The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Kenneth Burns (Respondent) is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. On or about November 26, 2000, Highway Patrol Trooper Brannon Snead saw a Camaro, with its emergency flashers on, parked on Highway 90 in the vicinity of State Road 10. Trooper Snead stopped to see if he could help and observed two white males hitting the passenger of a black Ford Mustang that was also parked alongside the road. Trooper Snead intervened and eventually arrested Respondent and charged him with criminal mischief, burglary of an automobile, and battery. Trooper Snead identified his arrest report which was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit A. Trooper Snead observed Respondent strike the driver of the Mustang twice. Trooper Snead observed that Respondent was under the influence of intoxicants and was impaired. After arresting Respondent, Trooper Snead transported him to the Leon County Jail. Trooper Snead observed Respondent's demeanor. Respondent was argumentative, combative, and uncooperative. Trooper Snead had to warn Respondent several times about his behavior. Respondent spit all over the back of Trooper Snead's patrol car. Detective Patricia Iadanza testified that she was delivering two criminals to the jail on November 26, 2000. She observed Trooper Snead with two persons who were in handcuffs in the booking area. One was quiet. The other person, who she later learned was Respondent, was loud and obnoxious. She found it necessary to tell Respondent to sit down and be quiet. Respondent was loud and rowdy and indicated he was a certified officer. Detective Iadanza reported she warned Respondent that his conduct would get him in serious trouble in the Leon County Sheriff's Department and he needed to straighten out. He did not stop his loud and rowdy behavior. Subsequently, she wrote a report regarding Respondent's behavior after he made a complaint about Trooper Snead. According to Petitioner's late-filed exhibit, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of trespass of a vehicle, battery, and criminal mischief. He was placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's certification be suspended for 24 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Burns 1727 Dewey McGuire Road Perry, Florida 32348-8087 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Florida Department of Law Enforcement Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that the Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner on April 1, 1978. He holds certificate number 99-002304. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with enforcing the qualification and practice standards for law enforcement officers embodied in Chapter 943, Florida Statutes. Sometime in November, 1986, Diane Bouchard was traveling north on U.S. 1 in Nassau County. She acknowledged that she was traveling in excess of the lawful speed limit and believes she was traveling at approximately 60 miles per hour. Shortly after passing a truck weighing station, she observed a Nassau County Sheriff's patrol car, which had just passed her, turn around and follow her. She observed the blue light on that vehicle illuminate, at which point she turned to the side of the road and stopped. Mrs. Bouchard knew Officer Crews and he was acquainted with her and her family, including her husband. Mrs. Bouchard testified that Respondent got out of his patrol car and approached her vehicle while she was sitting in her parked vehicle behind the wheel. He did not ask her to get out of the vehicle. She says that he asked for her driver's license and she complied, handing Respondent her license. Mrs. Bouchard then testified that Respondent, while standing approximately 4 inches from her car door, told her that he had "clocked" her speed at approximately 75 miles per hour. He remarked that there was an $80 fine for such a traffic infraction and "points" which could be assessed against her driving record for a speeding violation. She stated that while he was standing next to her car door making these remarks, he began rubbing his penis through his clothing, becoming visibly sexually aroused. At approximately this same time, Mrs. Bouchard states that the Respondent told her that "we could work something out" regarding the ticket. Mrs. Bouchard then testified that the Respondent's actions and statement were taken by her to mean that he was attempting to extort sexual favors from her in return for forbearing to issue her a traffic citation. She maintains that she became extremely frightened as a result of these actions and attempted to dissuade the Respondent by reminding him that he knew her family. She maintains that the Respondent then stood alternately looking at her and looking at her driver's license for several more minutes and then announced that he was going to "let her go." She then drove home, according to her statement. Mrs. Bouchard maintains that she became very upset at this episode and was particularly sensitive to being victimized in this way because she had been sexually abused for approximately 13 years by her stepfather, even after she was married. She was reluctant to reveal the incident to her husband, but because she began having nightmares about the incident her husband became concerned, and so she told him about the episode approximately a week after the accident. She felt, however, according to her testimony, that no one would believe her if she reported the incident to law enforcement authorities. Approximately three months after the incident, however, she did report the matter to personnel of the Nassau County Sheriff's Department. The alleged incident supposedly occurred in close proximity to a truck weighing station at which a law enforcement officer was present and in close proximity, in the other direction, to a public campground. The incident occurred during daylight hours at approximately 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. on U.S. 1, a heavily traveled highway in Nassau County. The weigh station and campground are approximately a quarter of a mile apart. A Department of Transportation patrol car was at the weigh station and both the weigh station and the campground were in sight of the place where Mrs. Bouchard was allegedly stopped. Officer Crews was in uniform in a marked, Nassau County Sheriff's Patrol car. Mrs. Bouchard conceded that she had been speeding when she was pulled over and that Officer Crews never asked her to get out of her car. She conceded that he did not threaten her, touch her or actually expose himself to her. He did not write her a ticket. Mrs. Bouchard testified the reason she thought Officer Crews was "coming on" to her was because she associated certain gestures he was making with things her stepfather had done to her in the past. Mrs. Bouchard was referring to the history of sexual molestation of herself by her stepfather which she says occurred for an approximate 13-year-period after her mother kidnapped her from her natural father and she went to live with her mother and stepfather. During this time period and during the time in which Mrs. Bouchard elected not to report this alleged conduct by the Respondent, she and her husband were working at a garage that serviced Sheriff department vehicles and at which another police officer was employed. Police officers were frequent visitors to the garage, but she waited over three months before she spoke to anyone in law enforcement concerning this incident. Captain Chuck Moser of the Nassau County Sheriff's Department testified on behalf of the Petitioner. He interviewed Mrs. Bouchard on January 6, 1987. She told him that the above-described incident had occurred approximately 3 months earlier. She described the incident to Captain Moser much in the same way in which she described it in her testimony at hearing. Captain Moser did not reveal any other knowledge concerning the incident in question, and the Respondent, other than what Mrs. Bouchard had told him. Fuller Crews testified on his own behalf. He is 58 years old and has been married for the past 16 years. He was employed by the Nassau County Sheriff's Department from April 1, 1978 to November 10, 1987. In 1986, he was a lieutenant in the civil division and a traffic patrolman. He knows Mrs. Bouchard and her family and has even been fishing with her husband. In his work with the Sheriff's office, he has made several hundred traffic stops during his career. He does not remember every person that he ever stopped for a traffic infraction, nor did he make a practice of issuing a traffic citation to every person he stopped. Officer Crews often simply told offenders that he would let them go if they promised to slow down, or otherwise warned them with a lecture, depending upon the particular offender's attitude. He has no recollection of stopping Mrs. Bouchard, but does not deny that he may have done so. He adamantly denies ever asking Mrs. Bouchard for sex in exchange for forbearing giving her a traffic citation or making gestures which implied that intent. He stated that if he made any gestures in the act of getting out of his car and walking up to Mrs. Bouchard's car, it would have been in the nature of adjusting his gun belt or brushing his cigarette ashes off his trousers. The testimony of the Respondent and Mrs. Bouchard thus conflicts. There were no other witnesses to the episode. It is found that, even if Mrs. Bouchard did indeed feel that the Respondent was making sexual advances to her in return for his refraining from writing her a traffic citation, that her impression was mistaken. In reaching this finding, the Hearing Officer is mindful of the Respondent's apparent sincerity and candid demeanor on the witness stand, his past unblemished record, including his apparent record as a decent citizen and family man, as well as the unrebutted testimony concerning his past friendly relations with Mrs. Bouchard and her family. Mrs. Bouchard, on the other hand, while she may not have overtly lied about the circumstances of the incident, was mistaken in her impression of the Respondent's demeanor and intent in confronting her about the traffic infraction. It is found, based in part of Mrs. Bouchard's own testimony, that her impression of the Officer's intent in approaching her and manner of conversing with her, during this episode, was affected by her admitted past history of being sexually molested for a long period of time by her stepfather, such that she quite likely could have mistakenly associated some gestures, movements and comments made by the officer with a sexual advance or overture, when in fact the Respondent intended no such activity. Thus, Mrs. Bouchard's opinion, however sincere she holds it, is sufficiently colored and affected by her emotional situation, arising out of her past personal history, so that it cannot be considered competent evidence against the Respondent and cannot establish that the incident occurred as she described it. There is no other substantial evidence that would establish that the Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in regard to this incident, which is the only such incident charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Fuller W. Crews, Sr. should be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER NO. 89-1400 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 4 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 7.-17. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence of record. 18. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. White, Esquire Department of Law of Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Robert J. Link, Esquire Howell Lyles and Milton 901 Blackstone Building P.O. Box 420 Jacksonville, FL 32201 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.004(4), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, certified by the CJSTC. At the time relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was acquainted with a person named Terrence Hicks. Mr. Hicks was apparently involved in some business dealings with a Mr. Brichler. In connection with these business dealings, Mr. Brichler had possession of several motorcycles owned by Mr. Hicks. Respondent accessed information regarding Mr. Brichler from a secure Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles DAVID system on two different occasions: Friday, September 26, 2008, and Monday, October 27, 2008. Respondent was not working on any investigation regarding Mr. Brichler at the time he accessed the DAVID system. No traffic citations, field contact cards, or offense reports regarding Mr. Brichler were generated by Respondent or any other deputy. After the second time he accessed the system, on or about November 3, 2008, Respondent went to Mr. Brichler's home to inquire about the motorcycles. Based upon his conversation with Mr. Brichler, Respondent claims that he determined that the dispute between Brichler and Mr. Hicks was civil in nature, and he generated no complaint or paperwork as a result. At the time he visited Mr. Brichler's home, Respondent was off duty. However, he was in uniform and arrived at the home in a marked, county-issued vehicle. Mr. Brichler contacted the Volusia County Sheriff's Office in or about February 2009, stating that Respondent had come to his home in November 2008 and identified himself as Deputy Sanchez. Mr. Brichler claimed in his complaint that the officer coming to his house provided him with a business card bearing the insignia for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office, with the office's address and telephone number. The card had a line stating, "Presented By:" followed by a blank line, with the words Deputy Sheriff written underneath. Written on the blank line was "Deputy Sanchez." According to the police report, there is no Deputy Sanchez that has worked or does work for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office. The complaint indicates that Brichler realized that the person identifying himself as Deputy Sanchez was actually Respondent, because he read an article about two deputies that had been arrested for racing motorcycles, and the photograph of one of the deputies was of Respondent, identifying him as Deputy Lopez. He supplied the business card with Deputy Sanchez written on it to Deputy Turner, who investigated his complaint. Respondent admits accessing the DAVID system to gain information on Mr. Brichler, and admits going to his home to ask about the motorcycles. With respect to the business card, Respondent states that it was a blank, generic business card provided by the sheriff's office. Mr. Brichler did not testify in this proceeding. During his interview with Deputy Turner, Respondent denied giving Mr. Brichler a business card with "Deputy Sanchez" written on it. He admitted accessing the DAVID system and going to Mr. Brichler's house.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission enter a Final Order: dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 11-1236PL; finding that Respondent failed to maintain in violation of section 943.1395(7), as defined in rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c)2.,; and suspending his certification for a period not to exceed five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, 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 9th day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Omar Lopez Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's conduct, which resulted in his conviction of the misdemeanor offenses of battery and improper exhibition of a deadly weapon, also constitutes violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes; namely, failure to maintain the good moral character requisite to continued certification as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Melvin M. Barton, holder of Auxiliary Law Enforcement Certificate Number 32-85-001-01 and Law Enforcement Certificate Number 33-87- 002-01, at all times pertinent to these proceedings. On January 1, 1989, Respondent, estranged from his wife and three month old daughter, went to the house where the wife and daughter resided. He was upset with his wife because she had left the infant with an unfamiliar baby sitter the night before in order to attend a New Year's eve celebration with another individual. Respondent and his wife argued. He struck her numerous times with his hands and with the butt of a rifle. He pointed the rifle at his wife and told her that he could shoot her. Respondent's wife was "fearful" at this moment. Then, after he told her to sit in a stuffed chair in the living room, he proceeded to fire a bullet into the chair. He later discharged the gun into a door of the home. Later in the altercation, Respondent held a pistol against his wife's throat and directed her to telephone the individuals she had been with the evening before. She tried to reach these people by telephone, but was unsuccessful. During a major portion of the time, several minutes,that Respondent's wife attempted to telephone the persons with whom she had celebrated the night before, Respondent kept the gun barrel pressed against her throat. Respondent's wife was frightened by this action of Respondent. Later, Respondent made his wife undress and engage in sexual intercourse with him. He then went to sleep. She got up, took the infant, and left the house. Respondent's wife subsequently was treated on an outpatient basis at a local hospital where the treating physician observed she was bleeding from both nostrils and had a fracture of her nasal bone. The physician also observed swelling on the victim's left and right upper arms, thighs and right shoulder. The swollen areas were red and tender. Red circular marks were also observed on her neck. The marks observed on the neck of Respondent's wife were consistent with marks which could be expected to have resulted from the pressing of a gun barrel against that area of her neck for several minutes. She acknowledged to the physician that her estranged husband had beat her up. Respondent and his wife were not living together at the time of the altercation which is the subject of this proceeding and have not lived together since. However, they are not formally divorced and continue to see each other on an occasional basis. Petitioner's evidentiary exhibits 2-14 consist of photographs. The photographs were admitted in evidence at thefinal hearing. They were taken by a deputy sheriff for DeSoto County, shortly after the incident, in the course of his investigation of the matter. Photographs in Petitioner's exhibits 2-10 depict the marks on the body of Respondent's wife which resulted from the incident and corroborate the testimony of Respondent's wife regarding her injuries, as well as the testimony of the emergency room physician who treated the victim. Petitioner's photographic exhibits 11-14 document the trajectory of the bullet, and resultant damage, through the chair in which Respondent's wife was sitting when Respondent discharged a firearm into it. Later in the evening of January 1, 1989, after Respondent's wife initiated the investigation of the incident by the DeSoto County Sheriff's department, Respondent appeared at the County Sheriff's office where he apologized to his wife and told her that he was sorry. He further told her that she could do the same thing to him if it would make everything all right. On January 30, 1989, Respondent was charged by information filed in DeSoto County Court case no. 89-37-34mm with a misdemeanor count of battery in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, and a misdemeanor count of improper exhibition of a firearm in violation of Section 790.10 Florida Statutes. Both offenses are first degree misdemeanors. On March 20, 1989, Respondent entered a plea of no contest to both of the charged offenses. He was subsequentlyadjudicated guilty of both violations and sentenced to one year's probation and payment of $75.00 in court costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and revoking Respondent's Auxiliary Law Enforcement Certificate Number 32 002-01. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1990. Copies furnished: Joseph S. White, Esq. Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1498 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Joseph R. Fritz, Esq. 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, FL 33603 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL James T. Moore Commissioner 32302 P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on September 22, 1988, and was issued Certificate Number 73974. At all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the Putnam County Sheriff's Office as a law enforcement officer holding the rank of lieutenant. On July 12, 2004, while operating a patrol vehicle, Putnam County Deputy Sheriff Michael Kelly backed the vehicle and accidentally struck a second patrol vehicle issued to another Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, Robert Younis.1 At the time Deputy Kelly struck the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis, Deputy Kelly was traveling approximately two miles per hour. As a result of the collision, both vehicles were slightly damaged with the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis sustaining a small indentation on the left front fender. Shortly after the collision and on the same date, Deputy Kelly contacted his supervisor, Sergeant Michael Oglesbee, and verbally reported the incident to him. On November 8, 2004, Deputy Kelly arranged for the damage to the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis to be repaired at Deputy Kelly's own expense, at a local automotive repair shop, One Stop Auto Body. On November 16, 2004, Putnam County Sheriff's Office Captain Rick Ryan was present at One Stop Auto Body and observed the patrol vehicle assigned to Deputy Younis under repair. Prior to this observation, Captain Ryan had not been aware of the damage or the repairs being made to the patrol vehicle. On November 23, 2004, Deputy Kelly submitted a written report regarding the collision incident to the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. On November 30, 2004, Respondent provided a sworn statement to Lieutenant Rick Lashley of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office as part of an internal investigation. Facts determined by the evidence presented Although Sheriff's Office policy required him to do so, Deputy Kelly did not submit a written report about the incident at the time he reported the incident to Sergeant Oblesbee. Shortly after calling Sergeant Oglesbee, Deputy Kelly then called Deputy Younis to inform him of the incident. Because the damage to the vehicles was insignificant, Deputy Kelly did not immediately take steps to get the vehicles repaired. Deputy Kelly did not attempt to get the vehicles repaired until the matter was brought to his attention by Sergeant Oglesbee in November. He then took steps to get the vehicles repaired at his own expense. Deputy Kelly believed that it was his responsibility to pay for the amount of the insurance deductible. Deputies Kelly and Younis took their patrol vehicles to One Stop Auto Body for repair. At the time of the incident, Respondent was a candidate for Sheriff of Putnam County. Because he was involved in his political campaign, Respondent was often off duty and difficult to reach. Respondent was not on duty the day of the incident. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard Ryan was a captain with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office and was chief of patrol. On November 16, 2004, he went to One Stop Auto Body to get estimates on a patrol car repair. While there, he noticed another patrol car there for repairs. He had been unaware that another patrol car had received damage. He determined that the patrol car was assigned to Deputy Younis. Upon determining that the patrol car belonged to Deputy Younis, he called Sergeant Oglesbee to inquire as to why Deputy Younis's patrol car was in the repair shop. Upon learning that Sergeant Oglesbee knew about the damage, he called a meeting in his office that afternoon. Captain Ryan, Sergeant Oglesbee, Lieutenant Bowling, Deputies Younis and Kelly, and Respondent were present. Deputy Kelly does not recall any formal or informal discussion of the incident with Respondent until the November 18, 2004 meeting. According to Captain Ryan, Respondent told him at the meeting that Respondent learned of the incident a couple of weeks before. Captain Ryan worked with Respondent for between 16 and 17 years, and never had reason to disbelieve or doubt what Respondent said. As a result of the meeting, Captain Ryan instructed Respondent to write Sergeant Oglesbee a memorandum of record for not following policy, instructed Sergeant Oglesbee to write Deputy Kelly a memorandum of record for not following policy, and determined that he, Captain Ryan, would write a memorandum of record regarding Respondent. On November 17, 2004, Captain Ryan learned that Sheriff Douglas ordered Lieutenant Bowling to initiate an administrative inquiry. Lieutenant Bowling instructed Deputy Kelly, Sergeant Oglesbee, and Respondent to each write a statement of their recollection as to what happened regarding the incident. The matter was than turned over to Mr. Lashley to conduct an investigation. On December 2, 2004, Lieutenant Bowling wrote a memorandum to Lieutenant Rick Lashley regarding what was said by whom at the November 16, 2004, meeting. His memorandum described Respondent's response as learning about the incident "a week or two ago." This is substantially consistent with Captain Ryan's recollection of what was said at the meeting. Lieutenant Lashley was with the personnel office of the Sheriff's Office and was the internal affairs investigator. During questioning by Lieutenant Lashley, Respondent realized that he had been told about the incident in October, after a truancy roundup, rather than November, and acknowledged this during his interview. This is consistent with Deputy Younis's recollection that he did not discuss the incident with Respondent until a "truancy roundup" which took place sometime in October.2 Lieutenant Lashley's primary concern was not that Respondent recalled during the interview that he learned of the incident in October rather than November. Lashley commented, "Well, first he had told us in November...and then he told me in October, which is okay, you know. I mean, because people do start recalling stuff." While Lieutenant Lashley described Respondent's initial confusion as to whether or not he learned of the incident in October or November as "just inconsistencies," Lashley's real concern was whether or not Respondent actually learned of the incident around the time that it happened (July 2004). Consistent with Lieutenant Lashley's primary concern, Respondent was charged with making a false statement under oath on November 30, 2004, during the interview with Lieutenant Lashley. The key to the charge is whether Sergeant Oglesbee actually contacted Respondent shortly after the incident happened as opposed to learning about it in the fall. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled attempting to call Respondent the day of the incident using Nextel, but could not recall the substance of the conversation. When asked whether he was certain as to whether he actually reached Respondent, he responded: Q Okay, and from your testimony, I take it that you are not a hundred percent sure that you actually did contact Lieutenant Hardy? A I'm testifying on my past practice. Q Okay. But you don't have any specific recollection of speaking with him about this incident? A I cannot recall the conversation. Q And you could not swear to actually having notified him in July when this incident happened? A Just based on past practice, that it was--it would have been deemed by myself a very important issue, based upon his major supporters having been involved in a minor fender bender, but yet based upon the political atmosphere, it would have been considered a major incident. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled that there were several informal conversations regarding the incident but he did not recall Respondent's ever being present during any of them. He also acknowledged that Respondent was often unavailable for several days at a time during his campaign for Sheriff. Sergeant Oglesbee recalled a telephone or Nextel conversation with Respondent towards the end of October during which Respondent commented that Deputy Younis's patrol car needed to get repaired. When asked during his interview with Lieutenant Lashley, during which he was under oath, when he was first made aware of the incident, Respondent answered in pertinent part as follows: Hardy: Going back listening to these tapes, going back to the truancy roundup, that's when I believe I was first made aware of the dent on the vehicle, was because I observed it and I asked where the dent came from and when the deputy explained it to me, I asked if it had been reported because I was concerned about the time line. He said he reported it to Sgt. Oglesbee. I said get with Sgt. Oglesbee and let's get it taken care of. Lashley: That was during the truancy roundup, correct? Hardy: Correct. Lashley: ...or detail, back in first week in October? Hardy: That's, that's, that's where I, I remember it. Uh, I remember that it was in East Palatka, so it was at the truancy roundup, it would have to be. Lashley: Would it be safe to say that Younis and Kelly were the ones that told you of it then or, is that who you said... Hardy: It would probably have been Younis because it was his vehicle that had the damage to it, that I observed. So he had to have been there because it was his car.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jeffrey S. Hardy. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 23rd day of December, 2005.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1981, Petitioner issued to Respondent certificate number 02-29029, certifying Respondent as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. On March 4, 1987, Respondent, who was employed as a deputy sheriff by the Broward County Sheriff's Department, was on duty at Port Everglades in Broward County, Florida. At the time, Port Everglades was closed to the public between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. At approximately 4:00 a.m. on March 4, 1987, a car approached the front gate of the Port. Present in the guard house at the front gate at the time were Port security officers Joel Myers and William Updegraff, along with Respondent. Myers stepped out of the guard house and stopped the vehicle at the front gate. He asked the driver and passenger where they were going. The driver answered incoherently and appeared to be intoxicated. About that time Respondent and Updegraff came out of the guard house and approached the rear of the vehicle. Respondent instructed the driver to pull over as he was being stopped by a deputy of the Sheriff's office. The driver instead accelerated and drove into the Port. At no time was there any danger of the car hitting the Respondent, Myers, or Updegraff. Respondent got into his patrol car and began pursuing the vehicle. Myers and Updegraff remained at the guard house. A radio transmission was sent to other employees of the Port advising them that an unauthorized vehicle was in the Port. A few moments later, Donald Leake, a firefighter employed by the Port who had joined in the search, saw the vehicle heading toward the front gate in order to exit the Port. Leake drove his patrol unit beside the vehicle and motioned to the driver to pull over, which the driver did. The vehicle stopped approximately 100 yards from the guard house at the front gate. Leake sent a radio transmission that he had stopped the vehicle in question. He then approached the vehicle on foot and instructed the driver and passenger to place their hands on the steering wheel and the dash of their vehicle. The occupants followed Leake's instructions and offered no resistance to him. It appeared to Leake as though the driver was intoxicated. Leake walked to the rear of the vehicle and obtained the license tag number. He then approached the driver and asked for his driver's license and vehicle registration, which the driver provided to him. The driver's license identified the driver as Rodney Hensen. Myers and Updegraff had observed Leake stop the vehicle, and Updegraff left the guard house and walked to the vehicle in question in order to offer assistance to Leake if Leake needed any. After Updegraff had reachecd the vehicle, Respondent arrived at the scene, got out of his vehicle, approached Leake and Updegraff, handed them his night stick and radio, and opened the driver's door. After opening the door, Respondent began punching the driver in the chest and face, while chastising the driver for running from a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy. Respondent punched Hensen several times with closed fists for a period of approximately 30 seconds. The driver was offering no resistance or threat at the time of the incident and still had his hands on the dash when the punching began. Hensen began crying and kept asking Respondent why Respondent was doing that to him. As he was being punched, he leaned away from Respondent in a defensive position, trying to protect his face with his hands and arms. The passenger kept his hands on the dash while Respondent was punching Hensen, and he offered no resistance or threat to the Respondent. Neither the driver nor the passenger ever struck the Respondent or threatened to strike him. Both remained passive and in defensive positions, leaning away from Respondent. Both Leake and Updegraff repeatedly called out Respondent's name to get his attention and repeatedly told him to stop. Respondent then grabbed Hensen, and pulled him from the vehicle, pushed him up against the car, and handcuffed Hensen behind his back. Respondent then retrieved his night stick, placed it between Hensen's cuffed arms, twisted it, and caused Hensen to roll down the car and fall to the ground, hitting his head against the ground. Respondent then picked up Hensen and placed him in the back seat of Respondent's patrol car. Respondent then commented to Updegraff, "I thought you would have liked to get in on that." As Respondent was handcuffing Hensen, he instructed Leake to remove the passenger and place him face down on the ground. Leake did so, and the passenger was compliant. Respondent sent a radio transmission to the Broward County Sheriff's Office advising that he had made an arrest and had been involved in a fight in doing so. Almost momentarily, other law enforcement officers arrived at the scene. Respondent was not involved in a fight. He struck Hensen repeatedly without provocation, and it was not necessary for Respondent to strike Hensen to effectuate an arrest. During the ensuing investigation conducted by the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Respondent admitted striking Hensen.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 20th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-6708 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-34 and 36 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 35 and 37 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-7, 9-14, 20 and 21 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony or argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 15-19 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Larson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Tavalario 270 Southeast Second Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Best Value Used Cars was licensed as am independent motor vehicle dealer holding License No. 6V1-5457. Best Value Used Cars is owned by David Stroud. Wendy Stroud, daughter of David Stroud, was employed by Bell Chevrolet as a title clerk before and during August 1986. Employees of Bell Chevrolet are allowed to purchase two cars per year from Bell without paying sales commissions. David Stroud had a 1984 Nissan he intended to trade in on a car for his daughter, He took this Nissan to Bell for an appraisal and to see if he could work out a deal. The title to the Nissan was in the name of Best Value Used Cars and showed the Nissan as a rebuilt car. Rebuilt cars have a lower sale value than do cars that have not been wrecked. Initially, Stroud attempted to trade the Nissan on a Corvette. John Barton, who was in charge of new car sales, drove the Nissan around the block while Stroud drove the Corvette. Since the Nissan lien was not paid off, no deal was consummated. Each of the three employees of Bell who testified was qualified to appraise the Nissan and a fair appraisal value for a 1984 Nissan 4-door sedan was $4,000 in August 1986. None of these witnesses recall appraising the Nissan. It is not a normal practice to take in a rebuilt vehicle for wholesale. Gary Sears, Bell general manager, testified his only involvement was to fill out the sales document (Exhibit 1) using the figures supplied him by others. John Lindberg, Bell truck manager, sold Stroud the 1982 Ford pickup he purchased (Exhibit 1) by trading in the Nissan and paying the $2,000 difference in the value of each vehicle. All of these witnesses denied seeing the title to the Nissan until after the deal was closed and denied that Stroud had ever told them the Nissan had a rebuilt title. Normally the person doing the appraisal would at least look at the title before reducing the appraisal to writing. When a transaction closes, the general manager at Bell normally clips all of the papers together and presents them to the title clerk who processes the titles involved. The same day Stroud left the Nissan in exchange for the Ford, the Nissan was moved for wholesale. John Lindberg learned from another dealer that the Nissan had a rebuilt title and he testified he first saw the vehicle title the following week. He told Wendy Stroud the deal was held up, but gave her no specific instructions regarding the title. Wendy Stroud received the Nissan title and when the Ford title reached her desk, she processed the titles routinely. Shortly after the Nissan's title was changed to Bell Chevrolet, Wendy Stroud was fired from her job as title clerk at Bell Chevrolet. David Stroud signed Exhibit 1 and four other documents when he traded the Nissan in on the Ford, but the only document he received was Exhibit 1, which he offered into evidence. This exhibit does not bear the seller's signature and is entitled Buyer's Worksheet. These other documents included notification that the vehicle had been wrecked, that the odometer reading was accurate, and something about a $100 payment for maintenance insurance for 30 days. None of these documents was offered into evidence. No one challenged Stroud's testimony that he signed four other documents, but Petitioner offered none of these documents into evidence to corroborate or rebut any testimony. When Stroud returned from the bank with the check for the $2,000 balance, the Nissan was already gone from Bell's lot. Bell's employees all denied ever seeing the Nissan title before the transaction was completed, or that Stroud told them the Nissan had been rebuilt. Nor did they receive written notice from Stroud that the Nissan had been rebuilt. Stroud testified that when he first took the Nissan for an appraisal and made the attempt to purchase the Corvette, he gave the keys and title to Barton, who, after driving the Nissan, gave the keys and title to Sears. Both Strouds testified that David Stroud received back the title and keys from Sears.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On August 28, 1987, Respondent was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer and was issued certificate number 19-87-002-04. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a law enforcement officer with the City of Miami Police Department. Respondent was born in Marianna, Florida, but was reared in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent has lived and worked in the Liberty City and Overtown areas of Miami for many years. Prior to becoming employed with the City of Miami Police Department, Respondent was graduated from Florida A & M University with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. Additionally, he had completed police academy training and had served as a reservist in the U.S. Navy. According to Respondent, he is a natural leader and has acquired discipline from his military experiences. During the early morning hour of September 18, 1988, Respondent was on duty in a marked police vehicle patrolling an area of Miami in the vicinity of 22nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard. Respondent was armed, dressed in his police uniform, and accompanied by another uniformed officer, Efrain Grillo. At approximately 12:00 a.m. on that date, Respondent observed a white female standing in the curb area along Biscayne Boulevard. The Respondent later learned that the female's name was Linda MacArthur. At that time, however, he recognized her from a prior encounter he had had with her in the Overtown area approximately a month before. At that time, Respondent believed Ms. MacArthur to be a prostitute. Officer Grillo pulled the police car over to the curb where Ms. MacArthur was standing. Respondent directed her to enter the back seat of the vehicle and she complied. Prior to being directed to enter the vehicle, Ms. MacArthur was not placed under arrest, was not advised that she was being transported for questioning, and had not committed a criminal offense in the officers' presence. Neither Respondent nor Officer Grillo notified police dispatch that they were transporting a female passenger. Such notification is required by police policy. After Ms. MacArthur entered the police vehicle, the Respondent and Officer Grillo took her to a dead end street located at approximately 23rd Street and 2nd Avenue. Once there, the three individuals exited the police car and walked over to a dumpster that blocked the end of the paved street. After exiting the vehicle, Respondent obtained Ms. MacArthur's purse and went through it. Among the items enclosed in the purse were condoms and a small bottle of perfume. Officer Grillo took the perfume bottle and emptied it over Ms. MacArthur's upper torso. Next, Respondent asked Ms. MacArthur how she used the condoms. While the police officers observed, Ms. MacArthur opened the condom package, placed the condom in her mouth and began a sucking action. After a few seconds, she threw the condom down on the ground. While Officer Grillo spoke with Ms. MacArthur, the Respondent went to the police car and retrieved his flashlight. Officer Grillo asked Ms. MacArthur if she had underwear on. When she replied she did not, Respondent asked her if they (the officers) could see. Ms. MacArthur pulled her pants down to reveal her naked backside. When he returned from the car with the light, Respondent attempted to illuminate Ms. MacArthur's lower body but was unable to do so since the batteries in the flashlight failed. Officer Grillo then went to the police car and obtained a surgical glove which he placed on his hand. With Respondent present, Officer Grillo placed his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas. Respondent observed Officer Grillo rub his hand in Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas and saw her fidget at one point. Officer Grillo inserted his finger into Ms. MacArthur's vagina and rectum without her consent. The touching that is described in paragraph 10 was not done to effect a cavity search of someone under arrest nor was it performed for a bona fide medical purpose. Following the acts described above, the Respondent and Officer Grillo placed the Respondent into the police car and transported her back to the vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. MacArthur then located an undercover police officer and disclosed the activities which had taken place. As part of the follow up investigation performed by the police, the perfume bottle and condom were retrieved from the site. Also in connection with the investigation of the allegation, an investigator went to the location of Respondent's day job and asked him to return to the police station for questioning. Respondent drove himself to the sexual battery office and spoke with Detective Mahon and Sgt. Sparrow. Prior to giving a statement, Respondent was advised of his rights by the officers. Respondent executed a written Miranda warning form. Respondent then gave an account of the activities which had occurred with Ms. MacArthur and Officer Grillo. This statement was given at approximately 3:21 p.m., September 18, 1988. Respondent gave a second statement to an assistant state attorney and Detective Mahon at approximately 5:41 p.m., September 18, 1988. That statement was made under oath and mirrored the one previously given by him. While Respondent did not see penetration of Ms. MacArthur's vagina and anal areas by Officer Grillo's hand, it is undisputed that he observed the gloved hand being placed in those specific areas as described above. The police did not coerce Respondent into making the statements given on September 18, 1988. Respondent was not placed under arrest, was not charged with a criminal offense, and has not been prosecuted for any alleged wrongdoing. Further, there is no evidence that Respondent is likely to be prosecuted for any alleged criminal act. In contrast, Officer Grillo was charged with criminal offenses related to the incident with Ms. MacArthur. Subsequent to the incident described above, Respondent resigned his employment with the City of Miami Police Department. Prior to that action, he had received several commendations for specific acts of excellent service, and had obtained satisfactory or very good performance evaluations for his work as a police officer. All acts which gave rise to the allegations of this case occurred during Respondent's rookie year as a police officer. Prior to being asked to return to the police station to give a statement regarding the allegations of this case, Respondent had not disclosed the acts perpetrated by Officer Grillo to another police officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certification. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-0919 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 3 are accepted; the balance is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that the Respondent and his partner intimidated the victim, Linda MacArthur and that she was fearful of being arrested. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The victim complied with Respondent's directive to enter the police vehicle. Paragraphs 8 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is accepted that Respondent asked the victim as to how she normally used the condom; it is not accepted that he made her suck it. See finding of fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent did, however, make the request described at a later time (prior to releasing the victim). The second sentence of paragraph 15 is accepted. The balance of that paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 22 is accepted; the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent's account (that he did not touch the victim) is accepted. If the flashlight was pressed against the victim, the inference that Officer Grillo did that also is more credible. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See, however, finding of fact paragraphs 10 and 17. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 32 are accepted. Paragraphs 33 through 36 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. Respondent submitted a written closing argument. Copies to: Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and 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 Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rashad El-Amin Attorney at Law 4300 S.W. 92 Davie, Florida 33328
Findings Of Fact At or about 5:30 a.m., July 25, 1977, Trooper Vayda, while on radar patrol on the I-95 just north of the Dade County line, observed a car proceeding south at a speed of 85 m.p.h. and gave chase with his identification lights flashing. When the suspect was overtaken by Trooper Vayda suspect swerved towards Vayda causing the latter to move two wheels off the paved surface to avoid collision. The suspect subsequently left the I-95 at the 135th Street exit and while on the ramp with no other vehicles in view Vayda fired one shot which struck suspect's vehicle on the left side just above the bumper. Suspect ran through the stop light at 135th Street and rejoined the I-95 pursued by Vayda. Suspect again exited the I-95 at 125th Street and after turning east on 125th Street Vayda fired a second shot hitting suspect's right tail light. Suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck another car. Vayda stopped his vehicle, got out and told the suspect to get out of his car. Suspect then restarted his car and started eastward with Vayda in pursuit. In the interim Vayda had, via radio, alerted the Highway Patrol office of the chase and requested assistance. With the assistance of other law enforcement officers the suspect was subsequently apprehended on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida and found to be driving a stolen car. During the chase Vayda had no information to lead him to believe suspect was other than a speeder. As a result of firing the shots Vayda was suspended from duty for a period of eight hours by the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol. Exhibit 5, the disciplinary record of Vayda, shows that Vayda was suspended for eight hours without pay on September 7, 1977 for speeding on the Florida Turnpike on July 22, 1977. Vayda was aware of the contents of General Orders 17, 20 and 43 of the Florida Highway Patrol.
