The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, Respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, acting on a tip from local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Metro Dade Corrections), had in its employ a number of correctional officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the employment records of Metro Dade Corrections. As a result of this review, Respondent identified 363 individuals, including Petitioner, who were employed by Metro Dade Corrections as correctional officers but who had not been certified by Respondent. On August 10-11, 1988, personnel employed by Respondent visited the Metro Dade Corrections personnel office and audited the personnel file maintained by Metro Dade Corrections of each of the 363 individuals in question, including Petitioner's personnel file. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that Metro Dade Corrections had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. Over the course of their two-day visit, employees of Respondent worked with employees of Metro Dade Corrections to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, they prepared registration forms and affidavits of compliance and assembled other missing documentation, such as birth certificate and fingerprint cards. The 363 completed applications for certification were returned to Tallahassee by Respondent for processing. The vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, Respondent declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify Petitioner The pending application Petitioner has been employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (hereinafter called Metro Dade Corrections) as a correctional officer since June 24, 1985, without benefit of certification. As part of the pre-employment process, Petitioner submitted to Metro Dade Corrections an affidavit dated June 24, 1985, which provides in pertinent part: I fully understand that, in order to qualify as a law enforcement or correctional officer, I must fully comply with the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, as follows: * * * Be of good moral character. I further understand that by executing this document I am attesting that I have met the qualifications as specified. Metro Dade Corrections, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, Metro Dade Corrections routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. At the time Petitioner began employment on June 24, 1985, Metro Dade Corrections had completed its investigation into Petitioner's background and had concluded that Petitioner possessed the good moral character required for certification. Fred Crawford, the Metro Dade Corrections director, executed an affidavit of compliance on June 24, 1985, that contained the following sworn statement: I hereby certify that I have collected, verified, and am maintaining on file evidence that the applicant has met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8) and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. There is no evidence that a complete application package for Petitioner's certification was prepared in 1985. Respondent did not receive a complete application for certification on Petitioner's behalf until August 11, 1988. On August 11, 1988, Metro Dade Corrections, as the employing agency, submitted to Respondent a complete application package for certification of Petitioner as a correctional Officer. This was the first application for certification submitted on Petitioner's behalf. By letter dated November 7, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that his application for certification was denied because Petitioner did not possess the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer. Respondent gave the following as its reasons for concluding that Petitioner lacked good moral character: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Petitioner used marijuana on one occasion that predated his employment with Metro Dade Corrections by fourteen years. Petitioner freely admitted the usage of marijuana on this occasion during his pre-employment processing and made no attempt to conceal the truth. Petitioner has used no controlled substance since that one incident. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was 42 years of age and had worked as a Correctional Officer since June 24, 1985. Petitioner's job performance evaluations with Metro Dade Corrections have been satisfactory or above. Petitioner has received several commendations for his service with Metro Dade Corrections. Prior to his service with Metro Dade Corrections, Petitioner served in the U.S. Army with distinction where he had a top secret security clearance. Petitioner also had a good record as a security officer for the Veterans Administration. Petitioner's reputation is that he is a dependable, reliable, and trustworthy individual who possesses high moral character. Following the denial of his request for certification as a correctional officer on November 7, 1988, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing by the election of rights form he filed with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Criminal Justice standards and Training issue a Final Order which approves Petitioner'S application for certification. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 5th day of July 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of petitioner, individually, are addressed as follows: 1-2. Rejected as unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 12. Addressed in paragraph 12. Rejected as being subordinate to findings of paragraph 12. Addressed in paragraph 6 and 8. 7-8. Rejected as unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 13. Rejected as being unnecessary to result reached and as being subordinate to findings of paragraph 12. Rejected as being unnecessary to result reached. 12-19. Addressed in paragraphs 13 and 14 so far as relevant. Rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings of paragraphs 13 and 14. The proposed findings of fact submitted for petitioner on the generic record are addressed as follows: 1-14. Rejected as recitation of witness testimony, and not findings of fact. The matters have, however, been addressed in paragraph 7 so far as deemed necessary to the result reached. 15, 16, 18-20. Addressed in paragraphs 1-4. 17. Rejected as unnecessary to the result reached. 21. Addressed in paragraph 7, otherwise rejected as unnecessary to the result reached in a legal conclusion. 22-27. Rejected as subordinate to the conclusion reached. 28. Rejected as misleading and not supported by competent proof. 29-36. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusion reached or not supported by competent evidence. The proposed findings of fact filed on behalf of respondent are addressed as follows: 1-2 Addressed in paragraphs 10-d11. Addressed in paragraph 10. Rejected as being unnecessary to result reached. 5-6. Addressed in paragraph 12. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald D. Slesnick, III, Esquire 10680 Northwest 25th Street Miami, Florida 33172 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lee Kraftchick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney in and for Dade County Metro Dade Center 111 N.W. First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire Florida Department of Law Training Commission Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director General Counsel Criminal Justice Standards Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure practices and discipline of correction officers in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a certified corrections officer in the State of Florida, employed at times pertinent hereto at Broward Correctional Institution as a Corrections Officer I. On June 17, 1982, assistant personnel manager for the Broward Correctional Institution, Virginia Dolson, was arriving at the institution for work at approximately 7:40 a.m. She and her companion, Marie Lombardi, walked past the guard post occupied by a vehicle in which the Respondent was sitting. As they approached the vehicle closely, they noticed that the Respondent was asleep with his head leaning against the screen over the vehicle window on the driver's side. They spoke loudly in his presence and he took no notice. Finally, another corrections officer, Sergeant Pepitone, tapped on the side of the vehicle with her umbrella, causing the Respondent to awaken. On June 24, 1982, at approximately 7:50 a.m., Marie Lombardi and Virginia Dolson, were leaving the parking lot, approaching their work place and observed the Respondent standing near a vehicle parked on guard post #1. They observed the Respondent aim a pump-action shotgun into the air, sight down the barrel and pump the gun twice as though a round were being placed into the chamber. It is the policy of the Department of Corrections to never remove a weapon from a vehicle unless "probable cause exists for doing so. Correction officers are instructed not to remove such weapons from vehicles while merely standing beside a vehicle on a guard post. On June 25, 1982, Lieutenant George Palacios, a shift lieutenant with the Broward Correctional Institute was on duty at the central control room. He attempted to communicate with Officer McWhorter on guard post #2 that day and his initial response was very slow. Later that morning, at approximately 7:15 a.m., he again attempted to contact Officer McWhorter and received no response on Officer McWhorter's truck radio. Lieutenant Burnstein and Sergeants Brothers and Moskowitz then drove to the Respondent's guard post and observed the Respondent sitting in his truck on post #2 with his head leaning against the window on the driver's side. They walked close to the truck and observed the Respondent with eyes closed and mouth open, appearing to be asleep. The window was half open and from a distance of about 3 feet, Officer Burstein said, "Officer McWhorter are you awake?" He received no response and repeated this statement three times, each time receiving no response from the Respondent. Sergeant Brothers walked around the truck, directly in front of McWhorter, and waved his arms and again received no response from Officer McWhorter. Officer Burstein did the same and then walked to the side of the truck and hit it with his hand. The Respondent still did not move. He hit the truck a second time and McWhorter moved his head and appeared to reach down at the floor of the truck. At that point the Respondent was relieved of his duties at post #2 and he and Lieutenant Burnstein came back to the office of the "captain" at the administrative offices of the institution. Captain Thomas, the Respondent's supervisor was advised of the incident. A meeting was conducted to discuss this incident with the Respondent during the course of which the Respondent's behavior was characterized by incoherent, confused speech, and bloodshot, glazed-appearing eyes. Officers Moskowitz, Brothers and Burnstein opined that he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Captain Thomas, pursuant to Rule 33-4.02(10), Florida Administrative Code, asked the Respondent to submit to a urinalysis and blood test, but the Respondent refused. On other occasions, Sergeant Brothers had observed the Respondent appearing to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs in that his conduct was characterized by slurred speech, eyes that did not dilate, uncontrollable eye movements and a general appearance of disorientation. Superintendent Robert Bowler, formerly of Broward Correctional Institution at times pertinent hereto, also had a meeting with the Respondent on June 25, 1982, and observed that the Respondent appeared to be "under the influence" that morning in that he appeared disheveled, groggy and otherwise disoriented. It has been established that the Respondent was under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicant on the above occasion. On May 25, 1982, Sergeant Aldean Wright, a Corrections Officer II at Broward Correctional Institution, was acting officer in charge. On that evening, the Respondent was assigned to perimeter post #2 for one-half of the shift, but left his post without permission and went to a truck stop for breakfast before reporting inside the institution for the second-half of his shift. He then lied about his whereabouts during that absence. Sergeant Wright remonstrated with him about his absence from his post without leave and gave him a written reprimand. (Petitioner's Exhibit G) Former correctional security shift supervisor, John Kording, described past disciplinary counseling directed at the Respondent for an infraction involving inattention at his post position, specifically, performing mechanical work on his "post vehicle" when he should have been observant of his assigned portion of the compound and inmates. This incident occurred in July, 1981. On December 22, 1981, Officer McWhorter wrote and submitted an incident report directed to the Assistant Superintendent of the institution, circumventing the security department's chain of command and was "counseled" regarding this infraction by Mr. Kording. No evidence was adduced regarding his use of unnecessary force upon an inmate however. The Respondent was an employee at Broward Correctional Institution from 1978 through July, 1982. For the above-stated infractions, the Respondent was terminated with prejudice in July, 1982. The Respondent had been furnished all pertinent rules for employee conduct for correctional officers such as himself when employed at this institution and for the Department of Corrections, among which rules was that which prohibited the use of narcotics or intoxicants while on duty, as shown by a receipt for the rules signed by the Respondent (Exhibit N). The Respondent was aware of the pertinent rules of conduct with which he was to comply during his employment with the Department of Corrections and failed to adhere to them.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the arguments of the Petitioner, It is, RECOMMENDED: That Corrections Officer Certificate No. C-6698, held by the Respondent Craig C. McWhorter, be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Craig McWhorter 1131 Northeast 201 Terrace North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 G. Patrick Gallagher, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James W. York, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b), 2/ by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Sections 943.13(4) or (7); and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Correctional Certificate 92776 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections. Respondent married Ms. Minnie Williams on May 6, 1988, in Lake City, Florida. They had one child, Blake, in 1990. They separated in September, 1993, and were divorced in November, 1994. The court awarded custody of the child to Respondent. In 1988, Respondent was in the Navy, stationed aboard the USS Saratoga, and based in Virginia. After Respondent and Ms. Williams were married, Respondent returned to Virginia. Ms. Williams remained in Lake City for several months before moving to Virginia to live with Respondent. Approximately one year after the marriage, problems developed in the marriage. Ms. Williams did not assist in the daily needs of the household, was unable to stay in school, and was not able to keep a job. Respondent's efforts to solve the marital problems were unsuccessful. His attempts at counseling failed to improve communications between the couple. In late 1989, Respondent informed Ms. Williams that the marriage was not going to work. He told Ms. Williams that he thought they should divorce. Ms. Williams returned to her mother's home in Lake City. Respondent's ship was transferred to Mayport, Florida in 1990. Ms. Williams did not want a divorce and did not want to separate from Respondent. Sometime in 1990, Respondent left the Navy and obtained employment with the Department of Corrections. Between 1990 and 1993, the couple maintained the marriage in an effort to provide a home for their child. Whenever Respondent attempted to discuss divorce, it resulted in a heated argument. Ms. Williams frequently threatened to "ruin" Respondent. The Wrench On March 9, 1993, Respondent counseled a co-worker who was distraught over her husband's affair. Respondent learned that the woman with whom the husband was having an affair was Respondent's wife. Respondent went home to pack his clothes and leave home. An argument ensued regarding Ms. William's infidelity. Respondent packed some of his personal belongings and left home. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on the same day, Respondent returned home for more of his personal belongings. Respondent was still very angry. Respondent and Ms. Williams became involved in another argument. During the argument, Respondent continued to pack his things. He retrieved a large wrench from his closet. Respondent was walking down the hallway leading from the bedroom to the front door. Respondent had the wrench in one hand and other personal belongings in the other hand. Respondent told Ms. Williams that this time he was leaving for good. It was approximately 12:10 a.m. on March 10. Ms. Williams told Respondent that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. Respondent turned abruptly around to face Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams was startled and frightened. She ran into the bedroom from the hallway where she scraped her leg on a jagged corner of the bed, fell, and struck her right hand on the open sliding glass door of the bedroom. Respondent never struck Ms. Williams in any way, with his hands, the wrench, or otherwise. The injuries to Ms. Williams were minor. Respondent left. Ms. Williams spent the night in her car. The next day she reported the incident to the Columbia County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff"). Ms. Williams reported to the investigating officer that Respondent beat her with his hands and a wrench for about 15 minutes. The injuries observed by the investigating officer were not consistent with such a beating. The injuries to Ms. Williams were consistent with a trip and fall. Ms. Williams had a three inch cut on her left leg at approximately the height of the corner of the bed. She also had a bruise on her right hand and some swelling. Ms. Williams did not seek medical treatment for her injuries. On March 16, 1993, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. On April 5, 1993, Respondent entered into a Misdemeanor Intervention Agreement scheduled for six months. The agreement was terminated early on September 3, 1993. Respondent established a separate residence. Respondent had no further relations with Ms. Williams except those necessary for the care of their child. The Lip Respondent resided with his girlfriend and shared her car. Ms. Williams used Respondent's truck to commute to work. On March 27, 1994, Respondent went to Ms. Williams house to pick up clothes and diapers for his son. Ms. Williams routinely failed to deliver those items when she dropped off their child to Respondent. Ms. Williams was not home, and Respondent waited for her. When Ms. Williams arrived in Respondent's truck, the truck was driven by Ms. Williams' boyfriend. Respondent was angered that Ms. Williams' boyfriend was driving Respondent's truck. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend attempted to turn the truck around and leave. Respondent ran behind the truck so that the vehicle could not be turned around. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend were angry that Respondent blocked their exit. Ms. Williams and her boyfriend got out of the truck. The boyfriend and Respondent engaged in a physical altercation. During the altercation, Ms. Williams attacked Respondent. She hit and kicked him and jumped on his back. Either Respondent or the boyfriend inadvertently struck Ms. Williams in her lip. She went to the Lake City Medical Center for medical treatment. At the Medical Center, Ms. Williams reported the incident to the Sheriff. Her injuries were minor. On April 6, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with misdemeanor battery. He entered a plea of nolo contendere. The court withheld adjudication and placed Respondent on supervised probation for one year. On May 27, 1994, the supervised probation was converted to unsupervised probation with the provision that Respondent was not to contact Ms. Williams. The Window On April 4, 1994, Ms. Williams drove to Respondent's house to pick up their child. Respondent's girlfriend and mother were inside the house with him. Respondent went outside the house to the car. Ms. Williams got out of the car. She became belligerent and verbally abusive toward Respondent. Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave. Ms. Williams backed away from Respondent, struck the car window with her posterior, and the window broke. Ms. Williams became angrier. She threatened to have Respondent "messed up." Ms. Williams left with her child and went to her aunt's house. She telephoned the Sheriff and filed a complaint. On April 25, 1994, the state attorney charged Respondent with criminal mischief. Respondent determined that the criminal charges would be dropped if he paid for the window. Respondent gave Ms. Williams a money order for $159. On May 25, 1994, the state attorney filed a nolle prosequi declining to prosecute Respondent. In November, 1994, Respondent obtained custody of the only child of the marriage with Ms. Williams. Respondent has retained custody of the child. The Knife On February 1, 1995, Ms. Williams went to Respondent's house to deliver some clothes for their son. They went into the kitchen. Ms. Williams asked about reconciliation. Respondent stated that he wanted nothing to do with Ms. Williams. She became angry. She told him that she was going to "fix him." Respondent told Ms. Williams to leave, and she did. On February 2, 1995, Ms. Williams telephoned the Sheriff. She claimed Respondent had threatened her with a knife and beaten her for 15 to 30 minutes when she was at his home the previous day. Respondent did not batter Ms. Williams. He did not threaten her with a dangerous weapon. The investigating officer observed no injuries on Ms. Williams. She did not seek medical treatment for the alleged injuries even though she knew she was pregnant at the time with her boyfriend's child. A neighbor observed Ms. Williams leaving Respondent's home on February 1, 1995. She had no observable injuries and was gesturing to Respondent as she left. The state attorney charged Respondent with two misdemeanors, battery and exhibiting a dangerous weapon. The court found respondent not guilty of the latter offense but guilty of the former. The court sentenced Respondent to one year of unsupervised probation with the special condition that there be no contact with Ms. Williams. The Handgun On February 10, 1995, Respondent and Ms. Williams were driving in separate cars near the Gateway Plaza. Ms. Williams filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Office. She alleged that Respondent drove beside her and pointed a handgun at her. The state attorney charged Respondent with improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon. On October 3, 1995, the court found Respondent not guilty of the offense. Respondent did not exhibit a dangerous weapon. Paternity In 1995, Ms. Williams became pregnant with the child of her boyfriend. Ms. Williams charged Respondent with paternity. Paternity tests proved that Respondent was not the father of the child. Respondent had not had sex with Ms. Williams since 1993. Other Matters After their divorce, Ms. Williams repeatedly threatened Respondent by stating that she would get him fired and get custody of their child. She filed approximately 20 complaints against Respondent with the Sheriff's Office. She also contacted the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to report Respondent for child abuse. Respondent did not report the criminal actions filed by Ms. Williams to his employer and received a written reprimand for not reporting the criminal matters. Respondent is still employed by the Department of Corrections.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 943.1395(6) and (7) and Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a) and (b) and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997.
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline on Respondent in association with his correctional certificate?
Findings Of Fact When Respondent requested a formal hearing he also filed a written document addressing the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. By that response he admitted to being certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. The nature of that certification is as a corrections officer. At the time relevant to the complaint, Respondent worked as a corrections officer at Gadsden Correction Institution (the Institution). At that time Chrysta Rivoire was an inmate in the facility. Respondent came to the bedside where Ms. Rivoire was housed on several occasions. Respondent was observed to try and kiss Ms. Rivoire. She turned her head away to resist his advance. The visits which Respondent made to Ms. Rivoire at her bedside were at a time when he was on duty at the Institution. On those occasions he would sit at her desk or stand at the foot of her bed. Respondent would also come and sit at tables in the dayroom where Ms. Rivoire and Barbara Daugherty, another inmate, were sitting. Respondent was observed showing pictures to Ms. Rivoire while she was incarcerated. Respondent remarked about pictures which Ms. Rivoire had displayed on a desk in the area where she resided. On several occasions Respondent gave Ms. Daugherty letters to pass to Ms. Rivoire. The subject matter of one of the letters discussed different ways Respondent liked sex and ways he "wanted her," referring to Ms. Rivoire. Another letter talked about Ms. Rivoire's kids and Respondent's meeting the kids. A third letter passed from Respondent to Ms. Daugherty to give to Ms. Rivoire was handed over in a small foyer area within the Institution. Ms. Rivoire received this letter from Ms. Daugherty. The letter said: Hello Sweetheart! How are you doing today? Fine I hope. As for me, just going with the flow of things. You know how life goes. I believe you made a statement "You would like to be more than just a friend. I was hopping that you would say such. It lit up my heart when I read those roads [sic]. I am surely [sic] hoping that we can become very close to each other. You seem to be bit shy to me. Is this conclusion drawn [sic] correct, or am I way off base. Your style is so unique. You have a very beautiful and captivating smile. I hope we can take our relationship to a level we would both enjoy and be pleased with each other. I am surely looking forward to knowing you better. You said you trust me, but maybe a little to [sic] much. In a way that may be a good thing. Not that I mean in a negative way, but it's always good to have some type of skepticism of someone. It always keeps you alert of life and other people know [sic] matter what comes. Til [sic] next time, you continue to take good care of yourself. I hope you don't mind me calling you sweetheart. But to me, that exactly [sic] what you are. Besides, calling you friend wasn't something I really wanted to continue. Sweet dreams and thoughts. Hope to get a chance to talk to you soon. May Good Bless and Much Love to you my dear. Yours truely, [sic]
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered revoking the Respondent's certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry G. Thomas 111 South Ward Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, Respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission, acting on a tip from local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Metro Dade Corrections), had in its employ a number of correctional officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the employment records of Metro Dade Corrections. As a result of this review, Respondent identified 363 individuals, including Petitioner, who were employed by Metro Dade Corrections as correctional officers but who had not been certified by Respondent. On August 10-11, 1988, personnel employed by Respondent visited the Metro Dade Corrections personnel office and audited the personnel file maintained by Metro Dade Corrections of each of the 363 individuals in question, including Petitioner's personnel file. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that Metro Dade Corrections had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. Over the course of their two-day visit, employees of Respondent worked with employees of Metro Dade Corrections to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, they prepared registration forms and affidavits of compliance and assembled other missing documentation, such as birth certificate and fingerprint cards. The 363 completed applications for certification were returned to Tallahassee by Respondent for processing. The vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, Respondent declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify Petitioner. The pending application Petitioner has been employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (hereinafter called Metro Dade corrections) as a correctional officer since March 1, 1985, without benefit of certification. As part of the pre-employment process, Petitioner submitted to Metro Dade Corrections an affidavit dated March 1, 1985, which provides in pertinent part: I fully understand that, in order to qualify as a law enforcement or correctional officer, I must fully comply with the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, as follows: * * * Be of good moral character. I further understand that by executing this document I am attesting that I have met the qualifications as specified. Metro Dade Corrections, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, Metro Dade Corrections routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre- employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. At the time Petitioner began employment on March 1, 1985, Metro Dade Corrections had completed its investigation into Petitioner's background and had concluded that Petitioner possessed the good moral character required for certification. Fred Crawford, the Metro Dade Corrections director, executed an affidavit of compliance on March 1, 1985, that contained the following sworn statement: I hereby certify that I have collected, verified, and am maintaining on file evidence that the applicant has met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8) and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. There is no evidence that a complete application package for Petitioner's certification was prepared before August 11, 1988. Respondent did not receive a complete application for certification on Petitioner's behalf until August 11, 1988, when Metro Dade Corrections, as the employing agency, submitted to Respondent a complete application package for certification of Petitioner as a correctional officer. This was the first application for certification submitted on Petitioner's behalf. By letter dated November 1, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that his application for certification was denied because Petitioner did not possess the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer. Respondent gave the following as its reasons for concluding that Petitioner lacked good moral character: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into you body cannabis. During the course of the polygraph examination administered on February 8, 1985, the polygraph examiner misunderstood Petitioner to say that Petitioner had used marijuana between 60-70 times, with the last date of usage being at least four years before the date of the polygraph examination. Petitioner's truthful statement to the polygraph examiner was that he had used marijuana between 6-7 times with the last date of usage being at least four years before the date of the polygraph examination. Petitioner made no attempt to conceal the truth as to his prior use of marijuana. He had not used any controlled substance for at least four years before the date of the polygraph examination. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was 33 years of age and had worked as a correctional officer since March 1985. Prior to that, he served in U.S. Air Force for eight years as a security police officer. His job performance evaluations with Metro Dade Corrections have ranged between above satisfactory to outstanding. Petitioner has been promoted and has received several commendations for his service. Petitioner is a valued and trusted employee. Petitioner's reputation is that he is a dependable, reliable, and trustworthy individual who possesses high moral character. Following the denial of his request for certification as a correctional on November 1, 1988, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing by the election of rights form he filed with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Criminal Justice standards and Training issue a Final Order which approves Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 7th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner, individually, are addressed as follows: Addressed in part in paragraph 13. Rejected in part as unnecessary to the result reached. Rejected as unnecessary to the result reached. 3-6. Addressed in paragraph 12. 7. Addressed in paragraph 6. 8-9. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. 10-13. Addressed in paragraph 13. 14-22. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact submitted for petitioner on the generic record are addressed as follows: 1-14. Rejected as recitation of witness testimony, and not findings of fact. The matters have, however, been addressed in paragraphs 7 so far as deemed necessary to the result reached. 15,16,18-20. Addressed in paragraphs 1-4. 17. Rejected as unnecessary to the result reached. 21. Addressed in paragraph 7, otherwise rejected as unnecessary to the result reached in a legal conclusion. 22-27. Rejected as subordinate to the conclusion reached. 28. Rejected as misleading and not supported by competent proof. 29-36. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusion reached or not supported by competent evidence. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: 1-2. Addressed in paragraphs 10-11. Addressed in paragraph 10. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. 5-6. Addressed in paragraph 12. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 13. 9. Addressed in paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald D. Slesnick, II Attorney at Law Law Offices of Slesnick and Lober 10680 Northwest 25th Street Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33172 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lee Kraftchick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney in and for Dade County Metro Dade Center 111 N.W. First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards for certified law enforcement and correctional officers in the State of Florida. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer on December 2, 1980, and was issued certificate No. 15-84-599-01. Correctional Officer Teresa Allen worked at Lake Correctional Institute as a guard and at times pertinent hereto was working as a perimeter guard stationed in a pickup truck operating around the periphery of the prison. In the early morning hours of March 18, 1985, Ms. Allen arrived at her duty station in the truck on the perimeter of the fenced confinement area. The Respondent had been witness Allen's counterpart, stationed in that same pickup truck at the same point on the 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight shift immediately prior to Ms. Allen's shift. When Ms. Allen got into the pickup truck, she observed and retrieved from the floor of the pickup truck, a scrap of aluminum foil, a paper towel and a plastic bag. The paper towel appeared to have been wadded up or torn up but had writing in ink on it. It appeared to her to be the Respondent Margaret Seale's handwriting, inasmuch as she was experienced in observing the Respondent's handwriting. She took the handwritten note or letter on the paper towel to her superiors, Lts. Flowers and Branch. Upon receipt of that letter, Lts. Flowers and Branch reconstructed it with cellophane tape. It ultimately was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The letter indicates that the Respondent intended sending the addressee, someone she called "Baby" a "50-cent piece". She thereafter indicated she could not resist "taking a pinch." After the addressee of the letter was to receive the intended "50-cent piece" the Respondent directed the recipient to destroy all foil and plastic immediately thereafter. The Respondent then directed the recipient of the letter as to how to communicate with her, and urged the recipient not to go anywhere, but to "make some money" with her. Mr. Michael Lanfersiek is a special agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. He is trained in narcotics investigation related to smuggling and trafficking in narcotics, controlled substances and related organized racketeering. He was established to be an expert in narcotics investigation, and in interpreting the jargon used in the "drug trade." It was thus established that a "50-cent piece" refers to $50 worth of drugs or slightly under one gram of heroin or cocaine, for example. The reference in the letter to the directed destruction of the foil and plastic refers to the aluminum foil and plastic bag wrapping of the cocaine' or heroin which is trafficked in a powder form and requires such a wrapping. Thus, the witness established that the letter showed that the writer of it had trafficked or transmitted a controlled substance to the recipient of the letter, and was telling him to destroy the wrapping material after receipt of the drug. Inmate James Bryant had been suspected of trafficking in drugs inside the Lake Correctional Institute. The Respondent was not on any inmate's "visitors approved list," but recently had filed a request form asking to visit the suspected inmate, James Bryant. That inmate was later transferred to Marion Correctional Institute some two months after the Respondent resigned. Mr. Michael Page is the Inspector of Prisons for the Marion County area. Mr. Page is charged with investigating both prison staff and inmates and was familiar with the Respondent's handwriting. It appeared that the handwritten note, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, was written in the Respondent's handwriting and he had this confirmed to his satisfaction by a handwriting expert employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Respondent refused to confer with Mr. Page without the presence of her attorney. Some two days after he initially requested an interview with her she resigned. There is no question that the Respondent authored the subject letter which reveals clearly that she proposed and intended to transmit illicit drugs to another person, established to be an inmate in the Lake Correctional Institution, for the purpose of that person marketing the drugs to others in return for money, of which the Respondent would receive a portion. Indeed, in the prehearing stipulation admitted into evidence on the day of hearing, and signed by the Respondent as well as Petitioner's counsel, it is admitted by Respondent that she personally wrote the note identified as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and that she wrote the note while she was employed as a correctional officer at the Lake Correctional Institution. Thus, in view of the stipulation, which is accepted, and the unrefuted testimony of the witnesses who were familiar with the Respondent's duty station and hours of employment, her past history of attempting to contact and visit an inmate already suspected of drug trafficking, and her handwriting, it is patently apparent that the Respondent did indeed possess and intend to deliver to another, for resale, illicit controlled substances. No contrary testimony or evidence having been offered, the charges have thus been established.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the certification of Margaret C. Seales as a correctional officer be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esq. Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Margaret C. Seales 300 Dorsett Avenue Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue At is sue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, Respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, acting on a tip from local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Metro Dade Corrections), had in its employ a number of correctional officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the employment records of Metro Dade Corrections. As a result of this review, Respondent identified 363 individuals, including Petitioner, who were employed by Metro Dade Corrections as correctional officers but who had not been certified by Respondent. On August 10-11, 1988, personnel employed by Respondent visited the Metro Dade Corrections personnel office and audited the personnel file maintained by Metro Dade Corrections of each of the 363 individuals in question, including Petitioner's personnel file. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that Metro Dade Corrections had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. Over the course of their two-day visit, employees of Respondent worked with employees of Metro Dade Corrections to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, they prepared registration forms and affidavits of compliance and assembled other missing documentation, such as birth certificate and fingerprint cards. The 363 completed applications for certification were returned to Tallahassee by Respondent for processing. The vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, Respondent declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify Petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner has been employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (hereinafter called Metro Dade Corrections) as a correctional officer since June 24, 1985, without benefit of certification. As part of the pre-employment process, Petitioner submitted to Metro Dade Corrections an affidavit dated June 24, 1985, which provides in pertinent part: I fully understand that, in order to qualify as a law enforcement or correctional officer, I must fully comply with the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, as follows: * * * Be of good moral character. I further understand that by executing this document I am attesting that I have met the qualifications as specified. ... On August 8, 1982, Petitioner was arrested by Metro Dade Police and charged with the crime of Aggravated Battery in connection with an injury sustained by one Willie Milton during the course of a shoot-out between Mr. Milton and Petitioner at Mr. Milton's home. Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. The case against Petitioner was closed on January 4, 193, after the State Attorney dropped the charges. All records of the arrest were sealed and the arrest was expunged from the Petitioner's records by order of court of competent jurisdiction dated November 16, 1988. Metro Dade Corrections, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, Metro Dade Corrections routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. At the time Petitioner began employment on June 24, 1985, Metro Dade Corrections had completed its investigation into Petitioner's background and was aware of Petitioner's prior arrest and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Metro Dade Corrections concluded that Petitioner possessed the good moral character required for certification. Fred Crawford, the Metro Dade Corrections director, executed an affidavit of compliance on June 24, 1985, that contained the following sworn statement: I hereby certify that I have collected, verified, and am maintaining on file evidence that the applicant has met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8) and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. There is no evidence that a complete application package for Petitioner's certification was prepared in 1985. Respondent did not receive a complete application for certification on Petitioner's behalf until August 11, 1988. On August 11, 1988, Metro Dade Corrections, as the employing agency, submitted to Respondent a complete application package for certification of Petitioner as a correctional officer. This was the first application for certification submitted on Petitioner's behalf. By letter dated November 7, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that his application for certification was denied because Petitioner did not possess the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer. Respondent gave the following as its reasons for concluding that Petitioner lacked good moral character: You unlawfully committed an aggravated battery upon Willie Milton by shooting the said Willie Milton with a pistol firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. There was no evidence presented at the final hearing of any possession or use of cannabis by Petitioner. The incident involving Petitioner and Willie Milton occurred on August 8, 1982. On the night of the incident Petitioner was ordered to report to his work as a security officer with the Veterans Administration to work a late evening shift. Consequently, Petitioner dressed in his uniform and carried his firearm. Prior to going to work, Petitioner took his two children to the grocery store to get the children food. While returning from the grocery store at approximately 11:00 P.M., Petitioner's daughter saw her mother's car at the residence of Mr. Milton. Petitioner and the mother of these two children had been divorced on February 2, 1982, but still lived in the same house for economic reasons. Petitioner and his former wife shared parental responsibility of the children. Petitioner's daughter believed that a Ms. Milton lived in the house where she had seen her mother's car. The daughter mistakenly told Petitioner that a Ms. Milton lived there. Petitioner needed to discuss baby-sitting arrangements for the children with his ex-wife so he parked his car on the street by the Milton house and left the children in the car while he approached the Milton house. Petitioner was carrying his firearm because he did not want to leave it in the car with the children. Petitioner did not know Mr. Milton and was not trying to cause trouble with him. Petitioner approached the Milton house, knocked on the door, identified himself as Elizabeth Wilson's ex-husband, and asked to speak to her. Mr. Milton opened the front door took two or three steps away from the door and fired a firearm at Petitioner. Petitioner returned fire in the direction of Mr. Milton only after being shot at first by Mr. Milton. Several shots were fired by both Petitioner and Mr. Milton. Mr. Milton sustained a bullet wound to the leg during the exchange of gunfire. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was 43 years of age and had worked as a Correctional Officer since June 24, 1985. Petitioner's job performance evaluations with Metro Dade Corrections have been satisfactory or above. Petitioner has received several commendations for his service with Metro Dade Corrections. Prior to his service with Metro Dade Corrections, Petitioner served in the U.S. Army with distinction where he had a top secret security clearance. Petitioner also had a good record as a security officer for the Veterans Administration. Petitioner's reputation is that she is a dependable, reliable, and trustworthy individual who possesses high moral character. Following the denial of his request for certification as a correctional officer on November 7, 1988, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing by the election of rights form he filed with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Criminal Justice standards and Training issue a Final Order which approves Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 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 5th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner, individually, are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 6. Addressed in paragraph 9. 4-5. Rejected as subordinate to the findings reached. 6-11. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 14-18. Rejected as unnecessary to the conclusion reached. Rejected as recitation of witness testimony and as being subordinate to the conclusion reached. Addressed in paragraph 17. 15-18. Rejected as being subordinate to the finding of paragraphs 17 and 18. 19. Addressed in paragraphs 16-17. 20-26 Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 27-36. Rejected as being recitation of witness testimony and not finding of fact. 37. Addressed in paragraph 14. 38-44. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusion reached. 45-48. Addressed in paragraph 7. 49-50. Rejected as being unnecessary to result reached. 51-52. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusion reached. 53-58. Addressed in paragraph 19, so far as relevant. 59-65. Addressed in paragraph 19, so far as relevant. 66-78. Rejected as recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the conclusion reached The proposed findings of fact submitted for petitioner on the generic record are addressed as follows: 1-14. Rejected as recitation of witness testimony, and not findings of fact. The matters have, however, been addressed in paragraph 7 so far as deemed necessary to the result reached. 15, 16, 18-20. Addressed in paragraphs 1-4. 17. Rejected as unnecessary to the result reached. 21. Addressed in paragraph 7, otherwise rejected as unnecessary to the result reached in a legal conclusion. 22-27. Rejected as subordinate to the conclusion reached. 28. Rejected as misleading and not supported by competent proof. 29-36. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusion reached or not supported by competent evidence. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: 1-2. Addressed in paragraphs 11-12. Addressed in paragraph 11. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. 5-9. Rejected as being unnecessary to the-result reached. 10. Addressed in paragraph 18. 11-17. Rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. 18-24. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. Rejected as being based solely on hearsay evidence. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn Knieriem Estevez, Esquire 10680 Northwest 25th Street Miami, Florida 33172 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lee Kraftchick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney in and for Dade County Metro Dade Center 111 N.W. First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Respondent used excessive force to subdue a prisoner, and whether the Respondent made false official statements about the incident.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Tony V. Walker, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 7, 1989, and issued Corrections Certificate No. 05-89-502-01; and on October 9, 1990, was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 05-90-222-01. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) At the time of the incident described in the Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was working as a certified correctional officer at the Liberty Correctional Institution in Bristol, Florida. On or about November 12, 1990, the Respondent was working in the E and F dormitories of the Liberty Correctional Institution supervising inmates with Correctional Officer Wanda Terry/Rogers and Sgt. Smith. While Officer Terry/Rogers was on the phone with the medical department of the institution, the dining hall attempted to notify dormitories E and F to release their inmates for the noontime meal. When the dining hall was unable to contact dormitories E and F, dormitories G and H were called and told to release their inmates for the meal. When the inmates in dormitory E realized that dormitories E and F had been skipped in the feeding schedule, they became rowdy and belligerent. The inmates gathered around the dormitory control station cursing and complaining at Officers Terry/Rogers and Walker. Sgt. Smith was not present, having been requested by the lieutenant to assist him in the dining hall during the meal period. Officer Walker, the Respondent, attempted to calm the inmates by entering dormitory E and explaining the situation, emphasizing that the E and F inmates would be the next to go to lunch. This calmed some of the inmates, but Owen Dampier continued his verbal remonstrations about being skipped. After Walker returned into the dormitory's control room, Dampier approached the voice screen to the control room and became increasingly verbally abusive to both Walker and Terry/Rogers. His actions were causing the other inmates to again become rowdy and both Terry/Rogers and Walker felt that if Dampier's acting-out continued, it would foment an inmate disturbance. Walker had picked up an inmate's walking cane which was kept in the office for security reasons. Walker was preparing to issue the cane to the inmate to whom it belonged when Dampier screamed at Terry/Rogers and him. Walker slammed the cane against the plexiglass window and whistled at Dampier, who had turned and was walking towards the inmates clustered near the control room. Walker called Dampier back to the control room, and told Dampier that he was going to be placed in the laundry room in isolation. Terry/Rogers observed that Walker at this time was calm and was not upset by Dampier. Having told Dampier that he was going to be placed in isolation, Walker opened the door to the control room to let in Dampier. The control room door was hinged on the left side and opened into the control room. It was secured by a dead bolt lock located over the door handle on the right side of the door. As Dampier entered the room, Terry/Rogers left the desk and moved to the laundry room door to open it. Dampier stepped into the control room and stopped immediately inside the room. At this point, Dampier attempted to engage in a debate with Walker about the meal delay and refused to proceed into isolation. Dampier was facing Walker, and Walker, still holding onto the door, was standing partially behind the door, holding the door handle with his left hand. Walker released the door and it closed but was not locked. The statements of Walker, Terry/Roger and Dampier about what occurred next differ in their specifics. The following findings are based upon the testimony of Walker and Terry/Rogers and the written statement of Dampier which is corroborative of both of their statements. Dampier described his posture at this juncture as "being in Walker's face." Both Walker and Dampier were in close proximity with one another. Walker reached with his left hand to lock the door which had closed, but which had not been locked. As Walker started to reach for the door lock, Dampier perceived that he was grabbing for him and slapped Walker's hand away. Terry/Rogers, observing from across the room, saw Walker reaching for the door and assumed that he was reaching for Dampier who was standing in front of the door handle and lock. When Dampier slapped Walker's hand away, Walker felt threatened and pushed Dampier away from him with his right hand. Terry/Rogers, across the room, perceived Walker's action as an effort by Walker to grab Dampier. However, because of the location of the two men and the laundry room, it would have been extremely awkward for Walker to have grabbed at Dampier with his right hand in an effort to lead him to the laundry room which was to Walker's right and Dampier's left. Dampier's statement confirms that when Walker pushed him, Dampier pushed Walker back. Walker described Dampier's pushing him, and stated that, at this point, he struck Dampier on the chin with his closed right fist and then wrestled Dampier to the floor. Both the testimony of Terry/Rogers and the statement of Dampier confirm this. After both men fell to the floor, Terry/Rogers first locked the door to the control room, and then called the main control room for assistance. Two correctional officers supervising the yard immediately outside the dormitory responded in seconds. With their assistance, the tussle between Dampier and Walker was stopped. The Superintendent of Liberty Correctional Institution appointed an investigating officer, Inspector Stone, who interviewed Terry/Rogers, Walker and Dampier on the afternoon of November 12, 1992. Walker denied grabbing Dampier. Walker stated that he struck Dampier after Dampier pushed him. Dampier stated that Walker had grabbed him (page 4 of Dampier's statement), and also that Walker grabbed at him (page 6 of Dampier's statement). Walker admitted physical contact with Dampier and admitted striking Dampier; however, Walker stated consistently that he no recollection of grabbing Dampier by the arm. Both Walker and Dampier describe the same occurrences. Dampier's statement reports "he (Walker) grabbed at me (when) I was in his face." (Emphasis supplied.) "Then he told me to come. . . (page 6) "I pulled back like this, here, I was going to walk a little bit." (page 4, paragraph 5) "When I snatched my arm back, that's when he came up to me and pushed me." (page 4, paragraph 6) "I thought maybe he was going to swing, so I kinda like shoved him back, and he came up to be mad and he swung . . . he hit me." (page 4, paragraph 13) Walker states, "I asked him to step to me (inside the officer's station), and when he did he, uh, bowed up and he walked over to me and I opened up the door[.] I asked him to step on back to the laundry room[.] [W]hen he did, he slapped my hand back, and pushed me back and things went from there. . ." (page 3). "I hit the glass to get his attention[.] [T]hen I came down and I asked him to step inside the officer station[.] I told him to step on back to the laundry room[,] and that is when he slapped my hand and pushed me back, and started swinging[.]" Page 4. "I had my hand out to open the door, and as he stepped in[,] I let it,. . . the door[,] go back in behind me, . . . I took my hand [and] put it by my side like this, and he slapped my hand back, and pushed me back. . . I have [sic] not touched him then, until, up until then, 'til the actual squabble itself. . . . No, sir, I didn't grab him by the arm." (page 5 and 6) "He pushed me backwards, . . . finally I pushed him back and he reared back and I hit. It happened mighty fast." (Walker, page 6). In summary, both men testified to the same events, in the same order. Just after Dampier entered the room, Walker made some motion with his hand, and Dampier slapped it away. Walker pushed Dampier away from himself after Dampier slapped his hand, and a scuffle ensued in which Walker struck Dampier. What Terry/Rogers observed from across the room was not Walker grabbing Dampier with his right hand, but Walker pushing Dampier away. The slapping of Walker's left hand by Dampier with his right hand, which occurred first, was not observed by Terry/Rogers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the charges against the Respondent, Tony V. Walker, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1993. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 24th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent did not file proposed findings. The proposed findings filed by the Petitioner were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-9 Paragraphs 1-9 Paragraphs 10,11 Walker advised Dampier he was going to be isolated before letting Dampier into the Control Room, and it was only after Dampier entered the Control Room that they had an argument. Paragraph 12 The testimony that Walker grabbed Dampier is rejected as being contrary to that of Walker's testimony which is corroborated by Dampier's statement. Paragraphs 13-15 Paragraph 17,18 Paragraphs 16 See Comments to Paragraph 12, above. Paragraphs 17,18 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 19-21 Paragraphs 19 and 23. Paragraph 22 The testimony of Stone, as quoted in the proposed finding, makes it appear that Walker changed his story. This is incorrect. Walker never denied striking Dampier, although, he denied having grabbed Dampier by the arm at the commencement of the altercation. Paragraph 23 Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn Pompey Whitehurst, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Tony V. Walker 7002 Lois Street, Apt. B Callaway, FL 32404 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Teresa D. Mejico, was certified as a correctional officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, on February 17, 1988, and issued certificate number 03-87-502-02. At approximately 2:45 a.m., on October 3, 1988, respondent, while employed as a correctional officer at the Broward Correctional Institute, was observed by her supervisor leaning on her desk in the officer's station at Dormitory H-4. Sitting in a chair at respondent's side was Inmate Deronda Lemmonds, who was observed holding respondent's right arm, and kissing, licking and nuzzling it, while her right hand was between respondent's legs in the area of her crotch. Respondent was immediately relieved of duty, and later that day was discharged from her employment at Broward Correctional Institute for her failure to comply with Florida Department of Corrections Rule 33-4.002(28), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides: Employees shall maintain a professional relationship with all persons in the custody or under supervision of the Department, and their immediate family or visitors. No personal or business relationships are permitted. Marriage between employees and inmates is prohibited. That respondent was fully aware of the foregoing rule, and the standard of conduct it established, cannot be gainsaid for she acknowledged such at hearing. Notwithstanding such knowledge, however, respondent persisted in fostering the personal relationship which existed between her and Inmate Lemmonds despite denials to her superintendent that any such relationship existed and counseling from her superintendent to avoid any such relationships. Following the termination of her employment at Broward Correctional Institute, respondent maintained contact with Inmate Lemmonds through the mail and by telephone, and variously expressed her affection and love for the inmate. On one occasion, she mailed the inmate 20-25 photographs of herself, including some photographs that captured respondent in partially nude and suggestive poses. In all, the proof demonstrated that respondent was romantically involved with Inmate Lemmonds while she was employed at Broward Correctional Institute, and continued to be so involved as of the date of hearing. It further demonstrated that she was untruthful with her superintendent, failed to abide the rules of conduct for correctional officers, and neglected her duty to guard Dormitory H-4 while engaged in a liaison with an inmate under her charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking respondent' s certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of May 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 24th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6410 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. 5-9. Not material or not necessary to result reached. 10-14. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Teresa D. Mejico 7502 S.W. 5th Street North Lauderdale, Florida 33068 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of February, 1990.
