Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Douglas Lavern Adams, Edwin Paul, Stanley Blanding, Carl B. Cribbs, Efron Yero, and James M. Cook are all incarcerated in the State of Florida at Respondent's facility, the Union Correctional Institution located at Raiford, Florida. On November 15, 1984, the Department of Corrections forwarded to the Bureau of the Administrative Code for publishing in the next available issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, its proposed Rule 33-5. The proposed rule in question was published in Volume 10, No. 46 on November 21, 1984. The stated purpose and effect of the proposed rule was to clarify and revise policies and procedures relating to visitation with inmates. The proposed rule purported to make certain changes to pre-existing Rule 33-5 as outlined in the proposal which, among other things, allowed superintendents to make exceptions to any provision of this rule on an individual case by case basis, based on the best interests of the inmate, the security and welfare of the department, or both with the qualification that the exception could not be more restrictive than the provisions of the rules and with the further requirement that all visiting policies promulgated by the superintendent shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of the department. Petitioners contend that the proposed changes severely limit their prior existing visiting rights. Specifically, Petitioners' contentions include: Rule 33-5.01 is without legislative authority in that the Secretary has no authority from the legislature to delegate policy making authority to superintendents; Rule 33-5.04 is an invalid rule for the same reason and because it deprives hospital inmates of family visits in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without a valid penological objective, and in violation of both equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions and is fatally vague and invalid in that by stating, "any other special status" it fails to specify what status prisoners will be prohibited from visitation; Rule 33-5.07(5) constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative authority to an employee; Rule 33-5.08(2) is arbitrary, capricious, and without any known penological objective, constitutes an abuse of discretion, and is unreasonable in that it is without a rational basis for the potential reduction of visiting days; Rule 33-5.08(3) is discriminatory on its face, is fatally vague, and insufficient in specificity to inform Petitioners what circumstances will be considered; Rule 33-5.08(4) is without a rational basis in fact and is fatally vague; Rule 33-5.10(c) is an unconstitutional rule in that by authorizing unwarranted searches and invasions of privacy of visitors, this would discourage visitation and thereby deprive Petitioners of visits; Rule 33-5.08(12)(c) is fatally vague and overbroad and discriminates against female visitors in an arbitrary and capricious manner by permitting their exclusion if they are "not appropriately clothed or are dressed in revealing attire . . . and other like attire"; Rule 33-5.08(14) and (15) constitute an abuse of discretion and are discriminatory in an arbitrary and capricious manner in that they refer without defining or explaining "security" reasons for allowing non-contact visits; (j) Rule 33-5.04 and 33-5.08(2) render the proposed rule ambiguous and vague because prisoners will not be able to ascertain if they are entitled to visits and the rules cannot be uniformly applied on a just and rational basis; (k) that Respondent has failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed rule to those inmates in administrative, disciplinary, and close management status. The proposed changes to the rules came about after Respondent conducted a survey of the existing visitation policies of all institutions within its system. This review indicated a need for a statewide set of standards for visitations while at the same time allowing the superintendents of the various institutions the flexibility to tailor standards at the individual institutions to local needs and the special needs of the inmates. The survey showed a need for some flexibility within the rules to accommodate the uniqueness of the individual facilities and the special needs inherent therein while at the same time addressing the overall needs constant throughout the system such as security, inmate health and welfare, and safety of both staff and inmate population. Primary among the concerns considered by the Department was the security aspect. The need to control contraband and to maintain order and discipline within the confines of any given facility is obvious. Without question a valid concern of the staff is the ability to control who and what goes into the facility. The superintendent has the inherent power to interdict the introduction of drugs, alcohol, weapons and similar contraband into a facility. He or she also has the responsibility to insure against the potential for disturbance caused by obviously inappropriate clothing worn by staff visitors to a sexually segregated institution. James M. Cook is an inmate at the Union Correctional Institution who has received special visits of the type to be governed under proposed Rule 33- 5.04 in the past. On those occasions he had to establish for his proposed visitor the classification the visitor would fall under, such as distance from the facility travel led or other criteria. In his opinion the proposed rule is somewhat vague. He contends it does not give specifics as to mileage, clothing to be worn, etc., in detail adequate for the proposed visitor to know what is required. He understands from a conversation with his classification officer that the distance requirement to be applied under the new rule is 400 miles but this criteria is not specifically stated in the proposed rule nor can it be determined from reading the rule. As to female visitors, he contends that that portion of the proposed rule which provides for appropriate clothing is insufficient in detail to insure the visitors will be properly dressed for the visit. It has been his experience in the past that if a female visitor is improperly dressed, as determined by the institution's personnel, the guards require her to wear a shapeless smock. Under the terms of the new rule, Cook said, he is required to inform his visitor what can and cannot be worn, but because the rule is devoid of detail, it is difficult for him to do this. Proposed Rule 33-5.06(3) does not, as Cook asserts, require the inmate to inform the visitor in detail of the particulars of the visiting program only the basics, such as hours, days, and, to be sure, the need for non-provocative apparel. The question on the distance requirements for special visits is also of concern to inmate Cribbs whose mother lives in Tampa, a 350 mile round trip from this facility. Cribbs contends the proposed-rule has no specifics in it as to mileage for special visitors. In the past, his mother, coming from Tampa, has been able to visit on both Saturday and Sunday and because of the distance, has made a two day visit out of the trip. The new rule, according to Cribbs, leaves everything up to the superintendent regarding visiting privileges and depending upon the determination of that officer, his mother may be forced to come this long distance to see him only on one day of the weekend. Under the current policy, inmates are allowed visitors on both Saturday and Sunday and the new rule, he feels, will change this benefit to allow visits normally only once per weekend. Cribbs is also concerned about the dress requirements of the new rule. He is concerned with the term "like attire" which he feels makes it difficult for him to tell his female visitors what to wear. Petitioner, Stanley Blending, has also had visitors on both days of the weekend in the past. He had a need for this benefit because his grandmother came from Canada for a visit once a year and, in addition, his son comes up to visit from time to time and the two day visit is required for him to talk with the young man regarding family problems. At UCI he currently gets two days of visits and, in his opinion, these two day visits have had a beneficial, rehabilitative effect. As in the case of Cribbs, Blanding's family comes from Tampa and that distance makes it necessary for them to have a two day visit. He is concerned and believes that the proposed rule will limit visits to one day per weekend which, in his opinion, would severely limit the amount of visitation he would receive. He is also concerned, about the proposed rule regarding appropriate dress for female visitors. The proposed rule says nothing about the institution providing a smock for inappropriately dressed females as has been done in the past. Combining the two changes, if his visits were reduced to one day or his female visitors were barred because of "improper" clothing, either situation would have an adverse effect on him. The current rule does not provide what is appropriate clothing and under the terms of the new rule, he would have a difficult time explaining to his female visitors what "appropriate" clothing is. Inmate Yero was in disciplinary confinement in December, 1984 and then placed under investigation. While he was in that status from October 26, 1984 through early January, 1985, he did not get to see nor did he ever receive notice of the proposed rule. Prior to October, 1984, he was allowed visitors from one to two hours. This was the rule for prisoner in disciplinary confinement. The new rule would allow the superintendent to restrict visitors to prisoners in Yero's status. The new rule adds the word "infirmaries" to the list of special status inmates. He signed the Petition herein with only limited knowledge of its contents. Inmate Paul is presently a hospital inmate and has been intermittently since 1982. He is housed in the hospital because of a disability which confines him to a wheel chair not because of any contagious or infectious disease. He understands the new rule to state that since he is in the hospital, he could be denied visitors even though he is not a patient but a special housing prisoner who is considered to be a regular inmate. He was advised that when his sister from New York called to arrange a visit with him, she was told that because he was in the hospital, he could have only a one hour visit with her. The new rule could prohibit him from having visitors at all, he says, and leaves too much discretion with the superintendent. The one hour rule which applies to inmates in the hospital has had an adverse effect on him since he has been deprived of visits from his sister. He and his sister are orphans, he says, who have just been recently reunited after a long separation. He contends that the new rule puts too much control in the hands of the superintendent. It is too vague and gives the superintendent authorization to make decisions which he should not have. The propriety of placing control, the right to make decisions, and discretion in the hands of the superintendent is clear. Without question, the superintendent is the individual most qualified to make those decisions and to exercise those functions. Adams' mother is old. Because of this and because she cannot walk far, the past changes in parking and entry procedures have cut down on her visits to him. Because of this, he is not likely to be affected by the potential for a change to one day visits. However, as to the dress rule, he would have difficulty in telling his family what they could or could not wear based on the descriptions or lack thereof in the proposed rule. During the four years he has been in confinement, he has found it difficult to know or determine who is going to do what at any given time. His mother has told him that she would like to visit him but doesn't want to go through all the difficulties she has to encounter when she does visit. She states to him that the metal in her bra sets off the metal detector utilized to screen visitors and as a result, she wears a tank top on her visits which would be prohibited by the new rules. He considers this to be deleterious to him and his welfare and he contends that the new rule will destroy any uniformity among the 79 or so different facilities within the DOC. There is no evidence that the sole alternative to a metal braced bra is a tank top. Numerous other modes of dress are available to women of all ages, sizes, and shapes. According to Harry Singletary, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Corrections, the Department is presently reviewing all rules and policy and procedure directives in an effort to do away with the latter and make all controlling directives for the Department in the form of Rules. The intent is to promulgate standards for statewide application to meet the needs of the families of the inmates, the inmates, and the institutions. Mr. Singletary contends that the majority of changes set out in the proposed rules make them more liberal for the inmate or increase security for the institution. Both of these goals are worthy and supportable. It was the intent of the drafters of the rule to standardize procedures so that visitation would be made easier and safer and to increase uniformity among the institutions so that prisoners moving from one institution to another could know what to expect. It is the Department's position that a rule should not create surprises for the inmates and should liberalize and simplify procedures for them as much as possible. As to proposed Rule 33-5.01, the reason for the new language was to give the Superintendent the discretion to provide more visitation for the inmates and their families and to deal with special needs of the inmates or the institution. The change here is to liberalize - not penalize. The terms of the proposed rule provide that Superintendents' interpretations cannot be more strict than the terms of the rule and it in essence legitimizes superintendents being more liberal than the rule calls for. Based on the population and size of the UCI visitor park, notwithstanding the concerns of Mr. Adams that the Legislature and recent court decisions will have the effect of significantly reducing the population at UCI, there should he no change in visitor policy as it exists now at this institution. As a matter of fact, if the population decreases, there would be less pressure or reason to reduce the visit days for each inmate to make more time available for others. The fact that some language is less than specific (i.e., 6 hours instead of 9 am to 3 pm) reflects an intention on the part of the drafters to give the superintendent latitude to tailor local policy to the needs of the inmates and his institution. It is recognized that there may be some abuses by superintendents, but if this should occur, it would be the exception rather than the rule and there are adequate remedies existing in the DOC rules through grievance procedures to rectify any such abuse. With regard to proposed Rule 33-5.04, dealing with special status inmates, the change here proposed adds only the word "infirmaries." The existing rule was changed only to describe all types of facilities. The rule originally was designed to prevent the spread of disease incident to the closeness of prison populations. However, it is Mr. Singletary's confirmed opinion that ambulatory or non-infectious patient- inmates, such as Mr. Paul, one of the Petitioners here, would be allowed visitors in the visitor park the same as any other inmate, on regular hours. Proposed Rule 33-5.07(5) is a new offering which gives the Superintendent authority to act to promote discipline but provides adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Proposed Rule 33- 5.08(3) is also new and it gives the inmates the opportunity to tell the superintendent what they need and provides for extra visiting time when justified. It also gives specific factors that inmates are to use to justify extra visiting time. It was intended to promote uniformity. Proposed Rule 33-5.08(10) dealing with searches, is designed to provide for a method to prevent the introduction of contraband into the institution. It is for the security of the institution and if reasonable, should provide no problems. There are presently no dress codes applicable to visitors coming into UCI or any other institution. Proposed Rule 33- 5.08(1)(c) applies to both men and women and is based on the need for security in the institution. The intent of the agency was to limit the opportunity for rude, suggestive, or untoward comments by inmates which could give offense to the resident inmate relative of the visitor to whom the comments are directed and which could incite fights or other violence. Proposed Rules 33-5.08(14) and (15) both exist in the present rule. Subparagraph 14 deals with people in protective custody and death row inmates as well as violent inmates. Subparagraph 15 deals with those instances where contact visits might jeopardize security. Those inmates in normal status would not be separated. The rules are based on the need to maintain security and prevent the passing of weapons, the spread of disease, or inappropriate conduct as is periodically demonstrated by inmates and visitors. The machinery designed by the agency to deal with those instances envisioned by the rule where a Superintendent of a particular institution might want to impose a standard stricter than that encompassed in the rule, requires that superintendent to submit his proposal to the Secretary of DOC along with justification and documentation indicating a need for a stricter standard. It is also envisioned that prisoners requesting a transfer from one institution to another write in advance to the new institution to get the local policy regarding a particular area or, wait to be briefed as to local policy during the incoming orientation on arrival. Just as the institutional superintendent must justify imposing a stricter standard than called for in the rule, it is, as well, the responsibility of the inmate who request extra visiting time, to present factors justifying the extension, the grant or denial of which is within the prerogative of the superintendent. Admittedly, while the rule does not define specific criteria for the superintendent to use in making his decision, it will be based on the reasonableness of the request and the sufficiency of the reasons submitted by the inmate. In short, the inmate must make his case and is not limited as to the factors he may use to show the need for extra time or for the change in location. The decision is within the discretion of the superintendent and is similar to other areas such as release, privileges, and the like in which the superintendent has been held capable of legitimately utilizing his discretion.
The Issue Whether Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioners, William Van Poyck, Mike Ramadanovic and Kenneth Boudreaux, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioners are subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rules challenged in these cases, Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l), 33-3.0083(9)(i), and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rules"). Petitioner Van Poyck is on death row, which is considered administrative confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Van Poyck have been suspended for almost three years. Petitioner Ramadanovic at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. All exercise privileges for Petitioner Ramadanovic have been suspended for almost one year. Petitioner Bourdreaux at the time of the final hearing was in close management confinement. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent 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. The Challenged Rules. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "administrative confinement". Administrative confinement is the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for one or more specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (l) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis excluding showers and clinic trips may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule shall be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise out of doors. Such exercise periods shall be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. The superintendent or assistant superintendent may restrict exercise for an individual inmate when the inmate continues to pose a serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates; by involvement in acts which seriously interfere with the staff's daily security functions, or by actions demonstrating an extreme escape risk. Inmates shall be notified in writing of this decision and may appeal through the grievance procedure. The denial of exercise shall be for the shortest length of time to accomplish the goal of safety, security and order within the institution and shall be documented on Form DC4-814. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not compromise the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "close management". Close management is the "long-term single cell confinement of an inmate apart from the general inmate population, where the inmate, through his own behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of other inmates or disturbing the security, order or operation of the institution." Rule 33-3.0083(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour basis, excluding showers and clinic trips, may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a 30-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of 2 hours per week of exercise outside of cell. Such exercise periods will be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted. Medical restrictions may also place limitations on the exercise periods. Recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period provided such equipment does not threaten the safety or security of the institution. Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, governs exercise of inmates who have been placed in "disciplinary confinement". Rule 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (n) Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a twenty- four hour basis (excluding showers and clinic trips) may exercise in their cells. However, if confinement extends beyond a thirty-day period, an exercise schedule should be implemented to ensure a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell. Such exercise periods should be documented on the confinement records. Exceptions to this requirement may be made only when clear and compelling facts show that such exercise periods should not be granted. Restrictions may also be placed on the exercise periods by medical staff. The reason for any exercise restrictions shall be documented. Period of Outdoor Exercise. The Challenged Rules all provide that inmates may exercise in their cells and that "a minimum of two hours per week of exercise outside of the cell" should be provided to inmates in administrative confinement, close management and disciplinary confinement. Unless specified otherwise, all references to "inmates" in this Final Order are to an inmate in administrative confinement, close management or disciplinary confinement. At Florida State Prison, non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules are given an opportunity to attend one, two-hour exercise session a week. If an inmate misses a session for medical or attorney "call out", a holiday or inclement weather, the session is not made up. The Challenged Rules do not specifically require that missed sessions be made up. On their face, the Challenged Rules provide that two hours of exercise should be provided without indicating any exceptions. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, is mandatory: two-hours of exercise must be provided each week. The amount of time inmates are allowed to exercise is affected by the budget and staff of the Respondent. Because of lack of funds and staff, the Respondent is not able to provide more exercise time to non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. At Florida State Prison, a maximum security prison, there are thirteen wings housing inmates. Ten wings house inmates (including four housing inmates on death row) in various types of confinement status. Nine of the ten wings have a separate area, referred to as a "yard", in which inmates may exercise outdoors. There are two correctional officers on duty at each of the yards during the outdoor exercise period for non-death row inmates subject to the Challenged Rules. One sergeant also rotates between the yards. Four to five correctional officers are required to take inmates in and out of the yards. Each inmate must be strip searched, handcuffed with his hands behind his back and then escorted into the yard. Exercise Yards. The Challenged Rules do not specify the size of the area in which outdoor exercise to be provided to inmates. The Challenged Rules also do not specify the number of inmates that may be placed in an area for outdoor exercise. Yards at Florida State Prison consist of a fenced concrete slab. The yards for non-death row inmates are approximately 24' by 33', or 792 square feet. Usually 17 inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. The number of inmates in the yard on occasion may be 20 to 25. This is the exception, rather than the rule. Recreational Equipment. The Challenged Rules do not require that recreational equipment be provided to non-death row inmates. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, provide that recreational equipment may be available for the exercise period if it does not compromise the safety or security of the institution Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, is silent concerning recreational equipment. Recreational equipment is not provided to inmates during exercise at Florida State Prison. Inmates tend to fight over recreational equipment and to abuse it when it is provided. In light of the findings of fact, infra, concerning death row inmates, the evidence failed to prove that the failure to provide non-death row inmates with recreational equipment is arbitrary or capricious. Although there is a rational and reasonable reason for not providing recreational equipment to inmates who have proven to be a disciplinary problem (including some death row inmates) the Respondent is evidently prohibited from withholding recreational equipment for death row inmates by court decree. No such decree applies to non- death row inmates. Yard Suspension. The Challenged Rules provide that exceptions to the provision for outdoor exercise may be made "only when clear and compelling facts can document such exercise periods should not be granted." Rule 33-3.0083(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Rules 33-3.0081(9)(l) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, contain very similar language. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, do not specify who may decide who is to be denied exercise in the yard, referred to as being placed on the "yard suspension list", or the specific reasons for placing an inmate on such a list. The various institutions are given discretion to decide who will place an inmate on the yard suspension list and the reasons for such suspensions. Rules 33-3.0083(9)(i) and 33-3.0084(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, also do not specify the procedures for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list, do not require periodic review of the list, do not specify a maximum period of time an inmate may be on the list and do not specify the conditions which must be met for an inmate to be removed from the yard suspension list. Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, provides who may restrict exercise, requires that there be a "serious threat to the safety, security and order of the institution by recent demonstrations of violence, by continuing threats of physical harm, written and spoken, toward staff and other inmates" and other acts, requires that inmates be notified in writing and provides that denial of exercise be for the shortest length of time possible. There is a list of inmates at Florida State Prison who have been denied yard exercise. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list because of security problems similar to those specified in Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code, caused by an inmate. The procedure for placing an inmate on the yard suspension list is as follows: The chief security officer recommends that an inmate be placed on the list. The recommendation of the chief security officer is reviewed by a team of senior correctional officers and the superintendent. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate is placed on the yard suspension list. Any inmate placed on the list is notified in writing and may appeal the decision through the grievance procedure. Chapter 33-29, Florida Administrative Code. The following procedure is followed to determine whether an inmate is removed from the yard suspension list: The list is reviewed monthly by the team of senior correctional officers that recommends the placement of an inmate on the list. If an inmate's behavior demonstrates that he has adapted to the institution and is no longer acting out in such a manner to create a security problem, a recommendation is made to the superintendent to remove the inmate's name from the list. The superintendent makes the final decision of whether an inmate's name is removed. Inmates are placed on the yard suspension list for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the goal of changing the inmate's behavior and to eliminate the threat to security caused by the inmate. Inmates on the yard suspension list are still allowed to exercise in their cells. Although cells are small and exercise is not necessarily easy in the cells, inmates may do elevated push-ups, step-ups, and jog in place. There are at any given time approximately 100 inmates at Florida State Prison on the yard suspension list. Inmates may be kept on the yard suspension list for years. Inmate Jimmy Stephens has been on the yard suspension list since February, 1990, and was previously on the yard suspension list for over fifteen years. Petitioner Van Poyck was placed on the yard suspension list upon his arrival at Florida State Prison on December 28, 1988, and remained on the list until January 7, 1992. Death Row Inmates. Inmates on death row are in administrative confinement and are, therefore, subject to Rule 33-3.0081(9)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Inmates on death row are provided two, two-hour exercise sessions each week. A total of four hours of exercise. If an exercise session is missed by a death-row inmate, the session is made up. The yards provided to death row inmates are larger than the yards provided to non-death row inmates. The yards for death row inmates at Florida State Prison are 71' by 69' (4,899 square feet), 80' by 64' (5,120 square feet), 62' by 91' (5,642 square feet) and 74' by 80' (5,920 square feet). Approximately 24 to 30 death row inmates are placed in the yard next to the inmates' wing at a time. Death row inmates are provided with a variety of recreational equipment. The amount of exercise time, the size of the yards and the amount of recreational equipment provided to death row inmates was agreed to in a consent decree in a federal court proceeding involving the Department of Corrections.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a corrections officer, has failed to maintain the qualification to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 19, 1993, as a Corrections Officer, Certification Number 136191. Respondent’s certification is active. At all times relevant, the Respondent was employed as a corrections officer with the Central Florida Reception Center. On November 5, 1994, Karen Mills was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Seminole County Sheriff’s office. At the time of the event, Officer Mills had been working under cover for five years with the City/County Investigative Bureau. Officer Mills was working undercover at one o’clock on a Saturday morning posing as a prostitute on the sidewalk and parking lot located at State Road 427 and Pomosa in Sanford, Florida. On November 5, 1994, Mills approached a black male driving a Toyota car, later identified as the Respondent, Travis Long, when he stopped for a traffic light at the corner of State Road 427 and Pomosa. After idle conversation, the Respondent asked what she was doing. She advised that she was trying to make some money. He asked her if she would “take it up the ass?” She took that to mean that he wanted anal intercourse. Mills said yes and asked him how much money he was willing to pay. Respondent said $25.00. Mills said she wanted $40.00. Respondent agreed but stated that he would have to go get the money from an ATM and also that he wanted to get something to eat. He asked Mills if she wanted to go with him to get something to eat. Mills declined. Mills did not immediately arrest Respondent because she wanted to see the money to confirm that he was there to buy sex. Respondent left the area and returned 20 minutes later. Upon his return, Respondent asked Mills if she was a cop and asked her to pull up her shirt to prove that she was not carrying a recording device (a wire). Mills asked Respondent if he was a cop. He said no, and ultimately exposed his penis as a way to prove it to her. Mills asked Respondent to show her the money and kept encouraging him to do so, by saying, “You ain’t gonna pay me . . . You ain’t got no money. I just want to be sure I’m gonna get paid.” Respondent finally showed Mills the money and mouthed, without speaking, “I will pay you.” As soon as she saw the money, Mills, who was wearing a wire, gave the predetermined code. Respondent began to pull away in his vehicle but other officers pulled him over and arrested him. Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, a second degree misdemeanor, in the County Court for Seminole County, Florida, on January 5, 1995. Respondent was adjudicated guilty, and a $100 fine was imposed. Respondent’s testimony that, although he conducted himself as above stated, he did not have the intent to solicit for prostitution on the night of November 5, 1994, is not credible. Respondent was an energetic, hard-working individual. Respondent had no prior criminal or employment discipline problems prior to this incident. Respondent has continued in his current position as a corrections officer in the three years since the incident and has received above-average ratings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1993). Respondent's certification be SUSPENDED for a period of six months and that the Commission impose such conditions on his reinstatement as it deems reasonable and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Bardill, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Eric Runge holds an inactive correctional officer certificate bearing number 502-2839. On January 9, 1983, the Respondent Runge was employed as a correctional officer at the Hendry Correctional Institute. On that date, the Respondent and four other officers were involved in the movement of a prisoner, Raymond Russell Ford, from one confinement area to another. Prior to the transfer, a supervisor, Lt. McNaughton, met with the officers involved in the transfer and explained to them that he wanted to see the inmate hurt. The officers, including the Respondent, went to the inmate's cell and found him asleep. Ford was awakened by one of the officers and handcuffs and leg irons were secured to his hands and feet. During the transfer, the inmate was placed on the ground several times, here he was struck and kicked by three of the officers. The Respondent was approximately 20 feet in front of the inmate when this occurred. The Respondent and another officer helped the inmate to his feet and turned him over to Sergeants Thompson and DeSilvestri. The inmate was tripped repeatedly by the two officers. This was visible to the Respondent since he was approximately 15 feet behind the inmate and escorting officers. At no time did the inmate fight with the officers or physically resist when they tripped and hit him. When the inmate arrived at his assigned cell, the Respondent and Officer Wilkerson contacted Betty White, a medical technician, in order to alert her of possible injuries to the inmate. Ford's injuries were not serious and consisted of multiple abrasions and scrapes to the face, legs and arms. When this incident came to the attention of prison authorities, all the officers involved were requested to give statements under oath concerning the transfer of the inmate. The Respondent was aware that he was required by Department of Corrections rules to truthfully answer inquiries made by the prison inspector. However, the Respondent admitted violating Department rules by falsifying his report to the prison inspector by denying that excessive force was used during the transfer of the inmate. This false report was made as part of an unsuccessful attempt by the officers involved to cover up the incident. As a result of this incident, several officers lost their jobs at Hendry and the Respondent's effectiveness as a correctional officer has been seriously reduced due to his role in the transfer and subsequent cover up. The involved officers are labeled as "dirty employees" which limits their ability to effectively discharge their duties inside the prison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner suspending the certificate of the Respondent Eric C. Runge for three months. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Eric C. Runge 1643 North Flossmore Road Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director, Dept. of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl McLaughlin, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 83-2302 CJSTC CASE NO. CORO18-0274 ERIC C. RUNGE Certificate Number: 502-2839 Respondent. /
The Issue The issues are presented based upon an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent accusing the Respondent of entering into a drug trafficking agreement with an inmate in a correctional facility where the Respondent worked. This is in violation of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes, per the Administrative Complaint, in that should the allegations be proven, Respondent is not felt to be qualified to hold a certificate as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, in that he has committed conduct unfitting for a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wayne A. Thomas, was a correctional officer employed at the Union Correctional Institution from August 4, 1981 through March 3, 1983. He served there under the authority of a certificate as correctional officer, which certificate had been issued by the State of Florida. At present, the Respondent's correctional officer certificate is in an inactive status. This case was presented for formal hearing based upon the Respondent's timely request for such treatment of the controversy. On March 2, 1983, Sergeant Sterling M. Esford, a correctional officer in the Union Correctional facility, was approached by an inmate, Ronald Thompson. Thompson was a person whom Esford had used as a confidential informant in the past and had found to be reliable. Thompson told Esford he had information to the effect that the Respondent was bringing quaaludes into the correctional facility to be sold. In exchange for assistance to be given an inmate Bell who was having difficulty with the prison authorities related to certain charges that they had brought against him, Thompson agreed to assist the internal security section of the institution in its efforts to investigate allegations against the Respondent. Lieutenant R. T. Lee, internal security officer, was made aware of the claims of Thompson related to Respondent's alleged drug activities and the offer by Thompson to help in the apprehension of the Respondent. Thompson told the authorities that he would need $50 to make a drug Purchase from Respondent. Lee gave Thompson $50 of money in which the serial numbers had been recorded prior to the transfer of the currency, money which had been dusted with a powder which could not be detected unless subject to ultraviolet light. Thompson then took the money on March 3, 1983 and later met with the Respondent. At the time of the meeting between Thompson and the Respondent, Thompson did not tell the Respondent that he wished to purchase drugs as he had indicated to the internal security officers that he would do. Thompson instead asked that the Respondent transmit the $50 in currency to a Marvin Jackson who was being held in a confinement section of the institution. Thompson made it known that this money was being transmitted for the benefit of one Doyle Heard, a friend of Jackson's. Thompson then gave money to the Respondent. The exact amount of the money given was not revealed, in that only $45 of the money was ever recovered and it is uncertain whether the remaining $5 was kept by Thompson, the Respondent or Marvin Jackson, who received the $45. Authorities searched the person of the Respondent and Jackson and did not find the $5. Thompson was not searched. (Respondent claims that the transmittal of the currency was in exchange for information which Thompson gave him on the subject of unauthorized weapons, which were hidden in the institution. He further claims that Thompson assisted him in searching for those weapons, although none were found. Given the testimony of other witnesses to the effect that those kinds of weapons were readily discoverable through routine searches by authorities and the fact that doing favors for inmates in exchange for information was a matter done under the guise of official sanction by authorities within the institution, which was not the case here, and the failure of the Respondent to disclose to authorities his alleged transmittal of the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of weapons in the institution, Respondent's explanation is not believed. In other words, Respondent is not found to have told the truth when he says that he transmitted the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of illegal weapons within the institution.) When the Respondent gave the money to Jackson, he told him that the money had been sent to him by Doyle Heard, his acquaintance. He further stated that the money was being given to him because Jackson was being transferred from that institution to another. In carrying this money from Thompson to Jackson, Respondent recognized that it was contrary to law and policy to do so, in that United States currency is considered contraband if found in the hands of an inmate and to assist in its transmittal, as opposed to turning in the contraband is a specific violation of the laws and rules of the institution. After the money transfer, Thompson indicated that he had conferred with the Respondent about the purchase of marijuana for $50 to be delivered at a later time. The authorities were led to believe from Thompson's remark that the purchase was quaaludes in exchange for $50. (Thompson denies ever having met Jackson at the time of the money being provided to Jackson in this incident.) He said he subsequently became aware of Jackson's existence. Considering his demeanor and his other testimony presented in the course of the hearing, Thompson is not believed when he says that a drug transaction took place between he and the Respondent on March 3, 1983, related to the exchange of $50 in return for drugs to be delivered at a future date. The facts demonstrate that Thompson misled the authorities about the reason for obtaining the $50 and did so to benefit Heard and Jackson. Thompson established a "scam" in order to obtain $50 for the benefit of those two inmates, and to facilitate those purposes lied about the Respondent's involvement in the subject drug deal which supposedly occurred on March 3, 1983. When the Respondent was leaving the institution on the evening of March 3, 1983, he was confronted by Lieutenant Lee and denied knowing Thompson and denied any involvement in a drug deal. The powder from the marked money was later discovered on his trousers and when confronted with that discovery, the Respondent acknowledged knowing Thompson and stated that he had delivered money to Marvin Jackson. In this interview, Respondent acknowledged that the transmittal of the currency was in violation of institutional policy. As identified by Sergeant Esford and confirmed by other correctional officers who gave testimony in the hearing, transmittal of the contraband, i.e., the U.S. currency, caused the Respondent to lose his effectiveness as a correctional officer. Respondent resigned his post following the incident. At the time of the departure, officials within the institution had found his overall performance to have been satisfactory.
The Issue Whether prison inmates' television viewing privileges are a legal interest of which the Administrative Procedure Act takes cognizance?
Findings Of Fact Until the memorandum and institutional operating pro- cedure here challenged were implemented, petitioners and other inmates at Union Correctional Institution were permitted (when not required to be doing something else) to watch television in common areas between three o'clock and eleven o'clock weekday evenings, and on holidays, between eight o'clock in the morning and two or three o'clock the following morning. After somebody donated equipment for cable television at Union Correctional Institution, and after inmates, including Lionel E. Chase, had installed the cable, James D. Stephens, recreation director at Union Correctional Institution, met with six other members of a committee which included Colonel D. E. Jackson, Jim Reddish, Assistant Superintendent for Prisoners, Lieutenant Rothman (phonetic) and an inmate representative who had no say in developing policy. As a result of the meeting, a memorandum dated January 23, 1984, was addressed to the inmate population, stating: T.V. programs including sporting events beginning at 10:00 p.m. or before, shall be viewed to completion. Any program starting after 10:00 p.m. shall be terminated at 11:30 p.m., unless authorized in advance by the T.V. Policy Committee. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3. Earlier, on January 3, 1984, Superintendent Massey signed Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 83-30, "Institutional T.V. Policy" (IOP 83- 30) Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. This document specified "selection and viewing procedures....[for] each respective housing area." With respect to every housing area in Union Correctional Institution, IOP 83-30 provides: On Monday through Friday, sets will be turned on at 3:00 P.M.; on weekends and holidays, sets will be turned on at 8:00 A.M. All t.v.'s shall be turned off exactly at 11:30 P.M. Sports programming and special events that air past the time limit shall be viewed to completion. IOP 83-30.5(D)(4). Although signed by Superintendent Massey on January 3, 1984, IOP 83-30 is dated December 30, 1983. The memorandum and IOP 83-30.5(D)(4) have been enforced against petitioners. In enforcing the new policy, correctional staff have not only turned the television sets off earlier on weekends, they have also closed the dayrooms earlier. The guards now padlock the dayroom doors when they turn off the television sets. In the past, the dayrooms remained open even after television viewing stopped, and inmates were allowed to read, paint, write letters and so forth. The inmates filed a grievance petition protesting this change in practice. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1. Rule Rationale Before installation of the cable, inmates had a choice of two or three programs, but they now have a much wider choice, at least when the cable is in good repair. A person or persons unknown have slashed the cable some half dozen times. There are inmates who believe the guards, some of whom reportedly do not feel inmates should watch television at all, have sabotaged the cable. According to some prison officials, it is the inmates who have slashed the cables, which, they say, is an indication of how high feeling runs between the inmate faction that prefers sports programs and the faction that does not. In any event, according to respondent's witnesses, it was for fear of inmates' quarrelling in choosing among the larger number of options cable television has brought that viewing hours on weekends and holidays were shortened. This does not, of course, explain why they were lengthened on weekdays. Nor was there any evidence that the greater range of television programs has caused any dissension among the inmates. The hearing officer has had the benefit of the parties' posthearing submissions, including petitioners' proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and final order. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, subordinate or cumulative.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 13-84-002-01 on July 14, 1984. On September 1, 1988, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit working in the misdemeanor division. While on duty and driving his employment car on the evening of September 1, 1988, Respondent was in the area of Lee Street and 20th Street in Orlando, Florida. He was in the area attempting to locate a witness as part of a criminal investigation he was conducting. He had previously made the acquaintance of a person named Ruby Burk. He would on occasion drive past her house and stop and they would talk and once previously had engaged in a sex act. On the night of September 1, 1988, he went to Burk's house, talked with her and then left on a futile attempt to locate a witness. He then returned to Burk's residence, picked her up and proceeded to a dark secluded area on an unpaved street which borders an elementary school. Shortly thereafter, while on routine patrol, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff observed Respondent sitting behind the wheel of the state vehicle in a complete state of undress. When she shined her bright lights into the vehicle, the Deputy observed the head of a black female pop up from the direction of the Petitioner's lap. The Deputy recognized Burk and observed that she was fully clothed. The Deputy permitted Respondent to put his pants on before he exited his vehicle. Respondent and Burk were engaging in fellatio in the front seat of the state vehicle. At the time of the incident, Respondent was having marital problems which caused him to be despondent. In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated that he had been a certified law enforcement officer for over four years at the time of this incident and has had no prior disciplinary problems. He has performed his job in private security and as an investigator in an exemplarily capacity. In September 1988, Respondent was discharged by the State Attorney, but was given a favorable recommendation He is presently employed as a Child Protective Investigator with HRS. He is respected by his peers and in his community. The violation of the law and rules by the Respondent was an isolated incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19 (in part), 21. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant: Paragraphs 7 (that Burk had been convicted of engaging in prostitution on Westmoreland Street), 11, 16 (in part), 19 (in part), 20, 22. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in part), 6, 7. Rejected as irrelevant or as argument: Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa L. Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Leon B. Cheek, Esquire 101 Sunnytown Road Suite 306 Casselberry, FL 32707 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations concerned herein, Respondent, William M. Floyd has been certified as a corrections officer in Florida under certificate number C- 7585, dated May 23, 1980. He had been certified prior to that time under another Commission procedure. The Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying law enforcement and corrections officers in Florida. Throughout the majority of the year 1986, Respondent was employed as a corrections officer at the Department of Corrections' Tampa Corrections Work Release Center. When he was arrested for grand theft during 1986, he advised his boss that he intended to plead not guilty. Because of his prior eight years of good work and based on his representations, he was not discharged and was allowed to keep his employment. Approximately six months later, Respondent was hospitalized for what his doctors thought was cancer of the spine. While he was in the hospital, his attorneys convinced him that due to his poor health, it would be to his advantage to plead nolo contendere and avoid the stress of a trial and thereafter negotiated an arrangement with the state attorney that in exchange for the plea of nolo contendere, adjudication of guilt would be withheld and Respondent would be placed on two years probation. Respondent entered that plea in open court on November 10, 1986 in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County and was placed on two years probation. He was promised that at the successful completion of his term of probation, his record would be sealed from the public but not from law enforcement officials. Respondent is looking forward to that happening. After his court appearance, Respondent resigned from his position as a corrections officer with the Department of Corrections, he claims, due to his poor health. On December 4, 1986, the Department of Corrections advised the Petitioner, Commission, however, that Respondent had resigned his position due to the fact that he was placed on two years probation for grand theft. The documentation in question was not presented at the hearing, however, but the basis for Respondent's resignation is irrelevant. The seminal issue here is Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to a felony and of that there is no question. Respondent is not now employed as a corrections officer or in any law enforcement capacity. As a result, he does not need his certification. However, because of the nature of the charges against him, and what he believes is a lack of culpability on his part, (not further explained); and because he may some day again want to work as a corrections officer, he wants to keep his certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the certification of Respondent, WILLIAM M. FLOYD, as a corrections officer be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23rd day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Floyd Post Office Box 1084 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Joel Keel, is an inmate at the correctional institution in Raiford, Florida. The Union Correctional Institution is a confinement facility operated by the Respondent, Department of Corrections. Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, permits the Respondent to adopt rules and regulations which modify the limits of an inmate's confinement under specified conditions. In January 1986, the figures of the statistics of the Department of Corrections reflect that there were approximately 1300 new commitment intakes per month. As the year 1986 progressed up through the months of April and May, this rate went up to approximately 1400 to 1600 per month, and in June, the figure stood at 1680 new commitment intakes; a new record. This record, however, has been broken since that time with a monthly intake of 1700. This large number of intakes created a terrible strain on the system which at the time had reached the federal standards and the state cap on inmate strength of 98 percent. These caps are placed on inmate strength as an effort to reduce the extreme safety and security problems created by inmate overcrowding. Because there was no new staff assigned to the Department of Corrections during the period of this increase, the staff/inmate ratio decreased as the hot summer months approached with the pressure that the climate imposes. Both interior and perimeter security of the various institutions within the Department of Corrections became more and more strained. The stress on staff caused an increase of absenteeism and illness. In addition, during this period of increased temperature and the concomitant stress related thereto, assaults and escapes become a greater and greater problem. In June 1986, the inmate population in the Florida prison system went up to 99 percent, a figure approved by the Florida Legislature due to a change brought about by an automated accounting system for prisoners. The achievement of the 99 percent plus prison population constituted an "emergency" due to overcrowding. As a result, it became obvious that there was a need to increase the number of inmates eligible for pre-expiration of sentence release. Consistent therewith was the need to establish a fair and objective way of placing inmates into this pre-release program that would protect the public. It was determined necessary to screen out from participation in the program certain prohibited types of inmates such as sex offenders unless they have been cleared and determined to be harmless. Up to the point of this determination, there appeared to be no substantial or valid guidelines. Another intent of the framers of this emergency rule was the desire to set up a procedure to remove inmates placed into the pre-release program from the program for cause in accordance with due process and constitutionality. It was deemed necessary to make clear within the parameters of the program and within the instructions for the program what had to be done and how it was to be accomplished. Nonetheless, the overriding consideration which constituted the "emergency" situation was the overpopulation in the prison system. As a result, the Department of Corrections in July 1986 promulgated and published its Emergency Rule 33ER 86-3 dealing with supervised community release which rule was to take effect upon being filed with the Department of State. This rule provided that all inmates who are within 90 days of their release date will be eligible for placement on supervised community release if they meet certain specified requirements. The emergency rule listed as the basis therefor, "this emergency rule is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of Florida by providing criteria that the inmates to be placed in supervised community release must meet to help assure the safety of the public." It goes on also to indicate that the rule is necessary to prescribe appropriate sanctions for inmates within the program in the event they violate the terms and conditions of the release agreement. The program provides that the initial process is for the staff within the Department of Corrections to screen all inmates within 90 days of the end of their sentence. It was envisioned as an extension of the work release program already existing. It is for that reason that only those on or eligible for work release can participate in this new program. This is consistent with the statutory mandate to include in pre-release programs only trustworthy inmates. Inmates are also screened to ensure that they have demonstrated this trustworthiness by performing well in the more restrictive work release program. Other methods of demonstrating trustworthiness and eligibility is for the inmate to invest time in self-improvement projects such as the GED Program and to have through his past practice, shown that he will return to the prison setting at night. This screening is done monthly of all inmates with a temporary release date of 120 days in the future. By so doing, this gives the staff 30 days to develop a plan for the individual inmate to ensure a stable environment for the inmate to go to. Prior to the implementation of Chapter 86-46, Laws of Florida, the statutory authority for the current program, there was no provision for the program in issue. As soon as this law was passed the legal staff within the Department of Corrections prepared the instant emergency rule as soon as possible. Had they not been able to do an emergency rule and had the regular rulemaking process been necessary, it is most likely that they would not have had established criteria and guidelines to apply to those who had to be released due to the fact that the prison population had reached the statutory cap. In fact, it was shown that state attorneys would not cooperate with the Department of Corrections and process violations of the program unless there were specific guidelines contained therein, and, since it was necessary to reduce the inmate population, it was therefore necessary to utilize the emergency role process. With that in mind, the safety of the public into which these inmates would be released was the primary concern and generated the need to ensure that only qualified and safe inmates were released. Under the new statute and the emergency rule, 1125 inmates have been released as of the date of the hearing. Approximately 750 inmates are in the program at any given time. As a result of the implementation of this program, the prison population has dropped and remained within the new 99 percent of capacity state cap. Experience with the programs so far has shown that the inmates in the program have been guilty of only minor violations such as assault on witnesses, DWI, simple assault, and larceny. And all of these offenses came up after implementation of the emergency rule. In the case of misconduct by a released inmate which does not result in immediate charges and incarceration, such as leaving the county where placed or the state, the disciplinary team from the Department of Corrections will evaluate the inmate and impose the penalty. These penalties could include removal of gain time while still remaining within the program up to removal from the program and loss of gain time. Conditions of enrollment in the program include, as to the inmate, that he (a) stay in the area where assigned; (b) refrain from the use of drugs; (c) comply with instructions given; (d) pay court costs imposed; and (e) pay a $30 a month fee to the Department of Corrections to cover administrative costs. Though the emergency rule appears to be working satisfactorily, the Department of Corrections is in the process of regular rulemaking to adopt a permanent rule identical to the emergency rule in issue here.
