Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the finding relevant factual findings. Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (CJSTC) on June 4, 1982 and was issued Certificate No. 02-31518. During the fall of 1984, the Miami Police Department Street Narcotics Unit became involved in a criminal investigation which implicated Respondent, Respondent's brother, Jorge Orellana and Respondent's brother-in-law, Juan Carlos Fernandez. During times material herein, Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Miami Police Department. Vice officers assigned to the narcotics unit wear plain clothes and drive unmarked vehicles. The Miami Police Department initiated the above investigation in response to information furnished by the Miami Beach Police Department. In carrying out its investigation, the Miami Beach Police Department placed a pen register 1/ on the telephone registered to Juan Carlos Fernandez based on his suspected narcotics trafficking. The pen register placed on Mr. Fernandez' telephone indicated in excess of 100 calls per week to Respondent's telephone. In furtherance of the Miami Police Department's investigation, Sergeant John Dalton of the Street Narcotics Unit, as well as several other officers, began covert observations of Respondent's residence in an effort to gather further evidence which would support a wiretap application. Respondent lived at the duplex with his wife and his brother Jorge. During the investigation, Metro-Dade Police Department officers arrested Respondent's brother on a narcotics trafficking related charge. He was released on bail. Respondent was aware of his brother's arrest and release. On October 30, 1984, the Miami Police Department Street Narcotics Unit was conducting a covert surveillance of Respondent's residence. One of the unit officers, Betancourt, was stationed in an unmarked van approximately one-half block from the Respondent's home. Respondent suspected the van to be an unmarked police van and, accompanied by his brother Jorge, walked over to the van and tried to peer inside and put his hands on the hood of the vehicle. During another occasion subsequent to the above occasion, while Sergeant Dalton was attempting to conduct a covert surveillance of the Orellana home, Juan Carlos Fernandez drove by and waved at Sergeant Dalton. The two had never met. On another occasion, Fernandez drove up to Sergeant Dalton's unmarked police vehicle and held his hands up in such a fashion as to simulate taking a picture of Sergeant Dalton with a camera. George Lopez, one of the narcotic unit members, determined that the unit was being countersurveilled during the investigation based on the conduct of Respondent, his brother and brother-in- law. On December 14, 1984, the narcotics unit again conducted a covert surveillance of the Orellana home. On that date, Officer Betancourt sat in an unmarked car parked in a parking lot across the street from the Orellana home. Respondent and his brother-in-law stood in front of the Orellana home and looked in the direction of Officer Betancourt's vehicle. Soon thereafter, the two walked across the street and over to Officer Betancourt's vehicle. Officer Betancourt attempted to conceal himself by lying down on the seat, but the two knocked on the window and insisted that he roll the window down. Respondent knew that Officer Betancourt was a police officer and asked what Officer Betancourt was doing. Officer Betancourt told the two that he was on a surveillance in a purse snatching investigation. Respondent knew Fernandez, who accompanied him to Betancourt's vehicle, was involved in illegal narcotics activity. Later that same day, Respondent's brother, Jorge Orellana, was observed leaving the Orellana residence by members of the narcotics unit. Members of the surveillance team, in several vehicles, followed Jorge Orellana in a covert manner in an effort to learn his destination and the identity of his associates. Moments after the team began to follow Jorge Orellana, Respondent hurriedly got into his personal car and joined the group of unmarked police cars following Jorge Orellana in an effort to "run interference" for Jorge Orellana. Jorge Orellana appeared unaware that he was being followed by unmarked police cars. Respondent, however, appeared acutely aware that the unmarked police cars were following his brother, Jorge Orellana. Respondent attempted to interfere with the surveillance by interposing his car between his brother's and the officers' cars and then fluctuating his speed to prevent them from following his brother. Thereafter, Respondent, while still attempting to interfere with the surveillance, waved over the lead surveillance car driven by Officer George Lopez. Sergeant Dalton, concluding that Respondent's actions had compromised the covert nature of the moving surveillance, directed Officer Lopez via police radio to comply with Respondent's wishes and pull over. When the two cars came to a stop, Respondent got out of his car and walked over to Officer Lopez' car and inquired why he was following his brother. Officer Lopez replied that it was none of his (Respondent's) business. Sergeant Dalton arrived on the scene moments later and identified himself to Respondent. Respondent was ordered by Sergeant Dalton to report to the Miami Police Department Internal Security Unit, a unit designated to investigate cases of officer misconduct. Sergeant Terrence Sparrow of the Miami Police Department Internal Security Section interviewed Respondent subsequent to receiving a complaint from Sergeant Dalton that Respondent had "burned" surveillances. Prior to questioning Respondent, Sergeant Sparrow advised Respondent of his constitutional rights under the Miranda decision. Thereafter, Respondent admitted that his brother-in-law, Juan Carlos Fernandez, had given him the tag numbers of vehicles which he, Fernandez, suspected police were using to surveil the Orellana residence. Respondent admitted checking the police garage for vehicles displaying the tag numbers given him by his brother-in- law and running computer checks on tag numbers supplied by his brother. Additionally, Respondent admitted that he approached a police surveillance vehicle in the company of his brother with knowledge that it was occupied by a police officer. Respondent also admits that he provided the information obtained from the tag numbers of vehicles supplied by his brother to his wife, who in turn probably gave the information to his brother-in-law, Fernandez. The police department parking garage where undercover vehicles park is accessible only to police officers. Likewise, police computer services which identify registered owners of vehicles are cross-referenced to license tag numbers is only available to police officers. Respondent did not appear at the hearing, although his counsel was present and represented Respondent by cross- examining witnesses who appeared on behalf of Petitioner and by advancing argument on Respondent's behalf.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's law enforcement Certification No. 02-31518 be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 24th day of July, 1987.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are true, and, if so, what disciplinary penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified by the Petitioner as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate 267907. At all times material to this case, the City of Sarasota, Florida, employed the Respondent as a law enforcement officer. On the night of January 4, 2010, the Respondent was on duty, riding in a patrol car driven by her work partner, Officer Coppinger. The patrol car contained a laptop computer that was connected to the Florida Driver and Vehicle identification Database (DAVID), a law enforcement database. The DAVID system is not accessible to the public. At the time of logging into the DAVID system, users are advised by a warning screen that the system is restricted to authorized personnel for appropriate law enforcement purposes. Usage of the system for personal purposes is specifically prohibited. An officer accessing the DAVID system must affirmatively acknowledge an understanding of the usage policy prior to initiating research. On the night of January 4, 2010, Officer Coppinger was logged into the DAVID system. The laptop computer is available to both officers in the patrol car. While on duty, the Respondent received a telephone call from her cousin, "Whizz," who told the Respondent of an alleged threat of arson against the Respondent's family by a man identified as "Terrance Bryant." The Respondent did not report the threat to Officer Coppinger or to any other law enforcement officer or agency. Instead, the Respondent immediately accessed the DAVID system in an effort to identify Terrance Bryant's residential address. The Respondent was sufficiently familiar with Terrance Bryant to use a variety of family names and spellings in the search. The Respondent also used information about Terrance Bryant's girlfriend, with whom the Respondent was also familiar, to the extent that the girlfriend had listed the Respondent as a reference on her own application for employment with the Sarasota Police Department. After extensive research in the DAVID system on January 4, 2010, the Respondent obtained the residential address for Terrance Bryant. The Respondent and Whizz met on January 5, 2010, at the Respondent's home to handle some household errands. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondent provided Terrance Bryant's residential address to Whizz at that time. The evidence is insufficient to clearly establish how Whizz obtained the address, but, by the time Whizz left the Respondent's home on that date, he possessed Terrance Bryant's residential address.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order suspending the Respondent's correctional certificate for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Based on all the evidence, the following facts are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Glenn C. Mingledorff, was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-25390 on June 13, 1980. When the events herein occurred, Mingledorff was employed as a uniformed highway patrolman with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). He resigned from the FHP effective October 26, 1984 and is no longer in the law enforcement profession. Shortly after midnight on February 5, 1983, respondent was on duty in Palm Beach County. When the following events occurred he was transporting two DWI arrestees to a local Palm Beach County jail. While driving north on I-95, he observed a vehicle with three occupants swerve into the lane in front of him. After tailing the vehicle a short distance, and noticing that it was "swerving" on occasion, Mingledorff stopped the vehicle. The driver was Nancy Lynn Pearson, a young female whose speech was slurred, and who smelled of alcohol. She was arrested for suspected driving under the influence of alcohol. Mingledorff drove her to a nearby "Batmobile" where she was given a breathalyzer test and asked to perform certain coordination tests. While these tests were being performed, Mingledorff transported the two male arrestees to a local jail. Pearson "blew" a .14 on the breathalyzer machine, which was above the .10 legal limits, and did not "adequately" perform the coordination tests. When Mingledorff returned to the Batmobile approximately an hour and a half later, he handcuffed Pearson with her hands in the front, and placed her in the back seat of his FHP car. He then drove Pearson to the Lake Worth women's facility which was approximately twenty minutes away. During the trip to the facility, Pearson began to cry, and Mingledorff attempted to comfort her by explaining what would happen after she reached the facility. He also told her she was "sweet" and "cute," that she had a "nice shape," and suggested that they might go out sometime in the future for dinner. When the two arrived at the Lake Worth facility, it was between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. in the morning. Mingledorff parked the car approximately twenty feet from the entrance to the jail. He then let Pearson out of the car, and after she had walked a few feet, told her he had to frisk her. Although the testimony is conflicting at this point, the more credible and persuasive testimony establishes the following version of events. Mingledorff asked her to extend her handcuffed hands to the front, and then reached down to her ankles and began patting her up the front side of her legs. When he got to her crotch, he "felt around" for a few seconds. Mingledorff then went up to her breasts and squeezed them momentarily. After going to her back side, he squeezed her buttocks during the pat-down process. Pearson did not say anything while Mingledorff frisked her, nor did she say anything when she was taken into the jail. However, about a month later she saw a highway patrolman named Davis at a local speedway, who she mistook for Mingledorff, and complained to him about the frisk. Davis then told local FHP officials. Mingledorff stated that he routinely frisked all arrestees for weapons and drugs, regardless of whether they were male or female. However, through credible testimony it was shown that a "hands-on" search of a female detainee by Mingledorff was inappropriate under the circumstances and contrary to FHP policy. More specifically, it was established that a female detainee is not searched by a male trooper unless the trooper "feels there's a threat to his well-being." Here there was none. Mingledorff should have taken only her purse and any other belongings and left the responsibility of frisking the prisoner to the female attendant at the jail. On the afternoon of May 23, 1984, respondent was on duty as a highway patrolman on I-95 in Palm Beach County. He came up on a vehicle which had spun around in a near-accident and was facing on-coming traffic. The vehicle was operated by Siham Caceres, a then unmarried young female. Caceres was extremely nervous and upset from her near-accident, and was unable to drive her vehicle to the side of the road. Mingledorff directed her to sit in the right front seat of his patrol car until she was calm enough to proceed on her trip. The two sat in his car for approximately ten minutes or so. During that time, Mingledorff, who was in the driver's seat, acknowledged that he briefly reached over and touched Caceres' arm to generate her "circulation." Although he denied any other contact, it is found that Caceres' testimony is more credible and that Mingledorff then reached inside Caceres' sun dress and rubbed her breasts. He also rubbed her crotch area momentarily. Caceres did not encourage or consent to this activity. She did not receive a ticket and was allowed to leave a few minutes later. Caceres did not immediately tell anyone about the incident since she was embarrassed, and she was fearful her brothers would "get" Mingledorff if they learned what had hap- pened. She later told her fiancee, who then reported the matter to FHP officials.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondents' Class B, Class D, Class G and Class MB security licenses should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of private security guards and guard agencies in Florida. Respondent held a Class B Security Agency license, a Class D Security Officer license, a Class G Statewide Firearm license, and a Class MB Security Agency Manager license, all issued pursuant to and under the restrictions contained within the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Though the Class B Security Agency license was issued in the name of Alert Security Services, in reality, Respondent Maraia was the proprietor and operator of the agency under the license. Peter F. Walker was employed as the assistant manager of the 7 - 11 convenience store in Indian Shores, Florida on July 21, 1993. About 11:30 PM, that evening, he observed Respondent in the store about 8 to 20 feet away, wearing his security guard uniform shirt with khaki shorts. A patch on the shoulder of the shirt bore the logo, "Alert Security." As another customer was checking out, Mr. Walker heard a gunshot and then something hitting the floor. At this point, only Mr. Walker, his customer, and the Respondent were in the store. When Walker asked the Respondent about it, Respondent replied that a customer had come up behind him and was trying to take Respondent's weapon from the holster he had stuck in the waistband in the back of his shorts. Respondent claimed that when this happened, the clip from the weapon fell to the floor and one round in the clip went off. Later on, however, Respondent claimed the weapon had dropped and fired when it hit the floor. As Mr. Walker remembers it, however, he heard the shot before anything hit the floor. Patrolman Angela Cole had just pulled into the 7 - 11 parking lot late on the evening of July 21, 1993 when she heard a pop - as if someone had run over a bottle. She checked around the area and seeing nothing unusual, went into the store where she saw the clerk and the Respondent, whom she knew. Respondent was wearing a security badge and carrying a 9 mm weapon in plain view. When Cole spoke with Respondent and asked him why he wasn't in proper security guard uniform, because his dress that evening was not consistent with his usual security uniform, he indicated he was not feeling well. In response to her inquiry regarding the noise she had heard, and why he had the weapon in plain view, Respondent claimed he had dropped his weapon and he and the clerk were joking about it. At this point, however, Respondent seemed nervous and didn't want to discuss the matter further. Also about the same time, Patrolman Vance Nussbaum, of the Indian Shores Police Department entered the store to see Respondent, who had his 9 mm weapon in plain view and was wearing a security badge, engaged in conversation with the store clerk. The pistol was in a holster tucked into Respondent's pants in the back. Nussbaum took hold of the gun and shook it and then chastened Respondent for poor gun safety. At that point, Respondent indicated someone had just hit the magazine release on the weapon and the magazine fell to the floor. That individual was no longer in the area, however. Taken together, it is clear that on the evening in question, Respondent's 9 mm pistol, which was in his possession at the time, was somehow discharged. No report of this weapon discharge was ever filed with the Division, however. On May 23, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to the Holiday Villas II in Indian Shores. Upon his arrival at the scene, he saw June Hawks, who he knew to be a part-time security guard employed by Respondent, on duty in the resort's parking lot after a fire alarm had been sounded. This same activity was also observed, the following day, by E. D. Williams, Chief of the Indian Shores Police Department who presumed Ms. Hawks was working for Respondent. Chief Williams drew this conclusion because he had seen Respondent doing this work at the resort the night before and assumed the same firm was still in charge. On August 2, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to a Pick-Kwick in Madiera Beach based on a call about a drunk individual which call had come in to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office from an individual who described himself as Chris "Myers", a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. It is found that Chris "Myers" is, in actuality, the Respondent, Christopher Maraia, who had represented himself as a reserve police officer. This call was sent out to street units for response, thereby impacting on police operations in the area. When Nussbaum arrived at the scene, he observed Respondent, fully dressed in the uniform of a security guard, with patches, badge and weapon, in the company of a Madiera Beach Police Officer. At one time, Respondent had been a reserve officer with the Indian Shores Police Department but that status had terminated in December 1992. Keith Stillwagen had been employed by Mr. Maraia, off and on, for several years, but worked for him primarily as a security guard at the 34th Street Food Lion market in St. Petersburg between January and March, 1993. He was hired by Mr. Maraia personally, and the identification card Maraia issued to him bore Maraia's signature and license number. This employment was not reported to the Division as required. These allegations were investigated by Gary Floyd, an investigator with the Department of State, who initially interviewed Respondent regarding the alleged hiring of Ms. Hawks and Mr. Stillwagen. In a sworn statement to the investigator, Respondent indicated Alert Security Services had hired Stillwagen on weekends from January to March, 1993, and had also employed Hawks on holidays between April and June, 1993. He admitted that the firm did not notify the Department of State about the hirings and could give "no good reason" for failing to do so as required. In another sworn statement given to Investigator Floyd, Respondent indicated he had worked at Holiday Villas II on July 21, 1993 and had, while out of uniform but wearing a badge on his belt, visited a nearby 7 - 11 store. He admitted that at the time he had a 9 mm pistol with him and it had accidentally discharged when he dropped it. Respondent denied anyone had grabbed for the weapon. He did not report the discharge. On August 9, 1993, Floyd took a third statement from Respondent in which he admitted making the call about the drunk and initially indicating he was a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. He acknowledged this was not a true statement in that he had not held that status for a year and a half at the time. The following day, August 10, 1993, Respondent reiterated his statement to Floyd that he had been at the 7 - 11 when leaving a duty station and claimed he was not in uniform at the time. While he may not have been in full uniform, other credible evidence of record indicates he was dressed in a uniform shirt which bore the patch of his security guard; was displaying a security officer's badge; and was armed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case, dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, but finding Respondent, Maraia, guilty of Counts III, V and VI thereof and Respondent, Alert Security Services, guilty of Count I. It is also recommended that the Class "D", "G", and "MB" security licenses held by Respondents, Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. be revoked; that the C lass "B" license held by Respondent, Alert Security Services, be suspended for one year; and that Respondents jointly and severally pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Stop 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. Alert Security Services 15518 Redington Drive, Redington Beach, Florida 33708 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer and issued him certificate number 02-31445 on March 26, 1982. At all times material to this proceeding, the Virginia Gardens Police Department, Virginia Gardens, Florida, employed Respondent as a reserve or part- time police officer. During the ten years that he had been employed in that capacity, Respondent's certification had never been disciplined. Respondent also was part owner of the "Gun Doc", a gunsmith business in Dade County. On January 14, 1992, Respondent was working in his private capacity collecting weapons for repair and restoration from his customers. About 2:00 p.m., Respondent was enroute to his part-time business, traveling south on the Palmetto Expressway. He was driving his personal vehicle, a black convertible Mustang. The weather was clear, sunny, and dry. The Palmetto Expressway is a divided asphalt and concrete road which runs north and south with four (4) lanes in each direction in most places. On January 14, 1995, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Metro-Dade Police Department (MDPD) Sergeant John Petri was driving an unmarked undercover vehicle, a grey and white Chevolet Blazer, south on the Palmetto Expressway. Around the 102nd Street and the Palmetto Expressway intersection, the Respondent's vehicle approached Sergeant Petri from the rear at a high rate of speed that was substantially over the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The traffic in the area was heavy at the time. Sergeant Petri braced himself for impact because he felt he would be hit by Respondent's vehicle. At the last moment, in a sudden move, Respondent's vehicle swerved around Sergeant Petri to the left. Sergeant Petri maintained visual contact with the Respondent's vehicle as it continued south on the Palmetto Expressway and through the intersection of South River Road. Respondent's vehicle was weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off cars, pulling behind others at a high rate of speed and slamming on his brakes. Respondent used the right shoulder of the road as a passing lane even though the traffic was flowing smoothly and there were no obstacles blocking the roadway. MDPD rules and regulations prohibit officers in unmarked cars from making traffic stops. Consequently, Sergeant Petri dispatched Respondent's vehicle tag number to the MDPD communication center and requested that a uniform unit or a trooper stop Respondent. Meanwhile, Respondent's vehicle came up behind Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent Pierre Charette at a high rate of speed. Special Agent Charette saw that Respondent's vehicle was being trailed by a Bronco/Blazer type vehicle. Special Agent Charette, driving an undercover DEA vehicle, thought he was going to be struck by the Respondent's vehicle but Respondent's vehicle suddenly swerved avoiding a collision. Next, Respondent's vehicle came over into Special Agent Charette's lane almost causing a collision with other cars. Respondent's vehicle and Sergeant Petri passed Special Agent Charette and continued southward on Palmetto Expressway. Around 74th Street, the traffic on Palmetto Expressway became more congested. At that point, Respondent's vehicle was in the right lane. A guardrail was to his right. Due to the approaching overpass, Respondent was forced to slow down. Sergeant Petri, driving in the right center lane, pulled up along the left side of the Respondent's vehicle. Both vehicles came to a rolling stop. The driver's window of Respondent's vehicle was down. Sergeant Petri put the passenger's window down on his undercover car. After showing his gold badge, Sergeant Petri identified himself as a police officer and told Respondent to slow down. Respondent made eye contact with Sergeant Petri but did not give a verbal response. Instead, Respondent made a gesture with his middle finger. Sergeant Petri did not get out of his vehicle. As Special Agent Charette drove past Respondent and Sergeant Petri, he noticed that the individual in a grey and white Chevolet Blazer was holding up what appeared to be law enforcement credentials. Believing that everything was under control, Special Agent Charette continued south on the Palmetto Expressway. When traffic in front of him began to move, Respondent began passing cars by pulling onto the right shoulder of the road. At one point, the rear end of Respondent's vehicle began to fishtail when he was on the grassy dirt area of the road's shoulder. Special Agent Charette noticed Respondent's vehicle approaching from the rear again. Respondent almost caused a collision with other cars when he cut in front of Special Agent Charette's vehicle. Between the 74th Street and 58th Street intersection, Special Agent Charette turned on his lights and siren and began to pursue Respondent. Respondent zigzagged in and out of traffic with Special Agent Charette following about two (2) car lengths behind. In response to Special Agent Charette's lights and siren, other cars moved out of the way. Respondent exited the Palmetto Expressway at the 58th Street intersection. He was aware that Special Agent Charette was behind him. Sergeant Petri lost visual contact with Respondent as he made the exit. Respondent headed west on 58th Street which is an asphalt and concrete roadway with a total of five (5) lanes; the center lane is a middle turning lane. Special Agent Charette followed Respondent at speeds of 50 to 80 miles per hour. Special Agent Charette and Sergeant Petri routinely use the 58th Street exit when traveling to their respective offices. Respondent zigzagged around traffic and ran a red traffic light at the intersection of 58th Street and 79th Avenue almost causing another accident. Special Agent Charette hesitated at that intersection to avoid colliding with other automobiles then followed Respondent at speeds of 45 to 50 miles per hour. Respondent turned south on 82nd Avenue and went into a warehouse area. He parked in the first space in front of his business, The Gun Doc. Special Agent Charette followed and blocked the entrance to The Gun Doc with his light and siren still activated. Respondent got out of his vehicle, looked at Special Agent Charette and started to go inside The Gun Doc. Special Agent Charette displayed his credentials and badge and identified himself verbally as a federal narcotics law enforcement agent. Special Agent Charette advised Respondent that Metro police were on the way. Respondent responded derogatorily and went into The Gun Doc. Special Agent Charette notified DEA dispatch of his exact location and need for backup from Metro police. He also requested a tag check on Respondent's vehicle. Meanwhile, DEA Special Agents Lewis Perry and John Fernandez were monitoring their DEA radio in close proximity to The Gun Doc. They asked Special Agent Charette whether he needed assistance and went to the scene in an unmarked government vehicle. When they arrived at the scene, the blue light on Special Agent Charette's dashboard was still on. After their arrival, Respondent came out of The Gun Doc and asked who they were. Special Agents Perry and Fernandez identified themselves as federal agents with DEA and at least one of them showed his credentials. Respondent again responded derogatorily and went back into his business. At approximately 2:00 p.m. on January 14, 1992, United States Marshal Lorenzo Menendez was traveling in his unmarked vehicle on the 836 Expressway heading toward the Palmetto area. He was returning to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) office in the Koger Executive Center. Marshal Menendez had two (2) radios in his vehicle and was scanning the DEA and MDPD radio frequencies. He heard Sergeant Petri requesting help. Later the Marshal heard that the subject vehicle had exited Palmetto Expressway at 58th Street. He also heard Special Agent Charette asking for help and learned the address of The Gun Doc as the address of the vehicle's owner. Marshal Menendez responded to the calls for help. When he arrived at The Gun Doc, Special Agents Charette, Perry and Fernandez were already there waiting outside next to their cars. When Respondent came out of his shop and approached his vehicle, Marshal Menendez walked up to Respondent's vehicle. With his silver star badge hanging around his neck and his photo identification in his hand, Marshal Menendez verbally identified himself as a U.S. Marshal. Respondent told Marshal Menendez that he too was a police officer but refused to show his credentials. About the time that Marshal Menendez and Respondent began to converse, Sergeant Petri arrived at the scene. The MDPD dispatcher had given him the address of The Gun Doc as the address of the owner of the black convertible Mustang. Respondent objected when Marshal Menendez looked in Respondent's car. Without any threat or provocation, Respondent shoved Marshal Menendez by placing both hands on the Marshal's chest causing him to fall backwards. Marshal Menendez then advised Respondent that he was under arrest and attempted to handcuff him. Respondent reacted by refusing to obey the Marshal's commands and trying to break free. Special Agents Charette, Perry, and Fernandez assisted Marshal Menendez in subduing and handcuffing Respondent who resisted by kicking, jerking, and thrashing about. When the struggle was over, Respondent was handcuffed face down on the ground. Respondent again informed the officers that he was a policeman. One of the officers took Respondent's badge and identification from his rear pocket. Respondent's Chief of Police arrived at the scene and asked that Respondent be allowed to get up. At that time, Respondent was not bleeding. However, his face and neck was bruised in the struggle to subdue him. The federal agents intended to charge Respondent with assault on federal officers. However, an assistant United States Attorney deferred to state charges of reckless driving and battery. upon a police officer. Respondent testified that when he first encountered Sergeant Petri and Special Agent Charette on the Palmetto Expressway, they were traveling in a convoy with a third vehicle and driving recklessly. He claims he did not know they were law enforcement officers. Respondent asserts that he had to drive defensively to escape them because he feared they were attempting to hijack the weapons in his possession. Respondent's testimony in this regard is less persuasive than evidence indicating that Respondent was driving recklessly before he encountered Sergeant Petri and Special Agent Charette. After Sergeant Petri identified himself as a policeman and Special Agent Charette turned on his siren and blue light, Respondent endangered the lives of others in an attempt to avoid being stopped. Upon arrival at his place of business, Respondent called 911 seeking assistance from a uniform unit. He also called his Chief of Police to ask for advice. Respondent's brother, David Pruitt, was in the shop when these calls were made. After making these calls, Respondent testified that he was attempting to keep Marshal Menendez from entering his vehicle when Marshal Menendez suddenly lunged and grabbed Respondent by the throat. The criminal trial testimony of Respondent's brother and of another criminal trial witness, Maribel Aguirre, tend to corroborate Respondent's version of the facts leading up to the altercation with Marshal Menendez. However, the undersigned finds the testimony of Respondent, his brother and Ms. Aguirre less persuasive in this regard than the testimony of Marshal Menendez, Sergeant Petri, and Special Agents Perry and Fernandez, supported by the criminal trial testimony of Special Agent Charette. Clear and convincing record evidence indicates that Respondent was guilty of reckless driving and battery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's certification and the privilege of employment as a law enforcement officer for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of April 1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.- 3 Accepted in paragraphs 1-2. 4 - 6 Accepted in paragraphs 3-4. 7 - 16 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 5-8. 17 - 22 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 9-12. 23 - 32 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 14-17. 33 - 39 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 19-22. 40 - 48 Accepted in paragraphs 23-27. 49 - 61 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 28-32. 62 - 75 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 33-37. 76 - 87 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 38-40. 88 - 93 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 41-46. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 - 4 Accepted as if incorporated in paragraphs 1-2. Accepted in part in paragraph 3. Reject last sentence as not supported by persuasive evidence. - 9 Rejected. No competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accept in part in paragraphs 26-27 but siren engaged before arrival at gun shop. - 12 Accept that Respondent made telephone calls in paragraph 44 but reject his reasons for doing so as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. 13 - 15 Accepted in substance as modified in paragraphs 31-36. First and last sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. The rest is accepted in substance as modified in paragraph 36. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accepted as modified in paragraph 39; the other officers did not "join the attack." Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accepted in paragraphs 39-40. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. See paragraph 42 re: criminal charges. Balance rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accept that Ms. Aguirre's criminal trial testimony tends to support Respondent but reject this testimony as less persuasive than the contrary testimony of the law enforcement officers. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. P. Walter, Jr., Esquire 235 Catalonia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Div of Crim. Just. Stds. & Trng. P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel P. O. Box 1489 Tallahahssee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the involuntary transfer of Trooper Fred T. Wimberly from Troop "A" in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida to Troop "E" in Tavernier, Monroe County, Florida was a transfer for the benefit and convenience of the state.
Findings Of Fact Notice of hearing and objections to these proceedings, including the manner of the preservation of the record, were waived by the parties. This Hearing Officer and the Career Service Commission have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. Florida Highway Patrol personnel rules and regulations General Order number 43 and Career Service Commission rules and regulations Chapter 22A-09(c) provide for Career Service hearings on involuntary transfers. Fred T. Wimberly, Petitioner in this cause, is a Career Service Employee of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of the Florida Highway Patrol. He was sent a notice of his transfer by certified mail dated January 7, 1976. By Order of the Honorable Ernest E. Mason, Judge of the Circuit Court, Escambia County, said transfer as been restrained until April 15, 1976. 5, Seventy trooper positions allocated to the Florida Highway Patrol were not filled during the last fiscal year because of insufficient funds and this information was circulated by letter from Mr. Ralph Davis, Executive Director, on May 23, 1975. Col. J. E. Beach, Director of the Florida Highway Patrol by memorandum July 23, 1975, informed all Florida Highway Patrol troops: "We feel it only fair that all troops share the burden rather than a few carry the entire load" and informed the troopers that the Department had decided that each troop run 7.4 as a vacancy ratio. Troop "A" in Pensacola, Florida was to have seven (7) vacancies and Troop "E" was to have eleven (11) vacancies. On February 1, 1976, the time of the transfer of the Petitioner, Troop "A" in Pensacola had three (3) more troopers than allowed under the readjustment total of minus 7. Troop "E" had fourteen (14) less troopers beyond those readjustment figures of minus 11. Thus, Troop "A", in West Florida, had four (4) vacancies and Troop "E" in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties had twenty-five (25) vacancies. The memorandum withheld voluntary transfers until the required ratio should be achieved. At the time of a needed involuntary transfer the long standing policy of the Florida Highway Patrol, established to help keep employees more satisfied and to retain experienced troopers, has been to consider the following factors: The troop of least need Seniority Marriage factor Wife's employment Number of children Number of school children Other considerations (a) It was determined by the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol that a trooper was needed in Tavernier, Florida, as an increment to Troop E. This determination was based on population need and road conditions. It was determined that Troop A was the troop statewide which could best accommodate itself to losing a trooper. The list of troopers was examined insofar as seniority was concerned and it was found that approximately fourteen (14) troopers had less seniority than Petitioner and therefore each trooper was examined, consistent with established policy, as to marriage status, children living with trooper, school age children living with trooper and wife's employment. It was found that two troopers, Petitioner and Trooper Pembroke Burrows, III, were most eligible for involuntary transfer insofar as these human factors were concerned both being single men with the approximate same seniority. It was decided that Trooper Burrows remain in Troop "A" since he is the only black trooper in the area, the other eleven (11) black troopers being located in the central and southern part of the state. It therefore appeared to the director of the Florida Highway Patrol that Trooper F.T. Wimberly should be chosen to fill the vacancy in Troop "A" and he was so notified of his transfer to be effective February 1, 1976. Said transfer was restrained until after a public hearing and until the Order of the Career Service Commission or April 15, 1976. Petitioner contends: That the transfer was arbitrary and disciplinary in nature and the involuntary transfer was the result of actions in his personal life that were of no concern to the Florida Highway Patrol; that if the transfer was disciplinary it should have been so designated. That the fact of his divorce and the living arrangements he made as to room and board in the home of a woman and her two sons was under investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol prior to the involuntary transfer. That the transfer was made in total disregard to his job performance, his career status and his job seniority. Respondent contends: That the involuntary transfer was for the benefit and convenience of the state and that it followed a long established policy in transferring Petitioner to a needed area. That there were several other involuntary transfers as a result of the shortage of troopers in the state, particularly the southern part of Florida, and that there must be more involuntary transfers. That each trooper signs a statement as a part of a job application which reads "I fully understand that I may be stationed anywhere in the State of Florida and may be transferred at the convenience of the department." That the oath taken by Trooper Wimberly states that "I will render strict obedience to my superior in the Florida Highway Patrol and observe and abide by all orders and regulations prescribed by them for the government and administration of said Patrol." That the rules, regulations and policy of the Florida Highway Patrol were followed in the involuntary transfer of Petitioner and the transfer is to a place of great need and in fact is for the benefit and convenience of the state. That had the transfer been disciplinary in nature the result would have been suspension or dismissal. The Hearing Officer finds: The Florida Highway Patrol has presented substantial evidence that there is a need for a transfer to Troop "E" and that Troop "A" is a logical troop from which to withdraw a trooper and that Petitioner is not the only trooper in the state being transferred to fill the southern Florida need. The Petitioner signed a statement upon his application for employment that he understood that he might be transferred for the benefit and convenience of the state. The Florida Highway Patrol followed the established rules, regulations and policies in the involuntary transfer of Petitioner. That there were two troopers in the area who were most eligible to suffer an involuntary transfer but the reason for the determination to transfer Petitioner rather than Trooper Burrows is a valid reason. That in the field of law enforcement and for the protection of the people in the state there is a need for the Florida Highway Patrol to transfer troopers in an expeditious manner but with due regard to the individual rights of employees. That the evidence shows the human considerations were considered before Petitioner was selected to be transferred. That a determination as to whether the personal conduct of Petitioner was conduct unbecoming a police officer is not necessary for the determination of the issue.
The Issue The issue in Count I of the Administrative Complaint is whether the Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by prescribing a controlled substance other than in the practice of his profession. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondent violated Section 893.05(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to prescribe controlled substances in good faith and in the course of his professional practice, and thereby violated Section 458.331 (1)(h), Florida Statutes. The issue in Count III is whether the Respondent violated Section 893.135(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by knowingly delivering 200 grams or more of methaqualone, and thereby violated Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bernard Gross, is a licensed medical doctor, having been issued license number ME 009774. His last known address is 13550 Memorial Highway, North Miami, Florida 33161. (See prehearing stipulation of the parties.) On April 20, 1982, Arthur Serig and Robert Fetner, undercover police officers of the City of Miami, met with the Respondent at the Miami Marina in the vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard at Sixth Street in Miami, Florida, to obtain a sample of methaqualone (trade name "Quaalude") tablets which the Respondent had offered to sell to Officer Serig. At said meeting, the Respondent delivered a brown paper bag to Officer Serig containing 1,000 suspected methaqualone tablets. (Tr. 51-55, 94, 95.) Officer Serig took the bag and the suspected methaqualone tablets and returned to the City of Miami Police Department. There, he placed the contents of the bag in the Property Unit of the City of Miami Police Department, where they were received by Property Specialist Gilda Scott. (Tr. 55, 57, 58, 99.) Officer Serig filled out a police property unit receipt for the bag and its contents, and Property Custodian Gilda Scott gave him a copy of this document as a receipt for the items she received. This property receipt is numbered 50419 and reflects that the City of Miami Narcotics case number is file number 10C1179 and the impounding officer's name is Arthur Serig. (P's-1.) At the time Officer Serig gave the property to Property Specialist Scott, he requested that the contents of the bag be sent to the Metro-Dade County Crime Laboratory for analysis. On April 21, 1982, the suspected methaqualone tablets were sent to the Metro-Dade County Crime Laboratory. On that date, Property Specialist Olga Lendic signed out one sealed envelope containing 1,096.3 grams of suspected methaqualone tablets to Officer Caesar Phillipe. Officer Phillipe carried the sealed envelope to the crime laboratory. After the sealed envelope was received by the crime laboratory, Crime Analyst Albert C. Christensen obtained the envelope, which was still sealed, opened the envelope, and took out 1,091.3 grams of suspected methaqualone tablets. (Tr. 120-127.) Christensen analyzed the contents of the envelope and prepared a written laboratory analysis report. (P's-3.) The tests performed by Christensen revealed that the tablets received by Officer Serig from the Respondent were methaqualone tablets, also known under their trade name as Quaaludes. (Tr. 128; P's-3.) Christensen's laboratory analysis report bears the Dade County case number 139891C, a City of Miami case number 10C1179, and references a Miami property locator number B-50419. On May 7, 1982, Officer Serig and undercover Officer Noel Rojas met the Respondent in the area of the Miami Marina for the purpose of purchasing Quaaludes. The Respondent was sitting in a yellow car when they arrived. The Respondent opened the trunk of the car and produced a large bucket or pail containing five plastic bags of suspected methaqualone tablets. A discussion took place between the Respondent and Officer Serig regarding the sale of the tablets to Officer Rojas by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent was placed under arrest by other officers and Officer Serig. Officer Serig took custody of the suspected methaqualone tablets and returned with them to the police station. The suspected methaqualone tablets were turned in to the Property Unit, where they were received by Gilda Scott. Officer Serig prepared a property receipt, number 51126. This property receipt bore the City of Miami case number 10C 1179, Officer Serig's name as the impounding officer, and the Respondent's name as the suspect. Officer Serig took one tablet from each plastic bag in the pail, placed each tablet in a plastic envelope, and sealed the five plastic envelopes in a manila envelope labeled Item 2 of 2. Officer Serig requested that the property specialist send Item 2 to the crime laboratory for analysis. Item 1 on the receipt remained in the Property Unit. Scott signed the receipt, indicating that she received the pail of tablets and the sealed manila envelope containing the five tablets sealed in individual plastic envelopes. On May 10, 1982, Property Specialist Olga Lendic signed out Item 2, the manila envelope described in paragraph 6 above, from the Property Unit to Officer D. Miller, who transported Item 2 to the crime laboratory. Crime Specialist Jack Genova opened the sealed manila envelope and, from the five plastic envelopes, selected one envelope, opened it, and removed the tablet. Genova subjected this tablet to laboratory analysis and prepared a written laboratory report, received as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. (Tr. 29-39.) Genova's laboratory report contains the Dade County case number 163580C, the City of Miami case number 10C1179, the City of Miami property number B-51126, the Respondent's name as defendant, and a description of the evidence as five bags with one white tablet each. The tests performed by Genova determined that the tablet analyzed was methaqualone, also known as Quaalude. (Tr. 37-39, P's-4.) The undercover officers all testified that the Respondent had never prescribed any medication for them.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of two violations of Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by being in the knowing, actual possession of and delivering 200 grams or more of methaqualone under such circumstances that it was not related to his medical practice, contrary to Section 893.135(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida be revoked and that an administrative fine of $1,000 for each violation of the statutes be assessed against the Respondent, for a total of $2,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 20th day of January, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of State has sufficient grounds to take disciplinary action against the licenses issued to Mr. White pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Mr. White held a Class "D" Security Officer License, number D90-03408, issued by the Department of State. Between November 27 and December 1, 1991, Mr. White was employed as a licensed security officer by the Quality Shawnee Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. The hotel has also been known as the Colony Shawnee Miami Beach Resort and the Quality Resort. Thomas Sanon-Jules, Director of Security for the hotel, was Mr. White's supervisor, and personally trained him on the procedures for logging in and securing lost property found on the hotel property. Mr. Sanon-Jules developed a manual on the procedures for the disposition of lost property and reviewed it with Mr. White prior to November 28, 1991. Mr. White knew that lost property must be taken to the lost and found room and logged in prior to notifying the owner that it has been found. The item must be tagged with a number and, in the case of a wallet, placed in a safe deposit box. Under the hotel's internal policies, after logging an item in, the employee must notify the owner. If the owner wants it returned by mail, the employee must turn it over to the hotel's executive office during working hours to have it mailed. The employee should get a receipt from the executive office at that time. On November 27, 1991, John Herning, an American Airlines pilot, checked into the Quality Shawnee Hotel for one night. Before going out that evening, Mr. Herning placed his wallet behind a ceiling tile for safe keeping. He forgot the wallet when he left the next morning at approximately 5:00 a.m. On the evening of November 29, Mr. Herning called the hotel from his home in Fort Worth, Texas, stating where he had left the wallet, and asking to have the wallet retrieved. He talked to security officer Danny Jones, who indicated that the room was occupied and that Mr. Herning should call back at 7:00 a.m. the next day and ask for Mr. White. The next morning, Mr. Herning called and talked to Mr. White who said he would look for the wallet. He found it and told Mr. Herning that he would mail it that day, a Saturday. Mr. Herning told Mr. White that he could split the forty dollars in the wallet with security officer Danny Jones who had also assisted Mr. Herning. That evening, November 30, the J.C. Penney Department store called Mr. Herning in Fort Worth to tell him that a black male was attempting to use his credit card at their store at the Omni complex at 600 Biscayne Boulevard in downtown Miami. After talking to J.C. Penney, Mr. Herning notified the hotel of the call and also called his credit card companies to cancel his other credit card accounts. Mr. Herning did not authorize anyone to use his credit cards after leaving Miami on November 28, 1991. All of his credit cards were in the wallet when it was eventually returned. After Mr. Herning called the hotel to report the unauthorized use of his credit card, one of the security officers notified Mr. Sanon-Jules of the complaint. Mr. Sanon-Jules directed security officer Jones to look for the wallet at lost and found and in the safe deposit box. He was told that the wallet was not there. Later that night, Mr. Sanon-Jules had the night supervisor check lost and found for the wallet again, without result. The next morning, Mr. Sanon-Jules arrived at the hotel at 5:00 a.m. and waited for Mr. White to check in at 7:00 a.m. When Mr. White arrived, Mr. Sanon-Jules asked him about the wallet and Mr. White told him he had placed it in the safe deposit box. They went to the safe deposit box where Mr. White used his key to open it. There was no wallet in the box or in any of the drawers in the lost and found room. Mr. Sanon-Jules then asked Mr. White to empty his pockets, whereupon Mr. White produced Mr. Herning's wallet. At the time, Mr. White had no explanation for why he was carrying the wallet. Mr. Sanon-Jules checked the contents of the wallet and found a number of credit cards. Mr. Sanon-Jules subsequently went to the J.C. Penney department store at 600 Biscayne Boulevard and viewed a video tape recorded on the department store's security camera on November 30, 1991. The video showed Mr. White at the counter with two other adult males and a very young male child. (Tr. 20-21, 46-49; Pet. Ex. 3). One of the adult males in Mr. White's company attempted to use Mr. Herning's J.C. Penney credit card. The department store employee became suspicious when ringing up the sale. The tape shows that they left the store without completing the purchase. The young boy on the tape had accompanied Mr. White to work at the hotel on several occasions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department revoke or deny renewal of all licenses held or applied for by Respondent pursuant to Section 493.6118(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 31st day of March 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State/ Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Dewight Whiley White 2845 Northwest 163rd Street Opa Locka, Florida 33054 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
