hearing it appeared that the Petitioner may have been claiming credit for work he did collecting Telephonic Info’s accounts receivable. However, the amount of any such work was not quantified. It also appeared at final hearing that the Petitioner also was claiming credit for doing background investigations on prospective employees of Telephonic Info. However, the Petitioner also did not quantify the amount of any of this work. Alleged Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation The Petitioner stated in the Affidavit of Experience in his Class “C” application that the “approximate percentage of time devoted to” the qualifying skip-tracing and investigation duties listed for his employment with Telephonic Collections from March 1991 to September 1993 was “full time.” This statement clearly was false. All of the witnesses confirmed that the Petitioner spent at least some time doing administrative work; several thought that was all the Petitioner was doing. The Petitioner conceded in his testimony at final hearing that at least 25 percent of his time was devoted to administrative work, and it is found that the actual percentage probably was much higher. Unlike Apter, the Petitioner made no attempt to explain his false representation, and it is found to be a fraudulent or willful misrepresentation.
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 denying both the Petitioner’s Class “C” license application and his Class “A” license application. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry P. Schlenther 12155 Meadowbrook Lane Largo, Florida 33774 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating the law regulating private investigators and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator License bearing license number is C91-00006. Petitioner's files indicate that this license was issued January 10, 1991. Respondent testified that he has been licensed since December 1990. Despite records indicating that the Class "C" license was issued January 10, 1991, Petitioner, by letter dated May 24, 1991, informed Respondent that his Class "C" license "has been issued and is forthcoming." The May 24 letter adds: File review indicates that you are not currently employed. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, requires you to either own or be employed by a licensed Class "A" Private Investigative Agency. To work as a private investigator without meeting one of the foregoing conditions is a violation of law and subjects you to administrative action up to and including revocation of your Class "C" license. During 1991, Respondent was employed by A & W Investigations, which holds a Class "A" agency license. However, by July 7, 1991, he had completed his duties for A & W Investigations and was not employed by a Class "A" agency after that date. During the period between the termination of his employment with A & W Investigations and the meeting described below with Petitioner's investigator in October 1991, Respondent performed investigations related to workers' compensation for a company known as FEISCO. Serving as an independent contractor, Respondent also hired and paid James Coady for investigative work that he performed on Respondent's behalf for FEISCO. In August 1991, a new attorney in the area, Darren Young, received a letter from Respondent announcing his availability to serve as a consultant in criminal cases involving allegations of driving under the influence (DUI). Respondent had been employed for a couple of years by the Collier County Sheriff's Office and drew upon his experience in local law enforcement in providing DUI consultation services. Respondent and Mr. Young later met and began a business/social relationship. In October or November, Mr. Young hired Respondent as a DUI consultant in a pending case. Respondent served as an independent contractor, not an employee of Mr. Young. Although Mr. Young did not need Respondent to testify, he paid Respondent for his services. By letter dated September 23, 1991, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had learned that he was no longer employed by A & W Investigations as a Class "C" Private Investigator licensee. The letter contains the same warning as that quoted in the last two sentences of the above-cited May 24 letter. In early October 1991, an investigator of Petitioner met Respondent to discuss informal complaints made by two or three Naples private investigators that Respondent was conducting private investigations without a license. Respondent told the investigator that he was working for a tile company association doing investigations of its members and serving as an expert witness for attorneys in DUI cases. Petitioner's investigator explained that if Respondent intended to do any private investigations, he needed a Class "A" agency license with which to place his Class "C" private investigator's license. At the urging of Petitioner's investigator, Respondent agreed to begin the process of obtaining a Class "A" license, and, on October 3, 1991, Petitioner received Respondent's application for a Class "A" license. On December 26, 1991, Respondent obtained the general liability coverage required for the Class "A" license. By letter dated December 27, 1991, and received by Petitioner on January 6, 1992, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a money order in the amount of $300 in payment of the application fee, proof of liability insurance, and a copy of the fictitious name registration form. The letter states in part: I have contacted your office several times and have been informed that my fingerprints have not returned from FDLE. This is the only thing that I am waiting for before my license can be issued. The 90 days will be up in January and I was wondering if there is some provision that would allow me to start operations before they return. I would appreciate your advice on this matter. Prior to receiving the December 27 letter from Respondent, on January 3, 1992, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter "to notify you that your application for a Class "A" license had been approved." The letter states that Respondent needed to provide several items "so your license can be issued " The required items were a license fee of $300, certificate of insurance, and proof of filing a fictitious name. On January 8, 1992, Respondent mailed two letters. One was to Petitioner's investigator, stating that Respondent had "received the notice of approval for the issuance of my Agency license" and advising that he had "forwarded all of the required documentation to Tallahassee." The other letter of January 8, 1992, was to Petitioner and accompanies the certificate of liability insurance. The letter states that, on December 30, 1991, Respondent had sent Petitioner the application fee, copy of the fictitious name registration, and copy of the insurance binder. Petitioner received the certificate of liability insurance on January Noting that the certificate was not properly notarized, Petitioner mailed Respondent a letter, on January 15, 1992, advising that the certificate of liability insurance was missing. By letter dated January 16, 1992, Respondent forwarded the certificate of liability insurance with proper notarization. Receiving the letter on January 22, 1992, Petitioner mailed a letter on January 24, 1992, advising Respondent that he had been issued on that date a Class "A" license, which was good from January 24, 1992, through January 24, 1994. Respondent engaged in at least two investigations during December 1991, at which time he clearly knew that he did not have a Class "A" license and needed one for the work in which he was engaged. In one case, he performed two days' surveillance on Kelly Trotta for Ray Trotta on December 6 and 7, 1991. By letter dated December 9, 1991, to Mr. Trotta, Respondent described the investigatory services that he provided and suggested future spot checks in order to avoid "running up the costs of the investigation." In another case, Mr. Young was retained on the day after Thanksgiving 1991 by Lawrence Harrison to provide legal services in connection with pending federal and state litigation. Mr. Young introduced Respondent to Mr. Harrison, who agreed to retain Respondent or allow Mr. Young to retain Respondent, in either case as an independent contractor. According to Respondent's invoice, Mr. Young hired him on December 16, 1991. The following day, Respondent checked corporate records as part of his investigative work and conveyed the information to Mr. Young. In the following days, Respondent researched Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, concerning the state litigation, which involved a legal action brought by Frank Coto against Mr. Harrison for unpaid private investigative services. Respondent drafted a complaint against Mr. Coto to be sent to Petitioner. Still in December, Respondent obtained character information on Mr. Coto and directly communicated it to the client. The complaint against Mr. Coto included allegations that he attempted to extort from Mr. Harrison the balance allegedly owed by Mr. Harrison to Mr. Coto for investigative services rendered. Mr. Harrison sent the complaint, under his signature, to Petitioner, which eventually elected not to prosecute. On January 9 and 10, 1992, according to Respondent's invoice of January 13, 1993, Respondent met with Mr. Harrison. By separate invoice, Respondent requested $1200 for the costs of a trip to Oklahoma in connection with investigative services related to the federal litigation. This sum was paid prior to January 24, 1992, which was when Respondent was to depart. On or about January 18, 1992, Mr. Young terminated his employment with Mr. Harrison. On January 23, 1992, Respondent contacted the FBI and informed them that Mr. Young had proposed a criminal conspiracy with Respondent to kill one or more persons involved with the Harrison matter. Subsequent investigations revealed no basis for criminal prosecution, nor professional discipline, against Mr. Young. The record is insufficient to determine if Respondent's charges were made in good faith. Instead of going himself, Respondent sent Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to perform investigative services for Respondent on behalf of Mr. Harrison. They departed either January 24 or 25, 1991, and performed the investigative services. There is no competent evidence as to whether Mr. Coady had a Class "C" license and, if so, when he obtained it. The evidence is unclear as to when Mr. Trotta obtained his Class "C: license, but he obtained or renewed a Class "C" license, possibly as early as January 23, 1994. Respondent allowed Mr. Coady and Mr. Trotta to place their Class "C" licenses, or the Class "C" licenses for which they were applying. The record establishes the date of sponsorship only as to Mr. Trotta. Respondent signed the form on January 5 and it was notarized on January 7, 1992. Respondent used his Class "A" license number, which he obtained by telephone from one of Petitioner's representatives prior to the official issuance of Respondent's Class "A" license. On March 4, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner advising that his firm was no longer sponsoring Mr. Trotta, Mr. Coady, or a third person, Heidi Trotta. Except for this letter, there is no evidence that Respondent ever employed Ms. Trotta, and Petitioner has failed to prove that anyone by that name was ever so employed by Respondent. The letter states that, as of January 30, 1992, Respondent's firm would no longer be responsible for their actions. The record does not indicate when Mr. Trotta and Mr. Coady were terminated. On August 11, 1992, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's office and demanded his files for the Harrison and Trotta investigation, as well as a third investigation known as Sparkman/Hayes. Respondent offered to drive home and get the Trotta and Sparkman/Hayes files, but declined to provide the Harrison file until he received approval from Mr. Harrison's attorney, through whom he claimed to work. Petitioner's investigator told Respondent not to go home and get the two files, but to provide them to the investigator later. Respondent agreed to mail them, but did not. Petitioner's investigator never gave Respondent a deadline, nor did he ever again demand that Respondent give him the files. The failure to produce the Harrison file is not the subject of any allegations in the present case. During the course of the August 11 interview, Petitioner's investigator asked Respondent about Mr. Coto and the complaint that had been filed with Petitioner against him. Respondent initially lied, denying knowing anything about Mr. Coto or the complaint. But Petitioner's investigator showed Respondent a letter that Respondent had sent to Mr. Young, which effectively contradicted these denials. Respondent then admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he had drafted the complaint against Mr. Coto and that it had been intended to "muddy the waters." The intent of Respondent was to undermine Mr. Coto's civil action against Mr. Harrison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State enter a final order ordering Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $3550. ENTERED on June 24, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 24, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Attorney Ken Muszynski 850 Fifth Ave. South Naples, FL 33940
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to the renewal of her Class "D" license to serve as a private security officer?
Findings Of Fact Respondent licenses and regulates persons who hold Class "D" private security officer licenses. This licensure and regulation is in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Petitioner held a Class "D" private security officer license. When Petitioner sought the renewal of that license, the license was denied for the reasons that have been stated. At times relevant to the inquiry, Petitioner worked for Giddens Security Corporation, which provided security for businesses located in Duval County, Florida. At times relevant to the inquiry, Terry H. Conners was a night supervisor for Giddens Security. He was responsible for checking the attendance of private security officers employed by Giddens Security at job sites. Centex Corporation was a client of Giddens Security in Duval County, Florida. Centex had a housing project that consisted of three completed model homes and other construction. The expectation was that the private security officer working for Giddens Security would patrol the area of the model homes and the balance of the construction site to make certain that unauthorized persons did not trespass. On June 25, commencing at 6:00 p.m. through June 26, 1997, at 6:00 a.m., Petitioner was responsible for performing the security patrol at the Centex location. At 1:35 a.m., June 26, 1997, Mr. Conners arrived at the Centex location. Petitioner was not on duty. Petitioner had abandoned her assignment as a security officer and responsibility to protect the property interest of Centex at that location. Mr. Conners ascertained that Petitioner was missing from her post by searching the entire area which Petitioner was responsible for patrolling. Mr. Conners assumed the duty of security officer on that occasion from approximately 1:35 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., June 26, 1997. Petitioner never returned to her post. Lieutenant Michael Batchelor was another supervisor employed by Giddens Security at times relevant to the inquiry. Among his responsibilities was the supervision of security officers working for Giddens Security at the construction site for Flournoy Construction Company, in Duval County, Florida. Petitioner had been assigned to work at the Flournoy site from 6:00 p.m. July 6, 1997, to 6:00 a.m. July 7, 1997, in the capacity of a security officer. Lieutenant Batchelor arrived at the Flournoy Construction site around 1:05 a.m. July 7, 1997. He went there specifically to give the key to the gate at the site to the security officer on duty. Lieutenant Batchelor could not locate the Petitioner at the site. Lieutenant Batchelor then undertook the responsibility to secure the Flournoy site from the time of his arrival until 6:00 a.m., July 7, 1997. During that time Petitioner never appeared at the site. Petitioner's responsibilities for patrolling the Flournoy Construction site were the same as those for the Centex site. Petitioner was expected to secure the property at the Flournoy site and keep persons from trespassing there. As with the circumstances with the Centex site, for the period that the supervisor was in attendance and Petitioner was not, Petitioner had abandoned her post at the Flournoy Construction site.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denys Petitioner her renewal of the Class "D" private security officer license which she held. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberely Webber 6756 103rd Street Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Michele Guy, Esquire Department of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact During April or May 1988, Respondent solicited business as a private investigator from two credit unions in Hillsborough County, Florida. He approached employees of the credit unions and held himself out as a private investigator by discussing repossession services he could provide. He distributed a brochure and introductory materials describing the fees charged and services provided by Recovery, which included missing persons, child custody, investigations, escorts, surveillance, as well as repossessions. According to two former employees of Recovery, these solicitations continued through the Summer of 1988. The materials distributed to these credit unions by Respondent included a purported license number A-8700255 for Recovery issued by Petitioner on February 26, 1988. In fact, this license was a forgery, and had never been issued to Recovery. The license number shown on this forgery is that of another private investigative agency, the Boucher Agency located in Lutz, Florida. Respondent employed Janice Boucher during April and May 1988, for the specific purpose of using her license to operate Recovery. During an investigation into these matters in May 1988, Respondent gave to Petitioner's special investigator, Daniel Cabrera, a business card showing the name of Recovery with Boucher's license number. The card states that Recovery is "licensed," and includes the name of Respondent, as chairman. Finally, Respondent's business card represents that Recovery is specializing in collateral recovery. Respondent was responsible for, and ordered another employee of Recovery to prepare a forged license for Recovery using Boucher's license. Respondent was the owner of Recovery, at all times material hereto. Boucher did not authorize or participate in this forgery. In May 1988, Respondent obtained a Hillsborough County occupational license for Recovery which states it is for a "private investigative agency, Lic. A-8700255." The private investigative agency number shown on this occupational license is for the Boucher Agency, not Recovery. Neither Respondent nor Recovery have ever been licensed by Petitioner to engage in the business of a private investigative agency, and have never possessed either a "Class A" private investigative agency license, or a "Class C" private investigator license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000 on Respondent, Jack Warren. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE No. 88-4313) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 4. 3-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3,5. 9-10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 4, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Jack Warren 1502 East Trampnell Road Plant City, Florida 33566 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, LL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1983, the Respondent, George S. Williams, submitted to the Division of Licensing, office of the Secretary of State, an application form for a Class "E" Repossessor's license in the State of Florida and enclosed with it the $25 filing fee. In Section 7 of the form, dealing with the applicant's employment history for the five years prior to the application, Respondent listed, inter alia, employment with Adams' Investigations, Inc., in Orlando, Florida, during the periods November 1979 to October 1980, and October 1982 to May 3, 1983. In the sworn Affidavit of Experience attached to the application, Respondent indicated that during the first period of employment with Adams, he handled actual repossessions in the field. During the course of his case investigation leading up to the issuance of Respondent's license, Willie Rister, an investigator for the Division of Licensing, interviewed the Respondent. During this interview, Respondent told Mr. Rister that during both periods of employment with Adams Investigations, Inc., listed in the application, he was performing repossessions for Adams as a salaried employee at $400 per week. The "EE" repossessor intern license did not exist under Florida Law until July 1, 1980, when the Florida Legislature revised Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Notice of the change in the law requiring the need for "EE" licenses was not sent out to current "A" license holders until March 30, 1981. In fact, forms did not exist for applying for the Class "EE" license until well after the effective date of the new legislation. Under the preexisting legislation, holders of Class "A" or Class "C" licenses could conduct repossessions. The new law provided that holders of Class "A" licenses could apply for and receive a new Class "E" license by submitting a complete application, along with an application fee, by May 14, 1981. This savings clause applied to holders of Class "A" licenses, But not to those who had no license at all. Under the new law, repossession work required either a Class "E" license, to work alone, or a Class "EE" license, to work for a licensed agency with an "E" license. Here, Respondent had not been previously licensed and held no license at all, "A," "C," "E," or "EE," until his "E" license was issued on May 21, 1983, and acted as are possessor, unlicensed, until that date.
Recommendation That Respondent pay an administrative fine of $50.
