Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
AARON ATTIAS vs DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, 93-007159 (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Hollywood, Florida Dec. 23, 1993 Number: 93-007159 Latest Update: Jul. 27, 1995

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aaron Attias ("Attias"), worked for the town of Bay Harbor, Florida, from June, 1977 to April, 1992, as a tollman in Bay Harbor Island. Pursuant to a rule of the town of Bay Harbor, Attias was required to collect a thirty-five cent toll per automobile. Uniformed police officers in marked police cars were exempt from the toll; however, police officers not in uniform and in unmarked cars were charged the toll. In April, 1992, a woman pulled up to Attias' toll booth and told him she had just been robbed and she had no money to pay the toll. Attias paid her toll, told her to pull over to the side of the road, and called the Bay Harbor Police. Allen Block, a police officer, for Bay Harbor, was dispatched to the toll facility to investigate the robbery. He learned that the crime occurred in North Miami and, thus, should be investigated by the North Miami Police. A uniformed, female police officer in a marked police car pulled up to the toll booth. The officer was not a Bay Harbor police officer. Attias allowed her to pass without paying the toll because she was in uniform and in a marked car. Approximately twenty minutes later, a motorist in an unmarked car pulled up to the toll booth and identified himself as a police officer. Attias charged him the thirty-five cent toll. The officer paid the toll; however, based on the motorist's demeanor, Attias felt that he didn't like having to pay the toll. Attias gave the officer a receipt. Later, Officer Block and Sergeant Bateman came to the toll facility and spoke with Attias' supervisor and advised him they were there to arrest Attias. Attias' supervisor advised him the police wanted to see him. Attias put his money box in the vault and met the police officers in the hallway leading to the main toll facility. There is conflicting testimony concerning what happened after Officer Block and Sergeant Bateman met with Attias. According to Officer Block, Attias refused to speak to the police, grabbed Sergeant Bateman and pushed him with both hands against the wall. Officer Block and Sergeant Bateman informed him he was under arrest for obstruction of justice. This charge was because Attias had charged the North Miami police officer the thirty-five cent toll. According to Attias, he asked the policemen what they wanted, they began to crowd him, and his shoulder touched Sergeant Bateman. Attias testified that he did not push Sergeant Bateman. Having judged the demeanor and the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Attias did push Sergeant Bateman with both hands, knocking him against the wall. The pushing was not done in self-defense or in defense of another. On August 12, 1993, Attias applied for a Class "D" Security Officer license with the Department of State (Department). By letter dated November 24, 1993, the Department denied his application, citing as grounds Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes. Other than his arrest for the incident at issue, Attias has never been arrested.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Aaron Attias' application for a Class "D" Security Officer license. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 18th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-7159S To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed finding of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Fact. Petitioner's unnumbered finding of fact on page 2 of his proposed recommended order is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan S. Fishman, Esquire Fishman & Goldstone Suite 202 2300 West Sample Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33073 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol 32399-0250 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Florida Laws (2) 120.57493.6118
# 1
DEMECIO H. ENRIQUEZ vs. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, 76-000174 (1976)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-000174 Latest Update: Jul. 09, 1976

The Issue Whether the suspension of Petitioner by Respondent F.S.U. was in compliance with Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22A-10, Florida Administrative Code.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a career service employee of Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, was informed on February 21, 1975 that he was being suspended because of charges of entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor and because of conduct unbecoming a public employee. Three days later he was sent a letter containing the same information; that letter was sent by certified mail with return receipt requested. On February 27, 1975, Mr. Enriquez appealed his suspension. Mr. Clarence Stephens Hooker, Jr., Chief Investigator for the Florida State University Police Department, received a phone call on February 20, 1975 from Corporal Hornicker of the Florida State University Police Department informing Mr. Hooker that a white female had reported that she had been approached by a Puerto Rican or a Cuban male in the School of Business and it was Corporal Hornicker's understanding that the man was working as a janitor and had offered to open a professor's office for the purpose of the student to copy an examination. A meeting was due to be held between the student and the janitor in the School of Business building at about 8:00 p.m. in Room 241. Officer John Stephens was stationed in a room directly across from Room 241 with a portable radio so that he could hear conversations in Room 241. Room 241 was entered by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stephens in which the student and the Petitioner were standing. The Petitioner was standing behind a desk and the student was standing to the left of the door as the officers entered. The Petitioner was arrested and was subsequently transported to the Leon County Jail. He was charged with the felony of entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: Petty larceny, the theft of the examination. Subsequently and pursuant to these events a judgment was entered with a charge of entering without breaking wherein the Petitioner was convicted of simple trespassing and sentence was to pay and forfeit to the State of Florida for the use and benefit of Leon County the sum of $100 or in lieu thereof be imprisoned by confinement in the Leon County Jail for one month. The fine was to be paid in one week under the judgment. The judgment was filed July 14, 1975, Minutes No. 96 by John A. Rudd, Circuit Judge, Case No. 75-179. Petitioner testified that he completed his sentence by serving time in the Leon County Jail. A statement was taken from the student involved, Marilyn Phillips, a white female. Said statement was taken by Captain Hooker and transcribed at his direction and was offered into evidence as the transcribed, signed and notarized statement of Miss Marilyn Phillips. Miss Phillips was not present in person and was not available as a witness for the Respondent. Miss Phillips, in her notarized statement, stated that she was studying for an exam in the School of Business on the evening of February 20, 1975. She stated the Petitioner, who was a university janitor, approached her sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. and said he would let her into her professor's room to see and copy the examination she was going to have the next day. She stated she said, "No." He then told her about another student that he had let in and that student had given him $50.00 to copy an examination. She stated that Mr. Enriquez then became personal with the student and offered her $20.00. She told him to get lost and he did. She then stated that she saw a professor she knew and discussed the incident with him. She stated the professor called the University Police and arranged a meeting between Mr. Enriquez and herself. She stated that the two met about 8:00 p.m. and Mr. Enriquez unlocked the door to the professor's office and began assisting her in looking for her examination. She stated that shortly thereafter the police arrived and arrested him for entering without breaking with intent to commit a misdemeanor. She further stated that Mr. Enriquez touched her body, tried to kiss her and asked her to go into a dark room and offered her money. The Petitioner testified that he was not guilty, that he had not offered a set of examination papers to anyone and that Miss Phillips, in fact, followed him into the room. He testified that he would not recognize an examination paper. The Petitioner is not fluent in the use of the English language and perhaps does not understand the English language well. He was employed as a janitor on the second story of the School of Business and he was employed to clean the offices including Room 241 in which he was arrested at the time of the incident and which the student was occupying at the same time. The university had issued him a key to the building and to the offices and his job was to clean the offices. No examination papers were found in his hands or in the hands of the student at the time of the arrest of the Petitioner. The Hearing Officer further finds: That although Petitioner may have been offering to sell examination papers to the student, Marilyn Phillips, and may have made improper advances toward her, no examination papers were found in his hands or in the hands of the student. The testimony of Office Clarence Stephens Hooker, Jr. was that Petitioner was offering the student different pieces of paper and ". . .what I had seen when I opened the door was, in fact, Mr. Enriquez in the drawer still attempting to locate the examination he was suppose to copy." This may have been an assumption on the part of the officer as to the actions of the Petitioner. There was no testimony of Officer Stephens that he actually heard an offer to sell examination papers or conversation involving personal advances of Petitioner toward the student from his station of surveillance in Room 241. The statement of the student that Petitioner attempted to sell her examination papers and seduce her is not sufficient inasmuch as she failed to appear in person to testify; there were no examination papers found in her possession nor in the possession of Petitioner; no substantiating testimony regarding Petitioner's misconduct was presented by anyone; and the Respondent agency had issued Petitioner keys to the floor and room in which he was found; Petitioner was employed as a janitor whose duties were to clean offices after hours. Petitioner, in person, denied that he attempted to sell examination papers to the student; he denied that he made improper advances; he stated that the student followed him into the room; he stated that he had keys to the floor and offices and that he, in fact, had a cart and clearing equipment with him and was attempting to dust the room as was his custom and that when he was apprehended he was in the place of his employment attempting to perform his job. As an outgrowth of the arrest of Petitioner, said Petitioner pled guilty to simple trespassing and served ten days in the Leon County Jail.

Recommendation Reverse the order of suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 30 day of April, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of April, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean K. Parker, Esquire Associate University Attorney Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Attorney for Respondent Demecio H. Enriquez 1701 Keith Street Tallahassee, Florida J. R. Robinson, Director University Personnel Relations Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

# 2
CHARLES J. DICK vs DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, 91-000365 (1991)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Jan. 16, 1991 Number: 91-000365 Latest Update: Jun. 21, 1991

Findings Of Fact On August 10, 1990, Petitioner filed an application for licensure with the Respondent as a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern and as a Class "EE" Repossessor Intern. On January 8, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioner, in an amended denial letter, that his application for licensure had been denied. The grounds for the denial were based on Petitioner's alleged violations of Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes, on two separate occasions. On June 11, 1982, the Petitioner and Donald Olkewicz became engaged in an altercation in Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioner fired a 12 gauge flare gun through the screened apartment window of Mr. Olkewicz and later, in the parking lot of the apartment complex, Petitioner again discharged the flare gun which resulted in injuries to the face of Mr. Olkewicz. Petitioner was not acting in self-defense. Petitioner was arrested by Officer R. D. Cracraft who detected the odor of alcohol on the Petitioner and on Mr. Olkewicz. On July 1, 1982, an Information was filed against Petitioner in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, for the felony charges of (1) Discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling and of (2) aggravated battery. The charges contained in this Information were assigned Case No. 82-6213 CF10. On April 15, 1983, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere in Case No. 82-6213 CF10 to the charge of aggravated battery. 1/ On June 3, 1982, an order was entered by the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, withholding adjudication of guilt on the charge of aggravated battery and placing Petitioner on probation for a period of four years. Petitioner's term of probation was terminated early due to his good behavior. On July 30, 1988, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Officer Edward T. Sileo of the Boca Raton Police Department was dispatched to Petitioner's apartment to supervise the removal of personal items by Petitioner's ex- girlfriend, Marie Rochay. Officer Sileo escorted Ms. Rochay from the parking lot to the apartment, and upon opening the door saw Petitioner standing in the hallway with a spear gun pointed at the door. Petitioner dropped the spear gun upon seeing Officer Sileo. Petitioner and Ms. Rochay began to argue and at some point Petitioner accidentally hit Officer Sileo in the chest and indicated in a profane manner that he wanted Officer Sileo to leave the premises. When Ms. Rochay began removing her clothes from a walk-in closet, Petitioner began to argue with her and attempted to keep her from leaving by physically restraining her. When Officer Sileo stepped in to separate Petitioner and Ms. Rochay Petitioner began to wrestle with Officer Sileo. Petitioner physically resisted Officer Sileo after being advised that he was under arrest. Petitioner was not acting in self-defense. There was no evidence that Petitioner was criminally prosecuted based on this incident. At the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner was employed by Marine Recovery International. Mr. Joe Dinardo, the owner, testified that he considered Petitioner to be a valuable employee, and of good moral character. Marine Recovery International is willing to sponsor Petitioner's application and to supervise him during his internship. Petitioner was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army on June 11, 1982. Petitioner is licensed by the United States Coast Guard as a Merchant Marine Officer with the designation "Master of Near Coastal Steam or Motor Vessels of Not More Than 100 Gross Tons" and is a member in good standing of the American Professional Captains Association, an organization for U.S. Coast Guard Licensed Captains. Petitioner presented several letters from individuals who know him and who consider him to be responsible, professional, and of good moral character. These letters recommend licensure for Petitioner.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern and as a Class "EE" Repossessor Intern. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of June, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 21st day of June, 1991.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57493.6118
# 3
HARRY L. HOFFMAN vs DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, 94-003219 (1994)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Jun. 08, 1994 Number: 94-003219 Latest Update: Jul. 27, 1995

The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License should be granted or denied.

Findings Of Fact On or about January 4, 1994, the Petitioner filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1994, the Respondent sent a letter to the Petitioner advising him of its intention to deny his application. The sole stated ground for denial was described as "[f]ailure to qualify under Section 493.6118(1)(j). You committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of yourself or another." The denial letter also made specific reference to the date of February 21, 1993, and specifically referred to criminal charges allegedly brought against the Petitioner on that date for battery and aggravated battery. With regard to the Respondent's basis for denial, the proof demonstrates that during the early afternoon of February 21, 1993, the Petitioner became involved in an argument with Jessica Favata, an adult female with whom he was acquainted. The intensity of the argument escalated and at one point the Petitioner physically pushed Ms. Favata. At that point a male friend of Ms. Favata, one Bradley Watson, injected himself into the argument. As the intensity of the argument between the Petitioner and Mr. Watson continued to increase, the Petitioner retrieved an aluminum baseball bat from his motor vehicle and began swinging the bat in the general direction of Mr. Watson. During the course of one of the swings of the bat, the Petitioner struck Ms. Favata on the hand with the bat. As a result of being struck by the bat, Ms. Favata's hand was visibly injured. During the course of the events described in the preceding paragraph neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were armed with any type of weapon. Similarly, neither Ms. Favata nor Mr. Watson were causing or attempting to cause physical harm to the Petitioner.

Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 31st day of October, 1994.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57493.6118
# 5
IN RE: SENATE BILL 52 (MANUEL ANTONIO MATUTE) vs *, 11-004103CB (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Aug. 15, 2011 Number: 11-004103CB Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2012
Florida Laws (1) 768.28
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION vs FIDEL DELEON, 98-004070 (1998)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Sep. 10, 1998 Number: 98-004070 Latest Update: May 25, 1999

The Issue Whether on or about January 22, 1996, Respondent, Fidel DeLeon, did unlawfully attempt to commit a sexual battery upon Diane Smalley, a person twelve years of age or older, without the consent of Diane Smalley, by attempting to penetrate her vagina with his penis or by attempting to place his penis in union with the vagina and/or mouth of Diane Smalley, and in the process thereof used physical force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury. Whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 943.1395(6) and/or (7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that the Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications established by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that law enforcement officers in the State of Florida have good moral character.

Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 7, 1990, and was issued certificate No. 113130. Respondent was employed with the Orange County Sheriff's Office on May 9, 1994. Respondent served as a road deputy during the relevant time-period, working the midnight shift. Dianne Smalley was born on January 7, 1953, and is a person twelve years of age or older. Smalley was employed by the Maitland Police Department as a dispatcher in January 1996, and worked the midnight shift. Smalley met and became acquainted with Respondent approximately a month prior to January 22, 1996. On January 21, 1996, Respondent and Smalley made plans to get together socially after Respondent got off duty. On January 22, 1996, at about two o'clock in the morning, Respondent went to the residence of Smalley and was invited in. When Respondent arrived at Smalley's residence, he was wearing his police uniform, which included a holstered gun. Respondent and Smalley socialized for about 30 minutes while in the residence. During the course of their conversation, Respondent told Smalley that he was married. After telling Smalley he was married, Respondent was asked to leave by Smalley. Respondent did not leave Smalley's residence at that point, but instead Respondent moved closer to Smalley who was sitting on the couch. Respondent pushed Smalley back on the couch, however, Respondent moved forward and kissed her on her neck. Respondent also rubbed his hands all over the body of Smalley. Smalley pushed away Respondent and told him that nothing was going to happen. She got up and walked toward the front door, expecting Respondent to leave. As Smalley moved from the dining room toward the front door, Respondent came up behind her and pushed Smalley back into the living room to where her body was bent forward over the arm of the couch. Respondent stood behind Smalley and, as she was bent over the couch, Respondent held her down by holding her arms and with the weight of his body. Respondent then tried to pull her pants down and pull up her shirt. Respondent unzipped his pants and pulled out his penis. Respondent rubbed his genitals against Smalley's posterior and placed his penis between her legs. Respondent simulated intercourse with Smalley. Respondent tried to put Smalley's hand on his penis but she resisted. Respondent asked Smalley to perform oral sex on him but she refused. Respondent tried to push Smalley's body down to perform oral sex on him, but was unable to because she locked her knees. Respondent then masturbated himself in Smalley's living room and ejaculated on the carpet in the living room. Respondent then let Smalley go and left the residence. During the course of the day, Smalley reported the incident to her roommate. Later that day, Respondent called Smalley on the telephone and apologized for what had happened. Smalley called the Orange County Sheriff's Office after viewing a news broadcast where a rape suspect, who looked similar to Respondent, had gained access to the victim's home by using a police ID. Smalley did not identify herself fully to Detective Volkerson, but identified Fidel DeLeon as a possible suspect because of what he had done to her. Through Respondent's telephone records, detectives were able to identify Smalley as the caller. An investigation was initiated and Smalley cooperated with law enforcement. During the investigation, Respondent gave investigators false and misleading statements. Following the internal investigation, Respondent was terminated from the Orange County Sheriff's Office on August 29, 1996. During the course of the investigation of this matter from January through August 1996, there was insufficient evidence of misconduct by law enforcement which would negate the integrity of the investigation into this matter. Smalley's testimony at the formal hearing was credible.

Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order which finds: Respondent guilty of committing attempted sexual battery on January 22, 1996; that Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications established by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that law enforcement officers have good moral character; and revoke the certification of Respondent to be a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 22nd day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Simmons, Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Fidel DeLeon 381 Lake Park Trail Oviedo, Florida 32765 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Florida Laws (14) 120.569120.57777.04794.011828.125849.2590.40290.40390.80290.80390.804943.13943.1395943.255 Florida Administrative Code (3) 11B-27.001111B-27.00528-106.213
# 8
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION vs. JOSEPH T. DANIELS, 89-000714 (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 89-000714 Latest Update: Aug. 18, 1989

Findings Of Fact On November 9, 1972, the State of Florida, acting through Petitioner, certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Certificate number 6350 was duly issued to Respondent by Petitioner. On September 10, 1984, the following occurred in Delray Beach, Florida: At approximately 12:30 a.m., Respondent was found asleep in his automobile by two Delray Beach police officers, Sergeant Stephen Barborini and Detective Thomas Tustin. Respondent was alone in the automobile. Respondent's automobile was parked in a public parking lot in the 1100 block of North Federal Highway in Delray Beach with its engine running and its headlights on. Respondent was awakened by the police officers and questioned while in the parked automobile after the engine had been turned off by Officer Barborini. Respondent was very intoxicated. Upon being questioned, Respondent produced a police badge case, without a police badge, and identified himself as a Metro-Dade Police Officer. The Delray Beach police officers advised Respondent that he was in no condition to drive and offered to either give him a ride home or to arrange other transportation for him. Respondent then got out of the car. As a result of his intoxication, Respondent was unable to maintain his balance, his eyes were bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. At times Respondent was incoherent. Respondent began to behave in an erratic manner. He shouted and yelled obscenities at the officers, he cried, and he pleaded on his knees for the officers to leave him alone. Respondent became angry with Detective Tustin while Detective Tustin was trying to calm him down. Respondent placed his hands on the person of Detective Tustin and pushed him back a couple of steps. Respondent was arrested by Officer Barborini for disorderly intoxication and taken into custody. Upon arrival at the police station, Respondent again began to shout obscenities and pushed another officer, Officer Giovani. Respondent met with the officers about two months later and apologized for his actions. Officer Barborini asked the State Attorney's Office not to prosecute because Respondent was a police officer and because Officer Barborini had been told that Respondent was seeking help for his drinking problem. The State Attorney's Office granted Officer Barborini's request. Respondent was not charged with battery because Officer Barborini and Detective Tustin thought Respondent was too intoxicated to intentionally batter Detective Tustin. On August 28, 1985, Respondent was found guilty by the Dade County Court of the charge of battery on the person of Jose Lleo. The battery occurred on February 22, 1985, while Respondent was on duty. Although Respondent was not intoxicated at the time, he had consumed alcohol before reporting to work. Following his conviction, the Court withheld adjudication of guilt and also withheld sentence. On April 3, 1986, the following occurred in Deerfield Beach, Florida: At approximately 3:35 a.m., Respondent was found asleep in his automobile by Officer John Szpindor and Officer Dale Davis of the Deerfield Beach Police Department. Respondent was alone in the automobile. Respondent's automobile was parked on the grassy shoulder of the road in the 2700 block of Southwest 10th Street with its engine running and its headlights on. The officers were able to awaken Respondent after several minutes of shaking him and talking to him. Respondent, upon being awakened, was belligerent and uncooperative. He used profanity towards the officers, calling them names and telling the officers they had no right to bother him. Respondent got out of the automobile after being instructed to do so. Respondent was very intoxicated. As a result of his intoxication, Respondent was groggy and unable to maintain his balance. His eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred. Respondent's pants were wet in the crotch area. The officers identified Respondent by examining a wallet, with Respondent's permission, which was lying on the seat of the car. The wallet contained an empty badge case. From examining the wallet, the officers obtained sufficient information to enable the dispatcher to contact Shirley Daniels, who was married to Respondent at that time. Mrs. Daniels was asked to come to the scene. While waiting for Mrs. Daniels to arrive on the scene, Respondent became more belligerent. His shouting grew louder and more confrontational. Despite the officers' attempts to calm him down, Respondent took off his jacket, threw it on the ground, and assumed a defensive stance as if he wanted to fight the officers. The shouting disturbed the residents of a nearby residential area. Respondent confronted Officer Davis, who had Respondent's wallet, told Officer Davis that he had no business with the wallet, and he struck Officer Davis in the chest and chin areas. The blow to the chin was a glancing blow as opposed to being a hard blow. Officer Davis was not injured. Officer Davis and Officer Szpindor immediately thereafter physically overpowered Respondent, placed him under arrest for disorderly intoxication and battery, and took him into custody. When Shirley Daniels arrived on the scene, she told the officers that she would be unable to manage Respondent at home in his intoxicated condition. Respondent was then taken to jail by the officers. There was no evidence as to the disposition of the charges of disorderly intoxication and battery. Respondent is an alcoholic and was an alcoholic at the times of the incidents described above. Prior to those incidents, Respondent had sought treatment and thought that he had successfully completed the program. Between the incident in Delray Beach and the incident in Deerfield Beach, Respondent attended Alcoholics Anonymous. Respondent continued to drink, to the extent that he suffered blackouts, because he did not immerse himself in the Alcoholics Anonymous program. During the periods Respondent maintained control of his drinking, he exhibited the qualities required of a enforcement officer. Whenever the alcoholism gained control, as was the case in the 1984 incident in Delray Beach and the 1986 incident in Deerfield Beach, Respondent lost control of himself and of his actions. As of the date of the final hearing, Respondent had abstained from alcohol for two and one-half years. For the past two and one-half years Respondent has been seriously, and successfully, involved in Alcoholics Anonymous. Respondent is a recovering alcoholic who has good moral character as long as he has control of his alcoholism. Respondent currently operates his own business as a private investigator.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent failed to maintained good moral character, which places Respondent's certification on a probationary status for a period of two years and which contains as a condition of probation that Respondent abstain from the use of alcohol. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0714 The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-3. Addressed in paragraph 2(a). Addressed in paragraph 2(c). Addressed in paragraph 2(d). Addressed in paragraph 2(e). Addressed in paragraph 2(g). Addressed in paragraph 2(h). 9-10. Addressed in paragraph 2(i). Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 12. 13-14. Addressed in paragraph 6(a). 15-16. Addressed in paragraph 6(b). Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Addressed in paragraph 6(c). Addressed in paragraph 6(e). 20-22. Addressed in paragraph 6(f). Addressed in paragraph 6(g). Addressed in paragraph 6(h). The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-5. Addressed in paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (c). Addressed in paragraphs 2(f) and (g). Addressed in paragraphs 2(h) and (i). Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. Addressed in paragraph 4. 10-12. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. 13. Addressed in paragraph 3. 14-16. Addressed in paragraph 6(a). Addressed in paragraph 6(b). Addressed in paragraph 6(e). Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. Addressed in paragraphs 6(g) and (h). 21-24. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. 25. Addressed in paragraph 5. 26-27. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the result reached and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 9 and 10. 28-31. Rejected as beings recitation of testimony as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 7, 9, and 10. 32-36. Rejected as being recitation of testimony as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10. 37-38. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 40-41. Rejected as being recitation of testimony , as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10. 42-45. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the results reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 8. 46-49. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the results reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 8. 50. Addressed in paragraphs 1 and paragraph 11. 51-54. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 5. Rejected as being irrelevant. The purported statement of Mr. Kastrenatis is rejected as being hearsay. Addressed in paragraph 9. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Casey, Esquire 10680 N.W. 25th Street Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33172 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Florida Laws (7) 120.57775.082775.083784.03787.07943.13943.1395 Florida Administrative Code (2) 11B-27.001111B-27.005
# 9

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer