Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Thomas F. Gorman, Jr., was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-33145 on March 22, 1983. When the events herein occurred, Gorman was employed as a police officer for the City of Vero Beach. On an undisclosed date in 1985, but prior to May 28, 1985, the husband of Kristie Coleman made a complaint with the Vero Beach Police Department (VBPD) that his eighteen year old wife had been sexually harassed by a black police officer. After being told the City had no black police officers, the husband then apparently identified respondent, who is white, as being the culprit. An investigation of the husband's complaint was conducted by the VBPD, but it was unable to "verify" the charges. The VBPD then decided to initiate a separate investigation of respondent. To do so, it solicited the aid and assistance of Kristie Coleman, who, at the insistence of the chief of police, agreed to wear a concealed microphone on her person. The purpose of the microphone was allegedly to investigate and intercept evidence of a criminal act on the part of Gorman. Kristie was instructed to stand outside her apartment whenever she saw respondent drive by in his police car so as to make herself visible to respondent. The police chief was explicit in his instructions that their encounter take place while Gorman was on duty. At the same time, two surveillance teams were placed on or near Kristie's premises, one in her bedroom and the other outside her apartment, and they activated recording equipment designed to monitor and record conversations between the two. She was also instructed to tell Gorman that she had to use the bathroom if he entered her apartment and placed a hand on her leg. This was a predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room and make their presence known to Gorman. There was no court order approving the use of the concealed microphone. At approximately 6:38 p.m. on May 28, 1985, respondent drove by Kristie's apartment. It is stipulated that respondent was in uniform and on duty at that time. Upon seeing Kristie emerge from her apartment, Gorman stopped and the two began a conversation. During the course of the evening Gorman left the premises and returned six separate times after the first visit at 6:38 p.m. These return visits occurred at 7:08 p.m., 7:34 p.m., 8:22 p.m., 8:59 p.m., 9:04 p.m. and 9:20 p.m. However, it was not until the seventh visit that Gorman actually entered Kristie's apartment. On each visit, their conversations were recorded by the hidden microphone worn by Kristie. The transcript of the conversation was not transcribed by the parties, and portion of the recorded conversation are inaudible due to external noises such as traffic and the engine noise of respondent's vehicle. As a result of the VBPD surveillance activities, respondent was offered a choice of being terminated from the police force or voluntarily resigning. Gorman chose the latter. The administrative complaint herein was then filed by petitioner thereby prompting the formal hearing in this matter. It charges that Gorman "did agree with Kristina Coleman to engage in sexual intercourse with her in Kristina's apartment while the Respondent was on duty as a Vero Beach police officer." The tape reveals that Gorman and Coleman had known each other, at least by sight, prior to May 28, 1985. The two had also recently met when Gorman, while on duty, stopped Coleman one evening for a suspected moving violation. However, she was not ticketed by Gorman, and at that time Coleman told Gorman she wanted to see him again. Throughout the tape recorded meetings on May 28, Coleman repeatedly attempted to get Gorman to acknowledge that he had not given her a ticket in return for sexual favors. Gorman denied this was true each time the subject was raised, and there is no evidence to indicate that was the case. As noted earlier, the tape recording is not of the highest quality, and several parts of the conversation are either inaudible or partially obscured by other noises. Nonetheless, the following relevant facts are found from the more than one hour of recorded conversations, most of which were nothing more than casual conversation between the two. After several return visits to her apartment that evening, Gorman made several Flattering comments to Kristie, such as how "beautiful" she was, that she had a nice personality, and how Gorman was attracted to her. Gorman asked if he could see her after he was off-duty, but Kristie declined. As the evening went on, Kristie told Gorman that her sister would arrive at her apartment at 11:00 p.m. to spend the night, and that the few hours before 11.00 p.m. would be the "only time" she had to meet with him. Although Gorman was reluctant to go to her apartment while on duty, Kristie told him that once she got "started," she wanted Gorman to finish the job. She also asked him if he was "too chicken-shit to come into (her) house." On his last visit to her apartment that evening, Gorman accepted her offer to come into the apartment. After taking off his gun and holster at Kristie's request, and declining an offer of a beer from Kristie, Gorman then said what appears to the undersigned to be "Let's do it." Kristie then gave the predetermined signal to the surveillance team to enter the room. No sexual intercourse occurred and there is no evidence that respondent was charged with a violating any state or municipal law by the foregoing conduct. There was no specific reference to sexual intercourse in the conversations, although it can be reasonably inferred that Kristie was suggesting this to Gorman, and that he intended to accept her offer. There was no evidence that Gorman's conduct constituted what the agency perceived to be a lack of good moral character within the meaning of its rules or governing statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against Thomas F. Gorman, Jr. be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Wayne R. McDonough, Esquire P. O. Box 1690 Fort Pierce, Florida 32960 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case No.: 85-3590 CJSTC Case No.: L-33145 THOMAS F. GORMAN, JR., Certificate Number: 02-33145 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent held a certificate as a law enforcement officer from June 15, 1979 through October 1, 1983. This certificate is currently inactive. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was employed in a law enforcement capacity with the Pompano Beach Police Department. On October 2, 1981, Respondent, who is black, filed a memo with the Chief of the Pompano Beach Police Department, alleging harassment of black officers and mistreatment of prisoners by police supervisors. Respondent also described an alleged beating by police in an incident which occurred on June 8, 1981. The June 8 incident came to Respondent's attention weeks later in a casual conversation with a Mr. Phillip Robinson who had witnessed the incident and described it to Respondent. Respondent, in turn, reviewed the files and found no "use of force" report which led him to conclude that the incident had been covered-up. At Respondent's urging, Robinson came forward and gave his statement to the Pompano Beach Police Department regarding this incident. An investigation of this incident and Respondent's other allegations was conducted by the department. Their findings and conclusions differed substantially from those of Respondent. Contrary to Respondent's contention, a use of force report had been filed. Also, Robinson did not actually see the police strike the detainee on the head nor did he observe six blows as related by Respondent. It must be recognized that Respondent was urging an investigation and did not intentionally misrepresent facts which he himself sought to have determined through such investigation. However, Respondent's accusations of police brutality, official cover up, and racial harassment were at best premature, where, as with the June 8 incident, he was neither a witness nor the designated investigator. The second incident on which evidence was presented arose when Respondent reported for reassignment as a "teleserve officer" on December 27, 1982. Respondent had been contacted at home and verbally told to report to Captain Sullivan at 11:00 a.m. for the new assignment. Sullivan observed Respondent outside his office shortly after 11:00 a.m. and directed him to come into the office to discuss his new duties. Respondent refused to come in stating that he had to go to the bathroom. Shortly thereafter he did return and enter Sullivans' office. An argument which involved shouting heard by other employees ensued, and Sullivan thereupon suspended Respondent and temporarily relieved him of duties. Respondent was in a guarded state of mind when he reported to Captain Sullivan. He had previously been under psychological evaluation on order of the department and had only three days previously filed several memos accusing police officials of racial harassment and requesting an investigation. Without Sullivan's knowledge, Respondent recorded that portion of the conversation which took place inside Sullivan's office. A transcript of this conversation revealed that Respondent was prepared to accept his new assignment, but believed that it was a desk job created to harass him. Respondent made several accusations of harassment which apparently angered Sullivan, resulting in a loud and angry exchange. Respondent established through the testimony of the former city personnel director and coworkers at the Pompano Beach Police Department that he was targeted for firing by police supervisors who wanted to get rid of him. This testimony also established that Respondent was a capable patrolman who had been commended for outstanding police work by both the department and members of the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charges contained in its Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 26th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Department of Law WHITELOCK and MOLDOF Enforcement 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Post Office Box 1489 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 12489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On or about July 12, 1993, Petitioner filed a complaint, including attachments, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) alleging that Respondent had discriminated against him on the basis of sex/gender (male) and marital status (single) in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act. In his complaint, Petitioner states in pertinent part: I am writing to file a FORMAL SEX/MARTIAL STATUS DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT against: 7) Lighthouse Academy at 3701 NE 22nd Avenue, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064. * * * 6) Lighthouse Point Academy - Many times throughout the year I contacted +/or applied for positions at this private school for special education children. Because of their lack of acknowledgement, I question whether or not their hiring practices are discrim- inating. On August 9, 1993, Petitioner filed the same complaint with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but alleging that the discrimination was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). On May 23, 1995, the EEOC issued its determination that Respondent had not considered Petitioner's gender or marital status and that no violation of Title VII had been committed. Furthermore, the EEOC notified Petitioner in its determination that he had 90 days in which to file a civil suit in federal district court and that the suit was his exclusive remedy. On or about August 5, 1995, Petitioner requested a formal hearing from the FCHR which had not issued a determination on the complaint filed with it. Petitioner requested a hearing on his claim of discrimination based on gender/sex (male) and marital status (single). On August 14, 1995, Petitioner filed suit in federal district court alleging that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. On April 30, 1996, the federal district court issued a final judgment in Respondent's favor, resulting from cross-motions for summary final judgment. 1/ The court determined that, based upon the motions, the record, and the status of the case, and viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Petitioner, Petitioner had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that he was intentionally discriminated against by Respondent on the basis of sex. In the instant case, at no time material hereto did Respondent make inquiry as to Petitioner's marital status. In the case at hand, at no time material hereto did Petitioner inform Respondent as to his marital status. In the instant case, at no time material hereto did Respondent have any knowledge of Petitioner's marital status.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Steve J. Longariello be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 13th day of June, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a corrections officer in 1972 and was so certified at all times here relevant. Respondent was a season ticket holder to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1983 football games. He attended the game on September 25, 1983, with four friends. Before arriving at the game the group bought a fifth of whiskey. Respondent contends he had only one drink prior to the incident with the police officers but three police officers opined that Respondent was intoxicated. During the second half of the game, with the Bucs woefully behind and some spectators leaving the stadium, Respondent was yelling disparaging remarks about the Bucs and their performance on that day. Occasionally, Respondent was standing on his seat when he yelled the remarks. Respondent was more noisy than others in the section in which his seat was located and drew the attention of Jennifer Frye, a City of Tampa police officer serving as a uniformed off-duty policewoman paid the owners of the stadium to maintain crowd control. Officer Frye motioned for Respondent to come to the platform where she was standing, some four rows above Respondent's seat. Respondent did so, climbing between the people and seats behind him as he responded to Frye's summons. When Respondent reached Frye's position, she smelled alcohol on his breath and he appeared to her to be intoxicated. Respondent was somewhat annoyed in being called up by the policewoman and wanted to know why she had beckoned him from his seat. He was gesturing with his arms and asking what he had done wrong. Officer Lois Morraro, another off-duty member of the Tampa police force, was also working in uniform at the stadium. She observed Respondent respond to Frye's request and saw Respondent arguing. Morraro approached the two and positioned herself behind Respondent. Respondent told Frye he was a season ticket holder and was entitled to be upset when the Bucs were losing. Frye and Morraro decided to evict Respondent from the stadium and when Frye initially grabbed his hand Respondent pulled away. She then told him he was under arrest and grabbed his left arm and hand with a come-along grip. Morraro grabbed Respondent's right arm, twisted it behind his back, and moved the hand up toward the shoulders. They proceeded to propel the struggling Respondent down the steps to a holding area. When they reached the holding area they were joined by Sergeant Peter Ambraz, the off- duty Tampa police officer in charge of the stadium detail. Ambraz took Respondent's right arm while Morraro handcuffed Respondent. During this time Respondent was trying to keep from being handcuffed and in the process his elbow accidentally hit Morraro in the throat while she was standing behind him putting handcuffs on him. After Respondent had been handcuffed and taken to the police station, he revealed that he was a certified corrections officer. Respondent was subsequently tried for disorderly intoxication and fired from his job with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager by examination should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred Storch (Storch), filed an application with Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers (Department) on April 14, 1998, for licensure as a community association manager by examination. The application contained the following question: Have you now or have you ever been licensed or certified in any profession such as real estate, insurance, securities, etc., in Florida or in any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation? If the applicant answered "yes" to the question, the application required the applicant to list the name of the profession, the license number, the date the license was first obtained, and the current status of the license. Storch answered "yes" to the question and indicated that he currently had a real estate salesperson's license in Florida and a real estate broker's license in New York. At the final hearing, Storch testified that he had a current mortgage broker's license and a real estate salesperson's license from New York and that he was currently licensed in Florida as a real estate salesperson and had been licensed in Florida as a mortgage broker. The application contained the following question: Has any license, certification, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation or is any proceeding now pending? This includes any disciplinary action taken against you such as a reprimand, probation, etc. Storch answered "no" to the question. The following question was also on the application: Have you ever relinquished or withdrawn from any license, certification, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation or is any proceeding now pending? Storch answered "yes" to the question and provided the following explanation. I relinquished my license as a Mortgage Broker because I was unable to submit to an audit on a timely basis due to my son's poor health. My son is afflicted with epilepsy, which cannot be controlled with medication. He is having surgery on April 21, 1998 at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, D.C., to eliminate the cause of his seizures. I have enclosed the documentation from the Comptroller's Office and my son's doctor. In 1994, Storch and the Florida Department of Banking and Finance (DBF) entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order which was incorporated in a Final Order, dated January 13, 1995. Storch and DBF agreed that Storch's mortgage broker's license was suspended until a location and occupational license was obtained. Storch agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 and agreed to cease and desist all violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. On February 12, 1997, DBF entered a Default Final Order and Notice of Rights, finding that Storch had acted as a mortgage broker without a current active license and that Storch had failed to provide his books and records for inspection as requested by DBF. Storch was ordered to cease and desist from violating Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and all registrations and licenses previously issued to Storch, which included his mortgage broker's license, were revoked. By letter dated February 13, 1997, Storch advised DBF that he would be willing to turn in his license if DBF would not pursue any action against him then or in the future. On September 18, 1997, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, filed an Administrative Complaint against Storch alleging that Storch had violated Section 475.25(1)(s), Florida Statutes, because his residential mortgage broker's license had been revoked. On December 17, 1997, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, entered a Final Order, disciplining Storch's real estate salesperson's license. The Final Order stated that Storch was guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint and required Storch to pay an administrative fine of $100.00 and investigative costs of $313.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Fred Storch's application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Broyles, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Thomas G. Thomas, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Storch 7782 Edinburough Lane Delray Beach, Florida 33446
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on November 10, 1983 and issued certificate number 16-83- 002-04. At all times pertinent to this procceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer and was employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Respondent was not on duty or in uniform at the time of the incident described in the Administrative Complaint. On October 1, 1989, the Respondent and his wife, Janet Phillips, were leaving the TCBY Yogurt Shop in the Royal Palm Beach area. As the Respondent was proceeding to get into the driver's side of their BMW and Janet Phillips was proceeding to get into the passenger side, another car, driven by JoAnn Baker, pulled into the space next to the Respondent's car. Mrs. Baker parked in a position where the driver's door of her car was next to the passenger door of the Respondent's car. As Mrs. Baker was getting out of her car and Mrs. Phillips was getting into her car, the car doors bumped into each other causing the BMW door to knock Mrs. Phillips in the back. After the cars doors bumped, Mrs. Phillips and Mrs. Baker began exchanging words. While Mrs. Baker contends that she was only attempting to apologize, the more credible evidence established that she was a vocal and agitated participant in the argument. Respondent joined in the verbal altercation while all parties were still in the parking lot. At this point, there was no physical contact between Mrs. Baker and Mrs. Phillips nor between Mrs. Baker and the Respondent. Mrs. Baker flipped a "bird" at Respondent and his wife and walked into the yogurt store. The Respondent and his wife got into their car. However, after a few moments, the Respondent's wife got out of the car and went back into the yogurt shop after Mrs. Baker. Respondent followed his wife into the yogurt shop a short time later. Mrs. Phillips walked directly up to Mrs. Baker and got within two (2) or three (3) feet of her. The two women exchanged verbal insults and vulgarities. Mrs. Phillips then stepped toward Mrs. Baker, raised her hand and slapped Mrs. Baker in the face. Mrs. Baker immediately put her hands up in defense to block any other blows. She also made a move towards Mrs. Phillips. Respondent, who by this point had entered the shop, stepped between the two women and pushed Mrs. Baker back against the counter. The Respondent grabbed Mrs. Baker by her arms, lifted her up off the floor and physically placed her down on the counter in a rough manner. The Respondent also placed his forearm and elbow against Mrs. Baker's throat and chest area pinning her against the counter while bending her backwards with her legs dangling off the floor. While pinning Mrs. Baker against the counter, the Respondent was very upset; he put his face within a few inches of Mrs. Baker's face and was screaming at her. Respondent called her a "whore" and a "bitch". After a brief period had passed, the Respondent let go of Mrs. Baker. The Respondent did not apologize to Mrs. Baker nor did he offer any type of assistance to her after the incident. Mrs. Baker went outside to get the Respondent's tag number and told them she was going to call the cops. She also threatened to sue Respondent, which she subsequently did. The Respondent and his wife got in their BMW and left the area. Mrs. Baker received minor bruises and injuries to her back as a result of the incident. Prior to the Respondent grabbing Mrs. Baker, Mrs. Baker had not made any physically aggressive moves towards the Respondent. At the time of the incident, the Respondent was 6'3" in height and weighed 215 pounds; JoAnn Baker was 5'4" in height and weighed between 126 and 135 pounds. The evidence was inconclusive as to the size of Mrs. Phillips, but she was roughly the same size as Mrs. Baker. The Respondent was subsequently charged with a misdemeanor battery based on a complaint filed by Mrs. Baker. He entered a nolo contedere plea to the charge on the advice of his attorney. Adjudication was withheld and Respondent was sentenced to a brief probationary period which he successfully completed . As a result of this incident, Respondent has lost his job with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's office. Respondent's wife had abdominal surgery approximately two weeks before this incident. Respondent claims that he was very concerned about her physical condition and was simply trying to protect her when he thought that Mrs. Baker was going to "attack" his wife. While Respondent's concern is understandable, it is clear that he overreacted and used undue force in restraining Mrs. Baker.
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 finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and suspending his certification as a law enforcement officer for three months followed by a probationary period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 25th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. The Respondents's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2-3. Rejected as vague and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9-10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11-12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11-12. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a Finding of Fact. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 12-13. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a Finding of Fact. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 11-12. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a Finding of Fact. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 11-12. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12-15 and 17. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12-15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn Pompey, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark D. Ewart, Esquire 319 Clematis Street, Suite 817 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
