Findings Of Fact Respondent Francis J. Sortino has been employed by the School Board of Broward County at Deerfield Beach High School in Deerfield Beach, Florida, since 1970 when the school opened. For ten years, he served as the school's planetarium director. In 1979 or 1980, he returned to teaching science in the classroom. In the fall of 1981, he taught a third-hour science class in which Thomas Bates, Debbie Landoskey, Lonnie McKever, Ricky Huntley, Steve Santiago, and Joe Sawyer, among others, were enrolled. On October 28, 1981, Joe Sawyer took the seat near the back of the class to which he had been assigned at the beginning of the school year, even though he had been subsequently reassigned to a seat in the front of the class. When Joe Sawyer and Steven Santiago began talking to each other, Mr. Sortino directed Joe Sawyer to take the seat at the front of the class. Joe Sawyer, who stood five feet one inch, weighed 97 or 98 pounds, and was 15 years old at the time of the hearing, complied with this request, but soon struck up a conversation with Thomas Bates. Thereupon Mr. Sortino told Joe Sawyer to move again, over near Debbie Peck. Joe Sawyer stood up, began moving in the direction Mr. Sortino had indicated (T. 293), and asked, "Where do you want me to move?" at least once. Mr. Sortino then picked up an empty desk, threw it so that it slid some ten feet across the floor and stopped against the wall, grabbed Joe Sawyer by the nape of the neck, forcibly set him down in the desk, and struck him with his open hand, using first his palm and then the back of his hand. These cuffs, no more than four in all, were not administered with Mr. Sortino's full strength; they fell on Joe Sawyer's shoulder or on the back of his neck. All this occurred in the presence of some 30 classmates, a few of whom called out urging Joe Sawyer to go to the school office to report the incident. Joe Sawyer did not cry, call out or resist. His face reddened and he laid his head down on his desk, but he was not seriously hurt. He did not require medical assistance or sustain any permanent injury. Aside from Mr. Sortino, no adult was present when respondent struck Sawyer. Mr. Sortino made no effort during third-hour science class on October 28, 1981, to secure the presence of another adult. The school principal, Rosa J. Lawson, had not delegated to respondent or any other teacher the authority to administer corporal punishment. On October 28, 1981, the School Board of Broward County had in force the following policy, No. 5301: Discipline - Corporal Punishment The principal, or in his/her absence, the person in charge of the school, shall have the responsibility for maintaining overall disci- pline within the school setting. The principal shall share with the teacher the responsibility for maintaining proper school conduct and morale. Further, he/she may delegate to the teachers such responsibility for control and direction of the students as he/she considers desirable. When and where such responsibility has been delegated the teachers shall be sup- ported in any reasonable action they may take. Each pupil enrolled in a school shall, during the time he/she is being transported to or from school at public expense, during the time he/ she is attending school, and during the time he/she is on the school premises, be under the authority of the principal or teacher in charge of the school, and under the immediate control and direction of the teacher or other member of the instructional staff or of the bus driver to whom such responsibility may be assigned by the principal. The board shall do everything within its legal power to protect and support the principal and teachers in their disciplinary role. This shall include legal support in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 230.234. In addition, the board shall assist the principal, teacher, bus driver and/or other school staff members in bringing about penalties for the disruption of school functions or assault upon the instruc- tional staff as set forth under Florida Statutes, Section[s] 231.06 and 231.07. Corporal punishment may be administered at the discretion of the principal or his/her designated representative. Normally this should be done only after other corrective measures have been tried without success. A teacher shall not inflict corporal punish- ment except upon approval of the principal and only then in the presence of another adult who is informed beforehand, and in the student's presence, of the reason for the punishment. Such punishment may not be degrading or unduly severe in its nature. (For clarification, see Florida Statutes, Section 232.27) All suspensions or expulsions shall be made in accordance with Florida Statutes and board policy 5006. Rules When corporal punishment is administered, the following rules shall be observed: The punishment shall be administered by the principal or by some other member of the professional staff designated by him/ her. Under no circumstances shall a stu- dent be struck about the head or shoulders. The punishment shall be administered poste- riorly by striking the student below the waist and above the knees. The administration of corporal pun- ishment shall be witnessed by at least one (1) other member of the staff. Corporal punishment shall not be administered in the presence of other students. When disciplinary action is taken by the principal and/or his/her designee the teacher referring the disciplinary case will be advised in writing of the action taken. A teacher may not suspend a child from school or class. However, in cases where an emergency situation develops, the teacher shall take such steps as are rea- sonably necessary to protect the students. The use of reasonable force necessary to isolate the disruptive student from the classroom shall not constitute corporal punishment as defined in accordance with Section 232.27, Florida Statute[s] , and shall not be used as a basis for the sus- pension of any member of the school staff nor for holding anyone liable for such an act unless the force used is degrading or unduly severe as to its nature. The designated member of the pro- fessional staff or principal who has admin- istered punishment shall provide the pupil's parent or guardian with a written explana- tion of the reason for the punishment and the name of the other adult who was present. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. The substance of this policy was fully explicated in the Deerfield Beach High School Teachers' Handbook at pp. 16, et seq., Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. The policy of the School Board of Broward County with respect to corporal punishment has not changed, in substance, for a decade or more. Respondent was furnished a copy of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 at the beginning of the 1981-1982 school year. The Deerfield Beach High School Teachers' Guidebook also contained the following: Referrals to the Administrative Assistants The control of students is not something that can be achieved by so many rules or by the work of a few individuals, but rather by sincere and cooperative effort on the part of the entire faculty and staff to understand pupils and their problems. Teachers are encouraged to handle their own disciplinary problems whenever possible. Adequate lesson planning and consistancy [sic] of discipline are probably the best means of avoiding disciplinary difficulties. However, when a student becomes persistently unmanageable in the classroom to the detriment of the learn- ing situation or when his offense is of such a nature that he should be referred to some- one else, the teacher should write to the Administrative Assistant. This should be done only after the teacher has exhausted every means at his disposal to corre[c]t that student's conduct. In cases of EMERGENCY nature, the teacher should use the BUZZER to summon an Administrative Assistant to accompany the student to the office. When a referral becomes necessary, please use the three-part referral provided by the Administrative Assistant's office. Give as much information as possible about the reason for the referral in order to help the Administrative Assistant determine the measures to be taken. If the referral form is not adequate, please feel free to use an attachment. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. Respondent Sortino's own personal approach to discipline problems in the classroom is, he testified, fully consistent with the foregoing: If I have a child that's, you know, a minor infraction, the first thing I do is ask him to write a composition, have him take it home and get it signed by his parents. Then they bring the composition back to me. This way I ask the child to do something on why--let's say, for instance, he's just talking in class, or chewing gum, whatever it is. Whatever the infraction, I ask the student to write me a one page composition as to why they shouldn't do that in school, to take it home and have it signed by the parents, and bring it back to me. If they do it again, they write another composition. Generally, I ask them to write three compo- sitions. Generally, after three compositions, what I do is call home. That is not always successful, but I have made phone calls to parents at home. In many cases they tell me, I can't control him at home, can't you. At that point, then I would give detentions, which is school policy to give a student detentions. If he fails to serve detentions, I would write a referral on that student and send him to an adminis- trative assistant, and then they're supposed to take care of it from there. And that's the policy I've been follow- ing, as far as administering discipline in the classroom. (T. 302-303.) Even though he could not remember ever asking Joe Sawyer to write a composition, and never telephoned his parents, Mr. Sortino thought, at the time of the hearing, that his striking Joe Sawyer on October 28, 1981, "was proper." (T. 282.) This episode "was a second occurrence of this type incident." (T. 221.) Mr. Sortino did not refer Joe Sawyer to the school administration for discipline on October 28, 1981, or at any other time, although he did make several other such referrals of students in the fall of 1981. On October 28, 1981, he referred a student named Donald Evans to Rubin C. Ransaw, Jr., an administrative assistant at Deerfield Beach High School, for disciplinary action after Evans, in the presence of Mr. Sortino and other students, said, "Sortino sucks," twice. Petitioner's closing argument was made in written form and filed on May 11, 1982, Respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order were filed on May 13, 1982. These submissions were considered in preparation of the recommended order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have not been adopted they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence or immaterial to this cause.
The Issue The issues in this instance are promoted in keeping with an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent, charging violations of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes. These allegations relate to the claim that Respondent was involved in a liaison with a prostitute in which he exchanged Valium for sex. The encounter between the Respondent and the prostitute is alleged to have occurred while the Respondent was on duty. This Valium was allegedly obtained from an automobile which was examined as part of the Respondent's duties as a law enforcement officer. It is further alleged that the Valium should have been turned in as part of his responsibilities as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a holder of a certificate as law enforcement officer, Certificate No. 98-10527. That certificate is issued by the State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and Respondent has held that certificate at all relevant times in this proceeding. Respondent has been employed as a police officer by the Daytona Beach, Florida, Police Department in the relevant time period and it was during that tenure that Respondent is accused of having committed the offense as set forth in the administrative complaint. Debbie Ofiara is the only witness to the Respondent's alleged indiscretion while on duty. Ms. Ofiara is an admitted prostitute, who has drug problems so severe that she required specific program treatment to address them. In particular, that drug difficulty relates to the drug Dilaudid. In addition, Ofiara has served six months in jail for grand theft, a felony conviction. At the time of the alleged incident with the Respondent she was under the influence of drugs and was under the influence of drugs when she reported that incident to a police investigator in the Daytona Beach Police Department. When testimony was given at the hearing, Ofiara was attending a drug program while awaiting a sentence for a drug offense related to cocaine. She had pled guilty to that drug charge, a felony. Ofiara has been arrested for prostitution, arrests made by the Daytona Beach Police Department on three different occasions. She had been arrested for hitchhiking by Officer Cadenhead prior to the incident which underlies the administrative charges and indicates that she "took offense" at the arrest. Moreover, she acknowledges some past concern about her treatment in encounters with Officer Gary Gallion of the Daytona Beach Police Department in his official capacity. Ms. Ofiara claims that sometime in November 1982, in the evening hours, the Respondent, while on duty as a police officer, in uniform and driving a marked patrol car, approached Ofiara and made arrangements to meet her. She further states that this rendezvous occurred in Daytona Beach, Florida, and that in exchange for Valium tablets which the Respondent had obtained from an examination of a car he had been involved with in his police duties, which tablets were not turned in, Ofiara performed oral sex for Respondent's benefit. Some time later, Ofiara related the facts of the encounter with Officer Cadenhead to an internal affairs investigator with the Daytona Beach Police Department, Lieutenant Thomas G. Galloway. She also gave Galloway a bottle which she claimed was the bottle in which the Valium was found. The vial or container was not examined for any residue of the substance Valium or examined for fingerprints of the Respondent. Following Galloway's investigation of the allegations, the Daytona Beach Police Department determined to terminate the Respondent from his employment. That termination was effective February 11, 1983. Respondent was subsequently reinstated after service of a four-week suspension without pay by order of the City of Daytona Beach Civil Service Board, effective March 9, 1983. Having considered the testimony of Ms. Ofiara and the testimony of the Respondent in which he denies the incident with her, and there being no corroboration, Ms. Ofiara's testimony is rejected for reasons of credibility. As a prostitute, drug user, felon and person with a certain quality of animosity toward the Respondent and in consideration of the demeanor of the accusing witness and Respondent, her testimony is rejected.
The Issue The issue to be addressed is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), and/or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(5)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number 972355, covering the area of elementary education. Respondent’s certificate was issued on July 1, 2008, renewed on March 5, 2013, and is valid through June 30, 2018. Respondent moved to the State of Florida in approximately March of 2011, from the State of Maine. She, her husband, and two small children moved into an apartment in Ocean Park Apartments at 801 First Street South, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent’s apartment faced the beach and was within 100-200 yards from the beach. Shortly after moving there, Respondent obtained renters’ insurance through Geico. The renters’ insurance was issued on approximately March 23, 2011. On March 26, 2011, Respondent called the Jacksonville Beach Police Department to report a burglary at her residence. Respondent reported that she and her husband had taken their children to the beach for the day, and upon their return that afternoon, she and her husband placed the stroller, containing a beach bag and various other belongings they took to the beach, inside the front door to the apartment. Respondent and her husband then went upstairs to put the children down for a nap. When they returned downstairs approximately an hour later, the stroller and its contents were missing. Officer Michael Abate of the Jacksonville Beach Police Department responded to Respondent’s call. He found no signs of forced entry or any other indications that there had been an intruder. However, the home was apparently unlocked at the time of the reported incident, which would negate the need of forced entry. Assuming for the sake of this Recommended Order that the burglary occurred,1/ it appears that the theft was a crime of opportunity, given the apartment’s proximity to the beach and the number of people in the area on a spring weekend. Respondent furnished to Officer Abate a list of approximately twelve items she claimed were stolen: the baby stroller; a beach bag; a canon digital camera; an Apple iPad; sunglasses; flip flops; a Coach® wallet; a Maine Driver’s License; a Bank of America credit card; $100 in cash; children’s shoes; and towels. On May 5, 2011, Respondent went to the police department and provided a more extensive list (supplemental list) of items she claimed were stolen. This list contained 47 items as opposed to the 12 originally described for Office Abate. In addition to the number of items described, there were a number of discrepancies between the first and second lists. For example, the original list identified $100 in cash. The supplemental list reported $160 in cash. The Coach® wallet was originally valued at $200, while the supplemental list valued the wallet at $248. The value of a pair of sunglasses changed from $150 to $199, and the digital camera’s value was amended from $799 to approximately $1,200. Other items added to the claim in the supplemental list included an iPhone 4, Otterbox Defender case, and Invisible SHIELD screen protector; an iPad case; a Kobo E-reader; make-up and name-brand cosmetics; monogrammed beach wraps; and a pair of Lacoste sunglasses in addition to the pair of sunglasses previously listed. On April 1, 2011, Respondent filed a written claim with Assurant Insurance Company, which provided her renter’s policy. The value of the claim submitted was $6,024.56. With the exception of her wallet and driver’s license, Respondent claimed that all of the missing items were purchased within a year of the alleged theft. No depreciation was acknowledged for any item. Assurant referred the claim to its special investigations unit for further review, which was conducted by Special Investigator Charles Beall. Mr. Beall interviewed Respondent by telephone on May 17, June 21, and August 3, 2011. During his investigation, Mr. Beall had discovered that some photographs submitted by Respondent of items supposedly taken in the burglary were actually taken two to three weeks after the burglary had been reported. Moreover, the photographs were taken with the camera that was listed as stolen. When Mr. Beall confronted Respondent in the telephone conference on June 21, with the times the pictures were taken, she could not provide an explanation. Respondent was hired at a Duval Charter School at Baymeadows on June 21, 2011. She continues to teach there. Mr. Beall also discovered during his investigation that a receipt from Amazon.com submitted by Respondent for the camera equipment was altered to reflect a higher purchase price by $639. The original receipt indicated that a single item, the camera, was purchased for $599. The receipt was altered to show the purchase of two items (a more expensive camera and a separately purchased lens) for $1198.95. When asked to confirm the information on the invoice she had provided to Assurant, Respondent initially confirmed the information as accurate. When confronted with the information received from Amazon regarding the purchase, Respondent admitted to altering the Amazon.com invoice in order to make up the monetary difference in her claims deductible. It is found that neither the camera, nor the items photographed with the camera after the date the theft was reported to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department, was actually stolen. Based upon its investigation, Assurant denied Respondent’s claim in full and notified Respondent of the denial by certified mail dated August 1, 2011. It also referred the case to the National Insurance Crime Bureau and to the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud. Investigator Ed Johnson (now Lieutenant) from the Division of Insurance Fraud was assigned to the case, and during his investigation interviewed Respondent. During the interview, Respondent provided a sworn statement, which reads in part: In March of 2011 my family moved to the above listed address. Within two weeks of our arrival, we were the victims of a theft. I then filed a police report with the Jacksonville Beach Police Department, and filed a claim with my insurance company. While filing a report and claim, I purposely [sic] and untruthfully stated that a Canon T2i camera was stolen. Through the investigation of Mr. Charles Beall at Assurant Insurance it was determined that my claim for the camera was false, and my claim was denied. I falsified the camera being stolen in order to make up for the deductible on my claim. I also claimed that my ME (Maine) license was stolen. It has been determined that my ME license was actually used to acquire a Florida Drivers License on April 11, 2011.[2/] Lt. Johnson prepared and submitted an arrest warrant for Respondent’s arrest on September 29, 2011, and a warrant was issued that same day. Respondent was charged with filing false insurance claims, a third-degree felony. Respondent was arrested the following day. On December 14, 2011, Respondent entered a pre-trial intervention program. On October 2, 2012, based upon her completion of the program, the State Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the charges. On April 29, 2013, Respondent submitted a letter to Pam Stewart as Commissioner of Education, in response to the preliminary investigation by DOE. The letter stated in pertinent part: In April, 2011, my home was robbed, while myself and my husband were settling our two young children upstairs for a nap. Our stroller was taken, along with all of the contents. The contents totaled less than $5,000, however the emotional toll was far more extensive. In the aftermath of such an event, our emotions were heightened, and we were in dismal spirits. Although we had renter’s insurance, we knew that we would struggle financially to replace all of the items that were stolen. At that time, I made a foolish decision to add an extra item to my insurance claim to make up for our deductible, so that we wouldn’t end up losing money. * * * They reported the case to local law enforcement, and I met with a Detective to explain how a law-abiding, well-respected community leader such as myself,[3/] had made such a decision. The Attorney General decided to pursue the case, and charge me of [sic] Insurance Fraud in the 3rd degree. I fully cooperated with law enforcement officers, and drove myself [to] the jail to accept my consequence. I bonded out of jail, hired a lawyer, and enrolled in a “Pre-Trial Diversion” program. . . . I completed several hours of community service, and paid a hefty fine during my “Pre-Trial Diversion” program. After a year, upon successful completion of the program, the charges were dropped, and I am left with an arrest record. I feel like I have paid the price for what I did, and learned several valuable lessons during the recovery process. My family has moved on financially from this crisis, but the emotional scars will remain. Educating children is my truest love. Giving back to my community and country by educating our future leaders, and enhancing the lives of people around me is really who I am. This situation has encouraged me to reflect deeply upon my character, and what I am passionate about. I appreciate your time and careful consideration regarding this situation. I made a poor decision, for which I have suffered immensely for [sic]. In both the letter submitted to the Commissioner of Education and during her appearance before a panel of the Education Practices Commission, Respondent consistently maintained that the residence was in fact robbed. Respondent’s admission that she inflated the amount of her insurance claim in order to cover the amount of her deductible is consistent with a burglary occurring. The fact that there was no evidence of forced entry into an unlocked home near the beach is not clear and convincing evidence that the theft did not occur.4/ Petitioner’s claim that Respondent was lying when she made statements that there was in fact a theft at her home is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Commission suspend her teaching certificate for a period of two years, followed by a period of probation for three years, and impose a fine of $1,000, payable within one year of the entry of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 22nd day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, Larry A. Moore, was certified as a law enforcement officer and corrections officer in Florida. The Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), is the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement and corrections officer in Florida. During the months of November and December, 1987, Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. In December, 1987, Officer Chris Hamori was a traffic officer with the same department. He had been issued certain equipment for his personal use on duty in which he had placed his personal identification mark. The equipment, primarily a windbreaker, a raincoat, a flashlight and other items necessary for traffic accident investigation, was kept in the trunk of the patrol car signed out to him. He was the only operator of that vehicle, though numerous department cars, all of the same make and model, were identically keyed. Therefor, any key for any of the vehicles would open and operate any of the other identical vehicles. On December 8, 1987, Officer Hamori was assigned to teach a class at a junior college in the next county to the south. When he got there, it was raining and he went to the trunk to get his raincoat but found it missing. He had to get to class and so did not search the trunk at that time. During the mid-class break, however, he again went to the car to make a more thorough search and discovered that his trunk had been rifled and not only his raincoat but his windbreaker as well were missing. There was no evidence of breaking into the trunk. Officer Hamori reported the theft the next morning and went to the Department's property custodian to let them know as well. At that time he was issued another raincoat and windbreaker which, according to the property custodian, Ms. Bell, had just been turned in by the Respondent who was leaving employment with the Department. Officer Hamori noted, from the lack of patches on the windbreaker, that it was much like his and upon further checking, noted that his name appeared on the underside of the right sleeve where he had placed it when the garment was initially issued to him. He also noted that the raincoat had his name written on the inside of the placket where he had placed it when the coat was initially issued to him. From this, he determined that these two garments were the ones taken from his car, without his knowledge or permission, the previous day. Ms. Bell was quite certain that the items in issue here had been turned in to her that same day by the Respondent. When he brought them in, she cleared his property account and placed the items off to the side. She had not had time to place them back into stock. Notwithstanding Respondent's urging that other individuals than Ms. Bell had access to the property storage area, she indicated that no one else turned in any items of that nature that day. Respondent was the only one to turn in equipment that day and, as was stated, she had not put it back into stock when Hamori came in to ask for a reissue. It is found, therefore, that the property turned in by Respondent was the property issued to Officer Hamori and was the same property which had been taken from him without permission. Respondent urges that numerous people could have gotten into Respondent's patrol car and taken his property because of the large number of keys out that would fit it. This is true, but the evidence is uncontrovertible that the property turned in by the Respondent was the property taken from Officer Hamori's car the day before and there is some evidence in fact, that Respondent indicated to Sergeant Lobeck, his immediate supervisor, that he needed some equipment, including a raincoat, to turn in when he left the Department's employ. It is found, therefore, that Respondent is the individual who took the property in question from Officer Hamori's car. Had this not been discovered, the Department would have been out the cost of the equipment since, because it had been stolen from Hamori, Hamori would have been released from liability for it. Only the property initially issued to Respondent was not returned, and though he ultimately paid for it, at the time in issue, he took it from Hamori without authority. Toward the end of 1988, Assistant Chief of the West Palm Beach Department, attempted to locate the Respondent, then a patrolman with that agency, due to a schedule change. At that time, Respondent was not where he was supposed to be and had not advised the Department of his whereabouts. He was finally located at the Mt. Vernon Motor Lodge in West Palm Beach. Discussions with the manager of that facility indicated that the Respondent had moved out without paying the full amount of the room rent owed and had left his room in a messy and unclean condition. Abel Menendez was the manager of the Mount Vernon Motor Lodge during the period September through November, 1988. During that time, Respondent, who represented himself incorrectly as an employee of the Sheriff's office, rented a room at the motel, paying a rate therefor of $135.00 per week. Respondent was to pay his rent in advance and at first did so, but after a while, he began to get behind in his payments and Mr. Menendez had trouble finding him. When it became clear that Respondent could not bring his arrears current, Mr. Menendez agreed that he could make partial payments to catch up, but he never did so. Finally, in November, along with Mr. Fishbein, the motel owner, Mr. Menendez told Respondent he would have to pay up or move out. When Respondent first began to fall behind in his rent, Mr. Menendez contacted representatives of the West Palm Beach Police Department and gave them a summary of the charges owed by Respondent. The last payment made by Respondent was $135.00 on November 11, 1988, which left a balance due of $500.00 which was never paid. Respondent is alleged to have left the motel during the night of November 11, 1988. According to Mr. Menendez, Respondent "destroyed" the room before his departure. Some of his clothes and things were left in the room. The room was examined the following day by Sgt. Chappell, also of the Department, who had gone there to look for the Respondent at the direction of Captain Griffin. This officer observed holes punched in the walls, and trash and dirty diapers in the room. He never located Respondent. Chief Bradshaw subsequently spoke with the Respondent about this situation and based on the facts as he determined them, terminated Respondent's probationary status with the Department and discharged him. In their discussion, Respondent indicated he had an arrangement with the motel manager, but this was only partially true. The arrangement was to pay in installments but Respondent abandoned the room without doing so. He was locked out by the management the following day. Even though Respondent agreed with Chief Bradshaw to make payments of the amounts owed, he may not have done so. As a result, criminal charges were filed against him. The criminal charges were subsequently disposed of by a Deferred Prosecution Agreement entered into by the Respondent and the State in June, 1989. By the terms of that agreement, Respondent agreed to pay off the obligation at a rate no less than $100.00 per month. However, Mr. Moore never paid any money to the motel because, due to a total mixup in the motel's paperwork, they were never able to establish to whom the money was to be paid. As a result, the matter was ultimately disposed of by the State entering a nolle prosequi in the case. Respondent's public defender, Ms. Kretchmer, remembers Respondent's repeatedly indicating he wanted to pay off the obligation, however. Respondent's wife, with whom he was living in the motel prior to their marriage, recalls having offered Mr. Menendez $300.00 the day before the Moores moved out. Mr. Menendez would not take it, however, indicating he wanted to receive it from Respondent. When Respondent came by, she gave him the money and they went to Menendez to pay him but he would accept only $150.00 and told Moore to keep the rest and not worry about it because, due to the fact he was a policeman, they "needed him around there." Shortly thereafter, however, Mrs. Moore heard Mr. Menendez complaining to the police about the amount owed. She claims Moore tried to make payments several times and whenever he would do so, Menendez would get upset. It was her understanding that Menendez was getting pressure from his boss to collect what was due and get the records straight. He mentioned to her that the motel cash account was short and he was being accused of taking the money. There is some evidence that Moore was not the only one having trouble with rent payments at the motel at that time. When he found that out, he decided to move but Mr. Menendez begged him not to go because his presence as a policeman helped in curbing drugs, gambling and prostitution there. Mrs. Moore absolutely denies that she and Respondent ever hid from Mr. Menendez nor did they sneak out during the night. They checked out in broad daylight at 11:45 in the morning with Mr. Menendez standing by. At that time, Menendez threatened to call the police but, according to Respondent, he, Moore did so instead, but could get no one in authority to listen or help him. Even after they left, Moore called and spoke with Menendez several times but was still subsequently arrested on the defraud charge. According to Mrs. Moore, they at no time damaged the room. At the time they left, the motel was fixing the air conditioner which caused some damage, but that's the only damage in the room when they left. Before they left, she cleaned the room so that it was in the same condition when they left as it was when they moved in. Respondent claims that when he began work with the West Palm Beach Police Department he discussed his rent problems with police officials and told them he had an arrangement with the motel to pay off the arrears. He admits he then got behind and when he tried to pay, the figures kept changing because of the absence of rental records. When he left, his disagreement with the motel was over the amount owed. He called the police to get a witness to his request for a firm bill, but by that time, he had already been terminated and the police would not come out. He had already had his discussion with Chief Bradshaw who, he claims, had told him to take care of the bill whatever the amount. He felt this was unfair, however, because he was told to pay whatever was asked regardless of whether he owed it or not. Respondent was ordained and licensed as a minister by the Church of God, 629 5th Street, West Palm Beach, on January 3, 1992. His minister the Reverend Preston Williams has found him to be a nice person and a well mannered person dedicated to his work, who has served with him in the local ministry since 1985.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case, dismissing the allegation of defrauding an innkeeper as alleged in the original Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of unlawfully taking the property issued to officer Hamori as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and revoking his certification as a correctional officer and as a law enforcement officer. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Gina Cassidy, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry A. Moore 5100 45th Street, Apt. 1-A West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Order of Probable Cause entered March 4, 2005, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the stipulation of the parties, and on the entire record of these proceedings, the following findings of fact are made: The FEC is the statutory entity that is responsible for investigating complaints and enforcing Florida's election laws, Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. See § 106.25, Fla. Stat. Lieutenant Wills has been employed by the West Palm Beach Police Department for approximately 23 years and has served as a lieutenant for approximately three years. At the time he was promoted to lieutenant, Lieutenant Wills was serving as the president of the West Palm Beach Police Benevolent Association, Inc. ("PBA"), which is a police union for officers, sergeants, and lieutenants employed by the West Palm Beach Police Department. Lieutenant Wills resigned this position when he was promoted. In May 2004, the time material to this proceeding, Lieutenant Wills served as a representative to the PBA. In May 2004, Lieutenant Wills worked the night shift, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. He supervised a uniformed patrol squad of 10-to-12 police officers and two sergeants. The squad was divided into two units; the first night-shift unit began work at 5:00 p.m., and the second night-shift unit began work at 7:00 p.m. Sergeant Riddle supervised the first night-shift unit, and Sergeant Kapper supervised the second night-shift unit, under Lieutenant Wills's command. The police officers in Lieutenant Wills's squad were required to attend a briefing or "line-up" before they began their patrol or other duties. During the line-up, the officers were briefed on arrest information, bulletins, training, work assignments, and other employment-related matters. The briefings were conducted by Sergeant Kelly, an administrative sergeant who was not under the direct supervision of Lieutenant Wills. Lieutenant Wills often participated with Sergeant Kelly in conducting the briefings for his squad. Officers in the first night-shift unit went on duty at 5:00 p.m., and the briefing for this shift began promptly at 5:00 p.m.; an officer was considered late for work if he or she arrived in the briefing room after 5:00 p.m. The officers in Lieutenant Wills's first night-shift unit routinely began congregating in the briefing room 15 or 20 minutes before the 5:00 p.m. briefing began. They watched television; talked about many different topics, including politics; and generally interacted informally until briefings began at 5:00 p.m. When a police officer was on the police department premises, the officer was expected to obey a direct order from a superior officer, even if he or she was not on duty. If an officer was given an order by a superior officer to carry out work-related duties prior to the beginning of his or her shift, the officer was eligible for overtime pay for the time spent performing these work-related duties. An off-duty officer was not, however, expected to obey anything but a direct order from a superior officer. In an e-mail dated May 4, 2004, Sergeant Peneque, who was the president of the PBA, advised that the PBA planned to endorse Ric Bradshaw, a former chief of the West Palm Beach Police Department, as a candidate for Palm Beach County Sheriff and that the endorsement would be announced at a press conference to be held on May 25, 2004. Sergeant Peneque related in the e-mail that the "chief" was asking that the members of the police department support him by coming to the press conference. Sergeant Peneque sent this e-mail out on the West Palm Beach Police Department "Lotus notes" e-mail system, and it appeared on all of the police department computers. The PBA routinely sent e-mails regarding union business through the police department e-mail system, and the information was generally disseminated to the assembled police officers prior to the start of shift briefings. On May 10, 2004, about 10 or 15 minutes before the beginning of the briefing for the 5:00 p.m. shift, Sergeant Kelly read Sergeant Peneque's e-mail to the officers who had congregated in the briefing room. There were about five or six officers present at that time, and few of them indicated to Sergeant Kelly that they would attend the Bradshaw rally. Sergeant Kelly was upset by this lackluster response and made several remarks to the officers in the briefing room to the effect that they should support "Chief" Bradshaw, that Bradshaw had hired most of them, and that they should show their loyalty by supporting his candidacy for sheriff. Lieutenant Wills came into the briefing room in time to hear Sergeant Kelly's remarks about the lack of support for the Bradshaw candidacy, between 5 and 10 minutes before 5:00 p.m. By that time, more officers had assembled in the briefing room. Before the 5:00 p.m. briefing began, Lieutenant Wills read the PBA e-mail to the officers in the briefing room. Lieutenant Wills asked how many officers planned to attend the Bradshaw rally. Lieutenant Wills was disappointed when only a few officers indicated that they were going to attend the rally, and he said something to the effect that "Chief" Bradshaw had done a lot for the West Palm Beach Police Department.3 A police officer named Paul Creelman spoke up when Lieutenant Wills told the assembled officers about the Bradshaw rally, after one of the officers in the briefing room made a remark that a group of anti-Bradshaw officers were planning to show up for the rally. Officer Creelman remarked, "What time do they get there."4 Officer Creelman meant his remark as a joke. At the time he made the remark, Officer Creelman was sitting in the back of the briefing room; he was eavesdropping on the discussion between Lieutenant Wills and the officers at the front of the briefing room but was not one of the officers engaged in the discussion with Lieutenant Wills. Lieutenant Wills heard Officer Creelman's remark, but he did not respond to the remark. He went on to discuss other matters. In May 2004, Officer Creelman was assigned to the Neighborhood Enhancement Team ("NET"). Officer Creelman and the other NET officers were not members of Lieutenant Wills's squad and attended the 5:00 p.m. briefing as guests, primarily to gather officer safety information. Sergeant Luciano was the sergeant in charge of the night-shift NET officers, and Lieutenant Sargent supervised Sergeant Luciano and the NET officers. Lieutenant Wills had no direct supervisory authority over Officer Creelman. Officer Creelman was present at the 5:00 p.m. briefing for Lieutenant Wills's squad on May 17, 2004. During the briefing, Sergeant Kelly discussed problems that the squad was having with officers abusing sick leave by calling in sick when they wanted a few days off. Lieutenant Wills joined the discussion, and he was emphatic that he would not tolerate the abuse of sick leave by the officers in his squad because it left the squad short-handed and caused safety concerns. Lieutenant Wills discussed the police department's policies regarding sick leave, and, at one point, Lieutenant Wills stated that he had been the president of the PBA; that he knew how things worked; and that he would "fuck over" anyone who "fucked" with him about sick leave. Officer Creelman interjected a comment under his breath, saying "That's sad."5 Lieutenant Wills asked Officer Creelman to repeat his comment, and Officer Creelman did so. Lieutenant Wills demanded to know what Officer Creelman meant by the remark, and Officer Creelman told Lieutenant Wills that he considered his comment about using what he had learned as PBA president against his subordinate officers to be inappropriate. Lieutenant Wills was angry about Officer Creelman's remark and told Sergeant Luciano that he wanted to see him and Officer Creelman in his office after the briefing. When Officer Creelman and Sergeant Luciano came into his office, Lieutenant Wills expressed his anger about what he considered Officer Creelman's derogatory and disrespectful conduct towards him during the briefing. Lieutenant Wills told Officer Creelman that he did not want him "mouthing off" during his squad's briefing and that he thought Officer Creelman was a "smart aleck." To make the point that the incident on May 17, 2004, was not the first time Officer Creelman had "smarted off" to him, Lieutenant Wills told Officer Creelman that he had not forgotten his remark about the anti-Bradshaw rally. Lieutenant Wills then told Officer Creelman and Sergeant Luciano to leave his office. According to Officer Creelman, the reason Lieutenant Wills called him into his office was to address Officer Creelman's conduct in making inappropriate comments during the briefing of Lieutenant Wills's squad.6 Officer Creelman described Lieutenant Wills's manner during the time he was in Lieutenant Wills's office as "normal" and stated that Lieutenant Wills spoke in a low tone of voice.7 In a memorandum dated May 18, 2004, to Assistant Chief Van Reeth, Officer Creelman set out his version of the events that took place on May 10, 2004, regarding Lieutenant Wills's discussion of the Bradshaw rally; his version of Lieutenant Wills's conduct during the May 17, 2004, briefing; and his version of the meeting in Lieutenant Wills's office on May 17, 2004.8 In the May 18, 2004, memorandum, Officer Creelman requested permission to speak with Assistant Chief Van Reeth and the Chief of Police "so that we can all resolve this matter." On May 21, 2004, Officer Creelman filed a complaint against Lieutenant Wills regarding "the manner in which the Lieutenant spoke to officers in briefing." Officer Creelman's complaint was that Lieutenant Wills used "inappropriate language." A copy of Officer Creelman's May 18, 2004, memorandum was attached to the complaint form. Captain Olsen conducted the investigation of Officer Creelman's complaint against Lieutenant Wills, and she concluded that Lieutenant Wills used inappropriate language during the May 17, 2004, briefing when discussing the abuse of sick leave by members of his squad. Lieutenant Wills was disciplined for this misconduct with a verbal reprimand documented in his personnel file. Captain Olsen concluded after her investigation that Lieutenant Wills read the PBA e-mail before the May 10, 2004, briefing began, when Lieutenant Wills and the police officers he supervised were off duty. Because of this, Captain Olsen concluded that Lieutenant Wills did not violate any of the rules or policies of the West Palm Beach Police Department with respect to his remarks about the Bradshaw rally. Neither Lieutenant Wills nor any other member of the West Palm Beach Police Department is expected to enforce Florida's election laws as part of their duties as police officers, and no training with respect to the provisions of Florida's election laws is provided for police officers by the West Palm Beach Police Department or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Lieutenant Wills is not familiar with the provisions of Florida's election laws in his professional capacity as a law enforcement officer. Lieutenant Wills has never run for public office or served as a committee chair, a committee treasurer, or a campaign treasurer for a candidate in a municipal, county, or state political campaign. Lieutenant Wills is not familiar with the provisions of Florida's election laws in his personal, individual capacity. Lieutenant Wills was provided with a copy of the rules and regulations of the West Palm Beach Police Department, and he was aware in May 2004 that it was against the police department's rules and regulations for an officer to engage in or discuss political activities during work hours. Notwithstanding this policy, Bradshaw's candidacy for Palm Beach County Sheriff generated a lot of interest among the police officers and was a topic of general discussion at the police department, even when officers were on duty, because Bradshaw had been the Chief of the West Palm Beach Police Department until he retired in early 2004. Summary The evidence presented by the FEC is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Lieutenant Wills willfully used his supervisory position, authority, or influence for the purpose of coercing or influencing the vote of any of the officers present during the discussion of Bradshaw's candidacy before the May 10, 2004, briefing or of affecting the result of the election for Palm Beach County Sheriff. The evidence presented reflects that none of the officers present in the briefing room prior to the May 10, 2004, briefing had a clear memory of the specific statements made by Lieutenant Wills, and the evidence is not sufficiently persuasive to support a finding of fact that Lieutenant Wills told the police officers assembled in the briefing room that they should support Bradshaw's candidacy for sheriff or that they should attend the Bradshaw rally. It cannot reasonably be inferred from the evidence presented that Lieutenant Wills's purpose in reading the PBA e-mail or in making the statement to the officers that Bradshaw had done a lot for the West Palm Beach Police Department was to coerce or influence anyone present in the briefing room to attend the Bradshaw rally, to vote for Bradshaw, or to effect the results of the election for sheriff.9 Even if the evidence were sufficient to support a finding that Lieutenant Wills's purpose was to coerce or influence the officers to attend the Bradshaw rally or to support or vote for Bradshaw for sheriff, the evidence presented by the FEC is not sufficient to support a finding that Lieutenant Wills was aware that his actions violated Florida's elections laws or that he acted in disregard of the law. Evidence that Lieutenant Wills knew that the West Palm Beach Police Department rules and regulations prohibited him from engaging in political activities while on duty is not sufficient to support an inference that Lieutenant Wills should have been on notice that he should consult Florida's election laws prior to reading the PBA e-mail or making any remarks about Bradshaw's candidacy for sheriff. Finally, the evidence presented by the FEC is not sufficient to support a finding that Lieutenant Wills's purpose in telling Officer Creelman on May 17, 2004, that he remembered his remark about the anti-Bradshaw rally was to coerce or influence Officer Creelman's vote for sheriff or the affect the result of the election for sheriff. It is uncontroverted that Lieutenant Wills's purpose in calling Officer Creelman and Sergeant Luciano into his office on May 17, 2004, was to talk to Officer Creelman about his making disrespectful comments during the briefings of Lieutenant Wills's squad, and it cannot reasonably be inferred from the evidence presented that Lieutenant Wills's purpose in reminding Officer Creelman of his remark was other than to illustrate Lieutenant Wills's point that Officer Creelman had been disrespectful during briefings on more than one occasion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order dismissing in its entirety the Order of Probable Cause entered against Thomas L. Wills on March 4, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 2nd day of December, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, John L. Eifert (Respondent) was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner). Respondent was certified on July 17, 1981, being issued Certificate Number 74043. On or about June 14, 1984, Officer Goodwin of the Miami Beach Police Department (Miami Beach P.D.) was involved in an automobile accident. Officer Goodwin was off-duty at the time. The officers dispatched to the accident scene found, among other things, on the driver's side of Officer Goodwin's vehicle, evidence bags from the Miami Beach P.D. and a clear plastic bag. The evidence bags were clearly marked as Miami Beach P.D. evidence bags. The clear bag and one of the evidence bags contained a white substance that the officers suspected was cocaine. Officer Goodwin was arrested for driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or narcotics. All the bags found in Officer Goodwin's vehicle at the accident scene were seized and placed into evidence. The white substance in the bags was subsequently tested. The tests revealed that the white substance was cocaine. The cocaine found in Officer Goodwin's vehicle was the same cocaine that he had seized in a narcotic's case. He had obtained the cocaine from the evidence room under false pretenses, indicating that he was going to testify in court and needed the cocaine for his testimony. There was no court hearing. Officer Goodwin obtained the cocaine for his own personal use; he intended to consume the cocaine himself. Officer Goodwin was Respondent's fellow officer with the Miami Beach P.D. and friend. They had gone through the police academy together in 1981, and they were motorcycle officers together. Prior to the accident, at approximately 9:30 a.m. on June 14, 1984, Officer Goodwin had visited Respondent at Respondent's off-duty job. Respondent was moonlighting as a security guard at a bank. Officer Goodwin had been ingesting cocaine prior to the visit, had not slept in approximately 24 hours, and was paranoid. Officer Goodwin wanted to use Respondent's residence to consume more cocaine. Because of his paranoid behavior and because he was a friend, Respondent agreed for Officer Goodwin to go to his residence and convinced Officer Goodwin to wait for him there. When Officer Goodwin arrived at Respondent's residence, he continued to ingest cocaine. Also, he placed some of the cocaine in individual plastic bags. Officer Goodwin hid the cocaine filled plastic bags in Respondent's residence. When Respondent came to his residence at approximately 4:45 p.m. that same day, he found Officer Goodwin more paranoid than before. Officer Goodwin refused to remain at Respondent's residence and left shortly before 5:00 p.m. Before leaving, Respondent agreed for Officer Goodwin to leave the cocaine filled plastic bags in his residence. Officer Goodwin informed Respondent where he had hid the bags. Respondent located the cocaine filled bags. Without getting any sleep, Respondent continued with his social activities planned for the remainder of the evening. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Respondent went to his second moonlighting job. On June 15, 1984, around 3:30 a.m., Officer Goodwin called Respondent at his second moonlighting job. Officer Goodwin informed Respondent that he had been arrested and requested that Respondent dispose of the cocaine and told him where to leave it. Unbeknownst to Respondent, Officer Goodwin was calling from police headquarters and was attempting to return the remaining cocaine to the Miami Beach P.D. Instead of following Officer Goodwin's instructions, Respondent went home around 3:50 a.m. and disposed of the cocaine by dumping it into the bay behind his residence. Respondent believed that he was helping Officer Goodwin, a friend. Subsequently, around 6:00 a.m., Respondent received another telephone call from Officer Goodwin. Respondent informed him what he had done with the cocaine. Officer Goodwin was upset about what Respondent had done. Goodwin admitted at hearing that, due to the quantity of cocaine that he had ingested, beginning June 13, 1984, and continuing into June 14, 1984, he had very little independent recollection of what happened that day. His information, as to what happened that day, is mostly from reading his statements that he had made regarding the incident, police reports, and transcripts of depositions. Further, Goodwin also admits that his recall prior to going to Respondent's residence is fair. Officer Goodwin entered into a plea agreement regarding the accident and the cocaine. The plea agreement provided, among other things, that he give testimony, regarding the incident, forever in whatever the forum may be and that he relinquish his certification from Petitioner. Presently, Goodwin is in charge of a drug treatment center for Metro- Dade County. He has been in this position for five years. In June 1984, Respondent resigned from the Miami Beach P.D. Consistent with the policy of the Miami Beach P.D. at that time, no investigation was instituted against Respondent by Internal Affairs of the Metro-Dade Police Department due to his resignation. Respondent does not deny that he permitted Goodwin to take the cocaine to his residence, that he permitted Goodwin to leave some of the cocaine at his residence, and that Goodwin left some of the cocaine at his residence. Furthermore, Respondent does not deny that the cocaine remained at his residence after Goodwin left and that he disposed of the cocaine by dumping it into the bay. At the time of his resignation, Respondent and the Miami Beach P.D. agreed that, whenever inquiries were made regarding Respondent, the Miami Beach P.D. would make neither negative nor positive comments about Respondent. The intent of this agreement was to allow Respondent to keep his record clean. However, the reverse occurred. He was effectively prevented from getting jobs in law enforcement. Subsequently, Respondent and the Miami Beach P.D. agreed to full disclosure regarding Respondent and the cocaine incident. In 1987, Respondent began to obtain employment in law enforcement. From September 1987 to January 1989, Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Indian Creek Village Police Department. From February 1989 to May 1989, he was employed as a police officer with the Florida City Police Department. Respondent resigned from both positions. In January 1990, Respondent was rehired by the Florida City Police Department (Florida City P.D.). At the time of hearing, he was still employed with the Florida City P.D. Respondent's personnel file reflects that, during his tenure as a police officer, Respondent has had one reprimand. The reprimand occurred after his resignation from the Miami Beach P.D. However, Respondent's personnel file also reflects that, during his tenure as a police officer, Respondent has had numerous commendations and letters commending his performance. He has been subjected to pressure and dangerous encounters and has performed in an exemplary manner. At hearing, several individuals, law enforcement and non-law enforcement, supported Respondent either through testimony or letters. Respondent's former pastor and the Mayor of the City of Florida City testified in support of him. Both regarded Respondent as having high moral character. Moreover, the Mayor's position was that the incident in June 1984 would have no effect on his opinion of Respondent. Additionally, the former Police Chief of the City of Miami Beach at the time of the incident in June 1984 did not find it odd or unusual for Respondent to still be in law enforcement. To him, Respondent had made a mistake, paid for the mistake, and had turned his life around. By letter, Respondent's immediate supervisor of five years with the Florida City P.D. supported him. Also, a special agent with the Florida East Coast Railway Police, who has known Respondent both personally and professionally for approximately nine years, supported Respondent. Petitioner filed the administrative complaint against Respondent on August 9, 1993. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action against him by Petitioner.
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 Respondent; and Placing Respondent on probation for one (1) year under terms and conditions that the Commission deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED in this 2nd day of January, 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 2nd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Braverman, Esquire Braverman and Grossman, P.A. 2780 Douglas Road, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33133-2749 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
