The Issue As to each case, whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the respective administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Robert C. Seitz, held a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C88-00643 and Respondent, Investigative Services International, Incorporated (ISI), held a valid Class "A" Investigative License. Mr. Seitz is the president of ISI. All acts described in this Recommended Order committed by Mr. Seitz were in his capacity as an employee and officer of ISI. CASE NO. 95-3553 On December 30, 1994, Mr. Seitz executed a contract on behalf of ISI by which he agreed that his agency would perform investigative services for Jacqueline Alfaro. The nature of the investigation was the surveillance, videotaping, and documentation of the activities of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law. Ms. Alfaro suspected that her sister-in-law was engaged in an extramarital affair and wanted proof of her suspicions to give to her brother, who was incarcerated on federal drug charges. Ms. Alfaro gave to Mr. Seitz a retainer of $1,000 in cash, as requested by Mr. Seitz. The contract for services executed by Ms. Alfaro authorized ISI to bill for the expenses of computer research. Petitioner asserts that Ms. Alfaro provided Mr. Seitz with all pertinent information that was required for the investigation and that additional computer research was not necessary. Mr. Seitz testified, credibly, that some computer research was appropriate to assist him in preparing for his surveillance of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law by identifying suspects and possible locations of meetings. Consequently, it is concluded that some of the computer research done by Mr. Seitz was appropriate. In addition to the computer research that was in furtherance of the investigation, Mr. Seitz conducted computer research on his own client. The computer research on Jacqueline Alfaro was inappropriate and was not in furtherance of the investigation of the sister-in-law. The records of ISI for the Alfaro investigation consists of a bookkeeping entry that merely reflects that expenses in the lump-sum amount of $100.00 were incurred for computer research. This record is insufficient to substantiate what was being billed. 1/ Mr. Seitz testified that his company's records of the expenses for the computer research excluded the time he spent researching his own client. This testimony is accepted and, consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the bill to Ms. Alfaro 2/ included expenses for inappropriate computer research. The contract authorizes charges for mileage incurred outside of Dade County at the rate of 45 per mile. Ms. Alfaro was told by Mr. Seitz that she would not be charged mileage because the investigation would be exclusively within Dade County. The bill submitted to Ms. Alfaro included a charge for mileage of $33.75 incurred on January 5, 1995. This mileage was purportedly incurred for 75 miles driven by Mr. Seitz in Broward County. There was also a billing of $32.50 for one-half hour driving time on the same date. Respondent's testified that he was spending time on a weekend with his family in Broward County when he was summoned by Ms. Alfaro back to Dade County. He further testified that he billed for only the mileage he incurred while in Broward County traveling to Dade County. This explanation is rejected as lacking credibility for two reasons. First, January 5, 1995, fell on a Thursday, not on a weekend. Second, it is doubtful that Mr. Seitz would have traveled 75 miles going from Broward County to Dade County. It is concluded that Ms. Alfaro was inappropriately billed for the 75 miles that Mr. Seitz allegedly drove in Broward County on January 5, 1995. Petitioner did not establish that the billing of $32.50 for driving time on January 5, 1995, was inappropriate since that was for time spent driving within Dade County, Florida. Ms. Alfaro frequently spoke with Mr. Seitz about the investigation, requesting details. She came to believe that Mr. Seitz was not performing his investigation and sent her nephew to check on him. On different occasions, the nephew went to the locations where Mr. Seitz had told Ms. Alfaro he would be conducting a surveillance of the sister-in-law. The nephew reported to Ms. Alfaro that Mr. Seitz was not at those locations. On or about January 9, 1995, Ms. Alfaro instructed Mr. Seitz to terminate the investigation because her nephew caught his stepmother with another man. There was a dispute as to whether Ms. Alfaro requested a written report of the investigation and copies of video tapes taken during the investigation. Ms. Alfaro testified that she wanted a written report and copies of videotapes because she did not believe that Mr. Seitz had conducted an investigation. Mr. Seitz testified that she did not ask for a written report because she did not want her brother to know that she had been investigating his wife. This conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Alfaro did ask for a written report of the investigation and that she wanted copies of any video tapes. This finding is reached, in part, because Ms. Alfaro clearly did not believe that Mr. Seitz had performed an investigation as he had verbally reported to her. A request for a written report would be consistent with that belief. The finding is also based on an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses offering the conflicting testimony. On or about January 12, 1995, Mr. Seitz left Ms. Alfaro a handwritten note and $170.00 cash under the door of her business. The note reflected that the total of time and mileage for the investigation was $830.00. The $170.00 purported to represent the difference between the amounts incurred by Ms. Alfaro pursuant to the contract and the amount of the retainer. Ms. Alfaro requested an itemized statement to substantiate this billing. She never received a written report, any videotape, or an itemized billing. Mr. Seitz and ISI failed to maintain investigative notes of the surveillance activities on behalf of Ms. Alfaro. Mr. Seitz produced to Petitioner's investigator what purports to be a computer record of the charges incurred by Ms. Alfaro. The hourly rate specified by the contract was $65.00. The charges reflected by the computer record are as follows: A. 1-4-95 Computer Research $100.00 B. 1-5-95 Surveillance 130.00 C. 1-5-95 Travel Time 32.50 D. 1-5-95 Mileage (75 @ 45 ) 33.75 E. 1-6-95 Surveillance 325.00 F. 1-6-95 Travel Time 65.00 G. 1-7-95 Standby Time 65.00 $751.25 The computer records also reflected that the agency agreed to absorb taxes in the amount of $48.83. Mr. Seitz rounded these figures and determined that Ms. Alfaro was entitled to a refund of $250.00. Mr. Seitz testified that he actually returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $250.00 in the note he left for her on January 12, 1995. He testified that his note reflecting that the sum of $170.00 was being returned to her was an error on his part. Ms. Alfaro's testimony was that she was returned only $170.00. Since Ms. Alfaro's testimony is consistent with Mr. Seitz's handwritten note, the conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that Mr. Seitz returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $170.00. His testimony that he simply made a mistake as to the amounts due to be refunded is found to be credible and is, consequently, accepted. CASE 95-4775 At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Robin Bloodworth held a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued by Petitioner. Prior to January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was told by a friend of hers that he knew someone who might be interested in employing her. This friend asked her to fax to him a copy of her resume. On January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was contacted by telephone twice by Mr. Seitz. She faxed to him her resume in response to the request he made during the first conversation. He thereafter called a second time, at approximately 10:15 p.m. and asked whether she could be available for a surveillance the following Sunday (January 22, 1995). In response, Ms. Bloodworth told him that she could be available for that assignment on Sunday. On January 18, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth received another telephone call from Mr. Seitz. He asked if she could be on a surveillance by 11:00 a.m. that day in Hollywood, Florida. Ms. Bloodworth accepted that assignment after Mr. Seitz told her what he wanted her to do, thereby beginning her employment with ISI. Ms. Bloodworth did not meet Mr. Seitz in person until 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1995. During that first meeting, Ms. Bloodworth gave to Mr. Seitz a copy of her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license and was told by him that he was going to fill out her sponsor forms and send them to the Petitioner. Mr. Seitz knew that Ms. Bloodworth was a novice investigator with little field experience, other than process serving. Ms. Bloodworth never actually saw any documentation from Mr. Seitz or ISI regarding forms pertaining to her employment that were required to be submitted to the Petitioner. She never received a copy of a letter notifying Petitioner that either Mr. Seitz or ISI intended to sponsor her. Prior to being employed by ISI, Ms. Bloodworth had held her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license for approximately six months and had conducted only two or three surveillances. Ms. Bloodworth received no formal training from ISI. During the course of her employment with ISI, which lasted approximately three months, she conducted approximately 35 investigations. Ms. Bloodworth was not directly supervised by Mr. Seitz or by anyone else while she was in the field conducting her investigations. Prior to undertaking an assignment, Mr. Seitz would explain to her the assignment and generally instruct her as to what she would need to do. He frequently told her to use her "judgment" as she was a "big girl". He told her that he did not have time to "baby-sit" her. Ms. Bloodworth had a cellular telephone at her disposal and she knew Mr. Seitz' pertinent telephone numbers at all times. She was instructed to only call him in the event of an emergency. The only time Mr. Seitz visited Ms. Bloodworth in the field was on one assignment for approximately an hour. That visit was prompted by her needing batteries for a camcorder. During the latter part of her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was told to contact Michael Graff, the lead investigator for ISI, and not Mr. Seitz. During her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was assigned to conduct an investigation in Haiti. Prior to being sent to Haiti, Ms. Bloodworth was briefed as to the assignment, which included instructions as to where to go, who to meet, and what to do. Ms. Bloodworth was able to contact ISI personnel by telephone. Petitioner does not regulate investigations outside of the United States. Ms. Bloodworth's official Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern application file as maintained by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, does not contain a notification that ISI or Mr. Seitz intended to sponsor her. This file does not contain any documentation relating to Ms. Bloodworth's hiring by ISI, her termination, or an intern biannual report. Mr. Seitz testified that he submitted to Petitioner a form notifying it that ISI intended to sponsor Ms. Bloodworth. He displayed to Petitioner's investigator a form that he represented was a file copy of the notification form. That form was dated January 13, 1995, which was four days before he first talked to Ms. Bloodworth and five days before he met her in person and received a copy of her license. He was unable to produce any other documentation as to this notification. Mr. Seitz's testimony as to this issue is rejected as lacking credibility. Mr. Seitz admits that ISI did not submit any documentation relating to the termination of Ms. Bloodworth's employment and it did not submit an intern biannual report that would have been due as a result of her employment having been terminated. Mr. Seitz testified that he did not file these reports when Ms. Bloodworth's employment was terminated because she threatened him and he was awaiting the results of a police investigation before filing the reports. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Respondents, Investigative Services International, Inc., and Robert C. Seitz, be fined in the total amount of $1,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Albert Spain is an applicant otherwise qualified for licensure as a private employment agency/agent except for the lack of three years continuous experience immediately preceding his application, the question which is at issue in this case. Spain was employed with a trade association as a vice president for 15 years until December 31, 1976. His experience in this position meets the requirements of equivalent experience as an employment clerk and is accepted as such by the Division. Spain was employed from February 28, 1977, until March 31, 1978, with Life of Georgia in Orlando, Florida. Thereafter, Spain was employed as manager of an employment agency which experience is accepted by the Division as equivalent experience as an employment clerk. The head of the Life of Georgia agency and Spain's immediate superior, William Richardson, testified concerning Spain's employment. Richardson needed an agent supervisor for his agency to assist him in recruiting, training and supervising agents for the company's Orlando operation. Richardson met Spain and was impressed with his background, feeling that Spain could fill this position as agent supervisor. However, in order to fill this position, the incumbent must be a licensed insurance salesman and have experience in insurance sales. Richardson offered Spain a position as a salesman with the understanding that if Spain gained experience in sales and was licensed he would have the opportunity to become the agent supervisor if his performance was otherwise satisfactory. Spain accepted the employment, obtained his insurance license and worked as an insurance salesman for approximately one year. Richardson was satisfied with Spain's progress and would have considered Spain for the supervisor's job had Spain not left the agency. Although Spain's duties primarily related to sales, he also recruited salesmen, worked in training other sales people, and did other work as was assigned by Richardson. Certain of these duties involved work which would be the equivalent of that of an employment clerk; however, Spain spent only approximately 50 percent of his time in such duties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the application of Albert Spain for licensure as a private employment agent/agency be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Curington Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Albert L. Spain 4264C Lake Underhill Drive Orlando, Florida
The Issue Case No. 97-3049 Did Respondent conduct business as a private investigative agency during the period of January 1, 1997, through April 7, 1997, without a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency License in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes? Did Respondent perform the services of a private investigator during the period of January 1, 1997 through April 7, 1997, without a Class “C” Private Investigator License in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes? Case No. 97-3096 Did Respondent conduct business as a private investigative agency during the period of January 1, 1997, through April 7, 1997, without a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency License in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes? Did Respondent perform the services of a private investigator during the period of January 1, 1997, through April 7, 1997, without a Class “C” Private Investigator License in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Case Number 97-3049 Respondent Dormal Cavilee was not licensed as a private investigator in the State of Florida and did not possess a State of Florida Class “C” Private Investigator license at any time material to this proceeding. Respondent Dormal Cavilee was not licensed as a private investigative agency in the State of Florida and did not possess a State of Florida Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license at any time material to this proceeding. During the period of January 1, 1997, to April 7, 1997, Respondent Dormal Cavilee performed private investigations, as defined in Section 493.6101(17), Florida Statutes, for Geoffrey A. Foster, attorney-at-law and for Dwight M. Wells or Deborah Wells (Wells), attorneys at law. While performing private investigations for Foster and Wells during the period of January 1, 1997 to April 7, 1997, Respondent Dormal Cavilee was under contract and was not solely and exclusively employed by Foster or by Wells. Additionally, an employer-employee relationship did not exist between Foster or Wells and Respondent Dormal Cavilee in that neither Foster nor Wells deducted federal income tax or social security tax, or furnished any health or retirement benefits to Respondent Dormal Cavilee. Case Number 97-3096 Respondent Mary Cavilee was not licensed as a private investigator in the State of Florida and did not possess a State of Florida Class “C” Private Investigator license at any time material to this proceeding. Respondent Mary Cavilee was not licensed as a private investigative agency in the State of Florida and did not possess a State of Florida Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license at any time material to this proceeding. During the period of January 1, 1997, to April 7, 1997, Respondent Mary Cavilee performed private investigations, as defined in Section 493.6101(17), Florida Statutes, for Dwight M. Wells or Deborah Wells (Wells), attorneys at law. While performing private investigations for Wells during the period January 1, 1997, to April 7, 1997, Respondent Mary Cavilee was under contract and was not solely and exclusively employed by Wells. Additionally, an employer-employee relationship did not exist between Wells and Respondent Mary Cavilee in that Wells did not deduct federal income tax or social security tax, or furnish any health or retirement benefits to Respondent Mary Cavilee. Case Numbers 97-3049 and 97-3096 A billing statement from Respondent Dormal Cavilee and Respondent Mary Cavilee dated March 1, 1997, to Dwight M. Wells, shows the date of investigation, the person performing the investigation (either Dormal Cavilee or Mary Cavilee), the amount of time involved in performing the investigation, the hourly rate and the total amount charged. The billing statement shows that the investigations are related to the defense of Grady Wilson in Case Number CF93-5094-A1XX, a criminal case in Polk County, Florida. Nothing on the billing statement indicates that it is a statement for private investigations furnished by a private investigative agency referred to as Criminal Defense Investigations. The Motion for Payment of Costs filed by Dwight M. Bell in Case Number CF93-5094-A1XX provides in pertinent part: That the following expense was incurred during the investigation, discovery process, pre-trial preparation and trial of this cause: Criminal Defense Investigations $2,500.00 Both the Order Approving Additional Funds for Investigation Costs dated March 3, 1997, and the Order Approving Motion for Payment of Costs refer to the payments as payment for investigations performed by criminal defense investigations. Neither Respondent Dormal Cavilee nor Respondent Mary Cavilee advertised as providing, or engaged in the business of furnishing private investigations, notwithstanding language in the motion and orders referred to above which was apparently referring to the type of services being performed rather than private investigations being furnished by a private investigative agency. On April 7, 1997, a Cease and Desist Order was issued to both Respondent Dormal Cavilee and Respondent Mary Cavilee. The record indicates that both Respondent Dormal Cavilee and Respondent Mary Cavilee honored the Cease and Desist Order and cease performing any private investigations other than in an employer-employee relationship with Wells. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, did not apply to such activity. See Section 493.6102, Florida Statutes. Neither Respondent Dormal Cavilee nor Respondent Mary Cavilee attempted to “cover-up” any of their activities when questioned by the investigator for the Department. Respondents knew or should have known that their activity in regards to investigations for Foster and Wells required that they be licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. However, there appeared to be some confusion on the part of the Respondents as to whether their relationship with the defense attorneys required that they be licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and review of Rule 1C-3.113, Florida Administrative Code, concerning disciplinary guidelines, range of penalties, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is recommended that the Department in Case Number 97-3049 enter a final order: (a) dismissing Counts I, II, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; (b) finding Respondent Dormal Cavilee guilty of the violations charged in Count III and V of the Administrative Complaint, assess an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 for each count for a total of $600.00. It is further recommended that the Department in Case Number 97-3096 enter a final order dismissing Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint; and finding Respondent Mary Cavilee guilty of the violations charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, assess an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capital, Mail Station Four Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Dormal Dean Cavilee 1900 Queens Terrace Southwest Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Mary Louise Cavilee 2768 Janie Trail Auburndale, Florida 33823
Findings Of Fact On June 22, 1987, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an application for a Class "C" private investigator license. After review of the application and verification of the previous work experience listed in it, Respondent determined the work experience did not meet the statutory requirement of section 493.306 (4), Florida Statutes, that an applicant for the Class "C" license have two years training or experience in private investigative work or related work areas providing equivalent experience. The Respondent denied Petitioner's application on October 5, 1987. The Petitioner is presently employed as a process server. He was employed for varying periods of time between July, 1984, and May of 1987, by four law firms. In the course of this employment, Petitioner sometimes assisted lawyers and witnesses prepare for trial by retrieval of information from records within the particular firm where he was working, or from public records at various public institutions. Among the public records he is accustomed to reviewing are those of Respondent's Division of Corporations. On one occasion, he did, pursuant to instructions from his employer, search through a garage in Tampa, Florida, for certain records. In the course of his work experience, Petitioner has never conducted any kind of surveillance, located a missing person, or investigated a homicide or arson case. He has never testified at a trial or conducted an electronic "debugging" or "bugging" exercise. The Petitioner completed a short prescribed program at the Miami-Dade Community College in August of 1979, and was awarded a "planned certificate" as a legal assistant. To obtain this certificate, he completed various courses at the college during the period stretching from January, 1976, until July, 1979. Among those courses completed by the Petitioner were three hour courses in legal research, business law, legal writing, domestic relations and criminal law, and legal writing. Alan Rollins, assistant director for Respondent's licensing division, testified that Respondent's policy has been to define the statutorily required licensing prerequisite of "[p]rivate investigative work or related fields of work" as a requirement that an applicant for a Class "C" license possess field investigatory experience beyond the mere review of public records. Rollins noted that even law enforcement officers could not be licensed under this policy, unless equipped with investigatory experience. He further stated that the policy is the result of Respondent's desire to be consistent with the perceived legislative intent of the statute to protect the public welfare. Harvey Morse, owner of several private investigator agencies, holder of a law degree and a practicing private investigator, testified as an expert witness for the Respondent. The testimony of Morse establishes that surveillance experience is essential to the conduct of investigations by private investigators. Since the purpose of licensing private investigators is to protect the interest of the public in obtaining competent services from persons holding themselves out as private investigators, the legal research experience and education of the Respondent is not, standing alone, an adequate substitute for the statutory requirement of experience in the areas of "[p]rivate investigative work or related fields of work". Morse, who also serves as chairman of the advisory council which advises the Respondent on licensing of this profession, opined that the Petitioner was qualified only to obtain information from public records. Experience in a related field of work should involve surveillance. Such experience could be obtained by the Petitioner through first obtaining a Class "CC" license and working as an intern to a licensed investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Included in finding 1. Included in finding 2. Unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 1. 5.-14. Unnecessary to result reached. 15. Included in finding 5. 16.-19. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 3. Unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 2. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, FL, 32399-0250 Mr. Martin Broyles 985 N.E. 149th Street Miami, Florida 33161 Ken Rouse, Esquire General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Hon. Jim Smith Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator License, number C93-00868, and a Class "E" Recovery Agent License, number E93-00065. Respondent conducted a repossession of a Jaguar automobile at 565 Northwest 120 Street, Miami, Florida, on January 23, 1995. There was one other man with Respondent when he went to the subject premises to repossess the vehicle. This other man was not called as a witness in this proceeding. Wedlyne Horenstein is a twenty year old female and the stepdaughter of the owner of the Jaguar that was being repossessed. She is a resident of the household located at 565 Northwest 120 Street, Miami, Florida, and was present at that address when the repossession occurred. Ms. Horenstein testified that she was inside the house watching television when she saw two men in the driveway of the property. She testified that she went to the driveway and asked the two men what they were doing. She also testified that she asked one of the two men to provide proof that they were authorized to repossess the automobile. She testified that this man showed her a badge that was in a wallet and said, "Don't worry, I'm with Miami Police." When Ms. Horenstein saw the Respondent at the formal hearing, she could not identify him as being present when the car was repossessed. On July 27, 1995, some seven months after the repossession, Ms. Horenstein was shown two photographs. One of the two photographs, taken from the file Petitioner maintained on the Respondent, was of the Respondent. There was no description of the second photograph. Ms. Horenstein identified the photograph of the Respondent as being the person with whom she talked when the car was repossessed and as being the man who allegedly showed her a badge and represented himself to be with the Miami Police Department. 1/ Respondent admitted that he repossessed the automobile on January 23, 1995, and that he talked to Ms. Horenstein. Respondent denied that he showed Ms. Horenstein a badge or that he said he was with the Miami Police. 2/ According to Respondent, he told Ms. Horenstein that he was there to repossess the automobile for a bank and gave her a copy of the repossession order when asked for proof that they were authorized to repossess the automobile. Ms. Horenstein admitted that she was given a copy of the repossession order. Based on their demeanor and their entire testimony, it is found that Ms. Horenstein's testimony that Respondent showed her a badge and told her he was with the Miami Police Department is entitled to no more credibility than Respondent's denial of those acts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and DISMISSES the administrative complaint brought against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1995.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent applied for a Class "EE" repossessor intern license, a Class "C" private investigator license, and a Class "M" manager license from the Petitioner sometime in the latter part of August or early September 1985. On January 23, 1986, Petitioner denied Respondent's application for the above-mentioned licenses primarily on the basis that Respondent lacked "good moral character" and that there was a substantial connection between the Respondent's lack of "good moral character" and the business of private investigator or repossessor for which the Respondent sought licenses. Petitioner issued Respondent a Class "EE" license No. GEE8500097, a Class "C" license No. GC 8500619, and a Class "M" license No. GM8500444 on February 5, 1986. Petitioner advised Respondent by letter dated February 11, 1986, that the denial had been rescinded, the licenses issued, and an Administrative Complaint filed to revoke those licenses. The letter further stated that the reason for issuing the licenses was based solely on the Petitioern's failure to comply with the 90 day requirement in Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent currently holds the above-mentioned licenses. Respondent was employed by the Escambia County Sheriff's Department (Department) on January 3, 1975. On January 2, 1985, Respondent was give a letter of reprimand for an alleged violation of Section 21.111, Escambia County Sheriff's Manual, by involving himself in a criminal case in which Respondent had no official standing. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the underlying facts which resulted in the reprimand. Respondent's testimony concerning the reprimand, which I found credible, was that he had talked with someone in the State Attorney's Office about a case pending against Homer Curtis Wright (Wright) at the request of Lieutenant Newman because Lieutenant Newman though Wright was a vitim of the system, had never been convicted of crime, had four small children and did not need a felony conviction on his record. This incident occurred prior to the incident involved in Finding of Fact 6, although the letter of reprimand in this incident was written some ten months after the incident in Finding of Fact 6. On April 3, 1984, Respondent was given Notice of Disciplinary Action for accepting nine pounds of coffee from inmate Wright in violation of Part II, Chapter 14, Section B, Rule 11, Corrections Division, Jail Operations Manual, Escambia County Sheriff's Department and Rule 33-803(2), Florida Administrative Code. However, it was later determined that Respondent had been authorized by the "Officer in Charge" to acept the coffee for use in the jail and the disciplinary actiosn were withdrawn by the Department. On May 10, 1985, Respondent was issued a Notice of Disciplinary Action alleging that Respondent had cashed five out-of-town checks made payable to Wright and drawn on Mary Odom, knowing that Wright was a convicted felon, and withholding $450.00 from the monies received for those checks, and representing ot Wright that the money withheld was a fee charged by the bank for cashing the checks. On the basis of this allegation, Respondent was charged with violation of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department Policy of associating with known criminals in violation of Policy No. 21.107, of assisting criminals in violation of Policy 21.105, with conduct unbecoming an officer in violation of Policy No. 21.87, and compromising an officer's integrity in violation of Policy No. 21.89. Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal of this disciplinary action with the Escambia County Civil Service Board (Board). In October 1985 prior to this matter being heard by the Board, the Respondent and the Department entered into a Stipulated Agreement whereby the disciplinary action was amended to a single charge of conduct unbecoming an officer in that Respondent used poor judgment. The disciplinary action was further amended to provide for a 30 day suspension rather than a dismissal and for Respodnent to receive back pay from June 10, 1985, the day after the 30 day suspension ended, until October 16, 1985, the day the stipulation was signed. In return, Respondent agreed to dismiss his appeal with the Board and voluntarily retire from the employ of the Department. There was insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent advised Wright that the bank charged a fee for cashing the checks drawn on Mary Odom made payable to Wright and withholding $450.00 for that purpose. Wright freely gave the Respondent $450.00 for getting the bank to cash 5 checks drawn on Mary Odom made payable to Wright, because Wright was unable to get them cashed and that Wright only brought charges against Respondent after he and Respondent had a disagreement concerning the payment of work performed for Respondent by Wright. There was insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent knew or should have known that Wright was trying to defraud Mary Odom. In fact, Mary Odom was advise to pursue this matter civilly rather than criminally, because there was insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy with intent to defraud by Wright. There was no evidence that Mary Odom proceeded against Wright or the Respondent civilly. On occasions, Wright worked for the Respondent, however, other officers within the Department worked what could be referred ot as "known criminals" without being disciplined by the Department. There was no evidence that Respondent "socialized" with any "known criminals" other than Wright. Respondent's "socializing" with Wright could best be described as using poor judgment rather than "associating with known criminals" to the extent that he was "assisting criminals" in performing illegal acts. During Respondent's employment with the Department he received numerous letters of commendation. Major Adrian Kirksey supervised Respondent for two years during which time Respondent performed his duties without any problems. If the discipline sought of an employee of the Department was less than dismissal or termination, the Department determined the appropriateness of the discipline given an employee and there was no opportunity for the disciplined employee to have a hearing before the Sheriff of Escambia County. The Bank obtained a judgment against Respondent in the sum of $450.00 on September 16, 1980, on a Master Card account which was satisfied on August 19, 1982. The Bank obtained a judgment against Respondent in the sum of $952.00 on January 15, 1980, which was satisfied on March 27, 1980. On July 29, 1985, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on Respondent's residence in the sum of $76,650.23. The certificated of title was issued to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation on September 3, 1985, after it was the successful bidder on the property at $77,286.27. This foreclosure action also involved a second mortgage to the Bank in the amount of $17,420.95 which has been charged to reserve for bad debts by the bank. On March 5, 1985, the Liberty Bank of Cantonment obtained a final judgment of foreclosure against the Respondent on property located in Escambia County and was issued a certificate of title to the property on April 16, 1985, after being the successful bidder. On April 20, 1981, the Bank obtained a Final Judgment of Foreclosure against Respondent in the sum of $45,506.31 on a parcel of commercial property located on Navy Boulevard in Pensacola, Florida, and secured a certificate of title on May 27, 1981, after being the successful bidder. After obtaining the certificate of title, the bank was unable to sell the property and, on November 19, 1984, resold the property to Respondent for which he executed a note in the amount of $48,000.00. Respondent made some payments on this note, but on December 30, 1985, the balance of $47,241.42 was charged off to Reserve for Bad Debts by the Bank. On August 28, 1985, Respondent and his wife, Carla Gail Barnes, filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy. There was no evidence introduced as to what title bankruptcy was filed. Respondent was a member of the Escambia County Employees Credit Union (Credit Union) from sometime in 1974 until 1980 when his membership ended. During Respondent's membership, he applied for and received a loan on property located in Santa Rosa County, Florida, specifically Jay, Florida, in the amount of $13,000.00 based on an appraisal submitted by A. A. O'Daniel, Appraiser for the Credit Union, to Respondent showing the property to have a value of $15,500.00. Respondent defaulted on this loan and the Credit Union foreclosed on the property. The Credit Union sold the property for $4,000.00 and obtained a deficiency judgment in the amount of $16,766.65. There was insufficient evidence to show whether the appraiser made a mistake as to value or appraised the wrong parcel of property, but at the time of foreclosure another appraiser valued the parcel of property at $4,000.00. There was no evidence that Respondent influenced the original appraiser in any manner to inflate his appraisal. The deficiency judgment has not been satisfied, but Respondent's appeal of the deficiency judgment was not rendered by the appellate court until May 14, 1986. On November 18, 1977, Respondent signed a mortgage deed on property described as the Navy Boulevard property to secure a promissory note given to the Credit Union on the same date in the sum of $38,057.00. The mortgage deed was improperly executed in that his signature was neither witnessed nor acknowledged. This mortgage, for whatever reason, was never recorded. At the time Respondent borrowed this money, the property was not deeded to Respondent. It was in early 1978 that Respondent discovered that Charles Bryan, the manager of the Credit Union, had had the property deeded to himself, and in August of 1978 Respondent was able to get Charles Bryan to deed the property to him. It was after Respondent received title to the property that he proceeded to borrow money from the Bank and give the Bank a mortgage deed on this property to secure the promissory note mentioned in paragraph 20. Although Patricia Porto testified that the Credit Union never received any of this money borrowed from the Bank by Respondent, the Respondent's testimony, which I find credible, was that two checks were given to Charles Bryan for the Credit Union to pay off the promissory note given by Respondent to the Credit Union mentioned above. There was no evidence that Charles Bryan gave this money to the Credit Union. During the period that Charles Bryan was managing the Credit Union, there were several checks drawn on the Credit Union made payable to Respondent that the Credit Union treated as loans made by Respondent although thgere were no loan applications, promissory notes or other necessary documentation required by Credit Union policy in the files of the Credit Union. These checks were signed by Charles Bryan, Linda S. Hurd, and Linda F. Steadman. Although Respondent was joined in a civil suit with Charles Bryan and Arnold Craft filed by the Credit Union to recover these funds, only a judgment against Charles Bryan was entered. The Credit Union has not attempted to proceed any further on this matter. The Credit Union filed a bond claim against the bond of Charles Bryan in the amount of $200,000.00, which included actual and alleged loans of the Respondent that had not been paid, and collected 80% of that amount from the bonding company on Charles Bryan's lack of faithful performance. Although Respondent defaulted on several loans, the record reveals that he did make payments on those loans. The record further reveals that even though Respondent defaulted on the first mortgage to the Bank, the Bank later felt that Respondent could probably handle the mortgage the second time around, but, due in part to his problem of employment with the Department, he was unable to handle it and the Bank had to write it off as a bad debt.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found not guilty of the violatons as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that Counts I through IX of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of November 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November 1986. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner. Although paragraphs 5, 6, 13 and in part paragraph 10, are recitations of the witnesses' testimony, I have treated them as findings of fact. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law rather than a fact. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Sentences 1, 4, 6, and 7 adopted in Finding of Fact 7. The first phrase of sentences 2 and 3 are adopted in Finding of Fact 7, but there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support the balance of those facts and are therefore rejected. Paragraph is rejected because there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support that finding. Sentences 1 and 3 are rejected because there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support those findings. The second sentence is adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Since there is no specific finding of fact that the allegations of Count IV pertain to Respondent, paragraph 7 is adopted, but not in any particular paragraph. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. All of paragraph 10 with the exception of the last sentence is adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23 as modified. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Sentences 1 through 5 and 7 adopted in Finding of Fact 24, as modified. Sentence 7 adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Sentence 6 rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 23. The balance of paragraph 12 is rejected because there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support that finding. Rejected as argument. Rejected because there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support that finding. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. & 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. & 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. & 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. , 16. & 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as modified. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 20. & 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 as modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 as modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. & 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 28.-31. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. & 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. , 35., 38. & 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. 37. & 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 42.-44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James V. Antista, Esquire Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. John Westberry, Esquire 24 West Government Street, Suite 285 Post Office Box 748 Pensacola, Florida 32594
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 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.
