The Issue The issues are presented based upon an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent accusing the Respondent of entering into a drug trafficking agreement with an inmate in a correctional facility where the Respondent worked. This is in violation of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes, per the Administrative Complaint, in that should the allegations be proven, Respondent is not felt to be qualified to hold a certificate as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, in that he has committed conduct unfitting for a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wayne A. Thomas, was a correctional officer employed at the Union Correctional Institution from August 4, 1981 through March 3, 1983. He served there under the authority of a certificate as correctional officer, which certificate had been issued by the State of Florida. At present, the Respondent's correctional officer certificate is in an inactive status. This case was presented for formal hearing based upon the Respondent's timely request for such treatment of the controversy. On March 2, 1983, Sergeant Sterling M. Esford, a correctional officer in the Union Correctional facility, was approached by an inmate, Ronald Thompson. Thompson was a person whom Esford had used as a confidential informant in the past and had found to be reliable. Thompson told Esford he had information to the effect that the Respondent was bringing quaaludes into the correctional facility to be sold. In exchange for assistance to be given an inmate Bell who was having difficulty with the prison authorities related to certain charges that they had brought against him, Thompson agreed to assist the internal security section of the institution in its efforts to investigate allegations against the Respondent. Lieutenant R. T. Lee, internal security officer, was made aware of the claims of Thompson related to Respondent's alleged drug activities and the offer by Thompson to help in the apprehension of the Respondent. Thompson told the authorities that he would need $50 to make a drug Purchase from Respondent. Lee gave Thompson $50 of money in which the serial numbers had been recorded prior to the transfer of the currency, money which had been dusted with a powder which could not be detected unless subject to ultraviolet light. Thompson then took the money on March 3, 1983 and later met with the Respondent. At the time of the meeting between Thompson and the Respondent, Thompson did not tell the Respondent that he wished to purchase drugs as he had indicated to the internal security officers that he would do. Thompson instead asked that the Respondent transmit the $50 in currency to a Marvin Jackson who was being held in a confinement section of the institution. Thompson made it known that this money was being transmitted for the benefit of one Doyle Heard, a friend of Jackson's. Thompson then gave money to the Respondent. The exact amount of the money given was not revealed, in that only $45 of the money was ever recovered and it is uncertain whether the remaining $5 was kept by Thompson, the Respondent or Marvin Jackson, who received the $45. Authorities searched the person of the Respondent and Jackson and did not find the $5. Thompson was not searched. (Respondent claims that the transmittal of the currency was in exchange for information which Thompson gave him on the subject of unauthorized weapons, which were hidden in the institution. He further claims that Thompson assisted him in searching for those weapons, although none were found. Given the testimony of other witnesses to the effect that those kinds of weapons were readily discoverable through routine searches by authorities and the fact that doing favors for inmates in exchange for information was a matter done under the guise of official sanction by authorities within the institution, which was not the case here, and the failure of the Respondent to disclose to authorities his alleged transmittal of the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of weapons in the institution, Respondent's explanation is not believed. In other words, Respondent is not found to have told the truth when he says that he transmitted the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of illegal weapons within the institution.) When the Respondent gave the money to Jackson, he told him that the money had been sent to him by Doyle Heard, his acquaintance. He further stated that the money was being given to him because Jackson was being transferred from that institution to another. In carrying this money from Thompson to Jackson, Respondent recognized that it was contrary to law and policy to do so, in that United States currency is considered contraband if found in the hands of an inmate and to assist in its transmittal, as opposed to turning in the contraband is a specific violation of the laws and rules of the institution. After the money transfer, Thompson indicated that he had conferred with the Respondent about the purchase of marijuana for $50 to be delivered at a later time. The authorities were led to believe from Thompson's remark that the purchase was quaaludes in exchange for $50. (Thompson denies ever having met Jackson at the time of the money being provided to Jackson in this incident.) He said he subsequently became aware of Jackson's existence. Considering his demeanor and his other testimony presented in the course of the hearing, Thompson is not believed when he says that a drug transaction took place between he and the Respondent on March 3, 1983, related to the exchange of $50 in return for drugs to be delivered at a future date. The facts demonstrate that Thompson misled the authorities about the reason for obtaining the $50 and did so to benefit Heard and Jackson. Thompson established a "scam" in order to obtain $50 for the benefit of those two inmates, and to facilitate those purposes lied about the Respondent's involvement in the subject drug deal which supposedly occurred on March 3, 1983. When the Respondent was leaving the institution on the evening of March 3, 1983, he was confronted by Lieutenant Lee and denied knowing Thompson and denied any involvement in a drug deal. The powder from the marked money was later discovered on his trousers and when confronted with that discovery, the Respondent acknowledged knowing Thompson and stated that he had delivered money to Marvin Jackson. In this interview, Respondent acknowledged that the transmittal of the currency was in violation of institutional policy. As identified by Sergeant Esford and confirmed by other correctional officers who gave testimony in the hearing, transmittal of the contraband, i.e., the U.S. currency, caused the Respondent to lose his effectiveness as a correctional officer. Respondent resigned his post following the incident. At the time of the departure, officials within the institution had found his overall performance to have been satisfactory.
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of June 1994.
The Issue This case arises out of a challenge by the Petitioners to the validity of Rule 33-3.02(6), Florida Administrative Code; Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, and Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82. The Petitioners specifically challenge the validity of those portions of the above- provisions relating to the issue of clothing to the inmates. At the final hearing, Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers, testified on their own behalf and also called as witnesses Charles Connors and Paul Gunning. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence five exhibits. Respondents called no witnesses and offered no exhibits into evidence. The Petitioner S. B. Ridley, did not appear at the formal hearing. The Hearing Officer was informed by one of the other Petitioners at the formal hearing that Mr. Ridley had been transferred to Polk Correctional Institution. Mr. Ridley was given due notice of the hearing held on February 17, 1984, and has filed no pleading or motion with the undersigned Hearing Officer seeking either a continuance or other relief. The Petitioners and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers are inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida. On November 5, 1982, as Petitioner Rogers was being released from disciplinary confinement, he entered the laundry to obtain another pair of state issued pants, socks and underwear. The name tag was coming off of his jacket and because of this it was confiscated. He asked for another jacket and was told he could not be issued one. He was eventually issued another jacket which was also confiscated. For a period of time, Petitioner Rogers had no jacket for those times when he was required to walk and be outside in the cold. The laundry manager at Union Correctional Institution is responsible for the issue of all clothing to the prisoners. The manager follows Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82 in issuing clothing an Union Correctional Institution. That operating procedure provides in relevant part: 81-82.1 Purpose This memorandum is published as a guide in the issuance of inmate clothing, and the providing of laundry facilities for the inmate population. 81-82.2 Authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09 section 20.315 Department of Corrections Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6). 81-82.3 Clothing Issue Each inmate shall be issued the following clothing items: 3 each Blue Shirts 3 pairs Blue Trousers 1 each Web Belt 1 pair Boxer Shorts 1 pair Socks 1 pair Shoes, High Top. Inmates assigned to the Food Service Departments and Canteens shall be issued one additional suit of clothing because of their having to work on Sundays, enabling them to change clothing daily. 81-82.6 Special Issue Inmate Jackets are issued in October of each year and picked up for storage in April. An inmate may have his jacket laundered on any Friday. Hats, caps, and other special clothing items are issued to the Department Supervisor for distribution to the work squad. The Supervisor is responsible for those items of issue. 81-82.7 Miscellaneous Information The Laundry Manager/Clothing Officer shall maintain a record of the various clothing items issued to each inmate. If clothing issue is abused, either through neglect or by intent, the officer will initiate appropriate action. The official inmate uniform throughout the institution is issue blue shirt and trousers. Inmates assigned to the following areas are issued white shirts and trousers in lieu of the regular blue uniform: Food Service Administration Building Workers Main Gate Workers Utility Man on each Close Supervision Squad (For Identification) Canteen Workers. Each inmate who turns in a jacket (at the end of winter) shall be issued a pair of hemmed walking shorts for wearing on the athletic field or after hours in the housing area. The manager was not aware of and has not utilized Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, in issuing clothing at Union Correctional Institution. That policy and procedure directive provides in relevant part: AUTHORITY: Section 20.315, 944.09 and 945.21, Florida Statutes Department of Corrections, Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Directive is to establish a uniform procedure for issuing inmate clothing and linens. This will enable the Department to control the costs of clothing and linens in a more economical manner. GENERAL: Appropriate internal measures will be taken by each operating location to implement the provisions of this Directive. It is the Department's expressed intent that all inmate clothing be appropriately fitted and suited for the environment and that Departmental facilities provide sufficient laundering facilities to ensure that appropriate health standards are maintained. The clothing and linen will be exchanged on a one for one basis after the initial issue. Should an inmate intentionally damage or destroy his/her uniforms, appropriate action should be taken by the Superintendent to reimburse the State, if possible. It is imperative that the custodial staff be well informed of the provisions of this Directive and any exceptions or deviations from this Policy set forth will have to be approved by the Regional Director. STANDARD CLOTHING ISSUE (MALE): Each male inmate may be issued the items of clothing and linen specified below. The phrase "Maximum Clothing Issue" is used in this Directive to permit the substitution of personal clothing or to permit the issuance of less than maximum quantities where appropriate. Unless otherwise designated, the inmate will not have excess clothing and linens in his possession. Each inmate will be responsible for the clothing and linen issued to him. Maximum Clothing Issue - Blues and Whites Items Quantity Shirts 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post Maximum Clothing Issue - Other Items Items Quantity Undershorts 3 pairs Undershirts/T shirts 3 Socks 2 pairs (changed daily) Belt with Buckle 1 Shoes 1 pair Jacket (winter only) 1 Long underwear (winter only for outside detail) 2 Regions III, IV and V may substitute two sweatshirts for two pairs of long underwear for winter use. E. Clothing - Special Items such as food service linens, coverall's aprons, cooks' caps, gloves, rubber boots, raincoats, athletic uniforms, barber and butcher jackets, straw hats and safety helmets shall be considered tools of the trade and will be issued directly to the department requiring them. The superintendent will, on recommendation and justification by department head, determine what items are to be purchased and issued to inmate. All items issued on a departmental basis that can be appropriately marked shall have the standardized department initials stenciled on the item. It will be the responsibility of the superintendent to establish a laundry schedule for these items. Only those inmates who work outside for eight hours each day are issued long underwear during the winter months. The inmates do not go outside when the temperature is below 40 degrees. The laundry does not issue raincoats to the inmates. The raincoats are under industry inventory and each department can draw raincoats out of that inventory. The raincoats are paid for by the department drawing them out and the work supervisor from that department issues them to the inmates. Raincoats are sold in the canteen at Union Correctional Institution. The laundry stocks long underwear but no longer stocks T-shirts. The laundry does not stock sweatshirts. There are two types of blue uniforms. The laundry issues coveralls to special jobs but no coveralls are issued to inmates personally. It is within the laundry manager's discretion as to when he issues new clothing as opposed to used clothing. It is the laundry manager's responsibility to remain within his budget for the year. T-shirts are not included in the list of clothing issue items in Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82. This may be due in part to budget restrictions. T-shirts are included in the "maximum clothing issue" list in Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13. Practically every inmate in Union Correctional Institution is required to go outside in order to go to work or to school. The inmates must also go outside in order to go to the chow hall or the clinic. The west unit is approximately a 4 or 5 minute walk from the chow hall. Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82 is signed and issued by the Superintendent of UCI and cites as its authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09, Section 20.315, and Rule 3303.02(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent has not contested the fact that the operating procedure was not promulgated in accordance with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. There was no evidence presented as to the procedures followed in adopting the Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about January 1, 1989, Petitioner was employed as a probationary employee with the Dade Correctional Institute (DCI) in Miami, Florida. The DCI is a twenty-five acre compound which houses approximately 944 inmates. The compound is comprised of eight dormitories, vocational shops, an educational building, two dining hall satellites, and a main dining hall. For each work shift, correctional officers are stationed within each dormitory, along the perimeter area, inside the radio control room, and throughout the grounds. The minimum number of correctional officers required for each shift is Because of the limited number of officers on-duty during a given shift, their responsibilities, and security considerations, it is imperative that correctional officers maintain a level of detachment from inmates. Petitioner was aware of this mandate at the time of her employment with the DCI. On or about January 19, 1989, Corrections Officer Garnett instructed the Petitioner to perform an inventory with an inmate, DeMarco, to verify state property numbers. Later in the day, when Officer Garnett questioned DeMarco regarding the inventory sheet, she was told that Petitioner had directed another inmate, Williams, to perform the inventory. Since this was contrary to the original instructions, Officer Garnett contacted the Petitioner by radio to determine the location of the inventory sheet. At that time Petitioner informed Officer Garnett that the inventory was complete and that the sheet was in her pocket. When confronted in person and directed to produce the inventory sheet, Petitioner admitted she had given the inventory work to inmate Williams, that the inventory was not completed and that she had misrepresented the matter. Subsequently, the inventory was retrieved from Williams. Inmates are not normally allowed access to the DCI clothing room. Officer Garnett had authorized inmate DeMarco to assist Petitioner with work in the clothing room. Inmate Williams was not authorized to work the clothing room. Petitioner allowed inmate Williams access to the clothing room. Initially, Petitioner denied having done so, but later recanted and admitted that she had allowed inmate Williams to assist her in the clothing room. Personal relationships between correctional officers and DCI inmates are prohibited. Petitioner was counseled on numerous occasions about the rules and procedures which prohibit discussions of a personal nature with inmates. Fraternization is considered a serious security breach for which an officer may be terminated from employment. On or about January 23, 1989, Petitioner admitted she had had personal discussions with inmates (including inmate Williams) but assured Major Thompson that she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Petitioner continued to have personal conversations with inmates after the counseling session of January 23, 1989. Specifically, Mr. Callahan witnessed a personal conversation between Petitioner and inmate Williams which took place within a dormitory that inmate Williams was not assigned to be in. Later, Petitioner wrote a love note to inmate Strausser which was found at her duty post. A search of inmate Strausser's cell revealed he had possession of Petitioner's home telephone number. Petitioner initially denied her relationship with inmate Strausser but later told Major Thompson that they are engaged to be married. Petitioner's employment with DCI was terminated in June of 1989. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, she is not certified as a correctional officer. Petitioner has, however, completed all - educational/training requirements to become certified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6684 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the date being corrected to January 19, 1989, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner admitted having inmate Williams in the clothing room to, Major Thompson, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 39 through 54 are accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraphs 57 through 59 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isabel Machin 9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201 Miami, Florida 33174 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Teresa D. Mejico, was certified as a correctional officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, on February 17, 1988, and issued certificate number 03-87-502-02. At approximately 2:45 a.m., on October 3, 1988, respondent, while employed as a correctional officer at the Broward Correctional Institute, was observed by her supervisor leaning on her desk in the officer's station at Dormitory H-4. Sitting in a chair at respondent's side was Inmate Deronda Lemmonds, who was observed holding respondent's right arm, and kissing, licking and nuzzling it, while her right hand was between respondent's legs in the area of her crotch. Respondent was immediately relieved of duty, and later that day was discharged from her employment at Broward Correctional Institute for her failure to comply with Florida Department of Corrections Rule 33-4.002(28), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides: Employees shall maintain a professional relationship with all persons in the custody or under supervision of the Department, and their immediate family or visitors. No personal or business relationships are permitted. Marriage between employees and inmates is prohibited. That respondent was fully aware of the foregoing rule, and the standard of conduct it established, cannot be gainsaid for she acknowledged such at hearing. Notwithstanding such knowledge, however, respondent persisted in fostering the personal relationship which existed between her and Inmate Lemmonds despite denials to her superintendent that any such relationship existed and counseling from her superintendent to avoid any such relationships. Following the termination of her employment at Broward Correctional Institute, respondent maintained contact with Inmate Lemmonds through the mail and by telephone, and variously expressed her affection and love for the inmate. On one occasion, she mailed the inmate 20-25 photographs of herself, including some photographs that captured respondent in partially nude and suggestive poses. In all, the proof demonstrated that respondent was romantically involved with Inmate Lemmonds while she was employed at Broward Correctional Institute, and continued to be so involved as of the date of hearing. It further demonstrated that she was untruthful with her superintendent, failed to abide the rules of conduct for correctional officers, and neglected her duty to guard Dormitory H-4 while engaged in a liaison with an inmate under her charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking respondent' s certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of May 1990. 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 24th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6410 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. 5-9. Not material or not necessary to result reached. 10-14. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teresa D. Mejico 7502 S.W. 5th Street North Lauderdale, Florida 33068 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer and a certified instructor, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued November 16, 2004, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer and as an instructor. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Indian River Correctional Institution (IRCI) with the rank of Major. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ken Torres was employed by the DOC at IRCI with the rank of Lieutenant. On June 11, 2003, Tvaris Burch, Errol Whiley, and Keith Conley were inmates at IRCI. At no time did any of these three inmates have authorization to be in Respondent’s office at IRCI. The only door to Respondent’s office opens to a long hallway. This door is normally locked. At approximately 6:15 p.m. on June 11, 2003, Respondent entered his office at IRCI and was followed by Lt. Torres. Respondent and Lt. Torres saw three inmates on the floor attempting to hide under Respondent’s desk. Each inmate attempted to conceal his identity by pulling his tee shirt up over his head. It is undisputed that both Respondent and Lt. Torres ordered the three inmates to come out from under the desk and the inmates refused those orders. It is also undisputed that the inmates came out from under the desk after Respondent threatened to order Lt. Torres to spray them with chemical agents. What happened next is the center of the dispute in this proceeding. Petitioner alleged that Respondent kicked one of the inmates and that he kicked and punched another inmate as they came out from under his desk. Petitioner also alleged that Respondent failed to file a mandatory Use of Force Report and that he lied to an investigator (Mr. Glover) in a sworn statement. Respondent asserted that he did not kick or otherwise use unauthorized force against any of the three inmates, that he had no reason to file a use of force report, and that he did not lie to the investigator. In support of its allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of inmate Burch, Mr. Glover, and Lt. Torres. In addition, Petitioner presented the investigative report prepared by Mr. Glover and certain affidavits gathered by Mr. Glover during the course of his investigation. The following facts are not in dispute. After the three inmates came out from under the desk and were on their feet, they were ordered to remove the tee shirts from their heads and were identified as being inmates Burch, Whiley, and Conley. They were stripped searched by Respondent and Lt. Torres and contraband was removed from them. Additional security was called and took the three inmates to the prison nurse for a pre-confinement physical. This type medical examination is mandatory for an inmate about to be confined for disciplinary purposes. The inmates did not complain to anyone that they had been injured or mistreated by Respondent or by anyone else. The nurses noted no injury on any of the inmates. The three inmates were then confined for disciplinary reasons. An incident report was written and a Disciplinary Report was filed for each of the three inmates. Neither Respondent nor Lt. Torres filed a Use of Force Report, which is a mandatory report after physical force is used against an inmate. On June 12, 2003, approximately 24 hours after the incident in Respondent’s office, both inmate Burch and inmate Whiley declared a medical emergency. Both inmates were promptly taken to the medial unit and examined by prison nurses. Inmate Burch told nurse Rhea Harris that he had been injured by being kicked in the head, but he would not identify the person who kicked him. At the final hearing, inmate Burch testified that Respondent kicked him in the head as he was coming out from under the desk and in the knee when he tried to stand up. He further testified that the blow to the knee caused him to fall to the floor, which broke his glasses. Ms. Harris observed a bump on the side of inmate Burch’s head that could be consistent with inmate Burch’s being kicked.5 Inmate Whiley was seen by Nurse Debra Barriner on June 11 and June 12, 2003. On June 12, 2003, inmate Whiley told Ms. Barriner that he had a sore neck and a sore area on his face on the left cheek. Ms. Barriner observed areas of slight swelling and discoloration that were consistent with inmate Whiley’s complaints. Inmate Whiley refused to tell the nurse what caused his neck and left cheek to become sore. In an affidavit subsequently secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Whiley alleged that Respondent had kicked him as he was coming out from under the desk and hit him in the stomach after he stood up. In an affidavit secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Conley stated that he was not struck by Respondent on June 11, 2003, but that he saw Respondent strike inmates Burch and Whiley. Approximately a week after the incident in Respondent’s office, corrections officers intercepted a note being passed from the cell of inmates Burch and Whiley to the cell of inmate Conley. This note was turned over to Lt. Torres, who was the shift supervisor, who testified that he threw the note away and could not recall its details. Lt. Torres did recall that the note made a reference to his being promoted as a result of the allegations that had been made against Respondent. In a sworn interview given to Mr. Glover, Lt. Torres stated that he saw Respondent kick inmates Burch and Whiley. He repeated that statement at the formal hearing. On closer examination, Lt. Torres testified that he did not witness Respondent make physical contact with any of the inmates, but that he saw him making kicking motions in the directions of the inmates. On further examination, the following exchange occurred between Petitioner’s counsel and Lt. Torres beginning at page 85, line 22 of the Transcript: Q. Let me ask you this: If you did not see Major Passino actually strike an inmate, why then did you feel that it was necessary to report such an incident.[6] A. Why did I feel that? That’s my responsibility. Q. At the time that this incident occurred, why did you consider that there had been a use of force. A. Why? Q. Yes. A. Only because of what the inmates said, that they were injured, did I suspect that there was a use of force. Q. And that was only after the inmates had declared a medical emergency – A. Yes, sir. Respondent’s testimony that he did not use unauthorized force against inmates Burch and Whiley is found to be credible. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent battered inmate Burch or Whiley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of, June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Corrections (“DOC” or the “Department”), engaged in discriminatory practices against Petitioner, Patrick Quercioli, on the basis of his disability; and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 53-year-old Caucasian male. From approximately November 19, 2004, until August 4, 2016, Petitioner was employed by the Department as a Correctional Officer. He was promoted to the rank of Correctional Officer Sergeant on July 28, 2006. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was working at the Annex section of the Lowell Correctional Institution (“Lowell”) located in Marion County. Lowell is a maximum security prison for female inmates; it has an average daily count of approximately 2,800 prisoners. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida, created pursuant to section 20.315, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for, inter alia, hiring and monitoring all employees engaged in operations at a state prison. Petitioner was separated from his employment with DOC due to the fact that he could not “perform the essential functions of his job.” That determination was based on a report from Petitioner’s therapist, Mrs. Robinson, and her opinion that Petitioner could not effectively perform his duties in the presence of inmates. Inasmuch as all Correctional Officer Sergeant positions require contact with inmates, DOC terminated Petitioner’s employment. The facts leading to the ultimate termination of Petitioner’s employment are anything other than ordinary. A discussion of those facts follows. In October 2014, a female inmate at Lowell was found dead in her cell. Petitioner was named as a suspect in the death, despite the fact that at the time of death he was on vacation with his family, i.e., he was not working at the prison. Local and national news outlets began reporting about the death, and Petitioner was named numerous times as a suspect and possible participant. Apparently, Petitioner’s name had been provided to the inmate’s family prior to her death as someone who had been harassing her. Nonetheless, Petitioner’s character and reputation were impugned by the news stories. Petitioner was placed on administrative leave pending further review by the Department. Meanwhile, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”) commenced its own extensive investigation into the death of the inmate. The investigation focused quite heavily on Petitioner and one other correctional officer, but FDLE ultimately concluded that there was no evidence to prove either of the men had taken part in the inmate’s death. The inmate’s death, in fact, was ruled to be from natural causes.1/ The FDLE investigation was concluded on January 21, 2015. The Department did not issue a particular statement concerning Petitioner’s vindication, nor did it publish a notice about the FDLE findings. Petitioner takes great umbrage at this perceived failure by DOC, but cited to no requirement that the Department do so. The Department acknowledges that it did not make any effort to make public the findings of the FDLE investigation. During the FDLE investigation and while Petitioner’s alleged involvement in the incident was being broadcast by the news services, Petitioner began receiving threats against his life and the lives of his family members. Who made such threats or why such threats may have been made was not made clear at final hearing. Whether it was family and friends of the inmate, concerned citizens who perceived Petitioner as some kind of monster, or someone else making the threats, Petitioner was concerned for his safety. He was especially worried for his daughter, who had been living part-time with Petitioner on a split schedule with his ex-wife. When the news stories began to appear, the ex-wife refused to allow the daughter to visit with Petitioner. While he wanted to see his child, Petitioner knew that it was better for her to stay away from him until the situation improved. As a result of the publicity, the threats, and the stress on him and his family, Petitioner developed PTSD. The Department approved Petitioner for participation in EAP on March 6, 2015. EAP paid for counseling sessions with Petitioner’s chosen therapist, Mrs. Robinson. Petitioner had about 12 sessions with Mrs. Robinson while he was covered by EAP. After his EAP coverage expired, Petitioner met with Mrs. Robinson for two more sessions paid for as part of his FMLA leave. Mrs. Robinson identified Petitioner’s condition at the beginning of their sessions as quite extreme. He suffered from nightmares, crippling fear, paranoia, and unwillingness to leave his home. He had dark circles under his eyes and was obviously distraught. Mrs. Robinson began to work with Petitioner to help him view his fears and concerns differently. She taught him to utilize mindfulness meditation techniques. He was shown how to perform activities of daily life without being reminded of the trauma he had experienced. The number of sessions he spent with Mrs. Robinson was not sufficient for her to fully address his needs, however. She was able to diagnose his PTSD and began treatment for that condition, but their relationship ended before she could do much for him. By the time her treatment of Petitioner was concluded, they were working toward Petitioner’s acceptance of some inmates in his workplace, as long as they were not “general population inmates.” Ms. Robinson reiterated that Petitioner should not work within the prison compound, i.e., within the perimeter, at this time. She believed that with further assistance, Petitioner may one day be able to do so. By letter dated March 13, 2015, Mrs. Robinson notified the Department that, concerning Petitioner, “It is recommended that he does not return to work until further notice due to the hostility he has faced from the public, his co-workers and other inmates that he would be responsible for which could trigger further de-compensation and contribute to greater emotional disturbance. Mr. Quercioli is open to learning positive coping skills for improved feelings management as well as the treatments necessary for recovering from PTSD.” For about three months, the Department attempted to determine whether Petitioner would be able to return to work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant. On June 9, 2015, DOC notified Petitioner that his FMLA leave had been exhausted and he needed to talk to his supervisor, Major Patterson, about when he could come back to work. Mr. Patterson contacted Petitioner and basically said he would need to come back to work at the Lowell Annex, i.e., return to his old job. Meanwhile, the Department, by letter dated June 16, 2015, asked Mrs. Robinson for her opinion regarding whether Petitioner could work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant. The parties to this matter characterize the tone of that letter quite differently. It is therefore quoted here in its entirety for the purpose of objectivity: Dear Mrs. Robinson: The above employee [Petitioner] is a Correctional Office Sergeant with the Florida Department of Corrections at Lowell Correctional Institution. Your opinion regarding Mr. Quercioli’s medical status while working in a potentially dangerous environment will assist management in their decision to retain Mr. Quercioli in his current position. In order for us to determine whether or not Mr. Quercioli can safely perform his duties as a Correctional Officer Sergeant, we request that you complete this questionnaire as to his ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a Correctional Officer Sergeant to full capacity. Please bear in mind that Correctional Officer Sergeants must be able to work split, rotating or fixed shifts, weekends, holidays and overtime possibly without notice as required. Overtime may include double shifts and working on off duty days. In order to assist you in making this determination, I am enclosing a position description and a list of essential functions for the Correctional Officer Sergeant position held by Mr. Quercioli. Also, please bear in mind that Mr. Quercioli’s job does require that he be able to possess a firearm. Furthermore, he could at any time be placed in a situation where the use of physical force, including deadly force may be necessary, to control violent inmates or prevent imminent threat to life. We ask that you provide information regarding how Mr. Quercioli can treat and control his condition in a correctional environment. In addition, we need to know what precautionary measures are required to ensure his physical condition is not exacerbated when he is involved in a highly dangerous situation with inmates or volatile situations with supervisors and/or co-workers. In rendering your opinion, if you determine Mr. Quercioli can perform some duties but not others, please specify which duties cannot be performed and the reason why. Additionally, if there is anything that can be done to allow him to perform these duties, please provide this information. In the letter making this request, the Department included a job description and a brief questionnaire to be filled out by the therapist. The questionnaire asked, “After reviewing the position description of Correctional Officer Sergeant, can Mr. Quercioli perform the duties of a Correctional Officer Sergeant with no restrictions?” The questionnaire went on to ask for any reasons that the question was answered in the negative. Mrs. Robinson replied that “No,” Petitioner could not perform the duties without restrictions. She went on to say that, “With 100% supervision of inmates as his primary duties and his constellation of PTSD symptoms, Mr. Quercioli would be at risk of decompensation. A job with no inmate contact may be possible in the future.” Mrs. Robinson had previously, in response to a Medical Certification request from FCHR, listed a few alternative jobs that Petitioner may be able to do, including: “administration away from inmates; staff security away from general population inmates; key keeper or arsenal maintenance away from general population inmates.” The evidence is unclear as to whether the Department was aware of her suggestions regarding those potential jobs for Petitioner. At final hearing, Ms. Robison reiterated her concern about Petitioner being asked to work in an area where general population inmates might be present. Her testimony, in part, was as follows: Q: “[W]ould he have been able to perform the required functions of his employment position based on what you read in his personnel description, the essential functions of his position, had the department considered or approved any request for accommodations Mr. Quercioli made on the department? A: The current job description, position description for a sergeant as a correctional officer, he couldn’t do that job. Q: Could he do others? A: He could do other jobs and we were working towards limited, you know, his acceptance and, you know, with the cognitive behavioral therapy helps you think different about things and he was opening up to the idea that yes, there will be inmates around but they’re at a lower level of risk, and so he was open to that and for trying to work in a different position. * * * Q: So, earlier or a few moments ago when you said he couldn’t perform under [sic] the position of a correctional sergeant, that’s not a hundred percent accurate, correct? A: Right, that was the job description, that is what he was doing in general population, supervising inmates. He can’t supervise inmates and that has a hundred percent by it, supervision of male or female inmates. That what he -- the part of his job that he couldn’t do. Q: Uh-huh, but with an accommodation, he could do that? A: Yes. In another job, other than supervising his primary one hundred percent duties of supervising male or female inmates. Tr., pp. 48-50. Exactly what duties Petitioner could perform without difficulty is unclear. It is certain he could not supervise inmates 100 percent of the time. Whether he could work around inmates in an environment separated from the prison compound is not certain. Whether he could respond to an emergency situation inside the compound is extremely doubtful.2/ Petitioner’s attorney submitted a letter to DOC dated June 26, 2015. The letter requested accommodations that might make it possible for Petitioner to perform one or more jobs at Lowell. The letter suggested part-time or modified work schedules, job restructuring, and other possibilities. The letter also stated, in part, “Instead of requiring Sergeant Quercioli to once again re-live the nightmares arising from his previous duty in the Lowell Annex, the Department could instead assign him to a less stressful desk job.” DOC responded that a less stressful desk job is not a feasible accommodation because a person in that position would not be able to perform the essential duties of a Correctional Officer Sergeant. The attorney responded to the Department that his previous request for an accommodation was not meant to be limited to a “desk job” only; he meant to include any reasonable accommodations. Though the two conversants used different terminology, it is obvious they were both addressing alternative jobs that did not require Petitioner to work within the prison compound, whether that meant literally sitting at a desk or not. Petitioner intimated, but did not conclusively prove, that there were certain jobs in the administration offices, i.e., outside the compound, that he might be capable of filling. No evidence was presented concerning the exact nature of those jobs, the responsibilities attached thereto, or Petitioner’s qualifications to fill them. Following the exchange of letters between DOC and Petitioner (through his attorney), the Department notified Petitioner via letter dated July 9, 2015, that a “personnel action” was being contemplated by DOC which could result in his dismissal from employment. The basis for a personnel action was that Petitioner’s therapist said he was “currently unable to perform the duties of . . . a Correctional Officer Sergeant.” Petitioner was given the opportunity to attend a pre- determination conference with DOC personnel to provide oral or written statements in regards to the personnel action. A conference was held on July 23, 2015. The Department was represented by Warden Gordon and Colonel Edith Pride. A teamster representative, Michael Riley, accompanied Petitioner to the conference. Petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Bisbee, attended the conference via telephone. Petitioner did not bring his therapist, Ms. Robinson, to the meeting because “it never crossed my mind” that she should attend. At the conference, Petitioner reiterated his desire to return to work, but stated he would rather not interact with inmates, even though he believed he might be able do so. His belief was inconsistent with his therapist’s determination and contrary to his attorney’s representations. It is unclear whether DOC could have assigned Petitioner to a position that did not involve some contact with inmates. There were a few jobs mentioned that take place in the prison’s administration building, outside the perimeter. Some of the “trustee” type inmates working within the administration building may have been much less threatening to Petitioner than general population inmates. But because every Correctional Officer Sergeant is deemed to be on call to attend to disturbances within the prison compound, regardless of their job or workplace, Petitioner could be subject to having close contact with the general population inmates. Petitioner identified one specific job in administration that he thought he might be able to handle despite some inmate contact. That job, in the area of training, was filled by another Correctional Officer Sergeant. Petitioner did not ever formally apply for the job. Subsequent to the predetermination conference, the Department issued a letter to Petitioner advising him that “You will be dismissed from your position as a Correctional Officer Sergeant effective August 4, 2015.” The letter gave Petitioner the right to grieve the action or to appeal it to the Public Employees Relations Commission. Petitioner did not avail himself of either of those options. Instead, he filed a claim with FCHR, resulting ultimately in the present action. DOC based its decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment on the fact that his own therapist had opined that he could not perform the essential functions of a Correctional Officer Sergeant. That is because persons in that position–-no matter what duties they were performing--must be able at a moment’s notice to react personally to any emergency situation that may arise within the inmate population. A correctional officer working in the motor pool, for example, may have to drop what he is doing, pick up a firearm, and rush into the compound to quell a disturbance. A sergeant who is performing training for other officers may have to cease her training and immediately report to duty inside the compound to respond to inmate unrest. There is no job under the Correctional Officer Sergeant umbrella that is immune from contact with inmates at any given time. There was, in short, no reasonable accommodation the Department could offer Petitioner. Two pertinent quotes from the record explain concisely the basis of the Department’s position in this case: As a general rule, we don’t “accommodate” correctional officers because the accommodations requested generally include exemption from the essential functions. We provide alternate duty for those officers who are temporarily unable to perform the duties of their position because of a work related injury. However, while on alternate duty, they do not wear a uniform, nor do they perform the duties of a [Correctional Officer]. * * * Quercioli’s therapist, Beth Robinson, stated he was not able to perform the duties of his position, although a job with no inmate contact may be possible in the future. There are no correctional officer positions, regardless of rank, whose essential functions do not include dealing with inmates. Exhibit 4 to Petitioner Exhibit 1, email from Patricia Linn, human resources analyst. It is not unusual for employees to request so-called “accommodations” from DOC relating to their duties as correctional officers. Such requests may include exceptions to the dress code, a need for ergonomic chairs, leave extensions, parking space changes, alternate work schedules, and the like. Each request is reviewed on its own merits and some are granted, some are denied. In fact, Petitioner alluded to the fact that after the inmate death incident, he had been reassigned to alternate duties not having to do with inmate monitoring. His duties were related to assisting applicants for jobs at Lowell to fill out their applications. Petitioner intimated that he did not enjoy that position. Petitioner asserts that DOC made no effort to contact him to discuss possible accommodations. He did not cite to any existing policy or rule which would require the Department to do so, however. Further, Petitioner admitted that he did not attempt to initiate such conversations with the Department, either. Since losing his job at Lowell, Petitioner has been unable to obtain gainful employment. Of the scores of internet applications for employment (and one in-person interview), not a single position came to fruition. As a result, Petitioner cashed out his state retirement plan, using the money to pay bills and provide for his daughter’s needs. Petitioner presented no evidence in this case that persons with disabilities were treated any differently by the Department when they requested accommodations.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, determining that the Department of Corrections had legitimate cause for the dismissal of employment of Petitioner, Patrick Quercioli, and that there is no evidence of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact On August 28, 1987, Respondent, David E. Hancock, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-02. On March 4, 1988, Respondent, Floyd W. Winkle, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-03. In March, 1989, Respondents were employed as correctional officers by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA operates the county corrections facilities for Bay Counnty, Florida. Additionally, CCA is responsible for booking new arrestees into the jail facility. On March 11, 1989, Respondent Hancock was the supervisor of the night shift at the main jail facility in Bay County. Respondent Winkle was the booking officer. The evening of the 11th was a very heavy evening for arrests. The facility was understaffed for the numbers of arrests being processed. In fact, the holding cells, located in the basement of the jail, were full and female prisoners were being held in the interview rooms across the hall from the holding cells. Marcus Kitchens was brought to the jail in a highly intoxicated state. He was bleeding and exhibited lacerations and abrasions to his face and limbs. Mr. Kitchens was also in a very noisy and rowdy state. During the course of the evening, one of the female prisoners requested to use the restroom facilities. These facilities are located in the holding cells which were occupied by the male prisoners. The male prisoners were transfered to an interview room so that the female prisoner could use the restroom facility in the holding cell. The transfer was made by Officer Winkle. One of the inmates was Marcus Kitchens. He had not yet been officially booked into the jail. While transferring the male prisoners back to the holding cell Mr. Kitchens asked Officer Winkle for a blanket. For a number of valid security reasons jail policy does not permit a prisoner to have a blanket until the prisoner is officially booked into the facility and on his her her way to a more permanent cell. When Mr. Kitchens was told that he could not have a blanket he became violent and charged Officer Winkle, hitting the officer on the left side of face with his fist and knocking the officer's glasses off. Officer Winkle pushed Mr. Kitchens into the holding cell. Mr. Kitchens grabbed Officer Winkle by the shirt and pulled him into the holding cell with him. The two landed up against one of the walls of the holding cell and Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle several more times in the chest and abdomen with his fist. While Officer Winkle was trying to block the blows, Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle again on the left side of the face. Officer Winkle then grabbed Mr. Kitchens and put him on the floor. Officer Hancock heard the noise from the altercation and responded from another part of the basement area to the site of the altercation. By the time Officer Hancock arrived, Officer Winkle had Mr. Kitchens on the floor. Officer Winkle was sitting on top of Mr. Kitchens trying to subdue him. Officer Hancock stepped in between Officer Winkle and the inmate, put his knee into Mr. Kitchens chest, grasped the shoulder area and shoved Mr. Kitchens against the back wall of the holding cell. Officer Hancock inquired if Officer Winkle was alright. After Officer Winkle responded that he was, Officer Hancock told him to leave the cell. Officer Winkle left the cell and Officer Hancock released Mr. Kitchens from the wall. Mr. Kitchens began to charge Officer Hancock. Officer Hancock ordered him not to move and Mr. Kitchens sat back down on the floor. Officer Hancock left the cell and the door was locked. The entire altercation to the close of the cell door lasted a maximum of two and one-half minutes. It was while Respondents were in the holding cell with Mr. Kitchens that the alleged excessive use of force occurred by Officer Winkle banging Mr. Kitchens' head against the floor and hitting him three times on the side of the head with his fist after Mr. Kitchens had submitted to the officers. The use of excessive force was testified to by an officer who arrived from another part of the basement area after the altercation began and who could only have seen the last few seconds of the incident. The only testimony this officer gave regarding Officer Hancock was that while he was leaning against the cell wall he told Officer Winkle that Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after which Officer Winkle allegedly banged Mr. Kitchens' head on the floor and punched him on the side of the head. Contrary to this officer's testimony and corroborative of Respondents' testimony was the testimony of the nurse on duty at the jail facility. She did not see any excessive use of force and did not hear Officer Hancock make the statement referenced above while the officers were in the holding cell. She also testified that Mr. Kitchen's appeared to be struggling somewhat while he was on the floor. Officer Hancock testified that he told Officer Winkle Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after the officers had locked the door to the holding cell. Officer Hancock made the statement in response to Officer Winkle's complaint that he needed help in booking. The statement was meant to communicate to Officer Winkle that help would not be forthcoming and that he had to handle Mr. Kitchens during the booking process. Clearly, given the facts of this case, such a vague statement, regardless of where it was made, does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Officer Hancock aided, abetted, counseled or procured any battery being effected against Mr. Kitchens. Moreover, this case boils down to a swearing match between the various parties and witnesses involved. On these facts and given the demeanor of the witnesses, such a swearing match does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Respondents have failed to maintain the good moral character required of correctional officers. Additionally, given the fact that the Respondents were subdueing a violent inmate and the very short time span in which the alleged use of force occurred it is improbable that any excessive force was used which would reflect on the character of either Respondent. Therefore the Administrative Complaints against each Respondent should be dismissed. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the amended Administrative Complaints filed against David E. Hancock and Floyd W. Winkle be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the formal hearing in this proceeding, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. Union Correctional Institution Policy Memorandum No. 65, issued June 7, 1976 and revised and effective since October 23, 1980, provides in pertinent part that: Inmates are prohibited from using typewriters for personal correspondence or for matters other than "official state business." Violation of that Policy Memorandum may constitute a basis for disciplinary action. Petitioners have had mail returned to them because it was typewritten. (Petitioners' Exhibits 3, 4, and 5) Based on the returned mail to Petitioners, all of them have been substantially affected by the operation of the subject Policy Memorandum. As example, Petitioner Adams had several cards returned as being prohibited and was advised that if he questioned the return of those cards, he would be confined as a disciplinary action for questioning the operation of the rule as it relates to the returned cards. Additionally, Petitioner Adams lost a Clerk's job in the Law Library because he typed letters. Adams' dismissal resulted in lost "gain time" since he was dismissed for typing letters violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. Petitioner Holland filed an application for a grant to a community college which was returned because it was typed in violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. Finally, Petitioner Cribbs was unable to attend a favorite aunt's funeral because his request was typewritten and it was returned as being in violation of Policy Memorandum No. 65. The employees at Union Correctional Institution adhere to Policy Memorandum No. 65 strictly and employees who are derelict in their responsibilities covered in implementing that policy are subject to disciplinary action. UCIPM 65.5. (Petitioners' Exhibit 1) UCIPM 65 is a department policy, never promulgated as a rule, uniformly applied throughout Union Correctional Institution. It is, by its own terms, virtually self-executing and intended to require compliance. It therefore has the consistent effect of law.
