Findings Of Fact At all times materiel hereto petitioners were inmates et Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) and were subject to discipline for failure to obey orders. Piccirillo was disciplined for failure to comply with an order to report to the infirmary or sick call. Piccirillo was aware that his name was posted on the bulletin board directing him to report to the medical department and et the time specified he failed to so report, was disciplined, and he lost gain time. A doctor visits LCI twice per week and inmates with medical problems can be seen by the doctor on these days. No patient is required to undergo medical treatment for minor ills if he so elects. Because of the limited time a doctor is available to LCI it is necessary that those inmates so designated see the doctor at the scheduled time. Inmates who do not understand an order may request clarification. If the inmate cannot read he is not punished for failure to obey written orders. Prior to disciplinary action being taken against an inmate for disobedience of orders, the disciplinary report is investigated and, after the investigator finds the charge to be true, discipline may be administered. Additionally, the inmate has a grievence procedure he may follow after the investigator recommends disciplinary action be taken. Occasionally, inmates are given orders by correctional officers which are unlawful. The inmate may obey the order and say nothing, he may obey the order and file a grievance, or he may refuse to obey he order and successfully defend the disciplinary report for failure to obey the order. It is not an offense for an inmate to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
Findings Of Fact On August 28, 1987, Respondent, David E. Hancock, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-02. On March 4, 1988, Respondent, Floyd W. Winkle, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer, holding certificate #11-87-502-03. In March, 1989, Respondents were employed as correctional officers by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA operates the county corrections facilities for Bay Counnty, Florida. Additionally, CCA is responsible for booking new arrestees into the jail facility. On March 11, 1989, Respondent Hancock was the supervisor of the night shift at the main jail facility in Bay County. Respondent Winkle was the booking officer. The evening of the 11th was a very heavy evening for arrests. The facility was understaffed for the numbers of arrests being processed. In fact, the holding cells, located in the basement of the jail, were full and female prisoners were being held in the interview rooms across the hall from the holding cells. Marcus Kitchens was brought to the jail in a highly intoxicated state. He was bleeding and exhibited lacerations and abrasions to his face and limbs. Mr. Kitchens was also in a very noisy and rowdy state. During the course of the evening, one of the female prisoners requested to use the restroom facilities. These facilities are located in the holding cells which were occupied by the male prisoners. The male prisoners were transfered to an interview room so that the female prisoner could use the restroom facility in the holding cell. The transfer was made by Officer Winkle. One of the inmates was Marcus Kitchens. He had not yet been officially booked into the jail. While transferring the male prisoners back to the holding cell Mr. Kitchens asked Officer Winkle for a blanket. For a number of valid security reasons jail policy does not permit a prisoner to have a blanket until the prisoner is officially booked into the facility and on his her her way to a more permanent cell. When Mr. Kitchens was told that he could not have a blanket he became violent and charged Officer Winkle, hitting the officer on the left side of face with his fist and knocking the officer's glasses off. Officer Winkle pushed Mr. Kitchens into the holding cell. Mr. Kitchens grabbed Officer Winkle by the shirt and pulled him into the holding cell with him. The two landed up against one of the walls of the holding cell and Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle several more times in the chest and abdomen with his fist. While Officer Winkle was trying to block the blows, Mr. Kitchens hit Officer Winkle again on the left side of the face. Officer Winkle then grabbed Mr. Kitchens and put him on the floor. Officer Hancock heard the noise from the altercation and responded from another part of the basement area to the site of the altercation. By the time Officer Hancock arrived, Officer Winkle had Mr. Kitchens on the floor. Officer Winkle was sitting on top of Mr. Kitchens trying to subdue him. Officer Hancock stepped in between Officer Winkle and the inmate, put his knee into Mr. Kitchens chest, grasped the shoulder area and shoved Mr. Kitchens against the back wall of the holding cell. Officer Hancock inquired if Officer Winkle was alright. After Officer Winkle responded that he was, Officer Hancock told him to leave the cell. Officer Winkle left the cell and Officer Hancock released Mr. Kitchens from the wall. Mr. Kitchens began to charge Officer Hancock. Officer Hancock ordered him not to move and Mr. Kitchens sat back down on the floor. Officer Hancock left the cell and the door was locked. The entire altercation to the close of the cell door lasted a maximum of two and one-half minutes. It was while Respondents were in the holding cell with Mr. Kitchens that the alleged excessive use of force occurred by Officer Winkle banging Mr. Kitchens' head against the floor and hitting him three times on the side of the head with his fist after Mr. Kitchens had submitted to the officers. The use of excessive force was testified to by an officer who arrived from another part of the basement area after the altercation began and who could only have seen the last few seconds of the incident. The only testimony this officer gave regarding Officer Hancock was that while he was leaning against the cell wall he told Officer Winkle that Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after which Officer Winkle allegedly banged Mr. Kitchens' head on the floor and punched him on the side of the head. Contrary to this officer's testimony and corroborative of Respondents' testimony was the testimony of the nurse on duty at the jail facility. She did not see any excessive use of force and did not hear Officer Hancock make the statement referenced above while the officers were in the holding cell. She also testified that Mr. Kitchen's appeared to be struggling somewhat while he was on the floor. Officer Hancock testified that he told Officer Winkle Mr. Kitchens was "all his" after the officers had locked the door to the holding cell. Officer Hancock made the statement in response to Officer Winkle's complaint that he needed help in booking. The statement was meant to communicate to Officer Winkle that help would not be forthcoming and that he had to handle Mr. Kitchens during the booking process. Clearly, given the facts of this case, such a vague statement, regardless of where it was made, does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Officer Hancock aided, abetted, counseled or procured any battery being effected against Mr. Kitchens. Moreover, this case boils down to a swearing match between the various parties and witnesses involved. On these facts and given the demeanor of the witnesses, such a swearing match does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Respondents have failed to maintain the good moral character required of correctional officers. Additionally, given the fact that the Respondents were subdueing a violent inmate and the very short time span in which the alleged use of force occurred it is improbable that any excessive force was used which would reflect on the character of either Respondent. Therefore the Administrative Complaints against each Respondent should be dismissed. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the amended Administrative Complaints filed against David E. Hancock and Floyd W. Winkle be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William F. Reid, is currently and has been at all times pertinent to the issues herein, an inmate at UCI, having been committed to the custody of the DOC for an offense committed prior to July 1, 1978. At the time of filing of the Petition, he was in administrative confinement at UCI but, at the time of the hearing, had been released and was not in that status. Petitioner concedes that even during the period of his administrative confinement, he was awarded basic gain time as provided for since he was committed prior to July 1, 1978. However, due to the fact that he was unable to work while in administrative confinement, he did not receive any incentive gain time during that period. Work opportunities for inmates in administrative confinement status are extremely limited. This is because of the security and manpower problems involved in providing adequate supervision of this category of inmate during a work detail. Rule 33-3.081, Florida Administrative Code, allows the placing of an inmate in administrative confinement then disciplinary or criminal charges are pending against him and his presence in the general prison population would present a danger to himself, to others, or to the security and order of the institution. It is also authorized when an investigation is pending and the inmate's presence in the prison population might tend to interfere with that investigation. If, for medical reasons, an inmate's remaining in the prison population would create a health or safety risk, administrative confinement is also authorized. Another reason justifying administrative confinement is when the inmate is alleged to have committed misconduct and there is concern that because of that, his safety is at risk. The rule does not provide any maximum length of time for administrative confinement and the reason for this is that the investigations supporting it are of varying complexity and take differing lengths of time. Petitioner and the other inmates who testified on his behalf all of whom have been in administrative confinement in the past, all denied that they had received the required informal hearing called for under the rule. At best, they were told by the officer placing them in administrative confinement generally why this action was being taken. However, they contend they were never given any opportunity to submit anything to a senior official or a classification officer and they are of the opinion that at no time was there an emergency situation involved. The impression that the inmates have is that a corrections officer can have an inmate confined or released for any reason whether there is adequate justification or basis for the action. Clifford Towbridge has been an inmate at UCI since December, 1983. When he was placed in administrative confinement he was advised of this fact by a corrections officer who told him to pack his things and who put him in administrative confinement status without telling him why. He contends he got no hearing but was ultimately told he was being confined because a confidential informant advised that his life was in danger. Approximately two to three weeks later, he was released when he signed a paper indicating that his life was not in danger. At no time was he told who had made the allegation against him and he was not given a hearing either before confinement or before release. Curtis Mangram had an experience with administrative confinement at his prior incarceration at Belle Glade Correctional Institution. At that time he was given no hearing nor was he brought before a review board. When he left administrative confinement at Belle Glade he was assigned to UCI and remained clean until August 4, 1984 when he was placed in administrative confinement there. It appears that his name was mentioned in connection with the rape of a prisoner and he was placed in administrative confinement for several weeks pending investigation of that incident. One day after his release he was again placed in administrative confinement for possession of contraband wine. He was given no hearing prior to being placed into administrative confinement nor was he initially given a reason for this action. However, he wrote several letters to officials within the DOC to determine why this action was taken. The first response he got indicated he was being placed in for evaluation but regardless of the reason, he is sure he was not given a hearing. On neither occasion of his being placed in administrative confinement, in his opinion, was there any emergency reason for precipitous action. From first hand and from what he has seen and heard, it is his opinion that prisoners are placed in administrative confinement solely on the uncorroborated allegations of other prisoners and when this happens, there is no hearing prior to she placement nor within a timely period thereafter. As was stated previously, the witness was placed in administrative confinement on August 4 and was released on August 28. At that time he was told the reason for him having been placed in administrative confinement (the alleged rape) was resolved. The following day, August 29, he was placed back in administrative confinement and was told by a corrections officer that the action was being taken because Lt. Dixon, an investigator, wanted him back in. Later on, Officer Ward, Dixon's assistant, read him his rights and asked him some questions after which the witness was returned to administrative confinement. The witness admits that he had the wine which he subsequently found out was the basis for his second administrative confinement but he was never punished for the wine nor was he ever charged with the rape. He was in administrative confinement for a total of four months at UCI and had he been punished for the unlawful possession of the wine, it is his opinion he would have been placed in disciplinary confinement for fifteen or thirty days, a period much shorter than the entire period of his administrative confinement. Inmate Edwin Paul has been placed in administrative confinement for investigative reasons twelve or thirteen times during the two and a half years he has been an inmate at UCI. He relates that when he is placed there, the corrections officer comes up to him and tells him to pack his things but never gives him a reason for this action. The response to his inquiry is always that someone will tell him. It is his experience that at UCI, regardless of what the rule requires, no review is done and the inmate is not told anything until he files a grievance. That generally takes approximately ninety days to resolve and during this time, the inmate is in administrative confinement earning no incentive gain time. According to Paul, his requests for information as to the reason for his status are met with various answers such as "you're a menace," "none of your business," or "I don't know." It is his opinion that administrative confinement can be imposed on an inmate at the whim of a correctional officer. He contends that in all of his periods of administrative confinement either no charges were preferred against him, or he was found not guilty of the allegation that was laid, but during all that period, he has not received any gain time that he would have earned had he not been placed in administrative confinement. This has affected his status in that had he not been placed in administrative confinement, his sentence would have been up after forty months confinement. Because of his inability to earn gain time, he is not serving the fiftieth month of his period of confinement. Petitioner was placed in administrative confinement on March 17, 1985. He was not then nor has he since that time been given an informal hearing by a correctional officer, he states. He claims he was placed in administrative confinement by a corrections officer - and was not given an opportunity to sign anything regarding this action. On this occasion he was in for two and a half months. In a prior period of administrative confinement, he claims he was not told why he was there officially. Only through the information given him by a friendly corrections officer two weeks after the fact was he advised why he was incarcerated. Never has a senior corrections officer ever held a hearing with him, he states, nor has he ever been told how long the investigation on which his administrative confinement status is based will take. He has not seen any investigative report nor has he even been given any assistance in finding out the reason for his status. Even a personal interview with the superintendent of UCI has not changed this process, he says. Reid and the other inmates who testified on his behalf all contend that the implementation of the rule regarding administrative confinement creates great stress for them because of, (1) the loss of incentive gain time, (2) the inability to get appropriate exercise, and (3) the impact that the status has on the ability to receive visitors, and all agree that being afforded a hearing or being told why the administrative confinement action was being taken would tend to reduce that stress. Petitioner admitted that he does not have much of a problem with the rule except for the fact that it does not put any time limit on the length of the investigation. His complaint is primarily with the way the rule is followed by UCI. Mr. Tabah, the classification specialist at UCI, related that there is no formal board hearing when inmates are placed in administrative confinement. The inmates' case is reviewed by the chief correctional officer and this review is termed a hearing. This action, however, is itself reviewed by the classification team within 72 hours of the hearing. At the inmates' hearing, a form DC4-318 is prepared by the chief correctional officer on which the reason for the administrative confinement action is listed. The bottom half of this form is subsequently filled out by the classification team during its review as to its concurrence or non-concurrence and the team's recommendation for action. The inmate is given a copy of this review and has an opportunity to make comment thereon. Both the recommendation of the team and the comments of the inmate, if any, are referred to the superintendent. Every inmate in administrative confinement is reviewed weekly. Each inmate is usually advised of the reason for his being placed in administrative confinement either at the time or immediately thereafter. Only in emergency cases can the inmate be placed in administrative confinement without review/hearing by the chief correctional officer. In that case, the hearing is held within forty-eight hours. Review of the files on both Mangram and Towbridge reveal that, as to Towbridge, the inmate was advised by the corrections officer placing him in administrative confinement on February 13, 1985 as to the reason therefor. The chief corrections officer approved the actions of the corrections officer thereafter and the following day, the classification team reviewed the action and furnished the inmate with a copy of their recommendation. As to Mangram, the records reflect that he was placed in administrative confinement on August 18, 1984. An informal hearing was held that same day and the action was reviewed by senior corrections officer Bryant at 4:00 P.M. the same day. Mr. Mangram was retained in administrative confinement because of the belief that the safety of the institution required it. It was felt that Mangram was a potentially violent inmate who posed a clear danger to others. As to Mr. Paul, the file reflects that the two times he was in administrative confinement he was advised of the reasons and given a hearing. As to Petitioner, the record reflects that on January 24, 1985 he was placed in administrative confinement and given the reasons therefor by corrections officer Brown. The reviewing corrections officer supervisor Bryant concurred.
The Issue Whether the conduct of Petitioner violated the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a constitutional officer for the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within Pinellas County, Florida. As a result, Respondent maintains and operates a correctional facility, commonly referred to as the Pinellas County Detention Center, or Pinellas County Jail. Petitioner is a detention deputy employed by Respondent at the Pinellas County Jail (Jail) and has been so employed for approximately fifteen years. Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Petitioner is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On May 10, 1997, while employed as a detention deputy by the Respondent, Petitioner was assigned to the B-Wing of the South Division working on the third shift. While on break that day, Petitioner went to the booking area of the Jail to meet his wife for lunch. Petitioner's wife, an employee of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, was working that same shift in the booking area. When Petitioner arrived in the booking area, in addition to his wife, also present were Detention Deputies Larry Potts, Lloyd Spain, Denise Borland and Detention Lieutenant Krista Rauch. Spain and Borland were processing an individual being booked into the Jail while Potts was assisting Rice’s wife. Lieutenant Rauch was located at the booking desk in a glassed area. On May 10, 1997, at the time the events in paragraph 3 were transpiring, Mathew Robinson was being booked into the Jail. After a portion of the booking process had been completed, Robinson was seated on a bench in the booking area awaiting a routine medical screening. During this process, Robinson became disruptive and began screaming and yelling. As a result thereof, Spain attempted to calm Robinson and de- escalate his disruptive behavior. When Robinson remained uncooperative, Spain, with the assistance of Potts, took physical control of Robinson and escorted him out of the booking area through a door commonly referred to as the “blue door.” Robinson was not shackled or handcuffed. Petitioner remained in the booking area. After Spain and Potts left the booking area with Robinson, Petitioner detected the shuffling of feet in the hallway area on the other side of the blue door and he proceeded through the door to investigate. Petitioner then observed Potts and Spain with Robinson who was in a half-squatted position with his knees bent. Following behind Potts, Spain, Robinson and Petitioner, was Detention Deputy Borland who had subsequently come through the blue door into the corridor in order to photograph the inmate. As Spain and Potts continued to escort Robinson down the hall, Petitioner followed behind them at a distance until they arrived at the vestibule area at the entrance to the C- Wing. At the entrance to C-Wing, there is a control booth that protrudes into the corridor area. During this entire escort process, Robinson remained unrestricted, other than his being held by Spain and Potts. At some point prior to the incident described in paragraph 10 below, Lieutenant Rauch left the booking area and entered the hallway through the blue door. When Spain and Potts arrived at the C-Wing entrance, the gate was already open. Robinson had escalated his level of resistance by screaming, yelling, fighting, and opposing efforts to walk him through the gate. Prior to the entry of Robinson and the detention deputies into the vestibule area of C-Wing, Robinson began trying to pull away from Spain and Potts and his feet were off the floor in an attempt to break the officers’ efforts to move him forward. However, Robinson did not throw punches, strike blows, or kick. During the escalation of resistance by Robinson, Spain did not lose physical control of Robinson, although he was pulled off balance. Robinson did break away from the hold being exercised by Potts for a few seconds. Neither Potts nor Spain fell to the ground. Neither Spain nor Potts requested the assistance of Petitioner nor were they aware of Petitioner’s presence. As the struggle continued, Petitioner intervened by kicking Robinson in the buttocks. Spain and Potts then took Robinson to the ground. Petitioner assisted in restraining Robinson and escorting him into C-1 Wing. Neither Petitioner nor other deputies have been trained to kick an inmate in the buttocks as a control technique. Kicking is generally used as a technique to impair or disable an inmate. At the time Petitioner kicked Robinson, he was not attempting to impair or disable Robinson. Deputies are taught to kick as a defensive maneuver when an inmate is approaching an officer. The kicking technique generally involves striking the inmate on the side of the leg in the calf area in order to effectuate a take down or redirect the inmate to the ground. The training provided to correctional officers in the use of kicking technique limits its use to circumstances requiring a counter- move to impede a subject’s movement toward an officer. At the time that Petitioner kicked Robinson, Robinson was not coming toward Petitioner. The kicking technique utilized by Petitioner lifting his leg, bringing it to hip level, thrusting the foot forward and kicking the inmate in the buttocks, is not an appropriate defensive tactic. This is not taught as a defensive tactic because it involves striking what is commonly called a “red zone.” Red zone areas include the head, neck and spine, and groin areas. A blow to red zone areas is appropriate only in a deadly force situation because such a blow may cause serious injury or death to the person struck. It is uncontested that the struggle Robinson engaged in with Spain and Potts did not create a situation where the use of deadly force would be appropriate. On May 10, 1997, shortly after the incident in question, Borland prepared an incident report in which she made no reference to Petitioner’s kicking Robinson. Borland was questioned about the incident by Corporal Powell of the Internal Affairs Division on May 28, 1997. During this inquiry, Borland made no reference to the kicking incident. Thereafter, Borland spoke to her supervisor, Lieutenant Rauch, and expressed her discomfort with preparing a report that would implicate Petitioner in misconduct. Lieutenant Rauch instructed Borland to prepare a report reflecting what Borland had observed. Borland complied with Lieutenant Rauch’s directive and, on May 30, 1997, prepared a memorandum. In the memorandum, directed to Corporal Powell, Borland indicated that on May 10, 1997, she had observed Petitioner kick Robinson. In June 1997, Borland told Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte that she did not want to write the May 30, 1997, memorandum. However, Borland stated that Lieutenant Rauch told her that both Borland and Rauch could get in trouble if Borland failed to write the memorandum. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office conducted an internal investigation regarding the incident of May 10, 1997. As part of that investigation, on June 23, 1997, the Chain-of- Command Board took a sworn statement from Petitioner. After giving his account of the events, Petitioner was asked questions regarding the incident by Corporal Powell and Sergeant R. Alphonso of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau. Prior to the questioning, Corporal Powell instructed Petitioner “to answer questions directed to you during this interview truthfully and to the best of your knowledge.” While being questioned regarding the events of May 10, 1997, Petitioner admitted that he kicked Robinson in the buttocks and that this was observed by Lieutenant Rauch. However, from his point of view, the struggle that ensued between Robinson, Potts and Spain immediately prior to the kick could not have been observed by Lieutenant Rauch. From Lieutenant Raunch’s vantage point, as seen by Petitioner, her view of that struggle had to have been obstructed by the control room. Petitioner’s perception of where Lieutenant Rauch was at the time of the struggle is not inconsistent with that of other detention deputies in the immediate vicinity at that time. In response to questions during the proceeding of June 23, 1997, Petitioner was adamant in his denial that Lieutenant Rauch did not observe the struggle that Spain and Potts had with Inmate Robinson immediately before Robinson was kicked. Throughout his interrogation, Petitioner did not waver from this position, notwithstanding statements from Sergeant Alfonso that Lieutenant Rauch’s written statement gave “the inference that she saw that struggle.” Although Petitioner had responded when asked about the discrepancy in his statement and that of Lieutenant Rauch, Sergeant Alfonso continued to question Petitioner concerning whether the lieutenant observed the struggle. Among the questions asked by Sergeant Alfonso were: “Now, are you saying that [Lieutenant Rauch’s] being untruthful, that she’s lying about this?”; “And so what you’re telling us today is that Lieutenant Rauch is lying about seeing the incident?”; and “Your opinion is that Lieutenant Rauch is a liar?” In response to these questions, Petitioner answered in the affirmative. During the course of giving his sworn statement, Petitioner was asked whether he believed that Deputy Borland “lied in her statement against him.” Petitioner was also asked whether it was his “belief that Lieutenant Rauch put Deputy Borland up to that lie.” Petitioner answered both of these questions in the affirmative. At the time Petitioner responded to these questions, he believed that he was answering truthfully. There were two reasons that Petitioner believed that Borland’s second account of the incident was inaccurate and that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland what to put in the memorandum. First, Petitioner was aware that Borland’s May 10, 1997, incident report made no reference to the kicking incident and that Borland first mentioned the kicking incident in the memorandum dated May 30, 1997. Second, Petitioner based this belief on comments made to him by his wife. According to Petitioner’s wife, Borland had told another officer, Deputy Corporal Marjeta Salliiotte, that Lieutenant Rauch directed Borland to write the memorandum. Petitioner mistakenly concluded or interpreted this comment to mean that Lieutenant Rauch told Borland specifically what to include in the memorandum. After completing its investigation, the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) presented its entire investigative file to the Chain-of-Command Board without conclusion or recommendation. The Chain-of-Command Board met and, after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Petitioner the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 021, relating to the custody arrestees/prisoners, a Level Five violation; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, C- 1, V, A, 024, relating to insubordination, use of profanity or insulting language towards a superior officer, a Level Five violation. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of two Level Five violations is the basis for assigning 60 disciplinary points. As a result, Petitioner was assessed 60 disciplinary points. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for 60 points to be from a minimum penalty of a seven-day suspension to a maximum penalty of termination. In the instant case, Petitioner was assessed a ten-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in kicking inmate Robinson did not constitute a good correctional practice, and is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of a correctional officer in an altercation is to engage in defensive maneuvers and to gain control of the inmate creating the disturbance. Although correctional officers are allowed to defend themselves, kicking an inmate in the buttocks serves no correctional purpose, does not constitute the proper use of defensive tactics and is not designed to maintain control of an inmate or a situation. Kicking an arrestee or inmate in the buttocks area is not appropriate absent a situation where great bodily harm is being threatened by the inmate. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner in responding to questions during the course of giving a sworn statement do not constitute insubordination. Respondent was required to answer all questions truthfully, that is the truth as he knew or perceived it to be. In the instant case, Petitioner's comments were not made voluntarily nor were they directed to Lieutenant Rauch. Instead, Petitioner's statements were made in response to questions from a member of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Inspection Bureau who was investigating the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a Final Order finding Petitioner guilty of the conduct alleged in Counts I and II of the charging document and suspending Petitioner, without pay, for eight (8) days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIED Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. LauBach Executive Director Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 3737 16th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 B. Norris Rickey Senior Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 34617
The Issue This case arises out of a challenge by the Petitioners to the validity of Rule 33-3.02(6), Florida Administrative Code; Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, and Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82. The Petitioners specifically challenge the validity of those portions of the above- provisions relating to the issue of clothing to the inmates. At the final hearing, Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers, testified on their own behalf and also called as witnesses Charles Connors and Paul Gunning. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence five exhibits. Respondents called no witnesses and offered no exhibits into evidence. The Petitioner S. B. Ridley, did not appear at the formal hearing. The Hearing Officer was informed by one of the other Petitioners at the formal hearing that Mr. Ridley had been transferred to Polk Correctional Institution. Mr. Ridley was given due notice of the hearing held on February 17, 1984, and has filed no pleading or motion with the undersigned Hearing Officer seeking either a continuance or other relief. The Petitioners and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers are inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida. On November 5, 1982, as Petitioner Rogers was being released from disciplinary confinement, he entered the laundry to obtain another pair of state issued pants, socks and underwear. The name tag was coming off of his jacket and because of this it was confiscated. He asked for another jacket and was told he could not be issued one. He was eventually issued another jacket which was also confiscated. For a period of time, Petitioner Rogers had no jacket for those times when he was required to walk and be outside in the cold. The laundry manager at Union Correctional Institution is responsible for the issue of all clothing to the prisoners. The manager follows Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82 in issuing clothing an Union Correctional Institution. That operating procedure provides in relevant part: 81-82.1 Purpose This memorandum is published as a guide in the issuance of inmate clothing, and the providing of laundry facilities for the inmate population. 81-82.2 Authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09 section 20.315 Department of Corrections Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6). 81-82.3 Clothing Issue Each inmate shall be issued the following clothing items: 3 each Blue Shirts 3 pairs Blue Trousers 1 each Web Belt 1 pair Boxer Shorts 1 pair Socks 1 pair Shoes, High Top. Inmates assigned to the Food Service Departments and Canteens shall be issued one additional suit of clothing because of their having to work on Sundays, enabling them to change clothing daily. 81-82.6 Special Issue Inmate Jackets are issued in October of each year and picked up for storage in April. An inmate may have his jacket laundered on any Friday. Hats, caps, and other special clothing items are issued to the Department Supervisor for distribution to the work squad. The Supervisor is responsible for those items of issue. 81-82.7 Miscellaneous Information The Laundry Manager/Clothing Officer shall maintain a record of the various clothing items issued to each inmate. If clothing issue is abused, either through neglect or by intent, the officer will initiate appropriate action. The official inmate uniform throughout the institution is issue blue shirt and trousers. Inmates assigned to the following areas are issued white shirts and trousers in lieu of the regular blue uniform: Food Service Administration Building Workers Main Gate Workers Utility Man on each Close Supervision Squad (For Identification) Canteen Workers. Each inmate who turns in a jacket (at the end of winter) shall be issued a pair of hemmed walking shorts for wearing on the athletic field or after hours in the housing area. The manager was not aware of and has not utilized Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, in issuing clothing at Union Correctional Institution. That policy and procedure directive provides in relevant part: AUTHORITY: Section 20.315, 944.09 and 945.21, Florida Statutes Department of Corrections, Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Directive is to establish a uniform procedure for issuing inmate clothing and linens. This will enable the Department to control the costs of clothing and linens in a more economical manner. GENERAL: Appropriate internal measures will be taken by each operating location to implement the provisions of this Directive. It is the Department's expressed intent that all inmate clothing be appropriately fitted and suited for the environment and that Departmental facilities provide sufficient laundering facilities to ensure that appropriate health standards are maintained. The clothing and linen will be exchanged on a one for one basis after the initial issue. Should an inmate intentionally damage or destroy his/her uniforms, appropriate action should be taken by the Superintendent to reimburse the State, if possible. It is imperative that the custodial staff be well informed of the provisions of this Directive and any exceptions or deviations from this Policy set forth will have to be approved by the Regional Director. STANDARD CLOTHING ISSUE (MALE): Each male inmate may be issued the items of clothing and linen specified below. The phrase "Maximum Clothing Issue" is used in this Directive to permit the substitution of personal clothing or to permit the issuance of less than maximum quantities where appropriate. Unless otherwise designated, the inmate will not have excess clothing and linens in his possession. Each inmate will be responsible for the clothing and linen issued to him. Maximum Clothing Issue - Blues and Whites Items Quantity Shirts 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post Maximum Clothing Issue - Other Items Items Quantity Undershorts 3 pairs Undershirts/T shirts 3 Socks 2 pairs (changed daily) Belt with Buckle 1 Shoes 1 pair Jacket (winter only) 1 Long underwear (winter only for outside detail) 2 Regions III, IV and V may substitute two sweatshirts for two pairs of long underwear for winter use. E. Clothing - Special Items such as food service linens, coverall's aprons, cooks' caps, gloves, rubber boots, raincoats, athletic uniforms, barber and butcher jackets, straw hats and safety helmets shall be considered tools of the trade and will be issued directly to the department requiring them. The superintendent will, on recommendation and justification by department head, determine what items are to be purchased and issued to inmate. All items issued on a departmental basis that can be appropriately marked shall have the standardized department initials stenciled on the item. It will be the responsibility of the superintendent to establish a laundry schedule for these items. Only those inmates who work outside for eight hours each day are issued long underwear during the winter months. The inmates do not go outside when the temperature is below 40 degrees. The laundry does not issue raincoats to the inmates. The raincoats are under industry inventory and each department can draw raincoats out of that inventory. The raincoats are paid for by the department drawing them out and the work supervisor from that department issues them to the inmates. Raincoats are sold in the canteen at Union Correctional Institution. The laundry stocks long underwear but no longer stocks T-shirts. The laundry does not stock sweatshirts. There are two types of blue uniforms. The laundry issues coveralls to special jobs but no coveralls are issued to inmates personally. It is within the laundry manager's discretion as to when he issues new clothing as opposed to used clothing. It is the laundry manager's responsibility to remain within his budget for the year. T-shirts are not included in the list of clothing issue items in Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82. This may be due in part to budget restrictions. T-shirts are included in the "maximum clothing issue" list in Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13. Practically every inmate in Union Correctional Institution is required to go outside in order to go to work or to school. The inmates must also go outside in order to go to the chow hall or the clinic. The west unit is approximately a 4 or 5 minute walk from the chow hall. Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82 is signed and issued by the Superintendent of UCI and cites as its authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09, Section 20.315, and Rule 3303.02(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent has not contested the fact that the operating procedure was not promulgated in accordance with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. There was no evidence presented as to the procedures followed in adopting the Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jean Colden (Colder), was employed full time by Respondent, Department of Corrections (Department), as an Accountant II at Broward Correctional Institution. The evidence establishes that Colden was absent without authorized leave on three consecutive workdays, to wit: October 1-3, 1985. At no time did Colden notify the Department of her intention not to appear for work on those dates, and at hearing she offered no explanation for her absences. By certified letter dated October 4, 1985, return receipt requested, Colden was advised that her absence from work since October 1, 1985, was unauthorized and that, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2), F.A.C., she was deemed to have abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. The letter further advised Colden of her right to petition the Department of Administration for a review of the facts, and whether they constitute abandonment. Colden timely petitioned the Department of Administration for review On November 5, 1985, he Department of Administration accepted Colden's petition and requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the final hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Teresa D. Mejico, was certified as a correctional officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, on February 17, 1988, and issued certificate number 03-87-502-02. At approximately 2:45 a.m., on October 3, 1988, respondent, while employed as a correctional officer at the Broward Correctional Institute, was observed by her supervisor leaning on her desk in the officer's station at Dormitory H-4. Sitting in a chair at respondent's side was Inmate Deronda Lemmonds, who was observed holding respondent's right arm, and kissing, licking and nuzzling it, while her right hand was between respondent's legs in the area of her crotch. Respondent was immediately relieved of duty, and later that day was discharged from her employment at Broward Correctional Institute for her failure to comply with Florida Department of Corrections Rule 33-4.002(28), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides: Employees shall maintain a professional relationship with all persons in the custody or under supervision of the Department, and their immediate family or visitors. No personal or business relationships are permitted. Marriage between employees and inmates is prohibited. That respondent was fully aware of the foregoing rule, and the standard of conduct it established, cannot be gainsaid for she acknowledged such at hearing. Notwithstanding such knowledge, however, respondent persisted in fostering the personal relationship which existed between her and Inmate Lemmonds despite denials to her superintendent that any such relationship existed and counseling from her superintendent to avoid any such relationships. Following the termination of her employment at Broward Correctional Institute, respondent maintained contact with Inmate Lemmonds through the mail and by telephone, and variously expressed her affection and love for the inmate. On one occasion, she mailed the inmate 20-25 photographs of herself, including some photographs that captured respondent in partially nude and suggestive poses. In all, the proof demonstrated that respondent was romantically involved with Inmate Lemmonds while she was employed at Broward Correctional Institute, and continued to be so involved as of the date of hearing. It further demonstrated that she was untruthful with her superintendent, failed to abide the rules of conduct for correctional officers, and neglected her duty to guard Dormitory H-4 while engaged in a liaison with an inmate under her charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking respondent' s certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of May 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6410 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. 5-9. Not material or not necessary to result reached. 10-14. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teresa D. Mejico 7502 S.W. 5th Street North Lauderdale, Florida 33068 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Alachua County Detention and Corrections Department (Exhibit 9) consists of 50 full-time employees (Exhibit 17). Authorized personnel spaces include the Correctional Director, the Correctional Assistant Administrator, the Correctional Inmate Consultant, the Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant, a Correctional Officer V, a Correctional Officer IV, six Correctional Officers III, five Correctional Officers II, and thirty Correctional Officers I (see Exhibit 10). Also authorized are a Secretary III who is the secretary to the Director, three Food Service Employees and one Accounting Clerk I. Alachua County has a total of about 786 County employees, including constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Tax Appraiser, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections and the County Commission Staff. This figure includes 91 professional employees. If employees of constitutional officers were excluded from a single bargaining unit for the County, such a unit would consist of 360 employees. The County is under a unified pay plan for all county employees. It retains the services of a pay plan consultant who does an annual review of pay, job descriptions and duties of all county employees. It also has a unified classification plan and personnel regulations that govern salaries, work hours, vacation, sick leave, leaves of absence and the like (Exhibits 10,11). The County Administrator is the chief executive officer for the county and, with respect to the Department of Corrections, supervises basic policies and budgetary functions. The department budget is proposed by the Director of the Department, submitted to the County Administrator for review and corrections, and then approved by the County Commission. The Director implements the plan and can change line items only by permission of the County Administrator and the County Commission. The only history of prior collective bargaining in the county was recognition of the Sheriff's office on or about May, 1972. The Police Benevolent Association is the bargaining agent for that unit. The position of the County at this time is that it is a co-employer with the Sheriff as to that unit. The current contract with sworn personnel includes about 133 employees. The Police Benevolent Association declined to be included in a county-wide unit of county employees. Alachua County is the subject of special state legislation which permits it to manage funds allocated to constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of Circuit Court, Tax Assessor, and Tax Collector for the county (Exhibits 12-15). The functions of the Corrections Department include the detention of persons awaiting criminal trial, care and housing of prisoners serving sentences, work release and school release programs, classification and diagnostic services, recommendations to the court for referrals to these programs and recommendations for diversionary programs. Unlike most counties, the Corrections Department does not operate within or under the office of the Sheriff. The Department is conducting a modern concept in rehabilitation of offenders through a variety of programs which are designed to re-orient prisoners for more useful lives. To this end, the department secures grants which enable it to fulfill some of these functions. In hiring personnel, it looks for those who have a high school degree and preferably some college work in the social services area. When forming the department in 1973, most of the employees hired came "off the street", although some came from the office of the Sheriff and from other county departments. Correctional Officers carry identification as Special Deputies which empowers them to detain people for corrections only. This status is unique to them. They wear a modified uniform consisting of a blazer, slacks and tie. Correctional Officers carry arms in transporting prisoners to and from court and in supervising their recreational activities outside the correctional facility. The department has tried to get away from a chain of command concept to lessen a law enforcement image. Although it has done away with military titles there are still some personnel who use military titles such as Sergeant and Lieutenant in addressing personnel. Employees of the department have their most continuing contacts with the Sheriff's office because they are in the same building and have similar interests in connection with county prisoners. The Correctional Director is responsible to the County Administrator for all activities, operations and functions of the department. His duties include fiscal, plant, manpower planning, management, organization, staff selection and supervision, policy formulation, the establishment of programs for the department, and for the operation and maintenance of the detention center. He alone has the authority to hire, discharge, promote or discipline personnel of the department. He formulates the budget which is submitted through the County Administrator of the County Commission. He is assisted in the hiring process by a panel which includes himself or the Assistant Administrator, another department employee and either the inmate consultant or a faculty member from the University of Florida. The Assistant Administrator assists the Director by making recommendations as to departmental policy, securing grant applications,. and formulating departmental programs. He also makes recommendations to the Director as to personnel matters and assists in fiscal matters. The Director holds periodic staff meetings at which the Correctional Officers IV and V usually attend. The Correctional Officer V is the Commander of the Detention Center and is thus responsible for direct supervision of all personnel and operations at that facility. He carries out operational policy established by the Director in the form of orders and memoranda. He makes budget recommendations to the Director as to necessary equipment but is not directly involved in the budget process. He makes recommendations to the Director concerning all personnel actions affecting the Detention Center, to include leaves, promotions or terminations. He exercises direct supervision over the Correctional Officer IV and the shift commanders (Correctional Officer III). The Correctional Officer IV is under the general supervision of the Detention Center commander and is responsible for supervision of all logistical and support services of the center. He also assists the Commander in maintaining communication and coordination among shift commanders. He serves as the Acting Commander in the absence of the Correctional Officer V. The Correctional Officers III have direct supervision of Correctional Officers I and II in the operation of the center and related programs. They serve as shift commanders for three shifts of 8 1/2 hours a day each. Correctional Officers I and II perform essentially the same duties which involve primary responsibility to maintain physical custody and control of prisoners within the detention facility and while transporting inmates. Their secondary responsibility is support of program goals through communication and observation of behavior and inmate attitude which is reported to the shift commander or treatment staff. The Correctional Officer II also assists in supervision and on the job training for new employees. In the absence of the shift commander, the Correctional Officer II becomes responsible for the functions of the Detention Center and supervision of correctional officers on duty on that shift. The Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant is preferably an ex-offender who initiates programs and activities for the prisoner population, including various sports and games, competitions among the inmates, and assists the Correctional Inmate Consultant. The Correctional Inmate Consultant is a member of the personal staff of the Director. It is his responsibility to spend great portions of his workday in direct contact with the inmate population and to advise the Director on matters pertaining to the well-being, health, sanitation and programming activities of the inmates. He assists individual inmates with their problems and makes recommendations to the director concerning work release, furloughs, extra "gain time" and, in certain instances, disciplinary matters. He attends all staff meetings except those involving departmental personnel and advises the Director on matters relating to policies of the department with reference to inmate treatment and control. He is an ex-inmate and, in general, advises on the institutional climate. The Food Service personnel are cooks who prepare food for the institution in the cafeteria. They report to the Correctional Officer IV. The Secretary III is the secretary to the director of the department who handles confidential matters for him, including meeting agendas, taking and transcribing dictation, minutes of meetings, conferences and other activities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was incarcerated at Union Correctional Institition within the custody and control of the Department of Corrections. On or about March 1, 1983, Petitioner submitted a request to be admitted to the Mutual Participation Program, also known as ''Contract Parole." Thereafter, Petitioner was considered for eligibility for that program by a classification specialist employed by the Department of Corrections and a parole examiner employed by the Parole and Probation Commission. On April 22, 1983, these two officials recommended against Petitioner's request based on Petitioner's "extensive criminal history," "history of drug abuse in the past," his escape from minimum custody while a patient at the Veteran's Administration hospital in Gainesville in December of 1979, and his involvement in a prison disturbance at Marion Correctional Institute in 1978. Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative code, entitled Mutual participation Program was first adopted by Respondent on September 10, 1981. Respondent conducted rulemaking proceedings in 1982 which resulted in amendments to various portions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code. These amendments became effective October 1, 1982. During the course of the rulemaking proceeding, Respondent published notice of the proposed changes in the Florida Administrative Weekly and, in addition, forwarded copies of the proposed changes to all Department of Corrections offices, including each correctional institution. The record in this cause is unclear as to whether these proposed changes were ever posted in the law library or other office at Union Correctional Institution. Petitioner contends that he was never afforded notice of the proposed amendments to Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, and library officials at Union Correctional Institution do not specifically recall ever having seen such proposed amendments. There are no facts of record in this proceeding from which it could be concluded with any certainty whether any of the provisions of Chapter 23-20, Florida Administrative Code, either as it was initially adopted or as it was amended effective October 1, 1982, were applied to Petitioner's request for participation in that program.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, Respondent was licensed by the Florida Division of Real Estate under license number 0202980. On January 16, 1986, Respondent, represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty before the Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to a charge of being involved in a scheme to defraud to obtain money by false pretenses by U.S. Mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 & 1342, and conspiracy to defraud to obtain money by false pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. Respondent was found guilty as per his plea and was sentenced, inter alia, to imprisonment in a United States Penitentiary for 4 years on the first count and for 1 year on the second, the terms to run consecutively. Respondent surrendered to authorities at the Federal Prison Camp, Leavenworth, Kansas, on May 5, 1986, and is presently incarcerated there.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 William J. Hogan 25392-004 B-2 Post Office Box 1000 L.V.C. Leavenworth, Kansas 66048 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
