Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued August 25, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating insurance licenses and appointments pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a Life Health and Annuity Agent, Life Health and Variable Annuity Agent, and a Health Insurance Agent in this state. On March 7, 1982, the Respondent was celebrating her birthday, she turned 22 that day, and was returning home with her husband when the vehicle they were in was stopped for a minor traffic infraction (expired tag). Believing he had to perform a "pat down" for his safety, the officer felt the Respondent's purse and noticed a bulge in the shape of a small weapon. The small hand gun had been a birthday present to the Respondent. Upon discovering the weapon, the officer charged the Respondent with carrying a concealed firearm. Initially the Respondent entered a written plea of not guilty but subsequently changed the plea in open court to one of nolo contendere. In connection with the plea change, the court entered an Order Granting Probation and Fixing Terms Thereof. The fact that the Respondent was placed on probation is not disputed. Further, as the Court determined the Respondent was not likely to again engage in a criminal course of conduct, adjudication was withheld and probation set for a period of one year. The Respondent successfully completed that year of probation and has had no further incidents of criminal misconduct. The Respondent erroneously believed that the successful completion of the probationary period, and the fact that adjudication had been withheld, resulted in the expungement of the criminal record. As the Respondent later found out, criminal records are not automatically sealed or expunged. On November 2, 1999, the Respondent filed an application for licensure as a life health and variable annuity agent with the Petitioner. That application contained two questions dealing with the applicant's past criminal history. As to both questions, the Respondent erroneously entered "no" responses. Had the Respondent entered accurate answers, both responses would have been "yes" based upon the status of the Respondent's criminal record at the time the application was submitted to the Petitioner. The Respondent has a medical condition that she claims has damaged her long term-memory. According to the Respondent, she answered the questions as she did because she did not remember all the facts surrounding the criminal history at the time the application was completed but that, even if she had, she would have assumed the matter was sealed and fully resolved since adjudication was withheld. The Respondent's account in this regard has been deemed credible. The Respondent did not intend to mislead the Petitioner and acted more in ignorance of the law as to the prior arrest and probation than in willful disregard of her responsibility to disclose it. At the time Respondent completed her application for licensure she read the paragraph that appears at the bottom of the third page of said application in bold typeface that states: IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE READ ALL OF THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS CAREFULLY AND HAVE ANSWERED THEM FULLY. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT AS IT RELATES TO AN APPLICANT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS. THE DEPARTMENT DEEMS ALL MATTERS THAT ARE PART OF AN APPLICANT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AND MATERIAL ELEMENT OF THE APPLICATION, THE OMISSION OF ANY PART OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORD IS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION OR MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT IN AND OF ITSELF. YOUR FAILURE TO DIVULGE YOUR COMPLETE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORD ON THIS APPLICATION CAN RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING DENIED. In addition to the foregoing, the application submitted by the Respondent provided the following statement: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of The Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). The answers provided by the Respondent to the two questions (application questions numbered 18 and 19) were incorrect, misleading, and were presumably used to support the issuance of the Respondent's licenses. Although the Respondent is eligible to have her criminal record sealed or expunged, as of the date of the hearing she had not completed that process. During the investigation of this matter, the Respondent fully cooperated with the Petitioner and obtained copies of documents as requested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Santurri, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph H. Fernandez, Esquire The Law Offices of Brand & Fernandez, P.A. 2 Northeast 40th Street Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33137 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, failed to maintain good moral character by knowingly making a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duties, a failure that, if proved, would warrant the imposition of discipline upon Respondent's certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pablo Barrios ("Barrios") is a Florida- certified law enforcement officer and, as such, falls under the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission ("Commission"). At the time of the final hearing, and at all times relevant to this case, Barrios was employed as a police officer by Florida International University ("FIU"). The events giving rise to this proceeding took place on July 17, 2003. That morning, Barrios attended an in-service training class taught by Sgt. Alfonso. There were about a dozen other FIU police officers in the class. Shortly after the class began, Barrios and Sgt. Alfonso got into an argument over Barrios's use of a digital recorder. (Sgt. Alfonso was apparently offended that Barrios would record the lecture; Barrios claimed that he was merely using the device to keep track of the time.) Sgt. Alfonso asked Barrios to leave the classroom. Barrios did leave, remarking on his way out that if he (Barrios) had intended to turn on the recording device, he would first have told everyone in the "fucking room." Barrios later returned to the classroom and sat in the back. The lesson proceeded to conclusion uneventfully. When the class ended, Capt. Wright entered the room. Someone had reported the verbal altercation between Barrios and Sgt. Alfonso, and Capt. Wright was there to find out what had happened. To that end, Capt. Wright asked each of the officers present to prepare a statement describing the incident and stating specifically whether "improper language" had been used. In response to Capt. Wright's request, Barrios wrote the following statement: I was single[d] out by Sergeant Alfonso for taking out [sic] a personal recorder out of my laptop bag. Capt. Wright considered Barrios's statement to be incomplete. He therefore wrote the following question beneath Barrios's description of the event: Lt. Barrios, was improper language ever used during the incident. Barrios answered the captain's query, in writing, with one word: "No."1 Ultimate Factual Determinations The undersigned infers (and is convinced) that Barrios knew, when presented with Capt. Wright's imprecisely drafted question regarding the use of "improper language," that this interrogatory, though ambiguous and open to interpretation, was meant to require Barrios to either admit or deny using the "f" word during the incident. The undersigned further infers (but is not convinced) that Barrios was likely aware that Capt. Wright would misinterpret Barrios's negative answer as an affirmation that no one (including Barrios) had uttered the word "fuck" or any of its cognates. The undersigned is not clearly convinced, however, that Barrios intended to mislead Capt. Wright.2 Rather, since admitting that his language had been "improper" would have been tantamount to confessing misbehavior,3 Barrios likely intended to deny having engaged in inappropriate behavior. The undersigned is also not clearly convinced that Barrios's statement was false, for two reasons. First, the undersigned is not convinced that Barrios believed his language to have been improper.4 To the contrary, the evidence persuades the undersigned that Barrios subjectively believed his words were justified. It is likely, in other words, that Barrios made what was, for him, a true statement. Second, Barrios's statement has not been clearly and convincingly falsified——that is, shown via ordinary evidence to be objectively untrue. Because the adjective "improper" reflects an opinion or judgment about something, such an opinion could be falsified only if5 (among other things) there were a clear objective standard against which to measure or judge the thing in question.6 The Commission offered no evidence regarding such an objective standard for determining that Barrios's language was improper and hence failed objectively to falsify Barrios's denial that improper language had been used.7 In sum, the Commission failed clearly and convincingly to prove, as was its burden, that Barrios made a "false statement" with the intent to mislead Capt. Wright.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Barrios not guilty of failing to maintain good moral character by knowingly making a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duties. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 16th day of February, 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that the agency head enter a final order permitting the voluntary removal of both signs to include the entire advertising structure within 30 days of the date of the agency head's final order, and directing employees of the Department of Transportation to remove the structures after the 30-day period without compensation to the owner. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446 Charles M. Wynn, Esquire 310 East Jackson Street Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446
The Issue Whether subject sign violates the set-back requirements and whether said signs are properly permitted.
Findings Of Fact Sign violates the sat-back requirement of Chapter 479. Sign has no current permit.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected on Holden Avenue, approximately 400 feet west of the intersection of Holden Avenue with U.S. 17/92/441, in Orange County, Florida. This location is approximately 4.04 miles south of SR 50, as alleged in the violation notice. The subject sign is located on the south side of Holden Avenue, facing east and west which is parallel to U.S. 17/92/441. U.S. 17/19/441 is a federal-aid primary highway. Holden Avenue is a non-controlled road. The parties stipulated that it was the position of personnel of the Fifth District of the Department of Transportation prior to May of 1985 that state permits for outdoor advertising structures were not required when such structures were to be erected on a non-controlled highway, although said structures might be within 660 feet of a federal- aid primary highway. In 1984, the Respondent had applied for a permit to erect a sign along a non-controlled road within 660 feet of a federal- aid primary highway, and had been advised by Department personnel that a state permit was not required (See Case No. 85- 3017T which was heard contemporaneously with the subject case). The sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected in February of 1985 without a permit based on the Respondent's knowledge of the Department's position that a permit was not required, as expressed to the Respondent previously in The subject sign is visible to traffic on U.S. 17/92/441, although it is perpendicular to Holden Avenue and parallel to U.S. 17/92/441. There is another permitted sign owned by Cashi Signs located on the west side of U.S. 17/92/441, approximately 686 feet south of the Holden Avenue intersection. This sign faces north and south, not east and west and is not on Holden Avenue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, in the violation notice issued on July 26, 1985, be dismissed, and that the sign which is the subject of this proceeding be given the classification of non-conforming sign. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 23rd day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 23rd day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether signs were properly permitted and whether the subject sign violated the set back requirements of state and federal law.
Findings Of Fact Subject signs were not properly permitted and subject sign on U.S. 1 North was nearer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way.
The Issue Whether a sign which has been standing without a current permit as required by Section 479.07(4), Florida Statutes, is eligible for a current permit upon payment of the delinquent fees.
Findings Of Fact The following described signs owned by Respondent have no currant permit tags: Highway - U.S. 1 Location: 7.1 miles north of State Road 100 Copy - "Shrine" Highway - A1A Location - 6.2 miles north of Florida 100 Copy - "Old Jail" Highway - A1A Location - 6.3 miles north of Florida 100 Copy - "Eddie's" or "Eddy's" Highway - A1A Location - 13.3 miles north of Florida 100 Copy - "Ocean Groves" Highway - A1A Location - 13.7 miles north of Florida 100 Copy - "Old Jail" Highway - A1A Location - 13.8 miles north of Florida 100 Copy - "Alligator Farm" Highway - U.S. 1 Location - 22.20 miles north of State Road 100 Copy - "Casa Marina" The subject signs are owned and were erected by the Respondent and there were no fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, insofar as paying fees and obtaining current permits.
Findings Of Fact Objections to time involved in the Notice of Hearing was wavied by the parties. The parties were present. Respondent admitted that he had erected a sign near State Road 71, 1 8/10 miles south of the Calhoun County county line, with copy: Cypress Lodge - Fish Camp - Motel, a double faced sign. He admitted that he had no permits for 1974, 1975 nor for the current year. Respondent admitted that he had made no application to the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, before employing a man to erect the sign. Respondent had no written lease agreement with the owners of the property upon which the sign is erected. The Petitioner claims a 33 foot right of way by maintenance and there is no controversy as to whether the State actually owns the 33 foot right of way it claims by maintenance although the State has no deed for said right of way. The subject sign is 12 feet from the nearest edge of the 33 foot right of way claimed by the State. Said 12 feet is 3 feet less than the required 15 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way of State Road 71.
Conclusions RECOMMENDATION: Inasmuch as the violation is the difference between 12 feet and 15 feet and the reerection of subject signs would destroy a wooded area; and the secondary road is now cluttered with nonconforming signs'. and it is the testimony of the owner that he intends to remove and redo the subject signs eventually but not this year; it is recommended that a permit be issued for subject signs upon payment of permit fees for the past years and upon a date certain after 1976 for removal of subject signs. The Department adopts the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer, but is unable to accept her Recommendation that the sign be permitted to remain in place. Once the determination is made that the subject sign violates the setback requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, it becomes the duty of the Department to follow the provisions of the law and order the Sign removed. IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the subject sign be removed thirty-five (35) days from the date of mailing a copy of this Order to Respondent, provided no petition for review of this Order has been filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, in which event thus Order will be stayed. IT IS ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1977. TOM WEBB, JR. SECRETARY STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA Copies furnished: Philip S. Bennett, Attorney Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building John W. Scruggs, Attorney District III Office Department of Transportation Chipley, Florida Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John C. Dill Route 3, Box 172 Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Right of Way Bureau Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida
Recommendation Inasmuch as the violation is the difference between 12 feet and 15 feet and the reerection of subject signs would destroy a wooded area; and the secondary road is now cluttered with nonconforming signs; and it is the testimony of the owner that he intends to remove and redo the subject signs eventually but not this year; it is recommended that a permit be issued for subject signs upon payment of permit fees for the past years and upon a date certain after 1976 for removal of subject signs. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Scruggs, Jr., Esquire Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Staff Attorney Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Department of Transportation Chipley, Florida Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John C. Dill, Respondent Route 3, Box 172 Mr. J.E. Jordan Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607, US Highway 90 Chipley, Florida 32428 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Petitioner, AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED vs. CASE NO. 75-1936T JOHN AND JUANITA DILL, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns a sign located on the west side of Interstate Highway 95 (1-95) in the city of Pembroke Park, Florida, 0.2 miles north from the Dade County line which bears the copy "Johnny Walker Red". This sign was created by connecting two previous signs by the use of a panel in the middle. The two former signs were six feet by twelve feet each and located approximately six inches apart. When joined they became one sign six feet by twenty-four feet. An alleged violation-of Section 479.07(2), Florida Statutes, was reported by Petitioner's Outdoor Advertising Inspector for changing the size of the signs without first obtaining a proper permit. Subsequent to the reported violation, a meeting was held between Respondent and representatives of the Petitioner concerning the converting of two signs into one. At the meeting, Petitioner's representative, O.E. Black, Administrator of the Outdoor Advertising section, apparently authorized such joinder if the signs were cut in the middle so that technically they constitute two signs. It was further agreed at that meeting that separate permit tags would be retained as required. The sign (or signs) is presently in accordance with the above policy, and application has been made for the necessary permit. (Testimony of Hackett, Simokat). Sign located on SR 5, 400' North of Kendall Drive, Southwest. This is a sign erected in Dade County which did not bear a State permit tag at the time the alleged violation was noted on January 5, 1976. The sign is located on properties zoned for "general use". After receiving the Notice of Violation, Respondent's representative discovered that four tags instead of two had been placed on a nearby sign owned by the company, and that apparently two of them belonged to the sign in question, but inadvertently had not been affixed. He thereupon placed the two extra permit tags on the offending sign. It is agreed by the parties that the sign is properly tagged and permitted at the present time. (Testimony of Conde, Owens). Sign located on SR 25A, southwest corner of Second Avenue and 54th Street N.W., Miami, Florida. This is a sign that was formerly two signs 6' X 12' which were made into one large sign 6' X 24'. A piece of metal was put between the two signs to join them. There is also a plywood embellishment attached to the merged signs which is the same height as the existing sign, but extends on the right end to make the total area approximately 15' x 28'. A permit was applied for by the Respondent and denied because the sign was less than 500' away from other permitted signs. Though, the signs were erected four or five years ago, the consolidated sign with new dimensions is considered by Petitioner to be a new sign that cannot be permitted because of +he above- mentioned spacing requirements. (Testimony of Conti, Simokat).
Recommendation That the alleged violations against Respondent Empire Advertising Industries, Inc., be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip Bennett, Esquire Room 562, Haydon Burns Building Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert Korner, Esquire 4790 Tamiami Trail Coral Gables, Florida 33134
