Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marcel C. Johnson, is a certified law enforcement officer having been issued certification number 0235217 on March 2, 1982 by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Until 1985 or early 1986, he was employed as a police office by the City of Miami. On or about April 15, 1986 Johnson pled nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance - cocaine, a third degree felony. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Johnson was placed on three years' probation and required to perform 150 hours of community service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's law enforcement certification number 0235217 be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Marcel C. Johnson 2105 Northwest 56th Street Miami, Florida 33142 Mr. Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Joe L. Wheeler, committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and dated November 16, 2005, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, certifying individuals for employment or appointment as a law enforcement officer and investigating complaints against individuals holding certificates as law enforcement officers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 943.3195, Florida Statutes. At the times pertinent to this matter, Respondent, Joe L. Wheeler, was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 169035 on December 11, 1996. He was employed with the Hollywood Police Department. At the times relevant to this matter, Mr. Wheeler was married to Donna Wilson-Wheeler. They were married in April 1996. They divorced in November 2004, after the events at issue in this matter. On June 11, 2003, Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Wilson-Wheeler lived together, along with four children: Vaughn Mitchell, who was 17 years of age at that time; S.M, who was 13 years of age at that time; J.W., who was five years of age at that time; and Jo. W., who was 12 years of age at that time. Vaughn Mitchell and S.M. are Ms. Wilson-Wheeler's sons from a previous marriage; J.W. is the daughter of Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Wilson-Wheeler; and Jo. W. is Mr. Wheeler's son. During the evening of June 11, 2003, Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, and all four children were in the family residence. At approximately 7:00 p.m., an argument began between Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Wilson-Wheeler in a downstairs room. Following the verbal altercation, which was over a video camera that Ms. Wilson-Wheeler had purchased for Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Wheeler went upstairs. Shortly after Mr. Wheeler went upstairs, Ms. Wilson- Wheeler, concerned about whether Mr. Wheeler would take her cellular telephone out of her purse, which she had left in the master bedroom, also went upstairs. When Ms. Wilson-Wheeler walked into the master bedroom, not finding her cellular phone in her purse, she confronted Mr. Wheeler, who was in the master bedroom bathroom. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler accused Mr. Wheeler of taking her cellular phone, which Mr. Wheeler denied. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler continued to accuse Mr. Wheeler, demanding that he return the phone. Both were angry and the "discussion" was heated. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, angry over her husband's denials, went to a desk in the bedroom and picked up a camera used by Mr. Wheeler and offered it in exchange for her phone. Mr. Wheeler angrily demanded she give him the camera, and she complied because she "knew now that he was ticked off." Ms. Wilson-Wheeler told Mr. Wheeler that she would just have the telephone service provider turn her phone off and went to retrieve her purse from the bed. As she did so, Mr. Wheeler said, "Here's your phone in the bathroom where you left it." Ms. Wilson-Wheeler went to the bathroom to retrieve the phone. Believing that she had not left the phone there, she told Mr. Wheeler, "You took it out." She also told him that she guessed he was still angry about the video camera. Mr. Wheeler replied, "Fuck you, fuck you" and told her he could buy his own camera, to which Ms. Wilson-Wheeler said, "Good." As the verbal sparing continued, Mr. Wheeler lost control and grabbed Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, who was facing the bathroom sink, by the neck with his left hand and punched her hard in the head with his right fist. His grip on her throat was tight enough to restrict her breathing. After punching her, Mr. Wheeler kicked Ms. Wilson- Wheeler's legs out from under her, causing her to fall to the bathroom floor. Mr. Wheeler pinned Ms. Wilson-Wheeler on the floor with his knee and, while cursing her, continued to punch her in the face and head, causing her head to strike the bathroom floor. Mr. Wheeler continued to choke Ms. Wilson-Wheeler while he hit her, causing her to have difficulty breathing. She began to fear that she would lose consciousness. The children, who were downstairs when Mr. Wheeler first struck Ms. Wilson-Wheeler and heard the commotion, ran upstairs to see what was happening. Vaughn came into the bathroom and, as Mr. Wheeler held his fist above Ms. Wilson- Wheeler ready to strike her again, he grabbed Mr. Wheeler's fist. Jo. W. also entered the bathroom yelling at his father to stop. S.M. entered the room, pleading with his mother to get up. Mr. Wheeler, when Vaughn grabbed him, got up off the floor and, with Vaughn attempting to restrain him, told Vaughn he would not hurt Ms. Wilson-Wheeler anymore. Mr. Wheeler's attack on Ms. Wilson-Wheeler caused visible bruises and swelling to her face, right arm, and left leg. She also had scratches on her neck, arm, and legs as result of the battery. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, picked up the telephone to call 911, but, when Mr. Wheeler threatened to kill her, did not make the call. Instead, she left the house. Although she considered driving to a police station to report the incident, she did not because of fear of what Mr. Wheeler would do to her. Eventually she drove to a nearby store, after picking up S.M., and had him go into the store to purchase a disposable camera. She then had S.M. take photographs, which were admitted into evidence, of the injuries caused by Mr. Wheeler. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler eventually returned to the family home. She spent the night in her daughter's room. The next day, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler attempted to discuss family finances with Mr. Wheeler, who was lifting weights in the garage. Mr. Wheeler became angry, cursed her, and repeated his threat to kill her. On June 18, 2003, after a dispute over the telephone, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler told Mr. Wheeler that she was going to report the incident. She was later told by her son that police officers were at the house with Mr. Wheeler. She immediately left her place of employment and went to the Pembroke Pines Police Department where she reported the June 11th incident. On June 19, 2003, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler sought a domestic violence injunction against Mr. Wheeler. The State Attorney's Office charged Mr. Wheeler in Broward County Court Case No. 03-21011MM10A with criminal misdemeanor battery based upon the events of June 11, 2003. On December 2, 2004, a jury returned a verdict finding Mr. Wheeler guilty of committing the criminal misdemeanor battery he had been charged with. Adjudication was withheld, and Mr. Wheeler was sentenced to a term of probation. On December 29, 2004, Mr. Wheeler resigned from employment with the Hollywood Police Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission finding that Joe L. Wheeler, violated Sections 943.13(7), and 943.1395(7) Florida Statutes (2003); dismissing the allegation that he violated Section 943.1395(6); and revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 8th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joe L. Wheeler Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be given credit for certain answers provided on the State Officers Certification Examination (officers certification examination).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, James H. Hall, Jr., took the officers certification examination and, thereafter, challenged certain answers to questions on the examination. Specifically, challenged questions were numbered 40, 49, 63, 89, 112, 115, 156, 143, 203, and 211. At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to questions 143 and 211, leaving eight questions to be challenged. The Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering officers certification examinations and establishing "standards for acceptable performance on each officer certification examination." § 943.1397(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).1 The officers certification examination is a multiple- choice examination with four answer choices for each question. Only one of the proposed answers is deemed correct. The answer deemed to be correct is the best of the four answer choices. The content of all the questions on the officers certification examination are derived from the basic recruit curriculum and from objectives that come from a job task analysis. The objectives appear in the beginning of every lesson of the curriculum. The curriculum materials are available to all applicants who take the officers certification examination. All the questions on the officers certification examination have been validated and field tested. Question 40 was clear and unambiguous and asked applicants to identify immunizations required for law enforcement officers. The correct answer to the Question 40 is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (c), based on his belief as to what communicable disease officers should and could be vaccinated against. The correct answer to Question 40 is included in the curriculum materials and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 69 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner's reason for choosing (c) as the answer to Question 40 does not constitute persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 49 was clear and unambiguous and required the applicants to demonstrate knowledge and application of the phonetic alphabet used by the Federal Communications Commission and the United States military. The correct answer to Question 49 is (a). Petitioner selected answer (c), based on his belief that the response next to that choice "flowed, that it didn't have too many syllables in it." The correct answer to Question 49 is included in the curriculum materials and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 89 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered the question correctly. Petitioner's rationale for selecting answer (c) does not constitute persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 63 was clear and unambiguous and required the applicants to demonstrate their understanding of various mental disorders. The correct answer to the question is (d). Petitioner selected answer (a). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer chosen by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 91 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 89 is clear and unambiguous and required applicants to know what an officer should do when a suspect is shot. The correct answer is (b). Petitioner selected answer choice (c). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the same answer selected by Petitioner. Question 89 is statistically valid, and 90 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 112 is clear and unambiguous and required applicants to demonstrate knowledge relative to parties at a traffic crash scene. The correct answer to the question is (d). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 68 percent of all test takers who answered this question answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 115 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of the officers' duty regarding the Miranda warning. The correct answer choice is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 85 percent of all test takers who answered this question answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 156 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge regarding the consent given by an adult needing assistance. The correct answer for Question 156 is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 73 percent of all persons who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 203 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge regarding the officers' responsibility in domestic violence incidents. The correct answer for Question 203 is (c). Petitioner selected the answer choice (d). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 68 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered the question correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the scoring on Questions 40, 49, 63, 89, 112, 115, 156, and 203 and dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 31st day of May, 2006.
The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the Respondent demonstrated lack of good moral character and made a false representation on an application for employment with the City of Tampa Police Department when he failed to disclose several prior places of employment. By an amended notice of hearing, dated September 15, 1983, Respondent was given due notice of the formal hearing held on October 28, 1983. By a pleading addressed to the undersigned Hearing Officer and dated October 22, 1983, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the notice of hearing and stated that he would not be attending the hearing. Respondent stated no proper grounds for the granting of a continuance and no continuance was requested in accordance with the Model Rules of Procedure. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Carl A. Kaluhiokalani, R. S. Noblitt, Kenneth H. Taylor, Oscar Crosby, Curtis Lane, Elmer Barry, Sue Campbell. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. The Respondent did not appear and did not present evidence on his behalf.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has held law enforcement officer certificate No. 02-026704. This certificate has been in an inactive status since May 14, 1981. On June 11, 1980, the Respondent applied for employment with the Tampa Police Department. On September 15, 1980, the Respondent became employed by the Tampa Police Department. On May 14, 1981, The Respondent was terminated for failure to disclose material information on his employment application. The Respondent had previously worked at the Central Garage, City of Tampa, for a short period of time in 1973. He was terminated because of being lazy and uncooperative and because he was found sleeping in the back of a police car while on duty. This employment was not disclosed on his June 11, 1980, application to the Tampa Police Department. In 1974, the Respondent had first applied for employment with the Tampa Police Department and was not hired because of information that he had previously been terminated from another city department because of being lazy and uncooperative. The Respondent was employed by Barry Investigations in April 1979, and was employed by J. C. Penney from September 12, 1978, through January 28, 1979. Neither of these employers was disclosed on the employment application of June 11, 1980. The application form requests the applicant's entire employment record. The application form asks for the applicant's employment record without limitation as to the time period covered. The form states that the applicant is to "REQUEST ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NEEDED," to list more than the five employers for which space is provided on the standard form.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 943.145(3)(b), Florida Statutes and suspending his law enforcement officer certificate for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED this 5 day of June 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Franklin P. Taylor Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director P.O. Box 2136 Department of Law Enforcement Lutz, Florida 33549 Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Mitchell was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 8, 1992, and was issued Certificate No. 37-91-502-01. On April 20, 1992, Mitchell applied for a position with the Sumter Correctional Institution. The employment application asked if the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor. Mitchell answered "No" and certified that his answers were true, correct and complete. Mitchell also had to file a supplemental application which asks the applicant to list all arrests or convictions, including sealed records. Mitchell filled in N/A. Mitchell again attested that there were no willful misrepresentations, omissions, or falsifications in the supplemental application. Mitchell admits to having been arrested for involuntary battery on June 18, 1964; to having been arrested for strong-armed robbery on May 10, 1965; to having been arrested for disorderly conduct on December 1, 1965; to having been arrested for burglary on January 19, 1966; to having been arrested for deceptive practices on June 15, 1966; to having been arrested for purse-snatching on August 15, 1968; and to having been arrested for attempted deceptive practices on August 27, 1968. All these arrests for various misdemeanors and felonies occurred in Illinois. Mitchell admits not having divulged the arrests from Illinois on his employment application to Sumter Correctional Institution, but he claims that the omission of his arrest history on the employment application was not willful. He further claims that he chose not to list the arrest for deceptive practice on September 28, 1966, because, even though he was sentenced to a year in jail, he was granted a retrial and was cleared. Mitchell also says that he thought he was seventeen when he was arrested in 1962 and therefore did not have to list his arrests because at the time, he was a minor or youthful offender. However, he was twenty-one years old when he was arrested for the burglary and was twenty-three years old when he was arrested for purse-snatching and attempted deceptive practices. Mitchell also claims that despite his criminal history, he did not disclose the information because he had gotten other agencies to run searches of his criminal history background and those searches showed he had no criminal history in Florida. The evidence proves that Mitchell did not disclose his criminal history on the applications because he did not think the criminal history would show up if the agency ran a background check. The rest of his claims are rejected as being unworthy of belief.
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 suspending the correctional officer certification of Gary L. Mitchell for eighteen months to be imposed retroactively to the September 1, 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2654 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties 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: 1-4(1-4); 5-12(5); 13- 15(6); 16 & 17(7); and 19(8). Proposed finding of fact 18 is irrelevant and unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Gary L. Mitchell 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: 2(1); 3(1); and 4(4). Proposed findings of fact 5 and 7-24 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Mitchell 26070 Hayman Boulevard Brooksville, Florida 32602 Steven G. Brady FDLE Regional Legal Advisor 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N209 Hurston Building, North Tower Orlando, Florida 32801 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. More specifically the issue is whether a federal misdemeanor can be construed as a felony for purposes of Section 943.13(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation filed by the parties, the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Commission on March 31, 1985, and was issued certificate no. 12-85-002-01. On January 31, 1986, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of forgery of a United States Treasury check, a violation of Title 18 USC Section 510(b)-(c) and (2), in the United States District Court, in and for the Southern District of Florida, case no. 85-8098-Cr-PAINE. The acts which gave rise to the criminal charge against Respondent had occurred prior to Respondent's certification. The Superseding Information charged that Respondent, along with two other named defendants, had falsely made and forged an endorsement on a check made payable to another. This alleged forgery occurred on or about April 31, 1984, at Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. Respondent had been employed as a police officer by the Fort Pierce police department for approximately seven months when the warrant for his arrest was issued. He subsequently resigned his position. Respondent was adjudged guilty of the charge set forth in paragraph 2, and was placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. Respondent was also required to make restitution to First Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Pierce in the amount of $179.71. Respondent was not required to serve a sentence of confinement. Respondent completed his probation and made restitution as required. The original charge against Respondent had been a felony, however, during the course of negotiations the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor. Respondent refused to plead guilty to the felony charge and testified he would have continued to fight a felony conviction. Respondent pled guilty to the federal misdemeanor on the belief that it would not affect his certification. Petitioner offered no evidence to establish the facts underlying the alleged criminal offense, i.e., that Respondent did, in fact, forge an endorsement on a check payable to another.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's law enforcement certificate, no. 12-85-002-01. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 28th day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Diamond R. Horne 101 C Seaway Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice standard and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, failed to maintain good moral character by unlawfully acquiring or obtaining, or attempting to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge on or about July 16, 1999; by unlawfully withholding information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance on or between April 1, 1999, and August 5, 1999; by corruptly using or attempting to use his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself or others, to wit: prepared a fictitious Offense/Incident Report as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tad K. Moody, is a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. He was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 160029 on February 11, 1996. Respondent was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department as a police officer during the period February 11, 1996, through May 19, 2000. In August of 1998, Respondent received an on-duty injury and was prescribed pain medications as a result. Respondent signed a contract with Dr. Greenberger stating that he would only receive controlled substances from Dr. Greenberger. Respondent went to several different doctors after August 1998 and received prescription pain medications from all of them. Respondent never advised his treating physicians that he was receiving Hydrocodone or other pain medication from each of his treating physicians. Respondent did not inform any of the physicians that he was receiving prescription pain medications from any of the other physicians. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent reported to his treating physician’s office that his vehicle was stolen with his medication in it. Dr. Batas required substantiation of the theft in the form of an auto theft report prior to issuing additional medication. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent prepared a false Tampa Police Department Offense/Incident Report, reporting that his vehicle containing medications had been stolen. He submitted it to Dr. Batas' office in order to receive additional medication. On August 4, 1999, Respondent presented a prescription for 90 Vicoprofen to the Eckerd Drug Store pharmacy at 1904 West Lumsden in Brandon, Florida. Dr. Steven J. Tresser, M.D., had written Respondent a prescription on August 4, 1999, for 40, not 90, Vicoprofen. The Eckerd Drug Store personnel identified Respondent as the individual who submitted the altered prescription for Vicoprofen or Hydrocodone. Respondent admitted to Detective Lusczynski, during an interview, that he had an addiction problem due to the back pain he suffered as a result of the injury he received in 1998. In late 1999, Respondent was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (2 counts) and obtaining drugs from a physician by withholding information. On or about July 24, 2000, Respondent entered into a Drug Court Agreement for 18 months' probation with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's State Attorney's Office. As part of the agreement, Respondent was required to successfully complete the Drug Court Program, including evaluation; counseling; random urinalysis; and pay $372 court costs, plus $40 a month toward supervision. Respondent's drug case was dismissed on March 14, 2002, based on his successful completion of the Drug Court Program. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully acquired possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation on or about July 16, 1999. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully withheld information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance during the relevant time period. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent corruptly used, or attempted to use, his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself by preparing a fictitious Offense/Incident Report on or about July 16, 1999.
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 as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2000). Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tad K. Moody 10124 Woodberry Road Tampa, Florida 33619 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
