The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the exhibits received into evidence and the testimony of the witness at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer on June 8, 2004, and issued Certificate No. 241081. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Officer Cooper was a traffic homicide patrol officer with the Cocoa Beach Police Department, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the evening of June 24, 2005, while on duty, Officer Cooper observed a vehicle that was speeding and driving without headlights. Officer Cooper then had the driver of the vehicle to pull over to the side of the road. Once the vehicle pulled over and stopped, Officer Cooper approached and made contact with the driver of the vehicle and Respondent. Respondent was in the right front passenger seat of the vehicle. Officer Cooper smelled a strong, very distinct odor of burnt cannabis (marijuana) coming from inside the vehicle when he made contact with the driver. The driver of the vehicle admitted to smoking marijuana inside the vehicle. Officer Cooper approached the passenger side of the vehicle and asked Respondent to step out of the vehicle. When Respondent stepped out of the vehicle, Officer Cooper observed a clear plastic bag containing marijuana on the ground next to the passenger side of the vehicle. The outside of the plastic bag was dry, even though it had just rained. Officer Cooper arrested Respondent and charged her with constructive possession of a controlled substance, a violation of Subsection 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent never denied possession of the marijuana. In fact, she told Officer Cooper that she "made a big mistake, a very big mistake." Subsequent to Respondent's arrest, Officer Cooper asked Respondent if that was the last bit of "weed" that she had, and Respondent replied, "Yes sir, it was." Officer Cooper videotaped the traffic stop.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order revoking the law enforcement certificate of Respondent, Michelle A. Liquori. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 15th day of July, 2008.
The Issue Should the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (the Commission) impose discipline on Respondent in association with his Correctional Officer Certificate?
Findings Of Fact Having considered Respondent's comment in requesting a formal hearing, it is inferred that Respondent holds a correctional officer's certificate issued by the Commission. On October 28, 2004, Respondent and Misty Quarles were living together in Gainesville, Florida, as a couple. Ms. Quarles describes their relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend. Respondent determined to end the relationship, to include removing Ms. Quarles' name from the lease for the apartment. An argument ensued. Ms. Quarles left the bedroom and went to the bathroom and closed the door. Respondent opened it and started yelling at Ms. Quarles. Respondent was angry. Respondent pushed Ms. Quarles forcefully. She fell to the ground. When Respondent pushed her down, Ms. Quarles hit her head on the and door the impact left a knot on her head. She got up and pushed Respondent back. The argument continued. Respondent pushed Ms. Quarles again and she landed on the bed in the bedroom. Ms. Quarles then began to pack her belongings to leave. Respondent started gathering some of her clothing and other effects to throw in the dumpster outside the apartment. Ms. Quarles knocked those items out of Respondent's hands. Respondent began yelling again and punched Ms. Quarles on her leg while holding her down on the bed. In trying to stop Respondent from punching her, Ms. Quarles used her right hand to resist the Respondent. He pushed against a joint in her hand, causing a right thumb fracture at the base of the first metacarpal. After that, Ms. Quarles asked Respondent to take her for medical treatment. Respondent took Ms. Quarles to North Florida Regional Medical Center where she was observed to have the fracture, together with abrasions on her nose, under her left eye, and a contusion on her right forehead. Her right hand was also swollen. Ms. Quarles received a splint and was told to use ice and employ elevation and rest to deal with her fracture. She was provided pain medication and referred to an orthopedic physician. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered one is a composite exhibit containing a series of photographs depicting Ms. Quarles physical state after her encounter with the Respondent leading to her injuries. Respondent's actions against Ms. Quarles were against her will and intentionally caused bodily harm. Deputy Robert Wesley of the Alachua County Sheriff's Office came to the hospital to investigate. Based upon his investigation, he arrested Respondent for felony domestic battery involving the incident with Ms. Quarles. The disposition of that arrest was not explained at hearing. There is no indication that Respondent has had prior discipline imposed on his correctional officer's certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding violations of the statutes and rules referred to and revoking Respondent's correctional officer's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2007 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Curtis Coleman, Jr. Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Rampage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, William Van Poyck, and the Intervenor, Robert David Roy, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are subject to the rules of the Respondent. The evidence failed to prove that the Petitioner and Intervenor are, or have been, placed in administrative confinement by the Respondent. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, the Florida Department of Corrections, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, a rule of the Respondent, governs the placement of an inmate in "administrative confinement". "Administrative confinement" is "the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for . . . " various specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated September 27, 1990, the Respondent advised the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), of proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Be letter dated November 5, 1990, M. Catherine Green, an attorney with the Committee, informed the Respondent that a review of the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, had been completed. Ms. Green also informed the Respondent of certain "technical errors" and "substantive errors" that she found with Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green indicated that a "substantive error" referred to "errors which will result in recommended objections to the committee unless they are eliminated prior to adoption." Among the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code: (3) Placement in administrative confinement shall be for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 9 was, in pertinent part, as follows: What does "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" mean? This has the effect of not notifying the inmate of the length of time in which he will be in administrative confinement and the criteria to be considered in releasing him or her. The rule discusses criteria for placing inmates in administrative confinement, but sets no criteria other than "desired results" as to when an inmate shall be released. If the two criteria are the same, please make that clear. Another of the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after an informal hearing when no reasonable alternative exists. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. Rule 33-3.0081(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for review of the senior correctional officer's "informal hearing" and Rule 33-3.0081(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a 48-hour delay in the "informal hearing" in case of certain emergencies. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 11 was, in pertinent part, as follows: Please provide a cross reference to the rules of procedure for an informal hearing. Does the review procedure conflict with provisions of Chapter 33-29, F.A.C.? Please clarify what the phrase "when no reasonable alternative exists" means in reference to an inmate's confinement after an informal hearing. . . . . In a letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent, through a Senior Attorney, responded to Ms. Green's comments. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, was made: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replace it with "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replacing it with the phrase "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the circumstances under which an inmate placed in administrative confinement will be returned to the general inmate population. Under Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, prior to the proposed amendment, "the shortest time possible" occurred when the factors which necessitated placing an inmate in administrative confinement no longer applied. The proposed amendment merely clarifies when "the shortest time possible" has occurred. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, was also made in the January 23, 1991, letter: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "an informal hearing" and insert "being advised of an incident or situation which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the terms "informal hearing" and replacing them with the following underlined language: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after being advised of a situation or incident which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution, if the situation cannot be resolved. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. . . . The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the manner in which an inmate is informed that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The "informal hearing" previously required in Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, required no more than the proposed amendment provides for. By eliminating the terms "informal hearing" the proposed rule amendment eliminates any confusion as to whether some more formal process is to be followed by the Respondent in informing an inmate that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which contained the proposed amendments at issue in this proceeding was subsequently filed by the Respondent with the Bureau of Administrative Code, for publication, and with the Committee. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included the following "purpose and effect" clause: The proposed amendments are needed in order to correct technical and substantive errors noted by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. The proposed amendments provide clarification of policies and procedures regarding administrative confinement and protective management. The purpose and effect clause is consistent with the substantive changes to Rule 33-3.0081(3) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding are arbitrary or capricious. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any of the suggestions concerning Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, made by Ms. Green were ever approved, adopted, or reviewed by the Committee. In fact, Ms. Green indicates in her letter that "substantive errors" she perceived would be recommended as objections to the Committee only if they were not eliminated prior to adoption. Since the "substantive errors" at issue in this proceeding were eliminated, they were apparently never recommended or considered by the Committee.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Thomas C. Robbins, committed the acts alleged in an Administrative Complaint dated December 6, 2005, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed upon him.
Findings Of Fact The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), is created within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement by Section 943.11, Florida Statutes. The Commission is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the certification and discipline of certified law enforcement officers, instructors, and criminal justice training schools in Florida. Respondent, Thomas C. Robbins, has been certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida since April 12, 1991, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 78355. B. April 13, 2005. Kimberly Anspach is a cousin of Mr. Robbins' wife, Tamara E. Robbins. Ms. Anspach, who resides in Boyton Beach, Florida, at the times relevant to this matter was employed as a dancer at Cheetah's Lounge. On April 13, 2005, Ms. Anspach and another dancer employed at Cheetah's Lounge identified only as Michelle (identified as "Michael" in the Transcript of the final hearing), agreed to dance privately for a man by the name of Moises Ventura and three other men. Ms. Anspach and the other dancer were told by Mr. Ventura that they would both be paid $1,000.00 for their services. Ms. Anspach and Michelle accompanied Mr. Ventura and the other men to a private residence where the women danced. The women consumed alcohol and the men, in addition to using alcohol, used drugs. Ms. Anspach and Michelle also engaged in mutual sexual relations with the men. The Early Morning of April 14, 2005. Ms. Anspach and Michelle left the residence at around 4:30 a.m., on April 14, 2005. Mr. Ventura and the other men refused to pay the $2,000.00 owed to the women. Upset at not being paid for her services, Ms. Anspach telephoned her cousin, Tamara Robbins. Ms. Anspach explained to Mrs. Robbins about the events of the previous night and told her that Mr. Ventura had refused to pay for her services. Ms. Anspach was told by Mrs. Robbins that she would help get her the money she was owed by Mr. Ventura. Mrs. Robbins told Ms. Anspach to get some rest and that she would call her back later that day. The Attempted Extortion of Mr. Ventura. After speaking with Ms. Anspach, Mrs. Robbins telephoned Mr. Ventura. Later that day, Mrs. Robbins called Ms. Anspach and told her that she had telephoned Mr. Ventura and told him that if he did not pay Ms. Anspach and Michelle the money they were owed that Ms. Anspach would claim that he had raped her. On the same day that Ms. Anspach spoke with Mrs. Robbins about the incident, Mr. Ventura went to the Royal Palm Beach Police Department. He spoke with Officer Cherly Griffin, telling her that he had received a telephone call from an individual that told him Ms. Anspach would claim he raped her if he did not pay her $2,000.00. A "controlled phone call" was made from the Police Department to a number provided to Mr. Ventura by the women who had threatened him. A woman answered and identified herself as "Donna." The controlled phone call took place on April 14, 2005. Detectives Kazer and Durso listened to the controlled phone call. Officer Griffin also listened to the telephone conversation. That call was recorded and admitted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The controlled phone call made on April 14, 2005, was made to a cellular phone utilized by Mrs. Robbins. The woman who identified herself as "Donna" was Mrs. Robbins. This finding is based upon the testimony of Ms. Anspach that she recognized Mrs. Robbins’ voice on the tape and the phone records of Mrs. Robbins' cell phone. During the controlled phone call, Mr. Ventura was directed by Mrs. Robbins to bring the money owed to Ms. Anspach to Wellington Mall (hereinafter referred to as the "Mall"), and meet Ms. Anspach at the Chic-Fil-A. Wellington Mall. Later during the afternoon of April 14, 2005, Mrs. Robbins telephoned Ms. Anspach and told her that she was to go to the Chic-Fil-A at the Mall, where she would meet Mr. Ventura and collect the money owed her. Mrs. Robbins also told her that Mr. Robbins would come to her apartment, pick her up, and take her to Mall. Mr. Robbins picked up Ms. Anspach at her apartment and drove her to the Mall. During the ride to the Mall, Mr. Robbins told Ms. Anspach that what was going on could be considered blackmail and "that if anything were to happen when we were to pick up the money that he had no involvement." When they arrived at the Mall, Mr. Robbins dropped Ms. Anspach off while he parked his vehicle. He told Ms. Anspach that he would be waiting for her around the corner from the CHIC-FIL-A and would be watching her to see if anything were to happen. He reassured her that, if anything were to go wrong, he would be right around the corner. Approximately 30 minutes after arriving at the Mall, Mr. Robbins received a telephone call from Mrs. Robbins, who told him that the meeting location had been changed from the Mall to a Hess Gas Station located in Wellington. The Hess Gas Station. Upon arriving at the Hess Gas Station, which was close to the Mall, Mr. Robbins parked his vehicle. Mr. Ventura then walked up to the parked vehicle and said, "oh, this is your muscle" evidently referring to Mr. Robbins. While Ms. Anspach said "yes," Mr. Robbins said nothing. Immediately after Ms. Anspach responded to Mr. Ventura's statement, Royal Palm Beach Police officers took Ms. Anspach and Mr. Robbins out of the vehicle at gun point. Both were placed on the ground and handcuffed. Ms. Anspach was arrested and taken to the Royal Palm Beach Police station. Mr. Robbins was released at the Hess Gas Station. Initially, Ms. Anspach told the police that she had been raped by Mr. Ventura. When the recording of the controlled phone call was played for her, she admitted that she had been told by Mrs. Robbins that Mr. Ventura had been told to pay her the money she was owed or that she would report that he had raped her. Mr. Robbins' Explanation. Mr. Robbins testified unconvincingly at the final hearing that the only thing he knew about the events of April 13 and 14, 2005, was that his wife had requested that he give Ms. Anspach, who had no automobile at the time, a ride to the Mall to collect money owed to her from a friend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission finding that Thomas C. Robbins violated Section 943.1395(7); dismissing the allegation that he violated Section 943.1395(6); and suspending his certification for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 7th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Doddo, Esquire 600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 600 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Prior to his termination, Petitioner had been employed as a Correctional Officer by the Respondent, Department of Corrections, at Glades Correctional Institute for approximately two years. On April 3, 1987, Petitioner signed a written statement acknowledging that he was immediately responsible for reading the rules of the Respondent. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Edward Minor, Correctional Officer Supervisor at Glades Correctional Institute. Mr. Chester Lambdin is the Superintendent of Glades Correctional Institute. Although he felt ill, Petitioner reported to work on January 25, 1989 before his scheduled eight hour work shift was to begin at midnight and continue through January 26, 1989. Petitioner left work due to his illness before the end of his January 26, 1989 shift. Petitioner did not report to work after he left on January 26, 1989. On January 26, 1989, Petitioner contacted his supervisor, Mr. Minor, and informed him that he was ill; that he would not report to work for about two days and that he had a doctor's excuse for his absence. Mr. Minor excused Petitioner for two days, January 27, 1989 and January 28, 1989. Petitioner's doctor's excuse covered the period of January 27, 1989 through January 30, 1989. Petitioner gave the excuse to a fellow worker and requested the associate to deliver the excuse to Mr. Minor. Before February 2, 1989, Mr. Minor did not see the excuse. Petitioner did not contact Mr. Minor until the afternoon or evening of February 2, 1989. Petitioner was not scheduled to work on January 30 or January 31, 1989. Petitioner stated that he knew he should contact his supervisor before each work shift if he were ill and would not report to work, but he stated that most of his fellow workers did not follow the procedure and were not penalized for failure to make the required report. Notice before an absence is the standard policy of the Respondent. Petitioner was on unauthorized leave on January 29, 1989, February 1, 1989 and February 2, 1989. On February 3, 1989, Mr. Lambdin drafted a letter to Petitioner, which was posted by certified mail, informing Petitioner that he had been deemed to have abandoned his position as a Correctional Officer I at Glades Correctional Institution and to have resigned from the career service system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a final order that the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service System as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of May 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1189 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. The Respondent was the sole party who submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2; rejected in part as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Rejected as conclusion of law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. As to first sentence, rejected as irrelevant. As to the remainder, adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Lynne Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Mr. Lewis C. Stewart 692 Waddel Way Pahokee, Florida 33476 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Varga, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
