Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in proceeding, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer on March 11, 1983 and issued Certificate Number 502-3844. The Respondent was a correctional officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office beginning in January 1983. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent resided with Ms. Burton (who has subsequently married Respondent and is now known as Elaine Burton Edwards) and two of her children. One of her children, Karl McInis ("Karl") was twenty three months old at the time and he was in the process of being toilet trained. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent discovered that Karl had "messed" on the floor and/or in his pants. The Respondent felt that the child's actions were deliberate and that the child needed to be disciplined. Therefore, Respondent struck the child fives times with a leather belt. There is a dispute as to the type and size of the belt used. While Petitioner contends that Respondent used his heavy Sheriff's Deputy belt, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent used a typical men's trousers belt. As a result of the discipline described in paragraph 5 above, Karl suffered bruises on his buttocks and legs. Subsequent to the incident, the child was removed from the home by HRS. He currently resides out of state with his grandparents. Criminal charges were brought against Respondent after HRS reported the incident to the police. However, after Respondent successfully completed a counseling program as part of a pre-trial intervention program, the charges were nolle prossed on November 10, 1988. As a result of his arrest, Respondent was suspended from his job at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department pending the outcome of the criminal case. Respondent has not been reinstated. After completing the counseling program, Respondent altered his methods of disciplining his children. On most occasions, Respondent has refrained from using corporal punishment and instead attempts to apply the assertive discipline procedures he learned in the counseling program. However, Respondent admits that on a few occasions when he felt the children did not respond to the assertive discipline techniques, he has resorted to corporal punishment. On March 2, 1989, Respondent disciplined one of his children, Julius Edwards, by striking him five times on the palms of the hands with a belt. At the time of the incident described in paragraph 10, Julius was five years old. Julius and at least one other sibling from Respondent's previous marriage were living with Respondent and Ms. Burton. Respondent punished Julius because he felt the child was deliberately engaging in a pattern of obstinate conduct in an attempt to be returned to the custody of his natural mother. That conduct included eating excessive amounts of food after being instructed not to. During the punishment, Julius struggled and at least one of the blows landed on his arms. As a result of the punishment, Julius had bruises on his arms which measured approximately four inches long and one inch wide. As a result of the corporal punishment administered by Respondent to Julius, Respondent was arrested and ultimately adjudicated guilty of a misdemeanor for violating Section 827.04, Florida Statutes (child abuse) on March 29, 1989 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, in case no. 89-5869MMA08. As a result of this conviction, Respondent was required to undergo additional counseling. While the bruises suffered by the children in the two incidents described above are significant cause for concern, neither of the children required medical attention. At the time of both of the incidents in question, none of the other children evidenced bruises, they all appeared well-fed and there was no other evidence of any neglect. Indeed, the evidence reflects that the Respondent is a dedicated and caring father. He is extremely concerned about the many negative influences that affect children in our society. As a result, he believes it is important for him to discipline the children in an attempt to ensure that they choose the right path in life. Respondent contends that he was raised with a similar type of discipline and finds it difficult to understand the commotion caused by his attempts to discipline his children in the manner in which he was raised. While his motives are good, he has used very poor judgment in certain situations and imposed excessive punishment given the age of the children and the nature of their behavior. Respondent has aspired to be a law enforcement officer since his high school days. He has spent hundreds of hours as a volunteer for various school projects and programs involving children. He has strived hard to be a good role model and an active member of his community. However, he needs to temper his concerns and enthusiasm with more sensitivity to the rights of others. There is no indication of any deficiencies or problems in Respondent's job performance. Indeed, the only evidence introduced regarding his performance as a law enforcement officer indicated that he was dedicated, concerned and responsible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and seriousness of the offense as it relates to the public trust placed in a correctional officer who guards those incarcerated by society, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order placing Respondent Glenn S. Edwards' correctional officer certification on probation for a period of two years and requiring him to complete an appropriate counseling program for parents while refraining from any further violations of Section 943.13(1)-(10). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 10th day of April 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Pursuant to section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints and taking disciplinary action against persons holding certificates as law enforcement officers. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer, having been issued certificate number 248318 on April 28, 2005. Upon receiving his certification, Respondent accepted a position as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol. Events of April 18, 2008 At approximately 9:30 p.m. on April 18, 2008, Ms. Diana Agudelo was driving alone on Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. Respondent, who was on solo patrol in his marked Florida Highway Patrol cruiser, initiated a traffic stop of Ms. Agudelo for exceeding the speed limit. Respondent exited his cruiser, approached the driver's window of Ms. Agudelo's vehicle, and began to engage her in conversation. While he did so, Respondent stared——with, in Ms. Agudelo's words, a "perverted" expression on his face——at her breasts and directed the beam of his flashlight at the same part of her anatomy. Eventually, Respondent requested, and received, Ms. Agudelo's driver's license, at which point he returned to his patrol cruiser while Ms. Agudelo waited in her vehicle. A short time later, Respondent walked back to Ms. Agudelo's vehicle and requested that she accompany him to his patrol cruiser. Ms. Agudelo complied with the request and followed Respondent to his vehicle. At that point, Respondent sat down in the driver's seat of his patrol car and asked Ms. Agudelo to get inside the vehicle with him. Ms. Agudelo declined the invitation. While Ms. Agudelo stood near the window of the patrol vehicle, Respondent continued to engage her in conversation. As he did, Respondent continued to stare at (and direct the beam of his flashlight on) Ms. Agudelo's breasts. A short time thereafter, Respondent decided to escort Ms. Agudelo back to her vehicle. While walking behind Ms. Agudelo, Respondent intentionally, and without justification, touched Ms. Agudelo's buttocks without her consent. Understandably intimidated, Ms. Agudelo made no comment in response to the unwanted contact. Once she reached her vehicle, Ms. Agudelo sat down in the driver's seat and closed the door. As Respondent leaned through the driver's window and continued to converse with Ms. Agudelo, he intentionally touched her breasts with his hand. Ms. Agudelo did not consent to the contact. Eventually, Respondent moved away from the window and advised Ms. Agudelo that she was free to leave. Respondent did not issue Ms. Agudelo a speeding ticket or a written warning. Correctly believing that Respondent's behavior constituted sexual harassment, Ms. Agudelo contacted law enforcement shortly after the incident. An investigation ensued, during which Ms. Agudelo identified Respondent from a photographic lineup.1 Events of July 28, 2006 During the evening of July 28, 2006, Erin Weigel, a 21-year-old female, was driving alone in her vehicle on Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. After she missed her intended turn, Ms. Weigel decided to exit the interstate and ask for directions. While stopped at a red light near the interstate, Ms. Weigel noticed a marked Florida Highway Patrol vehicle——occupied solely by Respondent——at rest in an adjacent lane. After Ms. Weigel gained Respondent's attention, she advised him that she was lost and in need of assistance. Respondent instructed Ms. Weigel to follow his vehicle, at which point he led her to a poorly lit, deserted parking lot. Inconveniently, Respondent parked in such a manner that Ms. Weigel would have been unable to re-enter the roadway unless Respondent moved his patrol vehicle. Respondent exited his patrol car, approached the driver's side window of Ms. Weigel's vehicle, and began to engage her in conversation. Almost immediately, Respondent made an unsolicited inquiry regarding Ms. Weigel's relationship status. Specifically, Respondent asked, "Do you have a boyfriend," to which Ms. Weigel replied that she did. Upon being informed that she had a boyfriend, Respondent asked Ms. Weigel to produce her driver's license. Although Ms. Weigel was confused by the request, she decided to comply and reached for her purse, which was located on the passenger's seat. As she did so, Respondent aimed the beam of his flashlight down Ms. Weigel's shirt (she was wearing a v-neck tank top) and remarked, "You know what I want to see." Ms. Weigel responded by stating, "Excuse me," at which point Respondent announced, "I want to see your breasts." In response to the inappropriate and unwelcome demand, Ms. Weigel informed Respondent that she wanted to leave. At that point or shortly thereafter, Respondent informed Ms. Weigel that he thought she was pretty, he wanted to take her on a date, and that he would let her leave once she gave him her cell phone number. Although Ms. Weigel did not want to give Respondent her phone number and had no wish to date him, she relented in the hope that Respondent would keep his word and allow her to drive away. After he received Ms. Weigel's phone number, Respondent did not immediately allow her to leave. Instead, Respondent told Ms. Weigel that she seemed "a little intoxicated," notwithstanding the fact that she was not impaired and had consumed no alcoholic beverages that evening. Although Respondent asked Ms. Weigel to exit her vehicle, she held her ground and refused to comply. Eventually, Respondent ended the encounter and allowed Ms. Weigel to drive away. Ms. Weigel subsequently reported the incident to the Florida Highway Patrol. During the investigation that ensued,2 Ms. Weigel identified Respondent in a photographic lineup as the trooper involved in the July 28, 2006, incident.3 Other Allegations As a licensed law enforcement officer with the Florida Highway Patrol, Respondent was granted access to Driver and Vehicle Information Database ("DAVID"), which is maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DAVID is a secure database that contains confidential information regarding motorists, which includes addresses, photographs, driving records, and vehicle descriptions. Each time an authorized person accesses DAVID, the user is required to acknowledge that the system is being utilized for legitimate law enforcement or criminal justice purposes. Pursuant to the Prehearing Stipulation in this matter, it is undisputed that Respondent accessed DAVID on multiple occasions for "personal reasons" and without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.4 However, neither the Prehearing Stipulation nor the evidence presented during the final hearing established what particular benefit Respondent derived——if any—— from his unauthorized use of DAVID. Ultimate Findings The undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed a battery upon Ms. Agudelo by touching her breasts and buttocks, and therefore failed to maintain good moral character. The undersigned also finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent's behavior toward Ms. Argudelo and Ms. Weigel constitutes misuse of his position as a law enforcement officer, and thus Respondent failed to maintain good moral character. The undersigned further determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish that Respondent's accessing of the DAVID system for personal reasons constituted misuse of his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, in violation of section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and revoking his certification as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 11th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1989, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate #11-89-002-01. In February 1990, Samuel O. Best was employed as a police officer by the City of Port St. Joe Police Department. During the early part of February, Respondent accompanied a woman to a local motel where the two shared a room and engaged in sexual intercourse. While the two were in the room, the Respondent thought the woman smoked two and one-half cigarettes. The items she smoked looked like normal cigarettes. However, Respondent was not paying close attention to the woman's activities or any odor of the smoke because he had his mind on more prurient matters. As the two prepared to leave the room, the Respondent, as was his habit, straightened the motel room. The woman had dropped one of her cigarettes on the floor and Respondent picked up the cigarette and placed it in his pocket. The Respondent forgot about the cigarette in his pocket and kept it for approximately two or three days. Around February 8, 1990, the afternoon of the second or third day after his liaison with the woman in the motel, Respondent went to his father's home and sat on the front porch. The Respondent was on duty. While contemplating the bleakness of his life, in part due to the intense personal problems he was having with his wife, Respondent, who was a heavy smoker, began looking for a cigarette to smoke. He found the motel woman's cigarette in the pocket of a shirt he had worn for three days. He pulled it out, looked at it and lit it. During this activity the "insurance man" was walking up to the house. Officer Best thought the substance in the cigarette was tobacco. However, it tasted like perfume and he put the cigarette out after one puff. He then left the porch to get his father for the insurance man. There was an absence of any competent and substantial evidence reflecting the identifying the substance contained in the cigarette as marijuana. Additionally, no changes in Respondent's behavior were noted by any of his fellow officers or supervisors at any time surrounding the events on February 8, 1990. On February 22, 1990, Chief Richter of the Port St. Joe Police Department received a citizen complaint regarding the Respondent. The insurance agent complained that he had observed the Respondent in police uniform on the porch of the Respondent's father's home smoking. That same day, Chief Richter contacted the Respondent and directed him to come to Chief Richter's office to discuss the complaint. Upon his arrival in Chief Richter's office, Chief Richter told the Respondent what the citizen had alleged. 1/ Chief Richter asked the Respondent if he would answer questions regarding the allegation. The Respondent voluntarily agreed. The initial discussion between Officer Best and Chief Richter lasted approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Officer Best's interpretation of what Chief Richter told him was that the Chief had decided that Officer Best had been smoking marijuana. Officer Best thought his Chief would not misinform him, and he did not argue with Chief Richter over the issue of whether or not the substance was marijuana. However, Officer Best did not know with any certainty what the substance was that he had inhaled briefly while sitting on his father's front porch. After the initial discussion, Chief Richter then placed the Respondent under oath and began to question him while tape recording the interrogation. From Respondent's point of view, the reference to marijuana during the interrogation was merely a convenient label for referring to the cigarette he briefly puffed on his father's front porch. Neither the reference or his responses to questions using the term marijuana was intended to be an admission of knowing drug use. Given the Respondent's demeanor at the hearing, it is understandable under the facts of this case, that even with some training in drug identification, Respondent was not able to identify the substance in the cigarette and that he was also very submissive to what he believed to be a superior officer's view of the matter. As a result of the Respondent's statement, he was discharged from his employment with the Port St. Joe Police Department. However, even with the dismissal, the overwhelming evidence in this case is that Respondent remains of good moral character and remains capable of performing his duties and working with his fellow officers. Moreover, the evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent at any time knowingly possessed or ingested marijuana. Given these facts, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the amended Administrative Complaint filed against Samuel O. Best be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31st day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character by falsifying official records of the Florida Highway Patrol with intent to mislead her supervisors in violation of Section 943.1395(5), (6), Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Between March 13, 1987, and July 9, 1987, Respondent was a law enforcement officer certified by Petitioner. All events incident to the findings of fact in this Recommended Order occurred while Respondent was working in the ordinary course of her employment as a Florida Highway Patrol trooper in Miami, Florida. On April 7, 1987, Respondent stopped motorist Donald McCarron for driving a vehicle with an expired tag. Respondent issued Mr. McCarron a correction card for driving a vehicle with an expired tag but did not issue motorist McCarron a written warning. Respondent claimed both a correction card and a written warning as work activity in her weekly report to her supervisor. On June 23, 1987, Respondent stopped motorist James Merklein for speeding. Respondent issued Mr. Merklein a citation for speeding. Mr. Merklein did not have his vehicle registration in the car. Respondent verbally warned Mr. Merklein to carry his vehicle registration in the car, but did not issue motorist Merklein a written warning. Respondent claimed both a citation and a written warning as work activity in her weekly report to her supervisor. The existence of incidents in addition to those involving motorists Merklein and McCarron was not established by competent and substantial evidence. One or two incidents in which Respondent failed to give correction cards and written warnings to motorists is not clear and convincing evidence of lack of good moral character. 2/ Respondent admitted to Lieutenant John C. Baker that she "on occasion" writes warnings and cards, leaves them in her patrol car seat, and forgets to give them to the violator. Such occasions occur only when Respondent has given a motorist a lengthy explanation. The record does not reflect that Respondent admitted to additional incidents alleged to have been documented by Sergeants Alvarez and Pelton. Instead, in the words of Lieutenant Baker, "she did not deny the allegations in the complaint." Florida Highway Patrol trooper work activity, in the form of claimed written warnings and correction cards issued to motorists, form a significant portion of a trooper's report of weekly work performed. In order for a trooper to legitimately claim credit for written warnings or correction cards, the trooper must have given a copy of the document to the motorist in question. A Florida Highway Patrol supervisor, in formulating a subordinate performance evaluation for a given period, compiles statistics of the trooper's work activity and utilizes these statistics to rate the trooper's work performance. Evaluations form the basis of Florida Highway Patrol decisions concerning trooper retention, promotion, and salary increases. During the Respondent's June, 1986, to June, 1987, Florida Highway Patrol work evaluation cycle, her work activity, as reported by her, was considered by the Florida Highway Patrol to be in the "low satisfactory" range. Discounting the two incidents established by clear and convincing evidence in which Respondent claimed written warning and correction card work activity on her weekly report but failed to give the written warnings and correction cards to the motorist would not have caused her work activity to fall below satisfactory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent not guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of March, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ralph L. Leighton, age 41, holds a Class A license issued by the Department of State, authorizing him to engage in the business of operating a private investigative agency. He has also been licensed in Tennessee, and has never been convicted of a crime. The bulk of the Petitioner's investigative work has been in the area of domestic disputes. During the course of this domestic investigative work, the Petitioner was hired to do surveillance of a wife in connection with the husband's suit for divorce. Some of the facts surrounding the Petitioner's work on this case were related by a Family Conciliation Counselor for the Palm Beach County Juvenile Court, and by the wife's attorney. These facts were corroborated by the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the final judgment of dissolution, a certified copy of which was received in evidence in this proceeding. Specifically, the court found that the Petitioner's testimony at the divorce trial was totally discredited, and that the Petitioner gave "false and misleading information" to the juvenile counselor "in an attempt to discredit the wife" whom the Petitioner had under surveillance. Subsequently, the Petitioner placed an ad in a newspaper for full time and part time investigators. One of the persons who responded to this ad and was hired, testified in this proceeding. The Petitioner provided a uniform, a badge, and the work assigned was as a security guard at a local shopping mall. There were no investigative duties involved; instead, a routine patrol of the mall area was to be performed. The Petitioner himself paid the wages for the first four weeks, then another individual made the payments. Another former employee of the Petitioner testified. This individual performed security guard and patrol work for the Petitioner at a local residential area. Although not uniformed, a full 100 percent of the duties assigned was spent patrolling the area, and a badge was provided by the Petitioner, as well as an identification card. Both of these individuals were initially hired by the Petitioner, paid by the Petitioner, assigned security guard or patrol duties by the Petitioner, issued badges and in one case a uniform by the Petitioner. Since no investigative duties were assigned or performed, and the wearing of a uniform is inconsistent with the normal work of an investigator, but routine for a security guard or patrolman, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner was engaged in the business of providing security guards. This is not authorized by a Class A license. The Petitioner presented numerous character witnesses who testified generally that he is of good moral character, and other witnesses who had hired him as a private investigator and were satisfied with his work. The Petitioner himself denies that he has engaged in any work not authorized by his Class A license. However, this evidence is not sufficient to overcome the specific testimony of the Petitioner's two former employees, and the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the divorce judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ralph L. Leighton for a Class B Private Guard or Patrol Agency license, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6 day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 6 day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Earl R. Boyce, Esquire 120 South Alive Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106, R.A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on all the evidence, the following facts are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Glenn C. Mingledorff, was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-25390 on June 13, 1980. When the events herein occurred, Mingledorff was employed as a uniformed highway patrolman with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). He resigned from the FHP effective October 26, 1984 and is no longer in the law enforcement profession. Shortly after midnight on February 5, 1983, respondent was on duty in Palm Beach County. When the following events occurred he was transporting two DWI arrestees to a local Palm Beach County jail. While driving north on I-95, he observed a vehicle with three occupants swerve into the lane in front of him. After tailing the vehicle a short distance, and noticing that it was "swerving" on occasion, Mingledorff stopped the vehicle. The driver was Nancy Lynn Pearson, a young female whose speech was slurred, and who smelled of alcohol. She was arrested for suspected driving under the influence of alcohol. Mingledorff drove her to a nearby "Batmobile" where she was given a breathalyzer test and asked to perform certain coordination tests. While these tests were being performed, Mingledorff transported the two male arrestees to a local jail. Pearson "blew" a .14 on the breathalyzer machine, which was above the .10 legal limits, and did not "adequately" perform the coordination tests. When Mingledorff returned to the Batmobile approximately an hour and a half later, he handcuffed Pearson with her hands in the front, and placed her in the back seat of his FHP car. He then drove Pearson to the Lake Worth women's facility which was approximately twenty minutes away. During the trip to the facility, Pearson began to cry, and Mingledorff attempted to comfort her by explaining what would happen after she reached the facility. He also told her she was "sweet" and "cute," that she had a "nice shape," and suggested that they might go out sometime in the future for dinner. When the two arrived at the Lake Worth facility, it was between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. in the morning. Mingledorff parked the car approximately twenty feet from the entrance to the jail. He then let Pearson out of the car, and after she had walked a few feet, told her he had to frisk her. Although the testimony is conflicting at this point, the more credible and persuasive testimony establishes the following version of events. Mingledorff asked her to extend her handcuffed hands to the front, and then reached down to her ankles and began patting her up the front side of her legs. When he got to her crotch, he "felt around" for a few seconds. Mingledorff then went up to her breasts and squeezed them momentarily. After going to her back side, he squeezed her buttocks during the pat-down process. Pearson did not say anything while Mingledorff frisked her, nor did she say anything when she was taken into the jail. However, about a month later she saw a highway patrolman named Davis at a local speedway, who she mistook for Mingledorff, and complained to him about the frisk. Davis then told local FHP officials. Mingledorff stated that he routinely frisked all arrestees for weapons and drugs, regardless of whether they were male or female. However, through credible testimony it was shown that a "hands-on" search of a female detainee by Mingledorff was inappropriate under the circumstances and contrary to FHP policy. More specifically, it was established that a female detainee is not searched by a male trooper unless the trooper "feels there's a threat to his well-being." Here there was none. Mingledorff should have taken only her purse and any other belongings and left the responsibility of frisking the prisoner to the female attendant at the jail. On the afternoon of May 23, 1984, respondent was on duty as a highway patrolman on I-95 in Palm Beach County. He came up on a vehicle which had spun around in a near-accident and was facing on-coming traffic. The vehicle was operated by Siham Caceres, a then unmarried young female. Caceres was extremely nervous and upset from her near-accident, and was unable to drive her vehicle to the side of the road. Mingledorff directed her to sit in the right front seat of his patrol car until she was calm enough to proceed on her trip. The two sat in his car for approximately ten minutes or so. During that time, Mingledorff, who was in the driver's seat, acknowledged that he briefly reached over and touched Caceres' arm to generate her "circulation." Although he denied any other contact, it is found that Caceres' testimony is more credible and that Mingledorff then reached inside Caceres' sun dress and rubbed her breasts. He also rubbed her crotch area momentarily. Caceres did not encourage or consent to this activity. She did not receive a ticket and was allowed to leave a few minutes later. Caceres did not immediately tell anyone about the incident since she was embarrassed, and she was fearful her brothers would "get" Mingledorff if they learned what had hap- pened. She later told her fiancee, who then reported the matter to FHP officials.
The Issue In this case, the Petitioner seeks to impose discipline against the Respondent's certificate to be employed as a correctional officer based upon the allegation that the Respondent has committed acts which evidence a failure to maintain the qualifications incumbent upon a correctional officer working in Florida. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent committed acts which demonstrated a lack of good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Facts Deemed Admitted The Respondent was certified as a corrections officer by the Petitioner on or about August 16, 1985 and was issued Corrections Certificate No. 28-85- 502-02. The Respondent was employed as a sworn corrections officer with the Alachua County Department of Corrections from June 17, 1985 to August 8, 1991. The Respondent, on or about April 20, 1990, was found guilty by a jury for the crime of resisting arrest without violence, a misdemeanor. The court withheld adjudication and sentenced the Respondent to six months of probation. The Respondent, on or about July 8, 1991, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charges of resisting arrest without violence and battery, both misdemeanors. The court sentenced the Respondent to one year of probation and withheld adjudication. On or about August 6, 1991, the Respondent became involved in a dispute with members of his family at his residence. The Respondent had consumed one or more alcoholic beverages immediately prior to and/or during the above-referenced family dispute. The dispute turned into a verbal and physical disturbance involving the Respondent and members of his family. The police were called to the Respondent's residence due to the above- referenced disturbance. After the police arrived with regard to the above-referenced disturbance, the Respondent barricaded himself inside his residence by locking the doors. After barricading himself inside his residence, the Respondent armed himself with a knife. The Respondent threatened to kill the police officers at the scene of the above-referenced disturbance if the officers attempted to apprehend him. Other Facts The offense described in paragraph 3 to these facts is related to the allegations contained in paragraph 2.(a) to the Administrative Complaint. The offense described in paragraph 4 to these facts is related to the allegations contained in paragraph 2.(b) to the Administrative Complaint, with the exception that paragraph 2.(b) makes no mention that a battery was committed. The offense described in paragraph 4 to these facts was considered in the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, Case No. 90-29-CF. In addition to the service of one year of probation, the Respondent was ordered to successfully complete Anger Management as instructed by the Respondent's probation officer. On August 2, 1989, at approximately 9:30 p.m., in Alachua, Florida, Officer Lisa Brown, in pursuing her duties as a sworn officer, stopped the Respondent for a traffic violation. The Respondent was stopped because he had run two stop signs in Alachua. The stop signs were run at Northeast 8th Avenue crossing over State Road 235 and at Northwest 8th Avenue at Main Street. Officer Brown is now Officer Lisa Brown Haefner. At times relevant, Officer Haefner was serving as a police officer with the City of Alachua. Officer Haefner made the traffic-violation stop on Northwest 8th Avenue, off of Main Street, in Alachua. When the traffic-violation stop was made, Officer Haefner was assisted by Sergeant Cindy Dennison of the City of Alachua. Sergeant Dennison and Officer Haefner were driving separate patrol units on that night. Both officers observed the Respondent run the stop signs. Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison did not know Respondent when the traffic stop was made. After the stop, Officer Haefner asked the Respondent to exit his vehicle. The Respondent exited the vehicle. At that time, Officer Haefner asked the Respondent for identification. The Respondent replied that he "had none". Officer Haefner asked the Respondent for his name. The Respondent stated that he "didn't have a name". When the Respondent was contacted about the traffic violations, Officer Haefner asked for his driver's license, and the Respondent told Officer Haefner that he did not have a driver's license. The Respondent was acting irrational and irritated in the presence of Sergeant Dennison and Officer Haefner. Officer Haefner detected an odor about Respondent's person which she believed to be cannabis. Officer Haefner determined to arrest the Respondent for resisting or obstructing arrest without violence based upon the Respondent's failure to give information concerning his identity and the belief that she had cause to arrest Respondent. After informing the Respondent that he was being arrested for resisting or obstructing arrest without violence, Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison attempted to place handcuffs on the Respondent. This was a normal procedure. The Respondent resisted the placement of the handcuffs by twisting and stiffening his body and leaving his arms in front of him, which obstructed the officers' ability to secure the Respondent's arms behind him, as they desired. Under the circumstances, Officer Haefner sought the assistance of Officer Clovis Watson, Jr. (later Sergeant Watson) and Officer VanHorn. The other officers who were summoned for assistance were employed by the City of Alachua Police Department. The Respondent was eventually handcuffed, placed in Officer Watson's patrol car, and taken to the police station. When at the police station, he continued to be irrational and irritated. At one point in the encounter between Officer Haefner, Sergeant Dennison, and the Respondent, the Respondent offered to obtain identification from the back seat of his vehicle. The officers declined that request in that the Respondent was acting irrational and irritated; and based upon a fear for her personal safety, Officer Haefner would not allow the Respondent to access his vehicle. Respondent's offer to obtain identification came about at the point in time at which Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison attempted to handcuff the Respondent. The nature of the Respondent's irrationality and irritability was manifested by his being "real vocal, not wanting to cooperate, agitated as far as being stopped" and asking the officers "why are you harassing me?". The Respondent manifested this attitude notwithstanding that Officer Haefner had told him that he was being stopped for a traffic violation. The Respondent also manifested his irritability by having an agitated appearance. Before the Respondent was arrested for resisting or obstructing arrest without violence, he had been told several times not to return to his vehicle; however, he continued to walk toward his vehicle. It is at that point that Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison physically grabbed the Respondent and tried to restrain and handcuff him. The Respondent's actions prohibited Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison from performing their law-enforcement duties in making the traffic- violation stop. The Respondent continued to struggle when the officers were attempting to place the handcuffs on him after Officer Watson arrived at the scene by swaying back and forth. In the course of that struggle, Sergeant Dennison fell to the ground and the Respondent and Officer Watson fell on top of her. As a consequence, Sergeant Dennison sustained a concussion. The Respondent held his hands close to his body as a means to restrict the ability of the officers to handcuff him. The Respondent shook back and forth and this caused the officers and the Respondent to fall, injuring Sergeant Dennison. While the officers were attempting to handcuff the Respondent, he did not strike out at the officers. The Respondent resisted, in part, because he did not wish to be taken to the jail where he worked. On May 5, 1990, the Respondent, together with his brother and a friend, went to Union County, Florida, to a nightclub. When they arrived they were confronted by a number of persons who were already at the club. A fight ensued and the Respondent's brother was injured. The Respondent then took his brother to Ramadan Hospital to have his brother treated for injuries sustained in the fight at the club. Ramadan Hospital was located in Lake Butler, Union County, Florida. Union County Sheriff Jerry Whitehead received a call on his beeper at around 1:00 to 1:30 a.m. on the morning in question. He called the Union County Jail and was told about the fight at the local nightclub. He was also told that all of the deputy sheriffs had been dispatched to the nightclub. In turn, Sheriff Whitehead got dressed and started toward Lake Butler. Ramadan Hospital is located between his home and the Union County Jail. About a mile from the hospital, Sheriff Whitehead received a call from the sheriff's office dispatcher indicating that there was a disturbance at the hospital. Sheriff Whitehead responded to that call. When Sheriff Whitehead entered the emergency room at the hospital, the Respondent, his brother and the friend were in the waiting area of the hospital. The Respondent was standing in the hallway at that time, cursing and saying that he had just contacted his supervisor, taken to mean supervisor at the Alachua Correctional Facility, and that the Respondent was "fixing to have some people come over and they were going to get the situation straight". Sheriff Whitehead identified himself to the Respondent and asked the Respondent what the problem was. The Respondent indicated that he had been involved in an incident at the local nightclub and that there had been a fight and his brother had been injured. The Respondent told Sheriff Whitehead that he was going to "take this thing into his own hands". The Respondent was also indicating "things" that he wanted to have done concerning the incident. Respondent was cursing and using foul language. Sheriff Whitehead told the Respondent that he had to calm down or leave the premises. Sheriff Whitehead repeated this remark a number of times. After a time Sheriff Whitehead went to a telephone in the hospital and called the sheriff's office dispatcher and asked that a deputy sheriff be sent. During the course of these circumstances, the Respondent was belligerent and had the smell of alcohol about his person. The Respondent was being very belligerent in telling the nurses something to the effect that he was going to "tear that place up if they didn't get this done." This related to the Respondent's concern that a doctor was not available to attend to his brother at the hospital. The disturbance which the Respondent was causing was primarily directed to the hospital staff. The Respondent continued his outbursts for several minutes. In the course of this event, the Respondent identified himself as a law enforcement officer. Sheriff Whitehead told the Respondent that he needed to calm down and to let the Union County Sheriff's Department take care of the situation. Finally, Sheriff Whitehead believed that he had lost control over the Respondent's conduct and told the Respondent that he was going to place the Respondent under arrest. The Respondent replied that "he did not need to be arrested, wasn't going to be arrested." Sheriff Whitehead then placed his arm on the Respondent's arm and the Respondent snatched his arm away from Sheriff Whitehead. At that point Sheriff Whitehead took the Respondent through a set of doors to exit the hospital emergency room. They struggled out onto a patio area and onto the asphalt parking lot and then onto a grassy area where Sheriff Whitehead took the Respondent down and held him until a deputy sheriff arrived to assist. Sheriff Whitehead told the Respondent that he was being arrested for breach of the peace, an offense which Sheriff Whitehead believed he had reasonable cause to arrest the Respondent for. After the Respondent had been subdued and handcuffs placed on him, the Respondent became cooperative and acted remorseful, again explaining to Sheriff Whitehead that he was a correctional officer and that he was afraid he was going to lose his job because of the incident. The Respondent was then taken by a deputy sheriff to be transported to the Union County jail. When Sheriff Whitehead was trying to talk to the Respondent, the Respondent would swing his arms and on several occasions made cursing remarks toward the nurses, which Sheriff Whitehead believed was because doctors were not available to attend the Respondent's brother at that time. On August 6, 1991, Officers Glen Hammond, Donald Rice and Price responded to an alleged domestic disturbance call at 305 N.E. Fifth Street in Alachua, Florida. Those officers were working for the City of Alachua Police Department when they made the response. The alleged domestic disturbance involved the Respondent, his mother, sister and brother. When the officers arrived at the scene the other family members told the officers that the Respondent had been involved in a physical altercation with them and had battered them. The Respondent's mother told Officer Hammond that the Respondent had been smoking crack cocaine prior to the arrival of the officers. The family members told the officers that the Respondent was located in a wooded area near the residence. The officers went to find the Respondent so they could talk to him concerning the complaint by his family. Officer Wallace located the Respondent and brought him back to the residence. While standing in front of the residence, the Respondent was arguing with his mother and using profanity. In addition, he yelled at Officer Hammond a few times to the effect that the Respondent wasn't going to be taken into custody. At that juncture there was no intention by the officers to arrest the Respondent. At this time Officer Hammond did not observe anything about the Respondent's demeanor to suggest that the Respondent had consumed alcoholic beverages. After a short period, the Respondent left the area adjacent to the residence and returned to the woods. The officers again went to find the Respondent so that they could discuss the complaint. While the officers were trying to locate the Respondent for the second time someone started yelling that the Respondent had returned to the residence and was inside the residence. The officers then returned to the residence. When Officer Hammond walked up to the front of the residence to an area adjacent to a porch on the front of the residence, the Respondent opened the door and stepped out holding a knife which appeared to be a steak knife. The Respondent told Officer Hammond that Officer Hammond was not going to arrest him and that if Officer Hammond tried to come on the porch, the Respondent would kill Officer Hammond. The Respondent also mentioned the possibility that he would do harm to himself. While standing on the porch, the Respondent was not acting in a rational manner. After the Respondent threatened to kill Officer Hammond, the officer backed away from the residence and called for assistance from other law enforcement officers. Officer Hammond did this being fearful for his safety. A second brother of the Respondent arrived at the residence when the Respondent went in the house from the front porch. The second brother went inside to try and talk to the Respondent to defuse the situation. The second brother managed to have the Respondent come out of the house, at which point, the Respondent was charged with disorderly intoxication. At about the time the Respondent was arrested, Officer Hammond was close enough to the Respondent to notice that the Respondent had an odor of alcohol about the Respondent's person. When Office Wallace found the Respondent in the woods on the first occasion, the Respondent did not resist the officer in any manner and agreed to go back to the residence with the officer. When the Respondent returned to the residence on the first occasion, he stated that he would kill somebody first before he would go to jail. It is at that point that the Respondent broke from the scene and ran into the woods. While on the porch, the Respondent stated that he would kill any officer or take his own life, and that the Respondent was not going to go to jail. When the Respondent was first approached in the woods, Officer Wallace did not have grounds to arrest the Respondent. When the Respondent came back from the woods the first time, Officer Hammond was trying to interview the Respondent concerning the circumstances between the Respondent and his family that had caused the officers to be summoned. When the Respondent returned to the woods for the second time, the officers did not have cause to arrest the Respondent. When the Respondent told the officers that he was not going to be arrested or go to jail, upon the conversation that the officers held with the Respondent after he returned from the woods on the first occasion, the Respondent had not been told that he was being arrested. When the Respondent went back in the house from the front porch, he locked the doors to the residence and still had possession of the steak knife. The residence in question was reported to the officers as being the Respondent's mother's residence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Certificate No. 28-85-402-02 be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 94-5306 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by Petitioner. Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 5 through 30 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 33 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 constitutes a conclusion of law. Paragraph 36 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 37 through the first sentence in Paragraph 42 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence in Paragraph 42 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 43 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489 Joseph W. Little, Esquire 3731 Northwest 13th Place Gainesville, FL 32605 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, Respondent has been certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer, certificate No. 02- 34512. In April, 1987, Respondent was employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) in Dade County, Florida. On the morning of April 9, 1987, at approximately 7:00 a.m., while dressed in his FHP uniform, Respondent went to the home of his girl friend, Connie Hawkins. Unable to waken Ms. Hawkins by knocking at the door, Respondent went around to her bedroom, began to bang on the glass, and attempted to pry open the window. As a result, the window broke and Ms. Hawkins was awakened by the noise. Respondent then demanded that Ms. Hawkins open the door since he had cut his left arm on the broken window. When Ms. Hawkins opened the door, Respondent began to strike her about the face and arm. Apparently, Respondent was angry that Ms. Hawkins had not opened the door earlier and felt she had caused the injury to his arm. This injury, a two inch cut on the left arm, was bleeding rather badly. Respondent went to Ms. Hawkins' bathroom and wrapped a hand towel around the wound in order to apply pressure and stop the bleeding. Subsequently, Respondent left the Hawkins' home in his FHP vehicle. After she was sure Respondent was gone, Ms. Hawkins telephoned the Metro-Dade police to report the incident. She did not want to have the Respondent criminally prosecuted, but she did want to take measures to assure he would not attack her again. After giving a statement to the police, Ms. Hawkins went to an area hospital for examination and treatment of her swollen face and bruised arm. She was required to wear a sling on the injured arm for a couple of days. The Metro-Dade police notified the FHP that one of its employees, Respondent, had been named in connection with a domestic disturbance. The report of the incident was given to Lt. Miller, the FHP supervisor on duty the morning of April 9, 1987. Coincidentally, that same morning at approximately 7:30 am., Lt. Miller had observed a cut on Respondent's left arm and had ordered him to a hospital for stitches. According to the story Respondent gave Lt. Miller, the injury had been caused by the FHP car door when Respondent was entering it after a routine highway stop. A sharp piece of the window framing had allegedly snagged Respondent's arm causing the cut. According to the Respondent, the piece of metal framing may have fallen off the car since the area was later found to be smooth.- Following treatment for the cut, Respondent signed a Notice of Injury form which is required by the Division of Workers' Compensation for all work- related injuries. This form alleged the injury had been sustained as described in paragraph 8. Subsequently, an investigation conducted by the FHP raised questions regarding the incident with Ms. Hawkins and the "work-related" cut on Respondent's arm. Lt. Baker attempted to interview Respondent regarding this investigation. Respondent declined to be interviewed and resigned from the FHP. Later, Respondent obtained a job as a security officer with the Dade County School District. Prior to his resignation from the FHP, Respondent did not claim he had cut or injured both arms on the morning of April 9, 1987. Lt. Miller did not observe a cut on Respondent's right arm on April 9, 1987. Neither Lt. Miller nor Trooper Allen, a trained traffic homicide investigator, could discover any trace evidence on Respondent's FHP vehicle to substantiate Respondent's claim regarding the cut. There were no breaks in the metal or paint along Respondent's door in the area he identified as the point of injury. There were no rough or jagged edges. The Notice of Injury signed by Respondent contained information which was false or misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking the certification for a law enforcement officer held by Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 19th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. Paragraph 40 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. Respondent's testimony and that of Mr. Black relating to the alleged wound to the right arm was not credible. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. See comment p. 3 above. Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the findings made herein. See comment p. 3 above. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1-5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, to the extent that it relates Respondent's testimony it is correct, however, the fact it not. That is, it is found that Respondent injured his left arm at the Hawkins' home; consequently, Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Respondent's account was not credible. Paragraph 7 is accepted to the extent that it relates the story given by Respondent; such story being deemed incredible and therefore, rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is accepted to the extent that it relates the testimony of the troopers; however, the conclusion reached is speculative and unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted; however the facts related in that form were false or misleading. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, or unsupported by the credible evidence in this cause. Paragraph 12 is rejected as argument, or unsupported by the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Denis Dean, Esquire Dean & Hartman, P.A. 10680 N. W. 25 Street Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33172 Daryl McLaughlin Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Katrina Morgan, is a female who was employed by Respondent as a probationary Correctional Officer at the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner first worked for the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office from January 2001, through April 1, 2001, as a Correctional Officer. At the time, Petitioner was aware that the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office had a policy that required a Correctional Officer to personally call his or her immediate supervisor at least one hour before the scheduled start of the shift if he or she is unable to report for duty. The policy requires the officer to personally call so that inquiry can be made into how sick he or she is and when the officer might return. The information is necessary so that appropriate numbers of staff can be scheduled and planned for. Unfortunately, Petitioner’s son was involved in a serious traffic accident that resulted in serious injuries to him. As a result of her son’s injuries, Petitioner had many days of absence from her employment. She frequently failed to notify her supervisor when she was unable to report for duty. Such failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding notification in such circumstances. As a result of the policy violations by Petitioner, she received several written warnings from her shift supervisor, then Sergeant Donald Little. In addition to written warnings, Sergeant Little spoke with Petitioner on the telephone about the proper utilization of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call- in policy. Eventually, after several such absences, Lieutenant Johnson contacted Petitioner to tell her that he could not permit Petitioner to stay employed with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and offered her an opportunity to resign. Petitioner verbally resigned her position with the Sheriff’s Office on March 21, 2001, and later faxed her written resignation to the Sheriff’s Office on March 22, 2001. After she left Columbia County, Petitioner was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections where she had, also, been previously employed. She worked for a period of approximately five to six months with the Department of Corrections and decided to return to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office because it would give her better working hours for her family needs. On April 28, 2003, Petitioner reapplied for employment as a Corrections Officer with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Knowing her past performance would be an issue and that attendance was an important issue at the jail, Petitioner stated on her April 28. 2003, application as follows: Was forced to give up my position with the Columbia County Jail back in 2001. If given the opportunity I will do whatever it takes to be sure the Columbia County Jail can depend on me. I will make sure I will report to my shift on time, no matter what the circumstances are, I hope you will give me a second chance to prove you can count on me. In the process of reviewing Petitioner’s background summary the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office became aware of some serious areas of concern in her employment history. Specifically, that she had been terminated from the Department of Corrections (DOC) New River Correctional Institute for attendance problems, and that she had poor work performance and problems with calling in at S&S Food Store. This history caused an initial recommendation against rehiring Petitioner. However, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office was experiencing a severe staff shortage and as a result was desperately in need of new Correctional Officer. Because of the shortage, Petitioner was offered employment with the Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner was sworn in by the Sheriff as a Correctional Officer on November 6, 2003, and given a second chance to prove she was dependable. At this ceremony, the Sheriff personally spoke with Petitioner about attendance issues and that she was being given a second chance. In response, Petitioner gave the Sheriff assurances that this time she would comply with policies. The Sheriff told Petitioner that any further attendance problems would be cause for termination. On November 7, 2003, Petitioner began working in the Respondent’s field training program under the direction of Field Training Officer Howard. Beginning on November 19, she was placed on the night shift and assigned Officer Siraq as her field training officer. The field training program uses daily observation reports (DORs) to evaluate new officers through the field training process. The program is a multi-week training program that trains a new officer while on the job. Eventually, the new officer will work all three shifts at the prison. On November 19, 2003, Officer Siraq was not at work due to illness. Therefore, Petitioner was assigned Officer Chad Sessions as her field training officer. Petitioner was working in the control room at the Columbia County Jail with Officer Sessions, who engaged in a series of very explicit phone calls in Petitioner’s presence. In his telephone conversations he made a number of sexually explict statements, including stating he was going to fuck the girl he was speaking about; that he was “the candy man” and that he was coming to have sex with the girl and that he would do so from behind. Petitioner told Officer Sessions several times that she did not want to hear the sexual comments, but he nonetheless continued in his conversation. Officer Sessions engaged in three such phone calls lasting about 20 minutes. After repeating that she did not wish to have to deal with these types of comments, Petitioner left the control room approximately four times so that she did not have to listen to Officer Sessions conversations. On the daily observation report completed by Officer Sessions for that date, Officer Sessions wrote that Petitioner had engaged in several phone calls and breaks and that she needed to improve on staying at her assigned post without as many distractions. Petitioner spoke to Officer Sessions about his comments on the Daily Observation Report and told him that she did not agree with his statements and refused to sign the document because of her disagreement with him. Officer Sessions took the DOR to Corporal Barcia and informed Barcia that Petitioner would not sign the agreement. He thereafter came back to Petitioner and told her that Barcia had ordered the Petitioner to sign the DOR. Petitioner signed the DOR, but did not put any comments on the DOR in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section regarding her disagreement with Officer Sessions or the reason she left her post in the control room. At the end of the shift on the morning of November 20, 2003, Petitioner drafted a memorandum to now Lieutenant Little requesting time off from work. Petitioner did not mention the incidents with Officer Sessions that had occurred on her shift. In the memorandum, Petitioner stated that she had spoken with Beverly Jackson during her swearing-in ceremony regarding specific days off, and that Ms. Jackson had approved the time off. Also, Petitioner spoke to Officer Howard about the incident on the morning after her shift that ended on November 20, 2003. Petitioner told Officer Howard about Officer Sessions’ remarks and the fact that she initially refused to sign the DOR and Corporal Barcia’s orders to sign the DOR. Officer Howard was concerned when Petitioner gave him this information and told her that he would speak with Lieutenant Little. Officer Howard contacted Lieutenant Little to report the information given to him by Petitioner. Lieutenant Little was on vacation and received the call at home. Officer Howard stated that he needed to report this complaint because Petitioner stated she was uncomfortable with the language used by Officer Sessions in the control room. Lieutenant Little advised Officer Howard that the issue would be addressed upon his return from vacation. Upon returning to work on November 24, 2003, Lieutenant Little called a meeting to discuss Petitioner’s complaints about Officer Sessions’ DOR and phone calls. Petitioner attended the meeting, along with Officer Howard and Corporal Barcia. At this meeting, Petitioner stated that she disagreed with the DOR that Officer Sessions had issued her for November 19, 2003. Specifically, she disagreed with the ratings she received on the DOR. Petitioner was asked why she had not included her disagreements in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section of the DOR. After receiving no reply, Lieutenant Little instructed her that she could make those comments on the DOR, but that they would need to be initialed and dated accordingly. In the comments Section, Petitioner wrote: I had three phone calls, each one was no longer than three-four minutes. The phone calls were in regards to my children. (Staying in assigned post) Ofc[.] Sessions had me escorting I/M’s back and forth and taking paperwork to Ms. Morgan and other sections. When Ofc[.] Sessions was on the phone I would exit the main control room because I didn’t want to hear about his personal business. [Initialed: KM and dated 11-24-03] With regard to her complaints regarding Officer Sessions’ personal phone conversations, Petitioner was very vague in her recount at the meeting. Lieutenant Little asked Petitioner to state with particularity her complaint. She was asked to reduce her complaints to writing and to be as factual and detailed as she could so that Lieutenat Little could properly investigate the matter. Petitioner claims that Lieutenant Little instructed her not to be detailed about the incident. However, Petitioner’s recollection is not given any weight. He instructed her to write the incident report at a sergeant’s desk that was available to write her report. Corporal Barcia sat in the room with Petitioner while she wrote the report since the office was also used by him. Petitioner claimed she felt intimidated by the presence of Corporal Barcia. However, Corporal Barcia did nothing to intimidate her. He did not ask questions about her report or read her report. Petitioner’s testimony regarding her feelings of intimidation is not credible. Lieutenant Little forwarded the report up the chain of command to Captain Smithey. Officer Sessions was disciplined for his conduct and reprimanded in writing regarding his unprofessional phone conversations of November 19, 2003. Officer Sessions was also required to write a letter of apology to Petitioner. The letter of apology was also placed in Officer Sessions’ personnel file. Petitioner testified she never received Officer Sessions’ letter of apology. At some point after his return from vacation, Lieutenant Little received Petitioner’s memo requesting leave from work. After he reviewed the memo and noted Petitioner’s statements regarding Ms. Jackson’s approval, Lieutenant Little contacted Ms. Jackson regarding Petitioner’s claim. Ms. Jackson told Lieutenant Little that she had not given any such approval and would not have done so since she did not have the authority to grant leave. Based on the information from Ms. Jackson and the fact that Ms. Jackson has no authority to approve leave requests for any Columbia County Sheriff’s Office employees, Lieutenant Little concluded that Petitioner was untruthful in her statements in the memorandum about time off. Such untruthfulness was a serious matter regarding Petitioner’s appropriateness to remain employed with the Sheriff’s Office. Lieutenant Little was also very concerned with the fact that Petitioner was already requesting time off since her attendance had been an issue in the past and she was being given a second chance for employment. In the meantime, as part of the field training program, Petitioner was assigned Officer Harris as her field training officer for a different shift. On November 28, 2003, only eight working days after being sworn in by the Sheriff, Petitioner became ill with a flu- type illness. There was no credible evidence that she was incapacitated by this illness to the point that she could not personally call her supervisor as the policy required. As in the past, Petitioner failed to report for duty and failed to properly call-in to her supervisor. This failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy for such absences. On November 29, 2003, Officer Harris, noted on Petitioner’s DOR that she exhibited unacceptable performance with regard to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures; namely, Petitioner needed to utilize the proper chain of command when calling-in. Petitioner wished to explain why she did not follow the call-in policy. Below Officer Howard’s comments, Petitioner inserted comments in a section of the DOR designated for field training officers’ use. Because her comments were in the inappropriate Section Petitioner was instructed to white-out the comments and to place them in the proper section titled, “Trainee’s Comments.” The original, whited-out statement read: The morning I called in Officer Howard was contacted first when I called main control. Mrs. Harris wasn't in yet and didn't have her number. When I called back at the main control, I was directed to speak with Corporal Green. The comments that Petitioner rewrote in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section on the same date were significantly changed by Petitioner to read as follows: The morning I was unable to come to work my husband contacted Ofc[.] Howard [and] was instructed to call Mrs. Harris[.] [W}hen he called Mrs. Harris wasn’t in yet so he was instructed to call back in 20 min[utes]. He was told to relay the message to me, for me to call Cpl. Green. I did so at 1:30 p.m. According to this account by Petitioner, she only made one phone call at 1:30 p.m. to her supervisor well-after the start of her shift and in violation of the Sheriff’s Office policy. Petitioner’s phone records reveal that five telephone calls were made on November 28, 2003, with four of them to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office Jail. Petitioner testified that her husband, Ralph Morgan, made the first three telephone calls, between the times of 5:39 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. Contray to her comments written on her November 29, 2003, DOR, the Petitioner testified that she telephoned the Jail two times that day, once at 6:24 a.m. and again at 1:20 p.m. However, Petitioner’s memory of the calls she made is not credible, given the more credible written statement she made on the DOR shortly after her absence occurred. Petitioner admits that none of the phone calls, either from Petitioner’s husband or herself complied with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding sick leave. On December 2, 2003, Lieutenant Little sent a memorandum to Captain Smithey recommending that the Petitioner be considered for termination. Lieutenant Little formulated his opinion based upon: Petitioner’s past attendance problems with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office; her most recent failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy with regard to calling-in and attendance; and her untruthfulness with regard to her request for days off. As a result, and based upon the Sheriff’s recent imposition of strict probationary guidelines on Petitioner’s recent hiring Captain Smithey concurred in the recommendation. There was no evidence that either Little’s or Smithey’s actions were related to any complaint Petitioner had made regarding Officer Sessions. Captain Smithey forwarded the recommendation to the Sheriff. The Sheriff consulted with members of his command staff and reviewed Petitioner’s performance during her probationary period. The Sheriff determined that Petitioner had not satisfied the agency’s standards for the probationary period and had failed in the second chance he had given her. On December 3, 2003, the Sheriff withdrew the Petitioner’s appointment as a probationary Corrections Officer. At hearing, Petitioner admitted that the Sheriff’s decision to terminate her had nothing to do with her complaints to Lieutenant Little about Officer Sessions, but was rather based upon Petitioner’s failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedure. She felt that it was Lieutenant Little and other Officers who had conspired against her to get her terminated. However, there was no credible evidence to demonstrate that such a conspiracy existed. After Petitioner’s termination she contacted the Sheriff to schedule a meeting to discuss her termination. At that meeting, Petitioner spoke with the Sheriff about her complaints regarding Officer Sessions and the issues she had with her DORs. The Sheriff was unaware of the issues she had with Sessions. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that her DOR had been altered or whited-out because she had made complaints to her supervisor in it. Petitioner brought with her to the meeting correct DORs from Officer Sirak as well as the November 29, 2003, DORs. Petitioner told the Sheriff that she believed her DORs were altered in retaliation for a complaint she had made to one of her supervisors. The Sheriff testified that Petitioner did not talk to him about anything with regard to Officer Sessions or sexual harassment during the post-termination meeting. The Sheriff explained to Petitioner that his decision to terminate her was based upon her failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office procedures. With regard to Petitioner’s DORs, the Sheriff made copies and told her that he would look into her concerns. The Sheriff investigated Petitioner’s concerns, but discovered that all of the DORs that had been changed were changed in order to correct errors made on them. There was no credible evidence to the contrary regarding these DORs. The Sheriff did not discover any reason to change his decision regarding Petitioner’s termination. During discovery, Petitioner originally claimed that it was her November 19, 2003, DOR that had been whited-out, and that she had physically witnessed Officer Howard white it out in his office. Petitioner later recanted her testimony and stated that it was in fact her November 29, 2003, DOR which had been whited-out. With regard to her November 29, 2003, DOR being whited-out, Petitioner changed her testimony to reflect that she witnessed Officer Howard white-out the DOR on November 29, 2003. Despite Petitioner’s numerous attempts to explain her version of the facts with regard to who did what and when to her DORs, even her modified testimony is inconsistent with the facts on record. The record reflects that Officer Howard was not on duty on November 29, 2003. He was off for the holiday beginning on November 27, 2003. His time card reflects that he was on annual leave for the Thanksgiving holiday starting on November 27, 2003, and that he did not return to work until the following, Monday, December 1, 2003. The 29th was a Saturday and Officer Howard worked weekdays and did not go to the jail on the 29th. Regardless of the fact that Petitioner could not have seen Officer Howard white-out her DOR because he was not at work on the day she specified, Petitioner’s testimony with regard to the DORs themselves also proved to be inconsistent with the facts. Petitioner asserted that the reason her DOR was whited- out was that she had included comments regarding sexual language she had overheard Officer Sessions use on the night of November 19th. However, upon examination of the November 29th DOR in question, it was discovered that Petitioner did not mention anything at all with regard to sexual comments or Officer Sessions, but that the comments she had inserted were actually her attempts at justifying why she had failed to properly call-in to her supervisor the day before. As indicated earlier, the reason the comments were whited-out was that Petitioner had inserted them in a Section designated for field training officer use only. As a result, Petitioner was required to move them to the appropriate Section designated as “Trainee’s Comments.” At hearing, Petitioner produced, after her deposition had already been taken, a new DOR allegedly drafted on November 28, 2003, by Officer Harris. This DOR was not contained in Petitioner’s personnel file and it is not known where the newly discovered DOR came from. There is no record evidence, other than Petitioner’s own assertions, that Petitioner’s November 28th DOR is authentic. Suspiciously, Petitioner did not produce this document in response to Respondent’s Request for Production. Nor did Petitioner mention it in her Answers to Interrogatories. She testified that she did not find it in all her papers until after her deposition. Petitioner’s testimony regarding this newly discovered DOR is not credible. Finally, Petitioner offered evidence regarding purportedly similary-situated employees. These employees were Charles Bailey, Thomas Daughtrey and Chad Sessions. Officer Charles Bailey had been employed with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office two times in his career. During his first employment, Officer Bailey was terminated for attendance problems similar to the problems Petitioner experienced in her employment with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. When Officer Bailey was hired back, he was given strict probationary terms to abide by, including that he: be on time for all scheduled tours of duty; follow all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedures; and to generally abide by all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures. During his second- chance employment Officer Bailey abided by all of the conditions set out for him. He did not abuse sick leave and he called-in properly pursuant to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy when he needed to take leave. Officer Bailey left the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office on good terms after his second employment. Officer Bailey is not similarly situated in any relevant aspects to Petitioner. Unlike Petitioner, Officer Bailey abided by all of his conditions upon rehire and properly followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy when he missed time. Officer Thomas Daughtry was a new employee and in the field officer training program. He was not a second-chance employee. During his training he missed several days, however, despite the fact that Officer Daughtrey missed some days during his training, Officer Daughtrey followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy every time he requested time off. Nevertheless, because he did in fact miss days during his training, Officer Daughtrey was given unsatisfactory reviews and was required to re-do part of his training. Because he properly called in and he was not a second-chance employee, Officer Daughtrey is not similarly situated to Petitioner in any relevant aspects. Officer Chad Sessions was employed two times with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Both times Officer Sessions resigned under good terms. Petitioner has attempted to compare his second employment with that of her second, probationary employment, specifically with regard to a written reprimand Officer Sessions received for failure to follow call-in policy on September 10, 2004. When Officer Chad Sessions was given a reprimand for failing to call-in properly on September 10, 2004, he was not a probationary trainee. Rather, Officer Sessions was a Field Training Officer, and the reason he was unable to phone the jail was due to the phone outages caused by Hurricane Frances. Officer Sessions could not phone the jail and he could not be reached because of the high winds and heavy rain produced by Hurricane Frances. Because Officer Sessions was not a probationary employee, and taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances surrounding the incident, Lieutenant Little decided to issue him a written reprimand. Furthermore, there is no record evidence that Officer Sessions came to the Sheriff’s Office with a prior termination and a poor employment history similar to that of Petitioner. As a result, Officer Sessions is not similarly situated to Petitioner in all relevant aspects.
Recommendation Based on upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition For Relief should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Katrina R. Morgan 4777 Shavesbluff Road Macclenny, Florida 32063 T.A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Leonard J. Dietzen, III, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
