Findings Of Fact On August 10, 1988, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as the employing agency, applied for certification as a correctional officer on behalf of petitioner, Eddie Lewis (Lewis). Accompanying such application was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by the Director of Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department of Corrections) which comported with existing law, and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lewis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8) and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provisions of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant of good moral character. 1/ By letter dated November 7, 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission) notified Lewis and the Department of Corrections that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You made an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act, with a deadly weapon, a shotgun, but without intent to kill, to do violence to Walter Harrell, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and did an act which created in Walter Harrell a well-founded fear that such violence was imminent. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lewis filed a timely request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. In his request for hearing, Lewis specifically denied that he had committed any of the acts which the Commission contended demonstrated a lack of good moral character. The Commission forwarded Lewis' request for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. At hearing, the Commission offered no proof that Lewis had committed any of the acts contained in its letter of denial, or which otherwise rendered questionable the prima facie showing of good moral character demonstrated by Lewis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order approving Lewis' application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 18th day of April 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary (Lamary), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since October 23, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lamary.3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lamary had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Lamary and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lamary filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Lamary denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Lamary on March 10, 1985, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that Lamary used marijuana no more than five times, and more probably three times, and that she last used marijuana in 1982 when she was in high school. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lamary's background, that Lamary possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Lamary, born July 8, l964, used marijuana no more than five times, the last time being over 7 years ago when she was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character.4/ To date, Lamary has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over four years. Her annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Lamary has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Theresa Devergiles-Lamary, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. 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 26th day of June 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified correctional officer. His certification number is 184024. Respondent worked for the Department of Corrections (DOC) as a correctional officer for six and one-half years. He resigned from DOC on March 15, 2005. Respondent’s resignation followed an investigation by DOC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) into allegations that Respondent posted photographs of himself on an adult website and that he was involved in an escort service. The investigation, which was conducted by Senior Prison Inspector R. M. Spurlock, commenced after the OIG was provided a copy of a webpage printed from the Internet by Stephen Ruble, a correctional officer who worked with Respondent. The webpage printed by Officer Ruble is dated December 7, 2004, and contains two photographs of Respondent along with a photograph of an unidentified white female referred to as “Heavenly Blonde.” In one of the photographs, Respondent is standing and wearing only G-string underwear. In the other photograph, Respondent is sitting and wearing a tank-top shirt and tight shorts through which Respondent is displaying the outline of his penis. The text accompanying the photographs on the webpage printed by Officer Ruble states: Top Secret If you are looking for a classy and friendly, bi, black male who is 11x6 inches thick and can take you to the next level, then you’ve come to the right place! I am d/d free, and I have the papers to show this. I have sexy friends who can join us. Also available for doubles sessions with my friend Heavenly Blonde. I’m based in Orlando but travel the entire state of Florida, plus out of state, so please check in with me. Just give me a call and see what we can come up with! If you like to view me on camera, please contact me. Incall rates: $65 / ½ hour $150 / each additional hour Couples, join me and Heavenly Blonde: $200 / hour $100 / each additional hour $250 / hour for men to join us Heavenly Blonde by herself: $150 / ¾ hour Top Secret [phone number1] Mr. Spurlock visited the same webpage on March 9, 2005, as part of his investigation. The copy of the webpage printed by Mr. Spurlock on that date contains the photograph in which Respondent is standing and wearing only G-string underwear, but Respondent’s head had been cropped from the photograph and the photograph had been enlarged to focus on the outline of Respondent’s penis that is clearly visible through his underwear. The photograph in which Respondent was sitting and displaying the outline of his penis through his shorts was no longer on the webpage. The photograph of Heavenly Blonde was also no longer on the webpage, but there was a photograph of an unidentified black female referred to as “Secret Angel” who was posed in a sexually-provocative position wearing only a bra and G-string underwear. The text accompanying the photographs on the webpage viewed and printed by Mr. Spurlock states: Top Secret Hi, I am Topsecretone from the Orlando area. I am very put together and love to have fun. I have many friends that can join us, male or female. For example, my friend Secret Angel is available to join us! I only want to talk to someone that knows what they are into and what they want. I am a Black male with a truly thick 11”x6” of manhood. Please contact me for all info, leave your full name, number and if you are at a hotel room number. Top Secret topsecretone@cfl.rr.com[2] Mr. Spurlock interviewed Respondent on March 15, 2005, as part of his investigation. Respondent voluntarily appeared for the interview, which was conducted at Respondent’s place of employment, DOC’s Central Florida Reception Center. The interview lasted for approximately 20 minutes, and Respondent’s statements during the interview were made under oath. In the interview, Respondent initially denied that he posted any photographs of himself online or that he was involved with an escort service. However, after Mr. Spurlock showed him copies of the webpages that he and Officer Ruble had printed, Respondent changed his story and admitted that he posted the photographs of himself on the webpage; that in connection the posting he offered to provide, and did provide, his sexual services for money; and that he had been advertising his sexual services over the Internet since 2001. Respondent’s admissions during the interview are found to be reliable. The admissions were accompanied by details regarding the operation of webpage, the manner in which Respondent was compensated for his sexual services, and the reasons why Respondent cropped his head out of the photograph after its original posting. There is no credible evidence that the admissions were coerced and, indeed, Respondent expressly acknowledged as much at the end of the interview. Respondent testified at the final hearing that the reason that he ended up making the admissions during the interview was that he was under a great deal of stress at the time, as evidenced by the fact that “just before the interview” he was given 30 days of “stress leave” by his doctor. That explanation is not persuasive because Respondent later testified that the leave occurred in November and December 2004, which was more than three months before the interview. Respondent resigned from DOC approximately 15 minutes after the interview concluded. In his testimony at the final hearing, Respondent did not deny that he is depicted in the photographs on the webpage printed by Officer Ruble and Mr. Spurlock. However, Respondent did deny that that he posted the photographs on the webpage. Respondent testified that several months after his interview with Mr. Spurlock, he learned that his ex-girlfriend posted the photographs on the webpage to “set [him] up” and “get [him] in trouble” because she was upset with him because he would not marry her. He further testified that he was unaware that his ex-girlfriend had posted the photographs on the Internet. Respondent’s explanation at the final hearing as to how the photographs appeared on the Internet is not credible. His uncorroborated, self-serving testimony on the issue was not persuasive. For example, Respondent’s claim that his ex- girlfriend posted the photographs on the webpage out of spite is illogical because he testified that he and his ex-girlfriend did not break-up until June 2005, whereas the photographs printed by Officer Ruble (in December 2004) and by Mr. Spurlock (in March 2005) predated the break-up. Respondent testified that he had no disciplinary problems during the course of his employment with DOC. The Commission offered no evidence to the contrary. The record does not reflect whether Respondent is being criminally prosecuted for the escort services that he advertised on the webpage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order revoking Respondent’s certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Steven Albert (Albert), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 19, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Albert. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Albert had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Albert and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Albert filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Albert denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Albert on July 23, 1987, at which time he admitted that during the course of his military service he had been involved with controlled substances. Here, the proof demonstrates that Albert joined the United States Air Force on March 31, 1975, at the age of 19, following his graduation from high school. During the course of such service, he experimented with cocaine, qualudes and "speed" a few times, the last time being in 1980 or 1981; used marijuana occasionally, the last time being in 1981; and sold or attempted to sell one ounce of marijuana on three separate occasions, the last being in 1981. On January 2, 1981, following his receipt of an Article 15, an administrative form of discipline, for possession of marijuana, Albert received a general discharge, under honorable conditions, from the military. Since that time, Albert has not used, bought or sold any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Albert's background, that Albert possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Albert used controlled substances, and sold or attempted to sell marijuana on 3 occasions, the last time being over 8 years ago when he was 26 years of age. Since that time he has had no contact with controlled substances. Under such circumstances, his prior contact with controlled substances is not proximate within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Albert has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. His performance has ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, he has received two commendations, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Albert was employed as a security guard for a private company, and was duly licensed by the State of Florida as an unarmed officer. Overall, Albert, now 34 years of age, has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Steven Albert, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. 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 28th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James A. Detzel, age 40, was born in Miami, Florida, and he lived there until sometime during his junior high school years when he went into the United States Marine Corps. He subsequently earned and received a GED diploma from high school. At age 19 the Petitioner began to get into trouble with the law. He was arrested and convicted in Atlanta, Georgia, for armed robbery in 1960, and served a two year sentence. Between this occurrence and the year 1968 he was arrested and convicted three more times, for robbery, escape while serving the robbery sentence, and for possession of burglary tools. In 1968 the Petitioner was arrested for breaking and entering-grand larceny in Dade County, Florida, and sentenced to 15 years. He served nine and one-half years, and received a conditional release in 1976. A conditional release is the same as parole, but the Petitioner had previously violated parole and was not again eligible to receive parole. Thus, he received the conditional release. In October of 1981, the Petitioner's conditional release was terminated, after it had been satisfactorily completed. During the years, the Petitioner has also been arrested and convicted of breaking and entering-petit larceny, receiving stolen property, and larceny of an automobile. At the present time, however, he has paid his debts to society on all of these charges. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not yet had his civil rights restored, although he is apparently eligible to apply therefor. The Petitioner contends that he has been rehabilitated, and thus is now eligible to be licensed as a repossessor. He is married and has two children. He is buying a home in Tampa. He has been steadily employed since 1976, and is now working as repossessor in Tampa. His employers have found him to be reliable and trustworthy employee. The Petitioner has not been in any trouble with the law since 1968, and he has a satisfactory work record since his release from prison. The Petitioner has been honest and loving with his wife and family. He is a changed man now, his wife contends, and is a good family provider. The Petitioner's Parole Officer confirms that his life seems to have become stabilized now.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of James A. Detzel for a Class E (Repossessor) License, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 5 day of February, 1982. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard S. Blunt, Esquire 112 South Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106 Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE JAMES A. DETZEL, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 81-2847S DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Ivan Carrandi (Carrandi), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 17, 1985, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Carrandi. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Carrandi had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Carrandi and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Carrandi filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Carrandi denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Carrandi on January 1, 1985, at which time he freely admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that during the years 1980 and 1981, while a student at Miami Dade Community College, Carrandi used marijuana approximately two or three times and cocaine approximately two or three times. He has not, however, otherwise used controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Carrandi's background, that Carrandi possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana and cocaine approximately 8 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Carrandi, born November 12, 1960, used marijuana two or three times and cocaine two or three times about 8 years ago when he was 20-21 years of age and a student at Miami Dade Community College. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Carrandi has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately four years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Carrandi has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Ivan Carrandi, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent's certification as a correctional officer may be revoked or otherwise disciplined pursuant to Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, for failure to maintain the qualifications set out in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring such officer to have good moral character. At formal hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Benny Morse Platt, D. H. Coburn, Gerald Abdul-Wasi, and Diane P. Enfinger, and had one exhibit admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the oral testimony of his wife, Frances W. Ping, and testified in his own behalf. One Hearing Officer Exhibit (the Prehearing Stipulation) was also admitted in evidence. Thereafter, Petitioner filed the transcript and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within the extension of time granted by order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are ruled upon, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, in the appendix to this Recommended Order. Respondent submitted no post-hearing proposals.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on November 4, 1974, and was issued certificate number CORR/C-0148. Respondent was first employed by the Florida Department of Corrections on November 4, 1974, as a correctional officer at the Hendry Correctional Institution. At all times material to the issues in the case, the Respondent was so employed and held the rank of lieutenant. During early August of 1984, Benny Platt was incarcerated at the Hendry Correctional Institution as an inmate. Platt was acquainted with Respondent Ping, who approached Platt during this period of time requesting a $10,000 loan to defray Respondent's wife's doctors' bills. Another inmate at the prison, Mark Krebs, was a friend of Platt. On August 10, 1984, Krebs was being held in solitary confinement as a punishment for Krebs' violation of prison rules by drinking and fighting. Platt was interested in helping Krebs to be released from solitary confinement so that Krebs would be eligible for work release. Platt approached Lieutenant Coburn, another correctional officer at Hendry, to obtain some relief for Krebs after Krebs had been in solitary confinement for 2 days. It was common practice for inmates to approach Respondent Ping or any other lieutenant for these types of requests, however, at the particular time Platt approached Lt. Coburn on August 10, 1984, Ping was either on suspension or on some variety of leave due to Ping's two previous heart attacks. Lt. Coburn had worked at Hendry Correctional Institution since 1979 and knew Respondent Ping by virtue of their common employment. Respondent had been Lt. Coburn's superior for some period of time in the past. On August 10, 1984, when Platt requested that Lt. Coburn help Krebs, Lt. Coburn said he did not know if he could help but he would look into the situation. Lt. Coburn then asked Platt what Platt could do for him in return. Platt asked Lt. Coburn if he wanted one of the lieutenants, and Lt. Coburn replied, "For what." Platt told him it was for trying to borrow money from inmates. (TR 25-26) On August 11, 1984, as part of a planned investigative technique to verify Platt's story, Lt. Coburn had Platt place a collect telephone call to the Respondent at the Respondent's home. The Respondent accepted Platt's collect telephone call, and with Platt's permission, Lt. Coburn taped their conversation. Platt told the Respondent that he could not get the Respondent $10,000, but could get $5,000 to $6,000 at low interest with no problems. The Respondent replied that this amount would do. Platt then asked about Krebs' release from solitary confinement. The Respondent stated that he did not know what he could do, but as soon as he got back to Hendry, he would see what he could do. This is basically the reply made by Lt. Coburn when Platt had approached him earlier. On August 14, 1984, Respondent returned to work at Hendry. That day, Platt, under instructions from Lt. Coburn, approached Respondent at the prison and engaged him in conversation, which Lt. Coburn again taped with Platt's permission. Platt told Respondent Ping that he had arranged to get a $5,000 loan for Ping and told Ping to meet with Platt's niece at a place in La Belle, Florida, to pick up the money. Platt used the fictitious name "Sylvia Cox" as his niece's name. On August 17, 1984, Florida Department of Corrections Inspector Diane Enfinger, posing as Platt's niece, "Sylvia Cox," telephoned Respondent at his home. By arrangement, the two met on August 20, 1984, at the Crossroads Restaurant a/k/a White's Restaurant in La Belle, Florida. Prior to Respondent's arrival at the restaurant on August 20, 1984, Lt. Coburn provided Inspector Enfinger with $1,000 in cash loaned for the purpose by the Sanibel Police Department, and Lt. Coburn and Inspector Gerald Abdul-Wasi, a Tallahassee Department of Corrections internal inspector, placed recording and receiving equipment in the restaurant's supply room in order to be able to overhear and record the transmissions of a microphone concealed on Inspector Enfinger's person. Lt. Coburn and Inspector Abdul-Wasi concealed themselves in the kitchen where they had a clear view of the table designated for the money transaction. At the appointed time and date, Inspector Enfinger, masquerading as Sylvia Cox," arrived. Eventually, she approached Respondent Ping at his table and he asked her to join him and his wife and a female dinner guest who were with him. Mrs. Ping suggested that Respondent and "Sylvia Cox" go outside to get some papers. Mr. and Mrs. Ping described Mrs. Ping's intent in making this suggestion as a ruse to see if a promissory note or other record of the transaction would be required so that the Pings would know if the transaction constituted a legitimate loan or a "set up." Respondent and Mrs. Ping had plausible, if not probable, reasons for their state of mind and belief that some plot against them by Department of Corrections personnel was afoot, and Respondent had good probable cause not to trust inmate Benny Platt's several representations to him. Respondent Ping knew Platt's relatives were not from La Belle. Platt had dressed unusually on August 14, 1984 so as to cover the concealed microphone given him by Lt. Coburn and Platt's solicitation of Ping both by telephone and in person had followed warnings received by Mr. and Mrs. Ping concerning attempts to oust Ping from employment due to his heart condition and resultant excessive absences. Although the content of these warnings is pure hearsay, the evidence of the warnings has not been accepted for the truth of the content asserted, i.e. that there was any such plot afoot. It is admissible and has been considered only to show the Respondent's and Respondent's wife's state of mind. Respondent Ping testified that he never intended to accept the loan offered by Platt but that if there were loan papers to sign, he planned to explain to "Sylvia Cox" what he had suspected about a plot before he declined the loan, since in his view, a loan agreement would make the transaction legitimate. Otherwise, he was going to cry "foul" and accuse his superiors of trying to trap him. "Sylvia Cox" and the Respondent went outside to the parking area, but since the authorities' plan was for Cox/Enfinger to remain at a specific table inside the restaurant for her safety and for surveillance purposes, she requested that they return inside. Inspector Enfinger and the Respondent then sat at the designated table. Cox/Enfinger told Respondent that she was unable to get all the money, but had $1,000 with her and would get $4,000 to him later in the week. She produced no papers, but counted out ten one-hundred dollar bills onto the center of the table. Respondent picked up the stack of bills, holding it in both hands, then dropped the money, said he had "changed his mind" and did not need any money, and attempted to leave the table. Lt. Coburn and Inspector Abdul- Wasi came out of the kitchen and arrested Respondent for the offense of unlawful compensation by a public official, Section 838.016, Florida Statutes. There are several inferences that can be drawn from Respondent's dropping of the money, but it is immaterial that Respondent maintains he dropped the bills as part of his intent to unmask a "set up" and could not see the kitchen, or that Lt. Coburn and others believed Respondent fled upon seeing Lt. Coburn and Abdul-Wasi out of the corner of his eye. What is material is that a loan, not a gift, was always contemplated by Platt, Cox/Enfinger, and Respondent. According to Platt, Respondent's original request for a $10,000 loan occurred nearly two weeks before Krebs was confined. This renders it impossible for Respondent's original loan request to have been on a quid pro quo arrangement for promised aid to Krebs. Indeed, Platt testified that, "I needed some favors done, so I told [Coburn] if I could talk to Lt. Ping I could get them done." (TR 11). Platt was clearly attempting to ingratiate himself with Lt. Coburn by his attempts to solicit Ping in order to persuade Lt. Coburn to secure Krebs' release from solitary confinement. Platt, at Lt. Coburn's urging, initiated the idea of releasing Krebs when Platt first phoned Respondent, but Respondent, no more than Lt. Coburn, ever agreed to a quid pro quo arrangement. No witness ever directly stated that the loan was conditioned on such an arrangement between Platt and Respondent. Platt vaguely termed it a "money situation," but Lt. Coburn confirmed that the money transaction between Platt and Respondent was to be a loan (TR 29,32). Respondent Ping never indicated to Cox/Enfinger what the money was for (TR 75). Further, it strains reason that since accommodations were made on a regular basis between corrections officers and inmates to get other inmates out of solitary confinement, that anyone involved in this "money situation" could have believed the real $1,000 (let alone the promised sum of $5,000) was being paid by Platt to Respondent in exchange for getting Krebs out of solitary confinement. Additionally, absent any proof that Krebs would have remained in solitary confinement for what seems an extraordinary length of time (August 9 - August 20) or that Respondent released Krebs, or that Lt. Coburn did not release Krebs, all of the "money situation" seems totally separate and apart from any services, illicit or otherwise, which Respondent may have been asked by Platt to perform. Further, Respondent's behavior, while rather extreme and based on suspicion, is adequately explained by his state of mind. His belief that he was being "set up" is not incredible under the foregoing facts as found. On August 21, 1984, Respondent was terminated from his employment at the Hendry Correctional Institution. On January 21, 1986, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in absentia to the charge of acceptance of unauthorized compensation pursuant to Section 944.37, Florida Statutes, with knowledge that same is a misdemeanor of the first degree and upon the assurance of the Court that adjudication would be withheld. (P-1). Such a plea is not admissible in a civil proceeding or in an administrative penal proceeding for any recognized purpose. See Sections 90.410, 90.610, Florida Statutes; Section 610.4, Ehrhardt, Evidence (1984); Barber v. State, 413 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), United States v. Georgalis, 631 F.2d 1199,1203 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1980) reh. den. 636 F.2d 315 (1981) and Holland v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 352 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). However, Respondent admitted the plea and waived any objections to admission of the plea. (TR-77).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing this cause as against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2143 Respondent filed no post-hearing proposals. The following constitutes specific rulings upon Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2. 3, 4, 7. Covered in FOF 3. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole as found in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 4. Rejected as mere recitation of testimony, as subordinate and unnecessary, as largely not credible and as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in the facts as found. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole as found in FOF 5 and 7. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 14, 15, 16. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole as found in FOF 9. 17-18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19, 20, 21. Covered in FOF 10-11, and 14. 22. Rejected as unnecessary. 23, 24. Covered in FOF 12. 25. Rejected as unnecessary. 26, 27. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 13. 28, 29, 30. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 16. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 17. 33, 34, 35, 38 and 39. To the extent supported by the credible evidence as a whole, covered in FOF 17. 36, 37. Rejected as largely subordinate and unnecessary and otherwise as immaterial and as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as found in FOF 17-18. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in FOF 20. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald T. Ping 6690 Southwest 88th Trail Okeechobee, Florida 34574 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Leon Lewis (Lewis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since September 1985 without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Lewis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Lewis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified Lewis and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You actually and intentionally struck Edward Thornton against the will of the said Edward Thornton. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Lewis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Lewis denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to an assessment of Lewis' moral character, the proof demonstrates that the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Lewis on April 20, 1984, at which time he admitted to having "tried marijuana one time, four years ago." At the time of use, Lewis was 17 years of age and a high school student; he has not otherwise experimented with controlled substances. The proof also demonstrates that in October 1982, Lewis struck one Edward Thornton on the head with an umbrella. The circumstances surrounding such blow being struck demonstrate that, following a high school football game, Thornton was harassing Lewis' girlfriend when she, crying, sought Lewis out. At that time, Thornton and a number of his friends confronted Lewis and his girlfriend. Reasonably fearing an attack, Lewis grabbed an umbrella and exclaimed "Before you hit me, I'm going to have to get one of you," and struck Thornton on the head. Other than a cut to the head, there is no proof that Thornton suffered any significant injury. While Lewis was arrested as a consequence of the incident, the matter was subsequently dismissed and the record expunged. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Lewis' background, that Lewis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the two isolated incidents, heretofore discussed, in Lewis' life. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Lewis, born February 25, 1963, used marijuana one time, nine years ago, when he was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B- 27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Likewise, the isolated incident of striking Thornton over the head with an umbrella when Lewis was 19 years of age was hardly proximate to his employment, or this consideration of his application for certification, and does not, under the circumstances presented, evidence bad moral character. 4/ To date, Lewis has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over three and one-half years. There is no suggestion that he has committed any act or offense that would reflect adversely on his moral character during the term of such employment. Overall, Lewis has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Leon Lewis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Roberto Mera (Mera), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Mera. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Mera had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Mera and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly purchased stolen property. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Mera filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Mera denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Mera on April 16, 1987, at which time he divulged that he had used marijuana one time in 1977, that he had used cocaine one time in 1982, and that he had purchased a stolen VCR for $100 in 1982. While the used VCR he purchased was apparently stolen property, Mera did not know such fact when he purchased it, and turned it over to the police when they advised him it was stolen property. Other than heretofore noted, Mera has never used marijuana or cocaine. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Mera's background, that Mera possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidents. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Mera, born August 20, 1963, used marijuana one time 12 years ago when he was 14-15 years of age, and cocaine one time 7 years ago when he was 19 years of age. At no time did he knowingly purchase stolen property. Such isolated and dated usage of marijuana and cocaine can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Mera has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Mera has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Roberto Mera, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. 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 20th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether the certification as a correctional officer issued to Willie L. Tillman (Tillman) should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Tillman is certified as a correctional officer by the Commission, having been issued certificate number C-3171 on October 7, 1977. At all times relevant to the charges, Tillman was employed by the Volusia County Department of Corrections (VCDC) as a correctional officer at the Daytona Beach Correctional Facility. In June of 1988, Tillman held the rank of corporal, a promotional rank. His chain of command ran from Sergeant (now Lieutenant) Fitts through Lieutenant (now Captain) Bolton, his shift commander. Tillman knew or should have known that he had a duty to immediately report any use of force against an inmate and to obtain medical attention for any inmate against whom force was used. This duty to immediately report such an incident and to seek medical attention for the inmate involved is important for the health of the inmate and for the protection of the correctional institution and correctional officer against unwarranted claims of injury. At all times material to these charges, the policy and rules of the VCDC, as taught to correctional officers, required that correctional officers avoid one-on-one physical confrontations with inmates and recommended that a correctional officer faced with a potentially hostile or aggressive inmate attempt to disengage himself from the confrontation, diffuse the threat through conversation if possible, and obtain assistance from other officers before approaching or making physical contact with the inmate. The only exception to this rule of disengagement is in the case of a sudden or spontaneous attack by an inmate. On June 22, 1988, Tillman, a very large and muscular man, was making a head count at about 11:00 p.m. Tillman thought that inmate George Hoover had squirted toothpaste on his back as he walked past Hoover's cell. Tillman told the officer who was working with him to open the cell. Tillman then entered the cell and struck Hoover in the jaw and face with a closed fist. Hoover fell on to his bunk. Tillman did not report the incident and he did not seek medical attention for Hoover. Tillman had no valid reason for his failure to report the incident and he was not excused from reporting the use of force that night before leaving the job site. Hoover requested medical attention, which brought the use of force to the attention of the VCDC. Hoover suffered a loosened tooth from being struck by Tillman. When confronted with the matter, Tillman said that he entered Hoover's cell to remove contraband, namely cups of water and coffee. Hoover assumed a boxing stance and Tillman struck him in response to that perceived aggression. Tillman's stories then and at hearing are simply unbelievable. The incident report that Tillman finally wrote said he removed contraband cups of water and coffee from the cell. The officer with Tillman that night never saw any cups removed. At hearing for the first time Tillman said that the contraband consisted of cups of urine and feces which added to the level of threat which he felt. Tillman's testimony in this regard is contrary to his own reports prepared in 1988 and is contrary to anything Tillman had said or reported before the hearing. As the trier of fact, the undersigned simply finds that Tillman was not truthful in his testimony on this and other matters. It is also not believed that Hoover, a small man weighing about 150 pounds, assumed an aggressive boxing stance with Tillman, a man about twice his size. From the evidence it can only be concluded that Tillman engaged in an unprovoked and unnecessary use of force by striking Hoover with his fist. Based on the rules, policies and procedures of the VCDC, Tillman should not have entered Hoover's cell in a one-on- one confrontation after Hoover squirted toothpaste on him. After he had entered the cell, Tillman should have withdrawn and disengaged from the situation to avoid a confrontation even if Hoover had assumed an aggressive stance. Finally, after the use of force occurred, Tillman should have reported it and should have sought medical attention for Hoover immediately following the incident and should not have left work that night without doing these things. Tillman was verbally counselled about the rules and policies related to disengagement and reporting of use of force. On October 14, 1988, while supervising a group of inmates returning from eating, Tillman became involved in a vocal argument with inmate William F. Elmore. Tillman repeatedly goaded Elmore to hit him, but Elmore attempted to withdraw from Tillman. Tillman hit Elmore in the jaw with his closed fist. Elmore attempted to walk away from Tillman, but Tillman pursued him and threw him up against a wall more than once. Elmore was between 5'7" and 5'10" and weighed between 165 and 180 pounds. Tillman claimed that Elmore approached him with raised hands in a semi-boxing stance. No other witness, either officer or inmate, mentioned any such aggressive approach or stance on the part of Elmore. One officer said that he thought that Elmore tried to kick Tillman. One inmate said that Elmore may have flinched or something, but that he did not see any aggressive posture or movement by Elmore. Tillman did not disengage or attempt to avoid the one- on-one confrontation with Elmore, even when Correctional Officer Zima called to Tillman to offer help. Instead, Tillman was aggressive and abrasive with Elmore. Tillman then over-reacted to the situation which he had provoked and used excessive force against Elmore. As a result of this incident, Tillman was recommended for termination, but he successfully appealed the termination and was instead suspended for ten days. Tillman was counseled that his interpretation of the use of force rules was erroneous and was told that when an inmate assumes an offensive posture such as a boxing stance, Tillman was not to strike the inmate. In the early morning of July 15, 1989, Tillman instructed Correctional Officer Trainee Anderson to open the cell door of inmate Michael P. Frascella, so that Frascella could clean up a mess he had made in and around his cell. Frascella was in an observation cell because of an earlier disturbance he had created. After cleaning up, Frascella was returning to his cell and noticed an apple on the desk. He reached for it and Tillman told him to put it back. Tillman then hit Frascella in the face with a closed fist. Frascella fell to the floor. Anderson heard the sound of the fall, looked over, and saw Frascella laying on the floor, glassy-eyed and bleeding from the mouth area. Tillman denies that he touched Frascella in any way and says he never saw Frascella on the floor or with blood on his face. This is why he says no use of force report was ever filed. Frascella's testimony is more credible regarding this incident than is that of Tillman. While it is clear that Frascella bears ill feelings toward Tillman because of the incident, his statements are more consistent with those of Anderson. Tillman clearly did not tell the truth regarding the incident with inmate Hoover and there is considerable doubt about his truthfulness regarding Elmore. There is no reason to believe that Tillman has been any more forthright about what happened with Frascella. Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, it is concluded that Frascella's version is the closest to the what actually happened that morning. Former inmate and trustee Dwight Jensen testified about an incident in which Tillman struck an inmate with no justification. While it cannot be determined whether that inmate was Frascella, the testimony of Jensen is probative regarding Tillman's moral character and suitability to retain his certification as a correctional officer. From Jensen's testimony it can only be concluded that on an occasion which may or may not have been the one involving Frascella, Tillman struck an inmate in the face and nose in retaliation for verbal abuse from that inmate. That inmate's nose was so badly injured that Jensen was required to mop up considerable blood from the floor. That inmate was provided with no medical attention because he was placed on a bus to Starke within a couple of hours after he was struck. Jensen was incarcerated from 1988 to March of 1990. Since Tillman was suspended following the incident with Frascella until his termination, it is further concluded that Jensen's testimony relates to the same time frame as that relevant to this complaint.
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 and therein revoke certificate no. C-3171 issued to Willie L. Tillman. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3263 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3&4(3); 5(6); 6&7(4); 8(5); 9(6); 14&15(7); 23&24(16); 25&26(17); 27(18); 29(21); 30(22); 31&32(23); 33(24); 34&35(25); and 38(26). Proposed findings of fact 10-13, 16-22, 28, 36, and 37 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John P. Booth Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Willie L. Tillman 2400 Spring Hollow Drive Orange City, Florida 32763 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
