Findings Of Fact Douglas L. Adams is an inmate at Union Correctional Institution. On August 26, 1985, he was awakened early in the morning and brought before a disciplinary hearing for an alleged violation of institutional rules and regulations. Prior to the hearing, he was advised by a correctional officer to pack up all his personal property and to bring it with him to the hearing. Mr. Adams took with him as much as he could which included his clothing and other personal effects, but he was unable to carry all he owned with him at one time. He did not ask for either help in carrying his property or a cart to carry it in prior to leaving his cell area to go to the hearing. When he arrived at the movement center where the hearing was to be held, he advised the authorities there that he did not have all his property with him. At that point, he asked for help or the use of a cart to go get the rest of his property but he was refused because no cart was there. As a result, he went to the hearing leaving some of his property in his cell area and while in the hearing, contends he was required to leave his property in the control center. This property was secured in a storage room behind the control center which, while not locked, was not available for access to other inmates unless they were accompanied by a corrections officer. When the hearing was over and Mr. Adams, who had been directed to administrative confinement requested to go back to his former cell area to get the rest of his property, his request was refused. His property was inventoried by UCI personnel at that time, but because in his opinion the inventory was not complete, Mr. Adams refused to sign the form. When he was released from administrative confinement he claims he did not get all his property back. He relates that he was told he had forfeited whatever property he had not brought to the hearing. As a result, he filed a complaint on September 16, 1985, which was subsequently denied. Petitioner has been incarcerated in 7 or 8 institutions within the Department of Corrections including Florida State Prison, River Junction Correctional Institution, Baker Correctional Institution, Polk Correctional Institution, Old Unit, the Reception and Medical Center, and DeSoto Correctional Institution. At each one of these institutions a rule similar to this one was in existence. At Baker Correctional Institution, the inmate was required to bring his mattress as well. Robert Craig has been in prison for a total of 27 years and has been incarcerated in almost every major penal institution in the State of Florida that was built prior to the last five years. At Avon Park Correctional Institution he underwent a disciplinary hearing and was told at the time to bring all his personal property with him to the hearing. While in the hearing, he was required to leave all his property outside in the hall. At Cross City Correctional Institution the guards took him to the hearing without his property, bringing his property along afterwards. In essence, at all the institutions where he was incarcerated, there was some variation of the same procedure regarding his personal property. He either had to bring it to the hearing or it was packed up prior to the hearing. At no institution was his property inventoried prior to the hearing. As a result, he has lost personal property including a calculator for which he was subsequently reimbursed by the institution. According to Mr. Craig, if the inmate does not bring his personal property with him he either is given a deficiency report or is precluded from going back to get it when the hearing is over. Sgt. Denmark has worked for approximately 8 1/2 years with the Department of Corrections, all at UCI, where he formerly worked at the movement center. One of the functions he performed there was to handle prisoners coming for a disciplinary hearing. The rule as explained to him regarding the inmates' personal property is that the inmate is required to bring all of it with him to the hearing. Once the property is brought with the inmate to the hearing, the inmate is free to either take it into the hearing with him or to leave it in the storage room in back of the movement center during the hearing. If the inmate is sentenced to disciplinary confinement as a result of the hearing, in that case, and at that point, the inmate's property is inventoried. If the inmate is not sentenced to disciplinary confinement, the property is returned to the prisoner who is returned to his area. In the instant case, Mr. Denmark heard the Petitioner tell Sgt. Howe, when he arrived at the movement center, that he had left some of his property in his cell. However, when Adams went into his hearing, he neither took his property with him nor requested that it be secured. According to Mr. Cunningham, the Chief Classification Supervisor, the Union Correctional Institution Policy, (85-52.9 B1) requires inmates to bring all their property to disciplinary hearings. It is an old policy, and the reason for it is to protect the property from theft. In a disciplinary hearing, there is a chance that an inmate might not get back to his old cell to retrieve his property after the hearing. For security reasons, institution officials prefer not to take a prisoner back to his old cell after a hearing because, at that point, he is often angry as a result of the hearing and disruptive. All Department of Corrections' institutions in the region incorporating UCI, except Florida State Prison, have a similar policy. Inquiry of corrections personnel at the agency headquarters in Tallahassee reveals that most major DOC facilities have a similar policy. There are a total of 33 other facilities which hold less than 100 inmates each. These smaller institutions do not, generally, have a similar policy and Florida State Prison has a different situation because of the different security problems. It is the needs of the institution, however, which determine the use of the policy. Mr. Cunnningham is aware of Mr. Adams' hearing and the complaint filed as a result thereof. Upon inquiry it was determined that Mr. Adams had failed to establish a loss and the complaint was denied. Mr. Cunningham does not know whether there was an investigation into the loss of the property left in the cell. It is Mr. Cunningham's understanding that if the witness cannot carry all his property at one time, normally, if the inmate asks for permission to do so, he will be allowed to go back and get the balance before the hearing. This is not in the procedure approved by DOC, however, nor in the IOP at UCI. Corrections Officer Howe is also aware of the fact that Mr. Adams had a hearing on August 26, 1985. He, in fact, was called to the movement center to escort several prisoners, including Adams, to the confinement barracks after the hearings. A part of this duty involves inventorying the prisoners property. Howe told Adams to get his property and bring it in for inventory. At this point, after the hearing Adams said he did not have all his property with him and asked to be taken back to his old cell to get the rest. Howe declined to do this and explained the security reasons for his decision to Adams. He did advise Adams, however, that he would call down to Adams' old cell area and have his property packed which, in fact, he did. It is standard practice at UCI, according to Howe, that if an inmate has a large amount of property, he can request the use of a cart or wheelbarrow which is assigned to each housing area for carrying this excess property. This cart will be returned by a runner who can also help carry the excess. To his knowledge, inmates are not denied the use of these carts. Howe declined to return Adams to his old cell area after the hearing because, at the time, Adams was belligerent and unstable and presented a security risk in his opinion and also, because Adams had previously been advised to bring all his property with him and had failed to do this even though there was a way for him to accomplish it.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. Respondent has stipulated that Petitioners have "standing" to challenge the rules and the policy and procedure directives which are the subject of this proceeding. At the time the petition in this cause was filed, Petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 33-3.081, Florida Administrative Code, as it existed as of its latest revision on May 22, 1981. However, subsequent to the filing of the petition in this cause, and prior to the date of final hearing, Respondent amended Rule 33-3.081, and filed these amendments with the office of the Secretary of State on June 23, 1983. At final hearing in this cause, the parties stipulated to the Petitioners maintaining a challenge to newly amended Rule 33-3.081(4), (5), and (9)(a) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 30, 1979, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.11, which was subsequently revised on June 14, 1981. This directive contains 13 separately titled sections. The first section, entitled Authority, simply lists the authority, both statutory and rule-based, for issuance of the directive. Section three contains definitions which, with a single exception not relevant here, are identical to those contained in Rule 33-3.081(2). Sections four through thirteen likewise recapitulate provisions contained in Respondent's rules or in relevant statutes. The following is a list of titles of sections four through thirteen, each of which is followed with a parenthetical reference of the rule provision substantially incorporated therein: Staff Selection (33- 3.081(10)); Basis for Placement (33-3.081(1)); Placement (33-3.081(4)); Protection Cases (33-3.082); Visiting (33-3.081 (5)); Gain Time (33-11.11 and Section 944.28, Florida Statutes); Review of Administrative Confinement (33- 3.081(6)); Self-Improvement Programs (33-081(7)); Facilities (33-3.081(8)); General Provisions (33-3.081(9)(a)-(k)). Sections 13(l) and (m) of the policy and procedure directive essentially reiterate the provisions of Rule 33-3.081(6) and 33-3.081 (11) , respectively. On or about June 14, 1981, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections issued Policy and Procedure Directive No. 4.07.20, entitled "Discipline." This directive which purportedly issued pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 944.09, 944.14, 944.15, 944.28 and 945.21, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-3.08, Florida Administrative Code. In fact, each of the 20 separately numbered portions of this directive substantially recapitulate requirements already contained in Rule 33-3.08, Florida Administrative Code. The single exception is Section 7 of the directive, entitled Administrative Confinement, which finds its support in Rule 33-3.081. Neither Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.11 nor Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.20 purport to create or otherwise adversely affect rights of inmates in any manner which differs from corresponding provisions of Rules 33- 3.081, 33-3.08 or the provisions of the Florida Statutes cited as authority for issuance of the policy and procedure directive. Rather, the rights of inmates are specifically determinable pursuant to those cited statutory provisions and the requirements of Rules 33-3.081 and 33-3.08, and the challenged policy and procedure directives simply recapitulate the requirements contained therein.
The Issue Whether James K. Shepherd is entitled to special risk equivalent credit for his employment at the Bartow Road Prison from September 16, 1960, through January, 1971, and at the LaBelle Road Prison from January, 1971, through June, 1972, and from December, 1973, through October, 1976?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Shepherd filed an Application for Employment dated September 12, 1960, seeking employment in the position of Equipment Operator I (Prison) with the Florida State Road Department, the predecessor of the Florida Department of Transportation. Mr. Shepherd began his employment with the Florida State Road Department on September 16, 1960. Mr. Shepherd completed and submitted an Application for Employment as a Relief Guard on September 19, 1960. Mr. Shepherd began his employment on September 16, 1960, with the State of Florida as an Equipment Operator I (Prison). He was assigned to the Bartow Road Prison. During the time that Mr. Shepherd was employed at the Bartow Road Prison, it was a multi-custody facility housing minimum, medium and maximum custody prison inmates. The inmates at the prison were employed in the maintenance of the roads. Inmates were escorted from the prison to job sites. If the inmate crew was made up of maximum custody inmates, the crew was accompanied by an armed guard. Generally, a maximum custody crew also included a truck driver (an Equipment Operator I) and a Road Foreman. If the inmate crew was made up of minimum or medium custody inmates, the crew was not accompanied by an armed guard. The crew was accompanied by a truck driver and, if available, a Road Foreman. The Road Foremen were responsible for supervising the work of the crew. Truck drivers (Equipment Operators) were responsible for operating the truck used to transport the crew and its tools. On April 15, 1964, Mr. Shepherd signed a Florida Merit System, Request for Classification Approval form which included the following description of Mr. Shepherd's duties while employed at the Bartow Road Prison: I am an equipment operator I. The duties of this job consist of: 90% A. Drive Dump truck. 5% B. Shoulder work; filling up washouts, etc. 5% C. Washing, polishing, lubrication of truck. On April 21, 1964, Mr. Shepherd's supervisor signed a similar form containing the same description of Mr. Shepherd's duties while at the Bartow Road Prison. Mr. Shepherd's primary responsibilities and duties while employed at the Bartow Road Prison consisted of the driving of a truck transporting prisoners to and from work sites and keeping the truck and tools with the prisoner crew. In addition to Mr. Shepherd's primary responsibilities and duties, Mr. Shepherd also carried out the following functions on occasion while employed at the Bartow Road Prison: Assisting the crew guard in maintaining custody and control of the prisoners. On some of these occasions, Mr. Shepherd was given one of the guard's weapons; Carrying weapons issued by the prison; Maintaining the safety of prisoners in and outside the prison; Assisting in the search for and apprehension of prisoners who escaped from the prison. On these occasions, Mr. Shepherd was issued a weapon. Finally, in addition to the responsibilities and duties listed in findings of fact 8 and 9, while employed at the Bartow Road Prison Mr. Shepherd was also required to work every third night and every third weekend in the prison, twenty-four hours a day. During these periods, Mr. Shepherd assisted in guarding the prisoners in the prison from the guard towers around the perimeter of the prison and inside the prison dormitory in the evening until approximately 10:00 p.m. Mr. Shepherd was armed while manning the guard towers. Mr. Shepherd was not armed when he was in the prison dormitory but he did supervise and control inmates when necessary. Mr. Shepherd also participated in foot patrols outside the perimeter fence of the prison. During the month of October, 1970, while employed at the Bartow Road Prison, Mr. Shepherd was kidnapped and taken hostage by a prisoner from a crew of prisoners under Mr. Shepherd's supervision and control. Mr. Shepherd was not armed at the time. The prisoner attempted to escape, threatened Mr. Shepherd with death and severe injury and forced Mr. Shepherd to drive the prisoner during his attempted escape. The escape was subsequently prevented by the Polk County Sheriff's Department. There was an eight-month period of time during Mr. Shepherd's employment at the Bartow Road Prison that Mr. Shepherd continuously exercised supervision and control over prisoners. During this period Mr. Shepherd was issued a weapon and rode in the guard's cage at the back of the truck. Mr. Shepherd was issued a commission from the Division of Corrections. This commission authorized Mr. Shepherd to "exercise supervision or control over State prisoners ..." The commission did not constitute an assignment to a guard position but it was necessary in order for Mr. Shepherd to carry out some of his responsibilities and duties while employed at the Bartow Road Prison. From September 16, 1960, until November 30, 1970, Mr. Shepherd was a member of the State and County Officer's and Employees' Retirement System. Effective December 1, 1970, Mr. Shepherd became a member of the Florida Retirement System. In January, 1971, Mr. Shepherd was promoted to the position of Road Foreman. At this time Mr. Shepherd was also transferred from the Bartow Road Prison to the LaBelle Road Prison. While employed as a Road Foreman, Mr. Shepherd's primary responsibilities and duties consisted of directing the activities of prisoner crews in working on the roads and supervising equipment operators and prison guards who accompanied him. Mr. Shepherd's primary responsibility and duty did not include the custody and restraint of prisoners. While employed as a Road Foreman, Mr. Shepherd occasionally assisted the guard responsible for guarding the prisoners. During Mr. Shepherd's employment as a Road Foreman, he was not required to spend any days or weekends at the prison. In June, 1972, Mr. Shepherd transferred to the Division of Corrections as a Correctional Officer I. Mr. Shepherd moved to Apalachicola Correctional Institute, in Sneeds, Florida. In August, 1972, Mr. Shepherd transferred back to the Department of Transportation as an Equipment Operator. He was assigned to the maintenance facility in Marianna, Florida. Mr. Shepherd remained in Marianna until December, 1973. At that time Mr. Shepherd was promoted to Road Foreman and transferred back to the LaBelle Road Prison. Mr. Shepherd remained at LaBelle Road Prison until October, 1976. At that time he transferred to the Department of Corrections. Mr. Shepherd's primary responsibilities and duties while at LaBelle Road Prison from December, 1973, to October, 1976, were essentially the same as during his employment at LaBelle Road Prison from January, 1971 to June, 1972. Mr. Shepherd remained with the Department of Corrections until his retirement. Effective March 1, 1987, Mr. Shepherd retired as a member of the Florida Retirement System. On May 5, 1987, Mr. Shepherd signed an Application for Special Risk Equivalent Credit. In the Application Mr. Shepherd sought special risk equivalent credit for his employment at the Bartow Road Prison from September 16, 1960, through January, 1971, and his employment at the LaBelle Road Prison from January, 1971, through June, 1972, and from December, 1973, through October 1, 1976. By letter dated July 10, 1987, Mr. Shepherd was notified by the Department that the Application signed by him on May 5, 1987, was being denied. The positions of Equipment Operator I (Prison) and Road Foreman which Mr. Shepherd held were not certified in compliance with Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that James K. Shepherd's Application for Special Risk Equivalent Credit for the periods of employment from September 16, 1960, through June, 1972, and December, 1973, through October, 1976, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3823 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2 & 4. 2 5. 3 8 & 9. 4 10. 5 15. 6 11. 7 12. 8 15. 9 16 & 17. 10 19. See also 1-18. 11 20 & 21. 12 22 & 24. 13 Hereby accepted. 14 26. 15 Not relevant to this proceeding. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Mr. Shepherd retired from the Florida Retirement System on March 1, 1987. 2-3 2 & 4. 4 1. 5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The application for Relief Guard was not filed "contemporaneously with the application for Equipment Operator. See 3. 6-7 Irrelevant to this proceeding. 8 6. 9 5. 10 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 17. 11 9. 12 10. 13-14 8. 15 14. 16 Hereby accepted. 17 13. 18-21 Hereby accepted. 22 13. 23-25 Hereby accepted. 26-28 Taken into account in the weight given to the evidence. 29 8. 30 5. 31 8. 32 9. 33 8. 34 17 & 18. 35 8. 36 8 & 9. 37 28. 38 Hearsay. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Charles Tindell, Esquire Charles Tindell, P.A. Post Office Box 5666 406 North Wild Olive Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether the certification as a correctional officer issued to Willie L. Tillman (Tillman) should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Tillman is certified as a correctional officer by the Commission, having been issued certificate number C-3171 on October 7, 1977. At all times relevant to the charges, Tillman was employed by the Volusia County Department of Corrections (VCDC) as a correctional officer at the Daytona Beach Correctional Facility. In June of 1988, Tillman held the rank of corporal, a promotional rank. His chain of command ran from Sergeant (now Lieutenant) Fitts through Lieutenant (now Captain) Bolton, his shift commander. Tillman knew or should have known that he had a duty to immediately report any use of force against an inmate and to obtain medical attention for any inmate against whom force was used. This duty to immediately report such an incident and to seek medical attention for the inmate involved is important for the health of the inmate and for the protection of the correctional institution and correctional officer against unwarranted claims of injury. At all times material to these charges, the policy and rules of the VCDC, as taught to correctional officers, required that correctional officers avoid one-on-one physical confrontations with inmates and recommended that a correctional officer faced with a potentially hostile or aggressive inmate attempt to disengage himself from the confrontation, diffuse the threat through conversation if possible, and obtain assistance from other officers before approaching or making physical contact with the inmate. The only exception to this rule of disengagement is in the case of a sudden or spontaneous attack by an inmate. On June 22, 1988, Tillman, a very large and muscular man, was making a head count at about 11:00 p.m. Tillman thought that inmate George Hoover had squirted toothpaste on his back as he walked past Hoover's cell. Tillman told the officer who was working with him to open the cell. Tillman then entered the cell and struck Hoover in the jaw and face with a closed fist. Hoover fell on to his bunk. Tillman did not report the incident and he did not seek medical attention for Hoover. Tillman had no valid reason for his failure to report the incident and he was not excused from reporting the use of force that night before leaving the job site. Hoover requested medical attention, which brought the use of force to the attention of the VCDC. Hoover suffered a loosened tooth from being struck by Tillman. When confronted with the matter, Tillman said that he entered Hoover's cell to remove contraband, namely cups of water and coffee. Hoover assumed a boxing stance and Tillman struck him in response to that perceived aggression. Tillman's stories then and at hearing are simply unbelievable. The incident report that Tillman finally wrote said he removed contraband cups of water and coffee from the cell. The officer with Tillman that night never saw any cups removed. At hearing for the first time Tillman said that the contraband consisted of cups of urine and feces which added to the level of threat which he felt. Tillman's testimony in this regard is contrary to his own reports prepared in 1988 and is contrary to anything Tillman had said or reported before the hearing. As the trier of fact, the undersigned simply finds that Tillman was not truthful in his testimony on this and other matters. It is also not believed that Hoover, a small man weighing about 150 pounds, assumed an aggressive boxing stance with Tillman, a man about twice his size. From the evidence it can only be concluded that Tillman engaged in an unprovoked and unnecessary use of force by striking Hoover with his fist. Based on the rules, policies and procedures of the VCDC, Tillman should not have entered Hoover's cell in a one-on- one confrontation after Hoover squirted toothpaste on him. After he had entered the cell, Tillman should have withdrawn and disengaged from the situation to avoid a confrontation even if Hoover had assumed an aggressive stance. Finally, after the use of force occurred, Tillman should have reported it and should have sought medical attention for Hoover immediately following the incident and should not have left work that night without doing these things. Tillman was verbally counselled about the rules and policies related to disengagement and reporting of use of force. On October 14, 1988, while supervising a group of inmates returning from eating, Tillman became involved in a vocal argument with inmate William F. Elmore. Tillman repeatedly goaded Elmore to hit him, but Elmore attempted to withdraw from Tillman. Tillman hit Elmore in the jaw with his closed fist. Elmore attempted to walk away from Tillman, but Tillman pursued him and threw him up against a wall more than once. Elmore was between 5'7" and 5'10" and weighed between 165 and 180 pounds. Tillman claimed that Elmore approached him with raised hands in a semi-boxing stance. No other witness, either officer or inmate, mentioned any such aggressive approach or stance on the part of Elmore. One officer said that he thought that Elmore tried to kick Tillman. One inmate said that Elmore may have flinched or something, but that he did not see any aggressive posture or movement by Elmore. Tillman did not disengage or attempt to avoid the one- on-one confrontation with Elmore, even when Correctional Officer Zima called to Tillman to offer help. Instead, Tillman was aggressive and abrasive with Elmore. Tillman then over-reacted to the situation which he had provoked and used excessive force against Elmore. As a result of this incident, Tillman was recommended for termination, but he successfully appealed the termination and was instead suspended for ten days. Tillman was counseled that his interpretation of the use of force rules was erroneous and was told that when an inmate assumes an offensive posture such as a boxing stance, Tillman was not to strike the inmate. In the early morning of July 15, 1989, Tillman instructed Correctional Officer Trainee Anderson to open the cell door of inmate Michael P. Frascella, so that Frascella could clean up a mess he had made in and around his cell. Frascella was in an observation cell because of an earlier disturbance he had created. After cleaning up, Frascella was returning to his cell and noticed an apple on the desk. He reached for it and Tillman told him to put it back. Tillman then hit Frascella in the face with a closed fist. Frascella fell to the floor. Anderson heard the sound of the fall, looked over, and saw Frascella laying on the floor, glassy-eyed and bleeding from the mouth area. Tillman denies that he touched Frascella in any way and says he never saw Frascella on the floor or with blood on his face. This is why he says no use of force report was ever filed. Frascella's testimony is more credible regarding this incident than is that of Tillman. While it is clear that Frascella bears ill feelings toward Tillman because of the incident, his statements are more consistent with those of Anderson. Tillman clearly did not tell the truth regarding the incident with inmate Hoover and there is considerable doubt about his truthfulness regarding Elmore. There is no reason to believe that Tillman has been any more forthright about what happened with Frascella. Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, it is concluded that Frascella's version is the closest to the what actually happened that morning. Former inmate and trustee Dwight Jensen testified about an incident in which Tillman struck an inmate with no justification. While it cannot be determined whether that inmate was Frascella, the testimony of Jensen is probative regarding Tillman's moral character and suitability to retain his certification as a correctional officer. From Jensen's testimony it can only be concluded that on an occasion which may or may not have been the one involving Frascella, Tillman struck an inmate in the face and nose in retaliation for verbal abuse from that inmate. That inmate's nose was so badly injured that Jensen was required to mop up considerable blood from the floor. That inmate was provided with no medical attention because he was placed on a bus to Starke within a couple of hours after he was struck. Jensen was incarcerated from 1988 to March of 1990. Since Tillman was suspended following the incident with Frascella until his termination, it is further concluded that Jensen's testimony relates to the same time frame as that relevant to this complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order and therein revoke certificate no. C-3171 issued to Willie L. Tillman. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3263 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3&4(3); 5(6); 6&7(4); 8(5); 9(6); 14&15(7); 23&24(16); 25&26(17); 27(18); 29(21); 30(22); 31&32(23); 33(24); 34&35(25); and 38(26). Proposed findings of fact 10-13, 16-22, 28, 36, and 37 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John P. Booth Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Willie L. Tillman 2400 Spring Hollow Drive Orange City, Florida 32763 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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.
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 Petitioner, William Joel Keel, is an inmate at the correctional institution in Raiford, Florida. The Union Correctional Institution is a confinement facility operated by the Respondent, Department of Corrections. Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, permits the Respondent to adopt rules and regulations which modify the limits of an inmate's confinement under specified conditions. In January 1986, the figures of the statistics of the Department of Corrections reflect that there were approximately 1300 new commitment intakes per month. As the year 1986 progressed up through the months of April and May, this rate went up to approximately 1400 to 1600 per month, and in June, the figure stood at 1680 new commitment intakes; a new record. This record, however, has been broken since that time with a monthly intake of 1700. This large number of intakes created a terrible strain on the system which at the time had reached the federal standards and the state cap on inmate strength of 98 percent. These caps are placed on inmate strength as an effort to reduce the extreme safety and security problems created by inmate overcrowding. Because there was no new staff assigned to the Department of Corrections during the period of this increase, the staff/inmate ratio decreased as the hot summer months approached with the pressure that the climate imposes. Both interior and perimeter security of the various institutions within the Department of Corrections became more and more strained. The stress on staff caused an increase of absenteeism and illness. In addition, during this period of increased temperature and the concomitant stress related thereto, assaults and escapes become a greater and greater problem. In June 1986, the inmate population in the Florida prison system went up to 99 percent, a figure approved by the Florida Legislature due to a change brought about by an automated accounting system for prisoners. The achievement of the 99 percent plus prison population constituted an "emergency" due to overcrowding. As a result, it became obvious that there was a need to increase the number of inmates eligible for pre-expiration of sentence release. Consistent therewith was the need to establish a fair and objective way of placing inmates into this pre-release program that would protect the public. It was determined necessary to screen out from participation in the program certain prohibited types of inmates such as sex offenders unless they have been cleared and determined to be harmless. Up to the point of this determination, there appeared to be no substantial or valid guidelines. Another intent of the framers of this emergency rule was the desire to set up a procedure to remove inmates placed into the pre-release program from the program for cause in accordance with due process and constitutionality. It was deemed necessary to make clear within the parameters of the program and within the instructions for the program what had to be done and how it was to be accomplished. Nonetheless, the overriding consideration which constituted the "emergency" situation was the overpopulation in the prison system. As a result, the Department of Corrections in July 1986 promulgated and published its Emergency Rule 33ER 86-3 dealing with supervised community release which rule was to take effect upon being filed with the Department of State. This rule provided that all inmates who are within 90 days of their release date will be eligible for placement on supervised community release if they meet certain specified requirements. The emergency rule listed as the basis therefor, "this emergency rule is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of Florida by providing criteria that the inmates to be placed in supervised community release must meet to help assure the safety of the public." It goes on also to indicate that the rule is necessary to prescribe appropriate sanctions for inmates within the program in the event they violate the terms and conditions of the release agreement. The program provides that the initial process is for the staff within the Department of Corrections to screen all inmates within 90 days of the end of their sentence. It was envisioned as an extension of the work release program already existing. It is for that reason that only those on or eligible for work release can participate in this new program. This is consistent with the statutory mandate to include in pre-release programs only trustworthy inmates. Inmates are also screened to ensure that they have demonstrated this trustworthiness by performing well in the more restrictive work release program. Other methods of demonstrating trustworthiness and eligibility is for the inmate to invest time in self-improvement projects such as the GED Program and to have through his past practice, shown that he will return to the prison setting at night. This screening is done monthly of all inmates with a temporary release date of 120 days in the future. By so doing, this gives the staff 30 days to develop a plan for the individual inmate to ensure a stable environment for the inmate to go to. Prior to the implementation of Chapter 86-46, Laws of Florida, the statutory authority for the current program, there was no provision for the program in issue. As soon as this law was passed the legal staff within the Department of Corrections prepared the instant emergency rule as soon as possible. Had they not been able to do an emergency rule and had the regular rulemaking process been necessary, it is most likely that they would not have had established criteria and guidelines to apply to those who had to be released due to the fact that the prison population had reached the statutory cap. In fact, it was shown that state attorneys would not cooperate with the Department of Corrections and process violations of the program unless there were specific guidelines contained therein, and, since it was necessary to reduce the inmate population, it was therefore necessary to utilize the emergency role process. With that in mind, the safety of the public into which these inmates would be released was the primary concern and generated the need to ensure that only qualified and safe inmates were released. Under the new statute and the emergency rule, 1125 inmates have been released as of the date of the hearing. Approximately 750 inmates are in the program at any given time. As a result of the implementation of this program, the prison population has dropped and remained within the new 99 percent of capacity state cap. Experience with the programs so far has shown that the inmates in the program have been guilty of only minor violations such as assault on witnesses, DWI, simple assault, and larceny. And all of these offenses came up after implementation of the emergency rule. In the case of misconduct by a released inmate which does not result in immediate charges and incarceration, such as leaving the county where placed or the state, the disciplinary team from the Department of Corrections will evaluate the inmate and impose the penalty. These penalties could include removal of gain time while still remaining within the program up to removal from the program and loss of gain time. Conditions of enrollment in the program include, as to the inmate, that he (a) stay in the area where assigned; (b) refrain from the use of drugs; (c) comply with instructions given; (d) pay court costs imposed; and (e) pay a $30 a month fee to the Department of Corrections to cover administrative costs. Though the emergency rule appears to be working satisfactorily, the Department of Corrections is in the process of regular rulemaking to adopt a permanent rule identical to the emergency rule in issue here.
The Issue Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, William Van Poyck, and the Intervenor, Robert David Roy, are inmates in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are subject to the rules of the Respondent. The evidence failed to prove that the Petitioner and Intervenor are, or have been, placed in administrative confinement by the Respondent. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, the Florida Department of Corrections, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, a rule of the Respondent, governs the placement of an inmate in "administrative confinement". "Administrative confinement" is "the removal of an inmate from the general inmate population for . . . " various specified reasons. Rule 33-3.0081(1), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated September 27, 1990, the Respondent advised the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), of proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Be letter dated November 5, 1990, M. Catherine Green, an attorney with the Committee, informed the Respondent that a review of the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, had been completed. Ms. Green also informed the Respondent of certain "technical errors" and "substantive errors" that she found with Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green indicated that a "substantive error" referred to "errors which will result in recommended objections to the committee unless they are eliminated prior to adoption." Among the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code: (3) Placement in administrative confinement shall be for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 9 was, in pertinent part, as follows: What does "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" mean? This has the effect of not notifying the inmate of the length of time in which he will be in administrative confinement and the criteria to be considered in releasing him or her. The rule discusses criteria for placing inmates in administrative confinement, but sets no criteria other than "desired results" as to when an inmate shall be released. If the two criteria are the same, please make that clear. Another of the "substantive errors" identified by Ms. Green, was a comment concerning the following portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after an informal hearing when no reasonable alternative exists. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. Rule 33-3.0081(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for review of the senior correctional officer's "informal hearing" and Rule 33-3.0081(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a 48-hour delay in the "informal hearing" in case of certain emergencies. Ms. Green's comment concerning the portion of Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, quoted in finding of fact 11 was, in pertinent part, as follows: Please provide a cross reference to the rules of procedure for an informal hearing. Does the review procedure conflict with provisions of Chapter 33-29, F.A.C.? Please clarify what the phrase "when no reasonable alternative exists" means in reference to an inmate's confinement after an informal hearing. . . . . In a letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent, through a Senior Attorney, responded to Ms. Green's comments. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, was made: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replace it with "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the phrase "for the shortest period of time necessary to accomplish the desired results" and replacing it with the phrase "continue until the factors which created the need for protective management have been resolved". The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the circumstances under which an inmate placed in administrative confinement will be returned to the general inmate population. Under Rule 33-3.0081(3), Florida Administrative Code, prior to the proposed amendment, "the shortest time possible" occurred when the factors which necessitated placing an inmate in administrative confinement no longer applied. The proposed amendment merely clarifies when "the shortest time possible" has occurred. The following response to Ms. Green's comments concerning Rule 33- 3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, was also made in the January 23, 1991, letter: The Department of Corrections will delete the phrase "an informal hearing" and insert "being advised of an incident or situation which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution". The Respondent subsequently proposed to amend Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by deleting the terms "informal hearing" and replacing them with the following underlined language: (4)(a) An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement by the senior correctional officer after being advised of a situation or incident which prohibits the inmate from remaining in open population without endangering himself or others or compromising the security of the institution, if the situation cannot be resolved. The reason for placement shall be explained to the inmate, and he shall be given an opportunity to present his views on the matter to the senior correctional officer. When the senior correctional officer places an inmate in administrative confinement, this action shall be documented on a Report . . ., including the reasons for the action and a summary of the inmate's comments or objections. The inmate may also submit a written statement. . . . The proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, does not substantively change the manner in which an inmate is informed that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The "informal hearing" previously required in Rule 33-3.0081(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, required no more than the proposed amendment provides for. By eliminating the terms "informal hearing" the proposed rule amendment eliminates any confusion as to whether some more formal process is to be followed by the Respondent in informing an inmate that he or she is being placed in administrative confinement. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which contained the proposed amendments at issue in this proceeding was subsequently filed by the Respondent with the Bureau of Administrative Code, for publication, and with the Committee. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included the following "purpose and effect" clause: The proposed amendments are needed in order to correct technical and substantive errors noted by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. The proposed amendments provide clarification of policies and procedures regarding administrative confinement and protective management. The purpose and effect clause is consistent with the substantive changes to Rule 33-3.0081(3) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the proposed amendments to Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, at issue in this proceeding are arbitrary or capricious. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any of the suggestions concerning Rule 33-3.0081, Florida Administrative Code, made by Ms. Green were ever approved, adopted, or reviewed by the Committee. In fact, Ms. Green indicates in her letter that "substantive errors" she perceived would be recommended as objections to the Committee only if they were not eliminated prior to adoption. Since the "substantive errors" at issue in this proceeding were eliminated, they were apparently never recommended or considered by the Committee.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications required of a correctional officer by failing to maintain good moral character, to wit, unlawfully and knowingly aiding and abetting an inmate confined at the Zephyrhills Correctional Institution to attempt to escape from such confinement on or about September 23, 1987, 1/ and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mary A. Jackson, was trained and employed as a police officer by the Valdosta Georgia Police Department, a position she held from 1979 to 1985. Respondent relocated from Georgia to Florida during 1986. Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) on June 16, 1986 and was issued certificate number 41-86-502-03. During times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections as a correctional officer and was assigned to Zephyrhills Correctional Institution (ZCI). During September 1987, Robert Bridges and Charles Jeffrey were inmates incarcerated at ZCI residing in the "E dormitory". On approximately September 12, inmates Bridges and Jeffrey began discussing plans for an escape from ZCI. Their initial plan was to meet in the prison chapel and change out of their prison uniforms into street clothing which Respondent would provide. They would then mingle with prison visitors and exit the gate posing as visitors. This was to be done at a time when Respondent was in control of gate access. Inmate Bridges observed a personal relationship between inmate Jeffrey and Respondent during September 1987. This was evidenced by Respondent's visits with Jeffrey in the dorm for unusually long periods of time and their utilization of a method of communication by flashing lights at one another. Also during this period, inmate Bridges observed Jeffrey with a photo of Respondent dressed in a bikini bathing suit. Bridges and Jeffrey's initial plan was scuttled and they in turn agreed on a second escape plan whereby Respondent would provide them with a key to an exit door of "E" dorm. This door was nearest the fence and their plan was to exit the door under cover of darkness and scale the fences at a time when Respondent would be the only guard on that portion of the fence. Respondent and Bridges discussed this plan although Respondent expressed apprehension about going through with it. On September 22, inmate Bridges observed inmate Jeffrey and Respondent tossing an object back and forth to one another across a fence. Respondent stood outside the fence and Jeffrey stood inside the compound during this exchange. Bridges and Respondent also openly flirted with each other. For those reasons, Bridges felt that this behavior compromised the secrecy of the escape plan and he decided to back out. Although Bridges initially intended to attempt to escape with Jeffrey, he abandoned the plan and instead informed ZCI's authorities. Bridges was convinced that the escape would fail, resulting in the possibility of additional prison time beyond that which he was already serving. Bridges was also apprehensive that if he failed to report the plan and merely declined to participate, inmate Jeffrey would unsuccessfully attempt the escape and when it failed, Jeffrey would implicate him as a co-conspirator and he would suffer identical consequences for not divulging the plan to ZCI's security staff. On September 23, inmate Bridges requested a meeting with Lt. Wayne Hutto, an investigator at ZCI. Bridges first discussed the escape plans with Lt. Hutto and he thereafter reported the same information to Major Sammy Hill, head of security at ZCI. After discussing the escape plan with Hill and Hutto, they instructed inmate Bridges to go forward with the plan and to accept any keys given him by Respondent. Inmate Bridges was also instructed to give a prearranged signal when he received the key whereupon a correctional staff member would confiscate it. Inmate Bridges concealed his cooperation with ZCI authorities from inmate Jeffrey and the Respondent. During the evening of September 23, inmate Jeffrey reported to the prison chapel where he was assigned as chapel clerk. Jeffrey met Bridges in the chapel's office. On that day, Respondent reported to duty and was assigned to work in the institution's gatehouse control room with Sgt. Rhodene Mathis, the control room supervisor. Throughout the evening on September 23, Respondent appeared nervous and she was preoccupied with matters other than her work. As example, Sgt. Mathis assigned her to type some forms. Mathis examined the forms at a time when they should have been completed and discovered that Respondent had not started her assignment. Respondent telephoned the chapel from the control room approximately three times between her arrival at 4:00 p.m. and 7:25 p.m. On each of these occasions, Bridges would answer. Respondent in each case, asked Bridges to speak with "Nikki" whereupon Bridges gave the phone to Jeffrey. During one of the phone calls, Sgt. Mathis was out of the control room. When she returned, Respondent abruptly ended the call to Jeffrey. During one of the calls, Jeffrey told Respondent that he wanted the key and to let him and Bridges know when Sgt. Mathis was gone so that Bridges could come over and get the key from her. Sgt. Mathis departed the control room leaving Respondent alone at approximately 7:25 p.m. Her stated purpose in leaving at this time was to check on inmates in the institution's fire station. Upon her departure, Respondent immediately called the chapel and informed Bridges and Jeffrey that she was alone. Inmate Bridges walked to gatehouse from the chapel and Respondent, contrary to normal practice, released the remote gate lock mechanism and admitted inmate Bridges into the gatehouse without him asking, in advance, to declare his business in the gatehouse. Once inside the gatehouse, inmate Bridges made his way to the area immediately outside the control room. Once Respondent observed inmate Bridges from her position inside the control room, she looked to see if anyone was watching her. Respondent wrapped a key in a paper napkin and passed it to inmate Bridges through a security drawer. The key, identified as RE141-307, was the key which had been stored in a lock box in "E" dormitory. It would open the rear exit door of "E" dormitory and would assist inmates Bridges and Jeffrey in making a night escape over the fence behind "E" dormitory. This was a key which ordinarily an inmate of ZCI would be unable to obtain. As a correctional officer, Respondent had access to the key. Bridges took the key that Respondent wrapped in the napkin, placed it in his pocket and exited the gatehouse. Once outside, inmate Bridges gave a prearranged signal to Sgt. Levy Roberts, who had been designated to assist in aborting the plan by Major Hill and Lt. Hutto. Upon seeing the signal, Sgt. Roberts approached inmate Bridges and retrieved the key and napkin from Bridges. Sgt. Roberts handcuffed inmate Bridges and led him to "E" dormitory. Soon thereafter, Respondent learned that inmate Bridges had been intercepted by Sgt. Roberts. Upon learning of Bridges' interception, Respondent exhibited an unusual amount of curiosity as to the nature of Bridges interception. Respondent called a fellow officer and requested permission to leave her post to ascertain why Bridges was being held by Sgt. Roberts. This was an extraordinary request under the circumstances. Respondent's concern was her complicity in the escape plan. As agreed, Sgt. Roberts immediately telephoned Major Hill and Lt. Hutto and advised them that he had retreived the key from Bridges. Thereafter, Sgt. Roberts approached the gatehouse and signaled to Sgt. Mathis that he had recovered the key. Respondent, who was still in the gatehouse, immediately asked Sgt. Mathis for permission to leave her duty station. Later during the evening of September 23, Respondent was questioned by Major Hill and Lt. Hutto. Respondent provided a statement voluntarily without any promises, threats or coercion from either Hill or Hutto. During her statement, Respondent initially denied any involvement with Jeffrey or giving Bridges a key. However, later during her statement Respondent admitted giving Jeffrey the number of a pay phone located near her home and to receiving at least two personal calls from Jeffrey at the pay phone. Respondent admitted to accepting a collect call from Jeffrey on her home phone and she paid the tolls for the two calls which were made from Jeffrey to her at a pay station near her home. Also, Respondent admitted having previously discussed a plan for inmates Jeffrey and Bridges to escape involving the key to exit from "E" dormitory. Respondent ultimately admitted allowing Bridges to take a key from a ring located in the pass-through drawer in the guardhouse control room. At approximately 11:00 on September 23, Respondent returned to the gatehouse control room whereupon Sgt. Mathis asked her what she had done. Respondent replied that she had "really screwed up" and began crying. Upon further inquiry by Sgt. Mathis, Respondent told her that she had given Bridges a key because her safety and that of her children had been threatened by the inmates at ZCI. Although Respondent had confided in Sgt. Mathis of some personal problems prior to that time, she did not previously discuss any threats to Sgt. Mathis. On September 25, Tony Perez, a Department of Corrections prison inspector, interviewed Respondent. Respondent was advised of her constitutional rights under the Miranda decision and she agreed to answer questions voluntarily. Inspector Perez did not make any promises nor did he threaten or coerce Respondent to provide him a statement. During the early stages of the interview, Respondent related that she had three children, was divorced and that inmate Jeffrey asked her to assist him in escaping from ZCI such that he could accompany her to the Bahamas. During that statement, Respondent claims that she told inmate Jeffrey that she would not help him escape and that he could "get out on [his] own." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 9.) Respondent admitted giving inmate Jeffrey the number of a pay telephone, thereafter receiving calls from him and discussing his aspirations to escape from ZCI. During Perez' interview of Respondent, she admitted that inmate Jeffrey asked her to get a "main key" and provide it to him. She also related other escape plans that she and inmate Jeffrey discussed. Respondent related receiving telephone calls from Jeffrey while he was assigned to work in the institution's chapel. Respondent also described giving inmate Bridges a napkin at the time she gave him a key from the sliding security pass-through drawer of the control room. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, pages 23-25.) Although Respondent initially maintained that if inmate Bridges took a key away from the control room, this was done without her knowledge, she finally conceded that she knew Bridges had taken a key, but insisted that it was a key from one that she randomly selected and removed from ring number 4. A subsequent audit of ring 4 disclosed no missing keys. Respondent also admitted that she phoned a fellow inmate about inmate Bridges interception by Sgt. Roberts. At the conclusion of the Respondent's interview with inspector Perez, she resigned her position as a correctional officer at ZCI. During her resignation, Respondent told Major Hill that she had made a big mistake and had ruined her career. Respondent cried uncontrollably and threatened suicide. She ultimately regained her composure and left the institution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's law enforcement certificate number 41-86-502-03. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 27th day of March, 1991.
