Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a firefighter for over 29 years, beginning his career in Brentwood, New York in 1965. He is currently certified in Florida as a firefighter. On January 13, 1972, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the felony crime of unlawful imprisonment in the State of New York. Thereafter, he was sentenced to five years probation on March 3, 1972. He was discharged from probation on May 15, 1974. On October 10, 1977, the State of New York issued Respondent a "Certificate from Disabilities." The certificate purportedly relieves Respondent from "all disabilities and bars to employment, excluding the right to be eligible for public office." On or about December 30, 1994, the State of Florida, Office of Executive Clemency, certified the restoration of civil rights to Respondent. This certification grants "restoration of civil rights in the State of Florida for any and all felony convictions in any state other than Florida, or in any United States court or military court. . ." Following his legal difficulties in New York, Respondent came to the State of Florida and, in 1973, applied for employment with the St. Cloud Fire Department in St. Cloud, Florida. Concerned about whether his New York legal problems posed a problem, Respondent revealed his criminal history. A determination was made by the employing authority that further revelation of Respondent's criminal record on certification forms was not required. Respondent was informed of this decision. Subsequently, the St. Cloud Fire Department completed and provided certification forms to the State of Florida Office of Fire Marshal which did not reveal Respondent's criminal record, resulting in Respondent's certification on October 23, 1974, as a firefighter. Respondent has maintained in his certification to the present date. Following employment with the St. Cloud Fire Department, Respondent was employed at the Holden Heights Fire Department in Orange County, Florida, and subsequently other fire departments. Later, he worked at one time as an emergency medical technician. He eventually worked for the Deltona Fire District in the unincorporated town of Deltona, Florida. Respondent did not intend to mislead any employer regarding his criminal past. Further, no certification form was ever submitted by Respondent to Petitioner in order to obtain certification which denied his criminal past until February 27, 1977, when he executed a document entitled "Fire Fighters Standards Counsel Compliance of New Employees, FFSC Form #C-1." In response to the question on the form requesting information regarding conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, Respondent relied on the assurances he had received from the St. Cloud Fire Department and checked the "no" box. This document was then signed and submitted by Respondent not to obtain certification, but to advise the State Fire College in Ocala, Florida of his status as a volunteer with the Holden Heights Fire Department. The certification also served to maintain Respondent's certification since, at the time, he was not employed as a firefighter. At the time of Respondent's initial certification, Florida law prohibited certification of applicants with a felony conviction or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Petitioner did not, however, conduct independent background checks of applicants at that time, relying instead upon the submitting authorities for verification of this information. Petitioner became aware of Respondent's criminal past in February of 1994, when Respondent was employed in Deltona, Florida, and had become active in the issue of incorporation for the town. A political opponent of Respondent named Robert C. Hoffman apprised Petitioner of Respondent's past. Verification by Petitioner followed, culminating in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2 Accepted. 3. Rejected, subordinate. 4.-11. Accepted, but not verbatim. 12. Rejected, allegations are not proof, relevance. 13.-17. Accepted, not verbatim. Rejected, no factual basis. Rejected, subordinate. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-8. Accepted, not verbatim. 9. Rejected, relevance. 10.-14. Accepted, not verbatim. 15. Rejected, relevance. 16.-18. Accepted, not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. McCormick, Esq. Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Lawrence G. Walters, Esq. Doran, Walters et al. P. O. Drawer 15110 Daytona Beach, FL 32115 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Dept. of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152
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
The Issue The issue is whether the law enforcement officer's certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, should be revoked for failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, based on two incidents of misconduct. A third incident alleged in the second unnumbered paragraph of paragraph two of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed at the beginning of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Nicholas R. Small was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer before the occurrence of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint was filed after a letter of complaint was received from a citizen in April, 1985. This delay in bringing the matter to the attention of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission staff accounts for the delay in the filing of the complaint. On June 13, 1978, Mr. Albert Lee Taylor, his wife and their three small children, were leaving Miami in the family car which was being driven by Mr. Taylor. They were on their way to visit a sick relative in Lake Placid, Florida. Due to Mr. Taylor's work schedule they were unable to begin their trip until after midnight. The Taylors are black. The Respondent, Mr. Small, was a police officer for the City of Hialeah Gardens. He observed the Taylor vehicle as it passed his police car at the corner of N.W. 81st Street and l03rd Avenue. Mr. Small pulled Mr. Taylor's vehicle over because he believed there were deficiencies in the tag light on the car. When Mr. Small left the patrol car and walked to Mr. Taylor's car, he told Mr. Taylor to get out of the car and walk to the back of Taylor's vehicle, which Mr. Taylor did. While using his flashlight, Mr. Small observed a handgun setting in an area between the bucket seats of Taylor's automobile. Mr. Small took possession of the gun. Mr. Taylor carried the gun for protection during the family's travel. Mr. Small arrested Mr. Taylor and while doing so required him to place his hands on the hood of the police car to conduct a pat- down search of Mr. Taylor. The police car engine was running. The hood of the police car was hot to the touch which made it difficult for Mr. Taylor to take the position which Mr. Small required him to assume. Small told Mr. Taylor to spread his legs so that he could be patted-down. Mr. Taylor had recently had hip surgery to replace the ball joint of his hip with an artificial joint. This restricted his range of motion and any attempt to move the leg beyond its range resulted in severe pain. Mr. Taylor spread his legs as far as his hip condition would permit without pain. Mr. Small became dissatisfied with Mr. Taylor's stance and told him to spread his legs more. Mr. Taylor told Mr. Small that he had already spread his legs as far apart as he could with a pin in his hip. Mr. Taylor's wife, who was near by, told Mr. Small that she was a nurse, that Mr. Taylor had a pin in his hip, and that he could spread his legs no further apart. Mr. Small told Mrs. Taylor to "shut up" and shouted that he did not care about that. Mr. Small took his leg and placed it between Mr. Taylor's feet and, by pushing outward, forced Mr. Taylor's legs further apart. Mr. Taylor lost his balance and, as a result of the action, fell on the hood of the car. This caused Mr. Taylor severe pain at the time and resulted in increased pain and tenderness in the leg for several weeks. Mr. Small took Mr. Taylor to jail. Mr. Taylor was never convicted of any crime as the result of that arrest. The next incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place on October 24, 1981, when Mr. Small was a uniformed officer for the City of Opa- Locka. Mr. Small had been sent to the scene of a disturbance near Rutland Street and 22nd Avenue. Rayfield Brown, Lloyd Johnson, and his two-year old daughter Fiona were there. Mr. Small and other officers arrived and Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were arrested and placed in Mr. Small's police car. After the arrest Mr. Small got into the police car to drive Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown to the police station. On the way to the police station, Mr. Small turned onto Rutland Street. Mr. Brown looked at the sidewalk on the street corner and saw Mr. Johnson's child, Fiona, standing alone on the sidewalk and crying. Mr. Johnson saw his daughter as they passed the corner and asked Mr. Small to stop the car and pick the child up. Mr. Johnson pleaded with Mr. Small to pick up his daughter so that she would not be left alone on the street but Mr. Small did not stop to attend to the child or take any other action to assure that another officer would take care of the child, thus leaving her abandoned in a urban residential area.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the law enforcement officer certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2383 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner The substance of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been accepted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent No proposed findings of fact were submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter Kneski, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 626 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Randall J. Cason, is a certified law enforcement officer having been issued certification number 0228323 on December 8, 1980 by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Until sometime in 1986, he was employed as a police office by the City of Miami. On or about March 4, 1986 Cason was convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery by a public servant (a first degree misdemeanor) and bribery by a public servant (a third degree felony). On April 21, 1986 he was sentenced to serve five years in prison for the felony conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's law enforcement certification number 0228323 be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th 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 13th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Randall J. Cason 2521 Ludlum Road Miami Springs, Florida 33166 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 presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted certification as a law enforcement officer under the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-16, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the matter to be determined deals with the propriety of the denial of certification in the face of an arrest and conviction of Petitioner for a felony offense, which allegedly would cause the Petitioner to be rejected as an applicant for certification. The denial of licensure is purportedly in keeping with the dictates of Subsection 943.13(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner had made application to be certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida, in keeping with the terms and conditions of Subsection 943.13, Florida Statutes. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has completed all administrative requirements for such licensure; however, he has been denied licensure based upon his arrest, a finding of guilt and judgment and sentence related to a charge of conspiracy to transport a stolen vehicle in Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce from New York, New York, to Miami, Florida, and from Miami, Florida, to Havana, Cuba, knowing that the motor vehicle had been stolen. This offense related to Title XVIII, Sections 2312 and 2371, U.S.C., in an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 8519-M-CR. For these matters the Petitioner was imprisoned for a period of two (2) years on two (2) counts of the indictment, Counts 3 and 6. The sentence in those counts was to run concurrently. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored in the State of Florida, together with his rights to own, possess and use a firearm. Federal firearms disability arising from the felony conviction have also been set aside. See Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, respectively, admitted into evidence.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Kutina McLeod, should have received credit for answers provided on the examination for the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers (the exam).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a correctional officer. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers. As such, it must administer the examinations used to assure competency for certification. The examination at issue in this proceeding is known as the State Officers Certification Examination for Correctional Officers. It is a multiple-choice test that is scored by marking the best of the proposed answers. Only one of the proposed answers is deemed correct. As to this Petitioner, four questions were challenged that the Petitioner did not receive credit for on the exam. As to each challenged question, the Petitioner felt her answer should have received credit. All of the questions challenged by the Petitioner were taken almost verbatim from the exam's course materials. The Petitioner attended the course and was instructed as to each of the challenged matters. The instruction did not deviate from the language that later appeared on the exam. None of the challenged questions proved to be statistically invalid by virtue of the number of wrong answers provided to the question. In fact, as to one of the Petitioner's challenged questions, 88 percent of the persons tested responded accurately. Only 5 percent of the persons tested gave the answer that the Petitioner provided. The Petitioner's confusion as to the answers she provided was probably influenced by her experiences as an officer within a jail setting. The Petitioner provided answers based on the totality of her experience and not just the material covered in the instructional course. None of the Petitioner's answers, however, were more correct than those set forth by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2002, 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 30th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Grace A. Jaye, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Kutina McLeod 309 Julia Street Key West, Florida 33040 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue to be decided is whether Petitioner’s challenges to questions on the state officer certification examination should be sustained, resulting in additional points being added to his score.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the state officer certification examination on March 26, 2014. No evidence was placed in the record with respect to his score on the examination. However, his petition indicates that he failed the examination by two questions, an allegation that Respondent does not appear to dispute. The parties stipulated that the validity of four, as opposed to six, questions are at issue in this proceeding. Questions for the Exam are written by in-house exam development staff, based upon the official training curriculum. The questions are then shared with an advisory team comprising approximately 20 members, who are full-time law enforcement officers in the State of Florida. The team members, who are considered to be subject matter experts, are selected through nominations from their respective agencies and their experience in law enforcement. The subject matter experts review the questions for content to ensure that they are valid for the curriculum that is required for law enforcement officers. Staff then conducts an internal review to ensure that the questions meet their formatting guidelines, and if a question passes successfully through all of those requirements, then the question is placed into a pilot or field-test rotation. Pilot questions are placed on examinations but are not included in an examinee’s score, which allows the Department to collect statistical data on the question to ensure that it is not only valid in terms of content, but that it is also psychometrically and statistically sound. Test questions are examined in accordance with standards established by the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education that outline the standards for test items. The questions used by Respondent comply with the applicable standards. To reduce the possibility for error with respect to the questions asked, an examination will include multiple questions concerning the same curriculum. The purpose of the law enforcement certification examination is to certify an examinee’s knowledge of the official training curriculum that has been established and approved by the Florida Criminal Justice and Training Commission. The Exam was linked directly to the curriculum. If there is a major change as a result of case law that would bring the validity of an item in the test bank into question, the question is removed. However, that rarely happens, because the examination is meant to cover basic principles as opposed to more advanced details related to law enforcement practices. In evaluating the validity of Petitioner’s challenged questions, the Department examined certain statistics related to each question. The first statistic deals with the mean difficulty value. The mean difficulty value reflects the percentage of examinees who have answered the question correctly for the life of the question to date. The focal difficulty value is the percentage of examinees who answered the question correctly during the administration of the examination that Petitioner is challenging. The mean point-biserial correlation is a quality control measure that correlates performance on a particular question to overall performance on the exam. A positive value indicates that the question is statistically sound. A negative value indicates that there may be a problem with the question. The next value examined is the focal point-biserial correlation, which is calculated using the examinees in the administration of the examination being challenged. Like the point-biserial correlation, the calculation should yield a positive number to indicate an acceptable question. Also examined is the number of students who have answered the question, and the number of students who chose the correct answer. The final value examined is the number of examinees who chose the same (incorrect) answer as the person challenging the examination. Petitioner challenged questions 59, 126, 179, and 185. With respect to question 59, the correct answer was “c.” Petitioner chose answer “b.” The question, which will not be repeated verbatim here, involved the use of force and the concept of objective reasonableness. The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 59 was .83. The focal difficulty value was .79. Both the mean point-biserial correlation and the focal point-biserial correlation were .29. A total of 2,535 examinees had answered the question, and 2,109 answered it correctly. Question 59 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Question 126 involved what kind of treatment should be considered for gunshot wounds to the torso. The correct answer was “c.” Petitioner chose answer “b.” The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 126 was .56. The focal difficulty value was .60. The mean point-biserial correlation was .23 and the focal point-biserial correlation was .20. A total of 2,542 examinees had answered the question, and 1,411 answered it correctly. Question 126 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Question 179 addressed field sobriety tests. The correct answer was “a.” Petitioner chose answer “b.” The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 179 was .77. The focal difficulty value was also .77. The mean point-biserial correlation was .20 and the focal point-biserial correlation was .09. A total of 2,566 examinees had answered the question, and 1,967 answered it correctly. Question 179 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Finally, question 185 addressed proper traffic stops. The correct answer was “a.” Petitioner chose answer “d.” The subject matter was adequately covered in the curriculum, which has not changed from 2012 to the present with respect to this issue. The mean difficulty value for question 185 was .90. The focal difficulty value was .84. The mean point-biserial correlation was .17 and the focal point-biserial correlation was .08. A total of 2,867 examinees had answered the question, and 2,574 answered it correctly. Question 185 is a statistically-valid question, and Petitioner presented no evidence to indicate that his answer should be considered the correct answer. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the questions challenged were unclear, ambiguous, or in any respect unfair or unreasonable. Neither has he established that he answered any of the challenged questions correctly.
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 of questions 59, 126, 179, and 185, and dismiss the petition in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 (eServed) Greg Chapman 5870 Westmont Road Milton, Florida 32583 (eServed) Thomas Kirwin, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Richard L. Swearingen, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed)
The Issue An Administrative Complaint dated February 8, 1999, alleges that Respondent committed violations of Section 493.6118, Florida Statutes, when he performed armed security officer services without a proper license and when he failed to cooperate with an official investigation and gave false information regarding his identity and address. The issues in this proceeding are whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Vance H. Britto, was licensed by the Florida Department of State as a security officer some time prior to 1993. His license expired and he was deemed ineligible for re- licensure because of an unpaid disciplinary fine. On August 27, 1998, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Richard Yates, an investigator with the Florida Department of State, conducted a pro-active investigation at Windhover Apartments in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Investigator Yates was accompanied by his colleague, Ed Sundberg. The investigators approached an individual wearing a security officer's uniform and badge and carrying a 38-caliber revolver. They identified themselves and asked the individual for his name and security officer's license. The individual gave his name as David Wilson but said that his license was at his employer's office being laminated. Although he was in a white Ford sedan with security markings, the individual denied having his driver's license or social security card with him. He gave his address as 2203 Page Street in Orlando. He gave his supervisor's name as Ricky Heath and his employer as Security Enforcement Services, Inc. After a brief exchange with the investigators, the individual sped away in his vehicle. Investigator Yates made a note of the license plate and made further notes on an inspection checklist. When he returned to his office and described the individual and the encounter to his supervisor, and with the aid of a file photograph, Investigator Yates was able to identify the individual as Vance Britto, a former licensee. In 1998 and to the present time, Mr. Britto has not been licensed with either a "Class G" or "Class D" license. No one knew Mr. Britto at the Page Street address he gave the investigators and when they checked his address in the computer file they learned that he had not lived there in over two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the agency enter its formal order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 493.6118(1)(g) and (o), Florida Statutes, and assessing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Vance H. Britto 6525 Pompeii Drive Orlando, Florida 32822 Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
